Engineering Structures 216 (2020) 110769

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Modified strip model for punching-shear strength of FRP-reinforced concrete T

edge–column slab connections
⁎
Ahmed E. Salamaa, Mohamed Hassanb, Brahim Benmokranec, , Emmanuel Ferrierd
a
Doctoral Candidate, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
b
Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
c
Professor of Civil Engineering and Tier-1 Canada Research Chair in Advanced Composite Materials for Civil Structures and NSERC Chair in FRP Reinforcement for
Concrete Structures, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
d
Director of the Laboratory of Composite Materials for Construction, University Lyon 1, IUT LYON 1, Villeurbanne Cedex, France

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

Keywords: The use of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) bars as internal reinforcement for concrete structures in aggressive
Modified strip model environments has emerged as an innovative solution to eliminate corrosion problems. Glass FRP (GFRP) re-
Punching shear inforcing bars have recently gained wide acceptance as a viable construction material for sustainable new
Plasticity-based model constructions due to their costing less than other FRP types. This paper reports the test results for full-sized
GFRP bars
edge–column slab connections (ECS –connections) reinforced with sand coated GFRP bars. These connections
Edge–column slab connections
were cast using normal-strength concrete (NSC) and high strength concrete (HSC). The effect of concrete
Strength
Design codes strength (NSC and HSC) and moment-to-shear force ratio (M/V) (300 mm, 600 mm) on the performance of the
tested connections were examined. In addition, a new mechanical model, called Modified Strip Model, is pre-
sented for punching-shear strength predictions of FRP reinforced concrete (RC) ECS –connections. The test re-
sults reveal that the use of HSC directly augmented the punching-shear strength and improved the load–de-
flection response of the tested connections, However, Increasing the M/V ratio produced significant shear
stresses, thus decreasing the punching-shear strength for the NSC and HSC connections, respectively. The me-
chanical model presented herein takes into account all possible mechanisms of loads transfer in FRP-RC ECS-
connections. Hence, a complete shear–moment (V-M) interaction diagram can be plotted to predict the punching
strength of such connections. Moreover, the model revealed higher accuracy and narrower scatter for punching-
shear strength predictions compared to other available equations in FRP design codes and guides. The EN
1992–1-1–05 punching-shear equation was also examined for FRP-RC ECS–connections and adapted to consider
the tensile properties of the FRP bars instead of steel.

1. Introduction transferred between slabs and columns produces additional shear

Flat-plate structures are extensively the main structural system in
many parking structures located in North America. Such structures
provide architectural flexibility, extra clear space, easier formwork, and
shorter construction time. In spite of these advantages, the ultimate
strength of the flat-plate structures is governed by the ultimate strength
of their connections. Their connections, however, are vulnerable to
local brittle failure in the column periphery, known as punching-shear
failure. Punching failure can occur in such systems when the column
with a surrounding portion of the slab is pushed through the slab under
the transfer of shear or combined shear and unbalanced moment
transferred between the slab and the column. Unbalanced moments
stresses, minimizing the strength of the connections and increasing the
possibility of brittle punching failure.
Many parking structures in northern climates are deficient due to
steel reinforcement corrosion. Some conditions—such as substantial
temperature fluctuations, extra use of deicing salts, and chloride-
s—have created harsh environments and aggravated the risk. The use of
FRP bars as internal reinforcement for concrete structures in aggressive
environments has arisen as an inventive solution to eliminate steel
corrosion problems. GFRP bars have recently gained wide acceptance as
a viable construction material for sustainable new constructions due to
their costing less than other FRP types. The advantages of GFRP bars
have paved the way to successful field applications as concrete

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Ahmed.Salama@USherbrooke.ca (A.E. Salama), Mohamed.Hassan@USherbrooke.ca (M. Hassan),
Brahim.Benmokrane@usherbrooke.ca (B. Benmokrane), emmanuel.ferrier@univ-lyon1.fr (E. Ferrier).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110769
Received 3 December 2019; Received in revised form 2 April 2020; Accepted 7 May 2020
Available online 22 May 2020
0141-0296/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.E. Salama, et al.
reinforcement, especially in concrete parking structures. A compre-
hensive test campaign at the University of Sherbrooke has been in-
vestigated GFRP bars application as flexural reinforcement in parking
structures. Thirty GFRP-RC interior–column slab connections
(ICS–connections) connections were tested under concentric loading
[1–5]. The findings of this project devoted in the first field application
of GFRP bars in reconstructing the complete floor slabs at La Chance-
lière parking garage [6,7]. The experimental work presented herein
extends that extensive research project [1–5]. The experimental tests
conducted provide pioneering results from full-sized GFRP-RC edge–-
column slab connections under combined shear force and unbalanced
moment.
Numerous investigations have been devoted to understand the
punching-shear behavior of FRP-RC ICS–connections under shear
[1–10] or shear combined with unbalanced bending moment [11-14].
That notwithstanding, very limited studies have been focused on FRP-
RC ECS–connections [14-19]. Zaghloul [14] introduced the effect of M/
V on the behavior of NSC ECS–connections entirely reinforced with
NEFMAC 2-D carbon (C) FRP grids tested under different M/V. Zaghloul
[14] concluded that the ultimate capacity of the test connections de-
creased by 16% as the M/V increased by 50%. Moreover, El-Gendy and
El-Salakawy [15] studied the punching-shear behavior for three full-
scale GFRP-RC ECS–connections with NSC under different M/V of
200 mm, 400 mm, and 600 mm. They concluded that increasing the M/
V significantly reduced the deflection and punching-shear strength of
the GFRP-RC ECS–connections. Using HSC augmented the punching-
shear strength, reduced deflection, and increased strains in the GFRP
bars because of its high tensile strength and elastic modulus [16]. To
the authors’ best knowledge, only three HSC ECS–connections re-
inforced with GFRP bars have been reported in the literature [16]. They
concluded that using HSC improved the uncracked stiffness and the
punching-shear strength. Increasing the concrete strength from 40 to
80 MPa augments of the uncracked stiffness and ultimate capacity by
83% and 10% compared to their counterparts with NSC, respectively.
Therefore, our study aimed at increasing the experimental data base for
such behavior because the literature contains very little information on
the punching-shear behavior of FRP-RC ECS–connections.
The test results reported by El-Gendy and El-Salakawy [17] show
that the punching-shear capacity and the post-cracking stiffness of the
steel connection increased by 35% and 200% compared to its coun-
terpart reinforced with same amount of GFRP bars due to the higher
axial stiffness of the steel bars. The existing punching-shear equations
for steel connections (ACI 318–19 [20]; CSA A23.3–14 [21]; and EN
1992–1-1–05 [22]) do not account for the effect of the reinforcement
axial stiffness, The ACI 318–19 [20] and CSA A23.3–14 [21] equations
depend mainly on concrete compressive strength, whereas EN 1992–1-
1–05 [22] is dependent on the reinforcement ratio. Consequently, none
of these equations can be used directly to predict the punching-shear
strength of FRP-RC ECS–connections. On the other hand, the recently
published FRP North America’s codes and guides as well as Japanese
design recommendations (ACI 440.1R-15 [23]; CSA S806-12 [24];
JSCE-97 [25]) have provided design provisions to predict the punching-
shear strength of FRP-RC column slab connections regardless the
loading type. These equations were adapted from existing punching-
shear equations for steel connections (ACI 318–19 [20]; CSA A23.3–14
[21]) to include FRP bars tensile properties of instead of steel. The
original equations for predicting the punching capacity of steel column
slab connections, while comparatively easy to use, are empirically
based. So, there is justifiable concern that, as building techniques and
materials change, these procedures might not always ensure structural
safety [26].Consequently, a significant number of mechanical models
have been previously proposed to address the behavior and predict the
capacity of steel-RC ICS–connections as well as steel ECS–connections
[26-36].
To achieve safe designs and accurate predictions for the punching
strength of FRP-RC ICS–connections, Ospina et al. [36] adapted the
2
Engineering Structures 216 (2020) 110769
bond model [26] for use with FRP bars. The adapted bond model leads
to safe and reasonably accurate punching strength predictions, with an
average Vtest/Vpred. = 1.25. These results compare favorably with the
approach proposed by Matthys and Taerwe [37] and outperform the
unmodified versions of ACI 318–99 [38] and BS 8110–97 [39]. Several
recent attempts [40-44] have focused on developing a new lower-bound
plasticity model—the extended strip model—to predict the shear ca-
pacity of steel-RC solid-slab bridges. The extended strip model was
developed to estimate the maximum concentrated load for the case of a
reinforced-concrete slab subjected to different loading situations. This
model was established based on a comprehensive experimental cam-
paign [45-51] involving 30 half-scale continuous solid-slab bridges: 18
slabs measured 5 m × 2.5 m × 0.3 m; the rest represented slab strips of
5 m × 0.3 m with different widths. To date, no mechanical model has
yet been proposed for FRP-RC ECS–connections to plot V–M interaction
diagram to predict the punching-shear strength of such connections.
Therefore, an accurate design model capable of explaining the behavior
and predicting the punching-shear strength of FRP-RC ECS–connections
is needed. Based on the strip model originally developed by Afhami
[33] for steel-RC edge–column slab connections, we have created the
modified strip model for FRP ECS–connections. In order to do so, the
relevant differences between steel and FRP bars were considered in the
governing equations used in the modified strip model.
This paper first presents a brief summary of the test results on NSC
and HSC GFRP-RC ECS–connections under different M/V. Then, the
Modified Strip Model, has been proposed to predict the strength of such
connections. The entire V–M interaction diagram to determine the
punching-shear strength of FRP ECS–connections can be constructed by
knowing the M/V. Herein, the proposed model is checked against the
test results and others available in the literature [14-17]. The Modified
Strip Model was also compared to the current design equations in de-
sign codes and guides to assess its accuracy. Lastly, an adaption of the
EN 1992–1-1–05 [22] equation was proposed to include the FRP bars
instead of steel.
2. Punching-shear design equations
The design of concrete ECS–connections always includes sustainable
unbalanced bending moment due to the existence of gravity, wind, and
earthquake loads on the structure. Consequently, the factored shear
stress is a union between vertical shear force and an unbalanced
bending moment. The maximum factored shear stress, vu, is calculated
as per Eq. (1) at 0.5d away from the column face according to numerous
codes, especially in North America [20,21,23,24].
Vu γ Mo
vu = + v c (MPa)
bo; 0.5d d Jc (1)
where vu = ultimate shear stress at 0.5d from the column face;
Vu = ultimate vertical shear force; bo;0.5d = critical shear perimeter at
0.5d from the column faces (Fig. 1a); γv = fraction of unbalanced
moment transferred by shear eccentricity; d = effective slab depth;
Mo = ultimate unbalanced-moment at the centroid of the critical shear
section; c = distance from the centroid of the critical shear section to
the face of shear critical section; and Jc = polar moment of inertia of
the critical shear section.
2.1. American guideline ACI 440.1R-15 [23]
The punching-shear strength (vc) for FRP-RC flat-slabs is basically
the ACI 318–19 [20] punching-shear equation for steel-RC slabs. The
ACI 318–19 [20] punching-shear equation was adapted by introducing
a multiplier factor of 5/2 k to consider the FRP reinforcement axial
stiffness through neutral-axis-depth term (kd), as shown in Eq. (2).
4
vc = k f ′c (MPa)
5 (2)
A.E. Salama, et al. Engineering Structures 216 (2020) 110769

Fig. 1. Shear Perimeter for ECS–connections (a) ACI 440.1R-15 [23], CSA S806-12 [24], and JSCE-97 [25]; (b) EN 1992–1-1–05 [22]; and (c) reduced perimeter EN
1992–1-1–05 [22].

where k = (2ρf nf + (ρf nf )2 − ρf nf ; nf = FRP bars modulus to con- Vu

vu = β (MPa)
crete elastic modulus ratio (Ef / Ec); Ef = FRP bars elastic modulus bo;2d d (7)
(MPa); Ec = concrete elastic modulus (MPa); ρf = flexural reinforce-
where vu = ultimate shear stress at 2d from the column face;
ment ratio; fcˊ= compressive strength of cylindrical concrete specimens
bo;2d = critical shear perimeter at 2d from the column faces (Fig. 1b);
(MPa).
β = eccentricity factor considering the unbalanced moment transfer
between slabs and columns as given by (Eq. (8)) for one moment di-
2.2. Canadian Standard CSA S806-12 [24] rection.
M bo;2d
According to the Canadian Standard, CSA S806-12 [24], vc equa- β=1+k
V W1 (8)
tions are essentially the CSA A23.3–14 [21] equations with adjustments
to comprise FRP bars axial stiffness. The punching-shear strength (vc) is where k = coefficient dependent on column rectangularity ratio Cx / Cy
calculated as the minimum value of Eqs. (3)–(5) at critical shear peri- (λ is 0.6 for square column); M/V = moment-to-shear force ratio; and
meter. W1 corresponds to a shear stress distribution and calculated as a func-
tion of the critical shear perimeter at 2d from the column faces as per
2
vc = 0.028λ ϕc ⎜⎛1 + ⎟⎞ (Ef ρf f ′c ) 3
1 Eq. (9).
(MPa)
⎝ βc ⎠ (3)
Cy2
W1 = + Cx Cy + 4C1 d + 8d 2 + πdCy
4 (9)
α d
vc = 0.147 λ ϕc ⎜⎛0.19 + s ⎟⎞ (Ef ρf f ′c ) 3
1
(MPa)
bo;0.5d ⎠ (4) β = 1.4 for structures in which the lateral stability does not depend
⎝
on frame action between the slabs and columns, and for which the
1 adjacent spans do not differ in length by more than 25%. Instead of
vc = 0.056 λ ϕc (Ef ρf f ′c ) 3 (MPa) (5) introducing β in Eq. (7), EN 1992–1-1–05 [22] assumed the punching-
where λ = concrete density factor; ϕc = concrete resistance factor; shear force to be distributed uniformly along a reduced critical shear
βc = ratio of long side to short side of the column; αs = 3 for edge- perimeter at 2d, bo;2d * from the column faces (Fig. 1c), as given by Eq.
column. (10). In this study, the latter approach was used for punching-shear
capacity calculations.

2.3. Japanese Standard JSCE-97 [25] Vu

vu = (MPa)
bo;2d ∗ d (10)
vc for steel and FRP-RC slabs is calculated as given in Eq. (6) ac- vc for steel slabs is calculated as given in Eq. (11) in accordance with
cording to the JSCE-97 [25] EN 1992–1-1–05 [22].
1 0.18 1
vc = βd βp βr fpcd (MPa) vc = k1 (100 ρf ′c ) 3 (MPa)
γb (6) γ (11)

where βd = (1000/ d )0.25 ⩽ 1.5; βp =

1
(100ρf Ef / ES ) 3 ⩽ 1.5; βr = where γ = partial safety factor (1.5); k1 = 1 + 200/ d ⩽ 2 ;
bo;0.5d ρ = ρx ρy ⩽ 0.02 ; ρx , ρy= flexural reinforcement ratios within the slab
1 + 1/(1 + 0.25 d
) ; Es = steel bar elastic modulus (MPa); γb = partial
width equals column width plus 3d in the x and y directions.
safety factor (1.3); fpcd = 0.2 fc′ ⩽ 1.2 (MPa); and d = effective slab
depth (mm). 3. Summary of experimental program and results

2.4. Eurocode 2 EN 1992–1-1–05 [22]
Unlike in ACI 440.1R-15 [23], CSA S806-12 [24], and JSCE-97 [25],
vu is calculated at 2d away from the column face as per Eq. (7) ac-
cording to EN 1992–1-1–05 [22].
Four full-sized GFRP-RC ECS–connections, G-N-0.3, G-N-0.6, G-H-
0.3, and G-H-0.6, were fabricated and tested up to failure. Fig. 2a and
2b show the concrete dimensions and reinforcement configuration of
the tested ECS–connections. All slabs had an identical number of bars in
the tension and compression sides (bottom and top). The bottom and

3
A.E. Salama, et al. Engineering Structures 216 (2020) 110769

4@218
V
#20 GFRP
Bottom mesh

273
P1 bent bars

700
575

5@175
#20 GFRP 6-25M
straight bars
10M stirrups
X X

6@100
124
#15 GFRP

2500
250

1600
1350

160
200
#15 GFRP

1100

700
575
700

Top mesh
P2
130 2@436 170 300 1050
300 1350
Section (X-X)

a) Concrete dimensions b) Reinforcement configuration

Strain gauges Lateral top disp.

Main frame
Main frame
Horizontal Vertical Pots
Stiff I-beam pots

C1

Lateral jack
Test setup sliding
Post
Roller plate Concrete
Reaction frame gauges
Test specimen
Neoprene pads
Supporting bed Lateral Bottom disp.
Reaction frame
Bottom mesh

c) Test setup d) Instrumentation

Fig. 2. Concrete dimensions, reinforcement configuration, test setup, and instrumentations.

top mesh consisted of #20 and #15 GFRP bars, respectively. The
column stubs were heavily reinforced with six 25 M deformed steel bars
with 10 M deformed closed steel ties with spacing of 100 mm to prevent
any premature failure of the column stub. Fig. 2c shows the newly
fabricated test setup at structural lab of the University of Sherbrooke.
The connections were simply supported on the bottom surface along
three sides during testing on a supporting steel bed. Steel reaction
beams restrained the three supported edges to prevent slab lifting on
the slab top face. According to the loading protocol, the vertical load
(V) was applied through the column stub, whereas the unbalanced
moment (Mun) was produced by two opposite horizontal loads (P) ap-
plied at the tips of the column ends. The unbalanced moments were
calculated by multiplying the two lateral forces applied to each column
by the distance from the application point to the center of the slab:
675 mm. The vertical load was applied monotonically in load-con-
trolled mode with loading rate of 5 kN/min, whereas the horizontal
loads were simultaneously applied with the vertical load in small in-
crements to preserve constant M/V of 0.3 m or 0.6 m throughout the
test until failure. A series of linear potentiometers (LPOTs) and concrete
electrical strain gauges were mounted on the connections (Fig. 2d). The
reinforcement strains were measured with 11 electrical resistance strain
gauges at different locations in both orthogonal directions, as shown in
Fig. 2d. Table 1 lists the mechanical properties of the used sand coated
GFRP bars and steel bars.
All test connections experienced typical brittle punching-shear
failure without much warning, i.e. concrete crushing. This mode of
failure was characterized by an immediate drop in the ultimate load,
followed by the display of a major crack defining the failure surface. As
shown in Fig. 3, all test connections displayed similar crack patterns on
the tension surface. Increasing the M/V to 0.6 m, however, reduced the
number of cracks on the tension side at failure, regardless of the con-
crete strength. That can be attributed to the increase in the applied
shear stresses to the shear critical section, which accelerated the in-
cidence of punching-shear failure before the development of the sig-
nificant flexural cracks. El-Gendy and El-Salakawy [15] reported si-
milar observations based on testing NSC connections under different M/
V ratios. On the other hand, the HSC connections evidenced narrower
cracks as well as considerable splitting of the concrete cover im-
mediately before the incidence of punching failure. This behavior is
similar to that observed in GFRP-RC ECS–connections [16]. Fig. 4a
provides the vertical load–deflection curves for all tested connections at
a distance of 80 mm from the column face. The sudden drop in all tested
specimens after reaching their maximum capacities confirmed the oc-
currence of punching-shear failure. Table 2 lists the test results for all
tested connections.
Using HSC enhanced overall slab behavior and, consequently,

4
A.E. Salama, et al. Engineering Structures 216 (2020) 110769

Table 1
Mechanical properties of the used steel and GFRP bars.
Bar Designation Areaa Tensile Strength b(MPa) Elastic Modulus c(GPa) Ultimate Strain
(mm2) (%)

No. 15 GFRP (straight) 199 1323 64.8 2.0

No. 20 GFRP (straight) 285 1334 64.9 2.1
GFRP No. 20(bent-straight portion) 285 1210 (490 d) 53.0 2.3
Steel (size 10 M) 100 420e 200 0.21f
Steel (size 25 M) 500 470e 204 0.23f

a
According to CSA S807-15.
d
Ultimate tensile bend strength
e
Steel yielding strength
f
Steel yielding strain.

increased the punching-shear strength of the connection at ultimate.
The punching-shear strength at ultimate of G-H-0.3 and G-H-0.6 was
17.6% and 19.3% higher than that of their counterparts G-N-0.3 and G-
N-0.6, respectively. In comparison to the NSC connections, the HSC
connections evidenced final punching failure associated with con-
siderable spalling of the concrete cover in the failure area around the
column. In contrast, increasing M/V significantly affected the slab
punching-shear strength and deflection for all NSC and HSC connec-
tions regardless the concrete strength. Increasing the M/V from 0.3 m to
0.6 m for the NSC specimens, G-N-0.3 to G-N-0.6, yielded a 31% de-
crease in the ultimate capacity. A similar was noted between the HSC
connections, with G-H-0.6 showing a 30% decrease in ultimate capacity
compared to G-H-0.3. This can be attributed to the higher shear stresses
due to combined shear and high unbalanced bending moment.
Fig. 4b and 4c provide the plots for the applied vertical load versus
the maximum flexural reinforcement strains as well as maximum con-
crete strains, respectively. The maximum reinforcement strain in all test
connections were 7570, 8381, 8248, 8876 µε, representing 40%, 44,
43%, and 46% of the guaranteed ultimate tensile strength for connec-
tions G-N-0.3, G-N-0.6, G-H-0.3, and G-H-0.6, respectively. Moreover,
the maximum measured concrete strains were below the specified
concrete crushing strains in ACI 440.1R-15 [23] and CSA S806-12 [24].
The attained reinforcement and concrete-strain values were consistent
with the incidence of the punching-shear failure without concrete
crushing or GFRP bar rupture.
4. Modified strip model
The modified strip model for FRP-RC ECS–connections is an adap-
tion of the strip model developed by Afhami [33] to reflect the use of
FRP reinforcing bars instead of steel. The strip model describes the
vertical shear and unbalanced moment transfer from the slab to the
column for steel-RC ECS–connections, which is a generalization of the
bond model [26] for concentric punching, in which only vertical shear
is transferred to the column.
The ECS–connection is divided into three radial strips and two
quadrants as per the strip model, as shown in Fig. 5a. The three radial
strips are two spandrel strips and one interior radial strip. The two
spandrel strips and the interior radial strip extended from the column
faces to the lines of zero shear (refer to Fig. 5a). The strip model de-
scribes the vertical shear transfer in terms of the two-dominant shear
transfer mechanisms in the bond model: beam and arching action. The
vertical shear is transferred from each quadrant to its adjacent radial
strips by beam action, then transferred through these radial strips to the
column by arching action. Fig. 5b depicts the free-body diagram for the
interior radial strip and spandrel strip. Each radial strip, interior or
spandrel strip, performs as a cantilever beam having negative flexural
strength at the side face of the column. Consequently, the flexural
tension bars are considered to estimate the negative flexural strength of
the strip whatever the interior radial or spandrel strip. All strips, in-
terior or spandrel strip, are loaded in shear along their side faces only.
The interior radial strip with two side faces is loaded with a uniformly
distributed load of 2w, while the spandrel strip is loaded from one side

G-H-0.3
G-N-0.3

Tension Side Tension Side

G-H-0.6
G-N-0.6

Tension Side Tension Side

Fig. 3. Cracking patterns and punching shear failure surface.

5
A.E. Salama, et al. Engineering Structures 216 (2020) 110769

@ 75 mm
@80 mm

@ column face

ȝİ ȝİ

a) b) c)

Fig. 4. Load versus: (a) deflection, (b) reinforcement strains, (c) concrete strains.

Table 2 Vsx = 2 Msx wx Interior radial strip (12)

Summary of test results.
Specimen fcˊ V test M test Δvu, εr max , εc max , Vsy = 2Msy wy Spandrel strip (13)
MPa kN kN.m mm (με) (με)
w = 0.167 f c' d (14)
G-N-0.3 37.1 260 79 26 7570 −1302
G-H-0.3 85.8 306 92 30 8381 −775
G-N-0.6 38.8 178 107 13 8248 −1133 CSA S806-12 [24] permits using plane sectional analysis to calculate
G-H-0.6 86.0 213 129 15 8876 −817 the flexural strength of RC slabs. In implementing this method, the
negative flexural strength of the interior or spandrel strip entirely re-
Vtest = ultimate vertical shear force at column centroid; M test = ultimate un- inforced with FRP bars can be calculated based on the strip failure
balanced moment at the at column centroid; Δvu = deflection corresponding to mode. The failure mode of the interior radial strip or spandrel strip is
ultimate loads; εr max = ultimate measured reinforcement strain; εc max = ulti-
controlled by either concrete crushing or FRP bars tensile rupture. If the
mate measured concrete strain.
FRP reinforcement ratio of the strip (ρstrip) is exceeds the balanced
failure reinforcement ratio (ρfrpb), then strip failure will be induced by
with w. The shear distribution on the side face of the strips (w) is limited
concrete crushing, and the nominal flexural strength of the strip can be
to the critical one-way shear—as per ACI 318–19 [20]—acting over a
calculated with Eq. (16). The strip will fail by FRP bars tensile rupture,
loaded length lw, as expressed by Eq. (14). This limit was concluded
however, if ρstrip ≤ ρfrpb and the nominal flexural strength of the strip
based on Finite Element Analysis which conducted by Afhami [33].
can be calculated with Eq. (17).
From equilibrium equations, the shear strength referred to the negative
flexural strength of the interior radial strip (Msx) and the spandrel strip ∅c f c ⎛
'
εcu
ρfrpb = α1 β1 ⎞
(Msy) are given by ⎜ ⎟
∅frp f frpu ⎝ εcu + εfrpu ⎠ (15)

Lines of zero shear

Free edge Vsy

Msy
lw
Cy lstrip

Spandrel strip
lstrip
Cx

2w
Column
Interior radial strip Vsx
Msx
lw
lstrip

lstrip

Spandrel strip Interior radial strip

(a) Layout of radial strips (b) Free-body diagram of radial strips

Fig. 5. Strip model for edge–column slab connections [34].

6
A.E. Salama, et al.
The nominal flexural strength of an over-reinforced strip
(ρstrip > ρfrpb)
a
Mstrip = Afrp f frp ⎛d − ⎞
⎝ 2⎠ (16a)
Efrp εcu ⎡ ⎛ 4α1 β1 ∅c f c' ⎞ ⎤
f frp = ⎢ ⎜1 + ⎟ − 1⎥
2 ⎢ ρfs ∅frp Efrp εcu ⎥
⎣ ⎝ ⎠ ⎦ (16b)
α1 = 0.85 − 0.0015fc′ ⩾ 0.67 (16c)
β1 = 0.97 − 0.0025fc′ ⩾ 0.67 (16d)
∅frp Afrp f frp
a=
α1 ∅c f c' c (16e)
The nominal flexural strength of an under-reinforced strip (ρstrip ≤ Fig. 6. V–M interaction diagram.
ρfrpb)
Mstrip = Afrp f frpu j d
(17)
where α1 and β1 = equivalent rectangular stress block parameters
according to CSA S806-12 [24]; ffrpu = ultimate strength of FRP bars;
εcu = ultimate strain of concrete limited to 3500 µs according to CSA
S806-12 [24]; εfrpu = ultimate strain of FRP bars; Afrp = flexural bars
area inside the strip in the negative moment region; a = depth of
rectangular stress block; j = lever arm coefficient taken 0.9; and
ffrp = stress of FRP bars corresponding to concrete crushing.
To quantify the one-way shear strength for FRP-RC members, the
one-way shear strength of steel-RC members was assumed to be mod-
ified with a multiplier factor for use with FRP reinforcement. Michaluk
et al. [52] proposed that the one-way shear of steel-RC members as per
ACI 318-19 [20], vc = 0.167 fc′ , can be adapted for FRP-RC members by
introducing a multiplier factor of Ef /Es, as expressed by Eq. (18). This
factor was found to be 0.4 (on average) based on the results of the
tested ECS–connections and others in the literature [14-17].
Ef
vc = (0.167 f ′c d )
Es (18)
w = 0.4 (0.167 f ′c d ) (19)
In contrast to the bond model, the strips in ECS–connections are not
all loaded to their nominal capacities, nonproportional behavior of the
strips. This is attributed to the effect of unbalanced moment, which
loads one radial strip more than the others and results in the develop-
ment of nonproportional behavior between strips. In such behavior, the
connection failure occurs when the load in any one strip exceeds its
ultimate strength. It should be mentioned that the share of the applied
loads of each radial strip is determined based on both equilibrium and
compatibility of deformations. Torsional moments increase the capacity
of radial strips in one direction and reduce their strength in other di-
rection. This leads to the concept of super radial strips, in which the
shear strength is greater than the nominal strength assumed by the
bond model, as the effective width of the super strip is greater than
column width. The strip model estimates the lower bound value of the
vertical shear strength of an ECS–connection based on column dimen-
sions and the flexural strength of the orthogonal radial strips. All pos-
sible mechanisms of vertical shear and unbalanced moment transfer in
an ECS–connection will be discussed in detail in the next section.
5. V–M Interaction diagram
Fig. 6 depicts typical V–M interaction diagram for an ECS–connec-
tion. Afhami et al. [33] used five distinct points—1, 2, 3a, 3b, and 4—to
construct an interaction diagram. Each control point represents a pos-
sible mechanism for applied load transfer to the column of an ECS–-
connection (refer to Fig. 7).
7
Engineering Structures 216 (2020) 110769
Control point 1 corresponds to the situation in which unbalanced
moment does not exist, and the connection only resists vertical shear
force. In such cases, the nonproportional behavior occurs on the interior
radial strip in which the shear is transferred by beam action to the side
faces of the spandrel strips and then by arching action along the di-
rection parallel to the free edge through the spandrel strips. The max-
imum vertical shear force (V1) of the connection with M/V equals zero
is given by
V1 = c x wy + 2 2wy (Msy + Mty ) (20)
where Msy = negative moment at the column face in the spandrel strip
and Mty = negative flexural moment of the strip adjacent to the
spandrel strips of width equal to 1.5 h.
Control point 2 refers to the maximum shear that can be transferred
through the connection such that the nominal capacities of all strips are
developed. The maximum vertical shear force (V2) and crosponding
bending moment M2 are calculated as follows:
V2 = 2 2Msy wy + 2 Msx wx
(21)
M2 = Msx + c y Msx wx (22)
where Msx = negative flexural strength at column face in an interior
radial strip and Msy = negative flexural strength at column face in a
spandrel strip.
Control points 3a and 3b correspond to the maximum moment that
can be transferred through the connection. The only difference between
these points is whether the spandrel strips transfer shear or not. No
shear is transferred to the column by the spandrel strips at point 3b,
whereas some limited shear is transferred through the spandrel strips by
beam action at point 3b. At these points, the bars perpendicular to the
free edge within a distance equal to 1.5 h away from the column faces
augment the flexural capacity of the interior radial strip and do not
transfer any shear by beam action to the spandrel strip. The first effect
is considered by the term Mtx for the vertical shear at point 3b, as ex-
pressed by Eq. (23). The second effect is considered by the shear
transfer through the spandrel strip by beam action, that is limited to
one-way critical shear (β cy wx). The coefficient β—ranging from zero
to one—accounts for this effect. If additional top reinforcement for
torsion, parallel to the slab free edge, is provided to resist Mtc, β is equal
to one. Mtc refers to the minimum torsional moment along each side
face of the column (Mtr) or the negative flexural strength of the strip
adjacent to the interior radial strip with a width equal to 1.5 h. Unless
additional top reinforcement is provided, all top reinforcement is used
by Mtc, and both Msy and β are equal to zero. Therefore, points 3a and
3b coincide. The maximum vertical shear force of the connection at
points 3a and 3b as well as the corresponding unbalanced moment are
given by the following equations.
A.E. Salama, et al.
Arching action
1.5h y
Arching
wy
Cx
Cy Cy
Beam action
a) Point 1
Fig. 7. Load-transfer mechanisms in an edge–column slab connection [34].
V3b = 2 wx (Msx + 2Mtx )
V3a = V3b + 2βc y wx
cy
M3a = M3b = M4 + V3b
2 (25)
where Mtx = negative flexural strength of a slab strip adjacent to the
interior radial strip with a width equal to 1.5 h and should exceed Mtr.
Afhami [33] used the shear friction concept to calculate Mtr. In this
method, torsion is assumed to be the result of two equal and opposite
horizontal shear forces. One of these shear forces acts at the tensile
reinforcement level Vt, whereas the opposite force acts at the center of
the compression block. The horizontal shear force Vt depends on tensile
reinforcement area inside the spandrel strip Asy and column width cy.
The maximum value for the shear force for steel-RC ECS–connections
1
—Vt = 0.6 (Asy f y Av f ′c ) 2 — can be adapted for FRP-RC ECS–connec-
tions by replacing the yield strength of steel bars (fy) with the ultimate
tensile strength of the FRP bars (ffu), as in Eq. (26). It should be men-
tioned that the horizontal shear force Vt should not be taken as greater
than 0.25 Av fc′, where Av = 2d′c y (concrete area resisting the shear force
Vt). Once the shear force Vt is determined, Eq. (27) can be used to
calculate the torsional moment along each side face of the column.
Vt = 0.6 (Asy f fu Av f ′c ) 2
1 nections and the other three connections tested by Mostafa and El-
Mtr = Vt j d
Control point 4 refers to the situation in which the connection re-
sisting pure moment only, V4 = 0. The total moment transferred by the
connection equals negative flexural strength of the interior radial strip
(Msx) plus torsional moment (Mtc).
M4 = Msx + 2Mtc
In our analysis, a complete V–M interaction diagram can be con-
structed with a known set of coordinate points, as just described, by
linking these points with straight lines. Figs. 8 and 9 depict complete
V–M interaction diagram for all tested connection and others available
in the literature [14-17]. The predicted punching-shear strength of each
connection is the intersection point between the loading line and the
V–M interaction diagram (refer to Fig. 6). The loading line is taken as
the radial line through the origin with a slope equal to Vtest /Mtest at
failure, where Vtest and Mtest = ultimate vertical shear and corre-
sponding unbalanced moment at the column centroid, respectively. It
should be mentioned that the coordinate points of these V-M interaction
diagrams were calculated considering the maximum concrete strength
of 60 MPa for HSC connections. This limit is recommended by the CSA
S806-12 [24] for punching-shear strength predictions.
Engineering Structures 216 (2020) 110769
wy
wx
Mtc
wx
1.5h
Arching action
Cx
Msx
1.5h
Mtc
Beam action Beam action
b) Point 2 c) Point 3 d) Point 4
(23) 6. Assessment of the modified strip model
(24) The accuracy of the modified strip model compared to the available
punching-shear equations in different design codes and guides—EN
1992–1-1–05 [22]; ACI 440.1R-15 [23]; CSA S806-12 [24]; and JSCE-
97 [25]—was assessed by comparing their predictions to the test results
of the tested connections and those provided by other researchers. The
safety and material factors in the aforementioned provisions and
modified strip model were taken to be equal to 1. The prototypes had an
effective depth ranging from 81 to 160 mm, flexural reinforcement
ratios ranging from 0.85% to 1.7%, and concrete strength ranging from
24.96 to 86 MPa. Table 3 provides the details of the experimental da-
tabase.
Table 4 provides the tested to predicted punching-shear strength
(Vtest/Vpred). Fig. 10 plots the relations between the experimental and
predicated results. It can be seen that the modified strip model yielded
better predictions than the other models and evidenced the smaller
scatter. The modified strip model with average of Vtest
/Vpred = 1.11 ± 0.13. Furthermore, the predictions were on the
conservative side, making the proposed model suitable for design.
Using the concrete-strength limitation of 60 MPa in the proposed model
closely predicted the punching-shear strength of the tested HSC con-
(26)
Salakawy [16]. Thus, the proposed model proved to be more effective
(27) by limiting the concrete strengths to 60 MPa as recommended by the
CSA S806-12 [24]. Further investigations are, however, needed to
quantify concrete compressive limit in the modified strip model.
The CSA S806-12 [24] and JSCE-97 [25] equations, on the other
hand, yielded an average of Vtest /Vpred =1.24 ± 0.12 and Vtest /Vpred
=1.25 ± 0.16, respectively. The CSA S806-12 [24] and JSCE-97 [25]
(28) equations as well as the modified strip model considered FRP bar axial
stiffness, hence, they yielded better predictions. However, The ACI
440.1R-15 [23] equation underestimated the punching-shear strengths
with average of Vtest/Vpred = 2.08 ± 0.21. The ACI 440.1R-15 [23]
equation yielded conservative predictions due to retaining the re-
inforcement ratio in predicting the neutral axis depth and dropping the
FRP axial stiffness. In contrast, the EN 1992–1-1–05 [22] equation
overestimated the punching-shear strengths with average of Vtest/
Vpred = 0.87 ± 0.21. This equation is based on tests of steel-reinforced
slabs, which, in turn, ignore the differences between the mechanical
characteristics of steel and FRP bars. The EN 1992–1-1–05 [22] equa-
tion was adapted by introducing a new parameter α to consider the
difference between elastic modulus of steel and FRP bars. The value of
α was taken as the cubic root of Ef /Es as in the JSCE-97 [25] equation.
The final form of the proposed equation is presented in Eq. (31). This
8
A.E. Salama, et al. Engineering Structures 216 (2020) 110769

G-N-0.3 G-N-0.6 G-H-0.3

G-N-0.6

V-M
Loading line
Vpred
Vtest

(a) Current study

H-0.9-XX H-1.35-XX H-1.8-XX

V-M
Loading line
Vpred
Vtest

(b) Mostafa and El-Salakawy [16]

Fig. 8. V–M interaction diagrams for the tested connections (a) current study (b) Mostafa and El-Salakawy [16].

equation gives reliable predictions with an average of Vtest/ be used directly to predict the punching-shear strength of FRP-RC
Vpred = 1.22 ± 0.21. As shown in Fig. 10, the scatter of the predicted ECS–connections because they ignored the axial stiffness of FRP bars,
punching-shear strengths using the proposed equation, Equation (30) which contributed to the punching-shear strength of such connections
was reduced compared to the predictions using the EN 1992–1-1–05 [17]. As a result, a modification factor taking this effect into account is
[22] equation. proposed for the EN 1992–1-1–05 [22] equation to achieve reasonable
1 predictions for such connections.
0.18 1 Ef 3 The modified strip model can be extended for estimating the
vc = α × k1 (100 ρf ′c ) 3 , where α = ⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟

γ ⎝ Es ⎠ (29) punching-shear strength of FRP-RC ECS–connections with FRP shear

reinforcement. Further research is needed to quantify how shear-re-
1
0.18 Ef 3 inforcement contribution to punching strength can be combined in the
vc = k1 ⎛100 ρf ′c ⎞
⎜ ⎟ (MPa)
γ ⎝ Es ⎠ (30) proposed model. Very limited experimental results are, however,
available in the literature [14-16,18]. The results from finite-element
parametric studies [19] should be used to increase the available ex-
7. Discussion perimental database [14-16,18].

Afhami [33] has shown that the strip model can be used for steel-RC
ECS–connections subjected to combined vertical shear force and un-
balanced bending moment. The present study shows that the strip
model [33] can be extended to reflect the differences between steel and
FRP bars for such connections entirely reinforced with FRP bars. The
newly developed model gives a lower bound of the maximum punching-
shear strengths of such connections. The constructed model is a lower-
bound plasticity-based model, so it should yield conservative predic-
tions. The developed model aims at predicting safe and accurate
punching-shear strength compared to other equations available in FRP
design codes and guides.
The design code formulas for steel slab–column connections cannot
8. Summary and conclusions
This paper reported the test results of full-sized RC FRP–RC
ECS–connections under combined shear and unbalanced bending mo-
ment. A lower-bound plasticity-based model—referred to as the mod-
ified strip model—was also developed in this study to accurately predict
the punching-shear strength of such connections. The proposed model
was compared to existing equations in FRP codes and guides. Based on
the work presented herein, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Tests on GFRP-RC ECS– connections with NSC and HSC under

9
A.E. Salama, et al. Engineering Structures 216 (2020) 110769

SC-XX-L SC-XX-M SC-XX-H

V-M diagram
g
Loading line
Vpred
Vtest

RD-XX-M G-1.35 G-1.8

(a) El-Gendy and El-Salakawy [15,17]

ZJEF1 ZJEF2 ZJEF3

ZJEF5 ZJEF7

V-M diagram
g
Loading line
Vpred
Vtest

(b) Zaghloul [14]

Fig. 9. V–M interaction diagrams for the tested connections by (a) El-Gendy and El-Salakawy [15,17] and (b) Zaghloul [14].

different M/V indicate that increasing M/V produced significant
shear stresses which increased the probability of punching-shear
failure and resulted in a reduction in the punching-shear strength.
2. The test results confirm that using HSC in GFRP-RC ECS– connec-
tions directly enhanced the punching-shear strength and reduced
deflections at the same load level compared to their counterparts
with NSC.
3. The modified strip model accounts for all possible load-transfer
actions for FRP-RC ECS–connections, including the existence of the
unbalanced moment on strip equilibrium. The model also in-
corporates the relevant material and geometry parameters as gross
geometry, FRP reinforcement, concrete properties, and effective slab
depth.
4. The punching-shear strengths predicted by the modified strip model
are in good agreement with the experimental results: 18 FRP-RC
ECS–connections including the tested connections and three other
experimental campaigns [14-17], giving Vtest/Vpred. = 1.11 ± 0.12
(COV = 10.9%). More experimental results, however, are needed to
refine the proposed model.
5. The experimental results of FRP ECS–connections indicate that the
modified strip model yielded safe and accurate estimates for the
punching-shear strengths compared to other available equations in
design codes and guides. Hence, it can be used to design such con-
nections. The CSA S806-12 [24] and JSCE-97 [25] equations yield
reasonable predictions with average of Vtest/Vpred = 1.24 ± 0.12
and Vtest /Vpred =1.25 ± 0.16, respectively. The ACI 440.1R-15 [23]
equation underestimated the punching-shear strengths with an
average of Vtest/Vpred = 2.08 ± 0.21.
6. The EN 1992–1-1–05 [22] equation overestimated punching-shear
strengths with an average of Vtest/Vpred = 0.87 ± 0.21 due to ig-
noring the differences between the mechanical characteristics of
steel and FRP bars. A modification factor was, however, introduced
to account for these differences and the proposed equation gave
reasonable predictions with an average of Vtest/

10
A.E. Salama, et al. Engineering Structures 216 (2020) 110769

Table 3
Database details of ECS–connections.
Reference Specimen L W Cx Cy d fc' ρf Ef M/V FRP V test M test
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (MPa) (%) (GPa) (m) type (kN) (kN.m)

This study G-N-0.3 2500 1350 300 300 160 37.1 1.04 60.40 0.3 G bars 260 79
G-H-0.3 2500 1350 300 300 160 85.8 1.04 60.40 0.3 G bars 306 92
G-N-0.6 2500 1350 300 300 160 38.8 1.04 60.40 0.6 G bars 178 107
G-H-0.6 2500 1350 300 300 160 86.0 1.04 60.40 0.6 G bars 213 129
Zaghloul [14] ZJEF1 1770 1060 250 250 120 24.96 1.37 100 0.265 C NEF 188 50
ZJEF2 1770 1060 250 250 120 26.23 0.94 100 0.265 C NEF 156 41
ZJEF3 1770 1060 250 250 120 56.8 1.37 100 0.415 C NEF 211 88
ZJEF5 1770 1060 250 250 81 28.43 1.37 100 0.265 C NEF 97 26
ZJEF7 1770 1060 420 250 120 27.76 1.37 100 0.265 C NEF 196 52
El-Gendy and El-Salakawy [15,17] SC-XX-L 2800 1550 300 300 160 37.7 0.85 60.50 0.2 G bars 239 48
SC-XX-M 2800 1550 300 300 160 41.1 0.85 60.50 0.4 G bars 227 91
SC-XX-H 2800 1550 300 300 160 36.5 0.85 60.50 0.6 G bars 159 95
RD-XX-M 2800 1550 300 300 160 41.0 0.85 59.88 0.4 G bars 191 76
GSC-1.35 2800 1550 300 300 160 41.0 1.28 60.50 0.4 G bars 268 107
GSC-1.8 2800 1550 300 300 160 45.6 1.7 60.50 0.4 G bars 277 111
Mostafa and El-Salakawy [16] H-0.9-XX 2800 1550 300 300 160 81.0 0.85 60.50 0.4 G bars 251 100
H-1.35-XX 2800 1550 300 300 160 85.0 1.28 60.50 0.4 G bars 272 109
H-1.8-XX 2800 1550 300 300 160 80.0 1.7 60.50 0.4 G bars 288 115

Vpred = 1.22 ± 0.21. Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declared that there is no conflict of interest.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Ahmed E. Salama: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal ana- Acknowledgments

lysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources,
Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing -
review & editing. Mohamed Hassan: Conceptualization, Data curation,
Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration,
Resources, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing - original draft,
Writing - review & editing. Brahim Benmokrane: Conceptualization,
Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project
administration, Resources, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing
- original draft, Writing - review & editing. Emmanuel Ferrier:
Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation,
Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Validation,
Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the
Tier-1 Canada Research Chair in Advanced Composite Materials for
Civil Structures, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
(NSERC) of Canada, and the NSERC Industrial Chair in Innovative FRP
Reinforcement for Sustainable Concrete Structures. The authors ac-
knowledge the technical staff of the Canadian For Innovation (CFI)
structural laboratory in the Department of Civil Engineering at the
University of Sherbrooke. The authors are grateful Mr. Jérôme Lacroix
and Mr. Steven Maceachern for their technical assistance during testing.

Table 4
Comparison between tested and predicated punching shear strengths.
Reference Specimen V test Vtest /VPredict
(kN)
ACI 440.1R-15 CSA S806-12 JSCE-97 EN 1992–1-1–05 Proposed Equation Modified Strip Model
(Eq. 2) (Eqs. 3–5) (Eq.6) (Eq.11) (Eq.30)

This study G-N-0.3 260 2.15 1.24 1.14 0.96 1.43 1.12
G-H-0.3 306 2.01 1.24 1.34 0.85 1.27 1.02
G-N-0.6 178 2.21 1.27 1.19 0.65 0.96 1.11
G-H-0.6 213 2.13 1.31 1.42 0.59 0.88 1.01
Zaghloul [14] ZJEF1 188 2.16 1.37 1.35 1.24 1.56 1.45
ZJEF2 156 2.11 1.29 1.27 1.17 1.48 1.24
ZJEF3 211 2.50 1.53 1.66 1.06 1.33 1.19
ZJEF5 97 1.87 1.18 1.22 1.16 1.47 1.28
ZJEF7 196 1.68 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.36 1.15
El-Gendy and El-Salakawy [15,17] SC-XX-L 239 1.78 1.00 0.93 0.92 1.37 1.03
SC-XX-M 227 2.35 1.31 1.25 0.85 1.26 1.11
SC-XX-H 159 2.20 1.24 1.14 0.62 0.92 1.07
RD-XX-M 191 1.99 1.11 1.06 0.71 1.07 0.95
GSC-1.35 268 2.31 1.35 1.29 0.86 1.28 1.20
GSC-1.8 277 2.04 1.23 1.21 0.78 1.16 1.11
Mostafa and El-Salakawy [16] H-0.9-XXX 251 2.16 1.28 1.38 0.75 1.11 1.00
H-1.35-XXX 272 1.92 1.21 1.31 0.69 1.02 0.99
H-1.8-XXX 288 1.82 1.16 1.26 0.67 1.00 0.99

Average 2.08 1.24 1.25 0.87 1.22 1.11

SD 0.21 0.12 0.16 0.21 0.21 0.13
COV% 10.20 9.69 12.92 23.71 17.20 11.29

11
A.E. Salama, et al.
Modified Strip Model Proposed equation
Average =1.11
SD = 0.13
COV (%) =11.29
ACI 440.
440 1R-15 [23]
440.1R-15 CSA S806-12
S806
Average = 2.0
2.088
SD = 0.21
=10.220
COV (%) =10.20
Fig. 10. Comparisons of Modified strip model; proposed equation; EN 1992–1-1–05 [22]; ACI 440.1R-15 [23]; CSA S806-12 [24]; and JSCE-97 [25].
References
[1] Dulude C, Hassan M, Ahmed E, Benmokrane B. Punching shear behavior of flat slabs
reinforced with glass fiber-reinforced polymer bars. ACI Struct J
2013;110(5):723–34.
[2] Hassan M, Ahmed EA, Benmokrane B. Punching-Shear Strength of GFRP-Reinforced
Concrete Flat Slabs. Can J Civ Eng 2013;40(10):951–60.
[3] Hassan M, Ahmed E, Benmokrane B. Punching shear behavior of two-way slabs
reinforced with frp shear reinforcement. J Compos Constr 2014;19(1). https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000493.
[4] Hassan M, Fam A, Benmokrane B, Ferrier E. Effect of column size and reinforcement
ratio on shear strength of glass fiber-reinforced polymer reinforced concrete two-
way slabs. ACI Struct J 2017;114(4).
[5] Hassan M, Ahmed EA, Benmokrane B. Punching-shear strength of normal- and high-
strength two-way concrete slabs reinforced with GFRP bars. J Compos Constr
2013;17(6). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000424.10.1061/
(ASCE).
[6] Benmokrane B, Ahmed E, Dulude C, Boucher E. Design, construction, and mon-
itoring of the first worldwide two-way flat slab parking garage reinforced with
GFRP bars. Proc., 6th Int. Conf. on FRP Comp. in Civil Eng. Università di Roma;
2012.
[7] Ahmed E, Benmokrane B, Sansfaçon M. Case Study: Design, Construction, and
Performance of the La Chancelière Parking Garage’s Concrete Flat Slabs Reinforced
with GFRP Bars. J Compos Const 2017;21(1). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.
1943-5614.0000656.
[8] El-Ghandour AW, Pilakoutas K, Waldron P. Punching shear behavior of fiber re-
inforced polymers reinforced concrete flat slabs: experimental study. J Compos
Constr 2003;3(258):258–65.
[9] Lee J-H, Yoon Y-S, Mitchell WD. Improving punching shear behavior of glass fiber-
reinforced polymer reinforced slabs. ACI Struct J 2009;106(4):427–34.
[10] Nguyen-Minh L, Rovnak M. Punching-shear resistance of interior GFRP reinforced
column slab connection. J Compos Constr 2013. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000324, 2-13.
[11] Gouda A, El-Salakawy E. Behavior of GFRP-RC Interior Column slab Connections
with Shear Studs and High-Moment Transfer. J Compos Constr 2016;20(4). https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000663.
[12] Gouda A, El-Salakawy E. Punching Shear Strength of GFRP-RC Interior Column slab
Connections Subjected to Moment Transfer. J Compos Constr 2015;20(1).
[13] Hussein AH, El-Salakawy E. Punching Shear Behavior of Glass Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer-Reinforced Concrete Column Slab Interior Connections. ACI Struct J
2018;115(4):1075–88.
[14] Zaghloul A. “Punching Shear Strength of Interior and Edge Column-Slab
Connections in CFRP Reinforced Flat Plate Structures Transferring Shear and
Moment.”. Ph.D. Thesis, Canada: Carleton University; 2007, 404.
[15] El-Gendy M, El-Salakawy E. Effect of Shear Studs and High Moments on Punching
Behavior of GFRP-RC Slab-Column Edge Connections. J. of Compos. Constr. 2016.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000668.
[16] Mostafa A, El-Salakawy E. Behavior of GFRP-RC Slab-Column Edge Connections
with High-Strength Concrete and Shear Reinforcement. J. Compos. Constr. 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000831.
[17] El-Gendy M, El-Salakawy E. Punching Shear Behavior of GFRP-RC Slab-Column
Edge Connections. ACI SP 2018;SP-322:5.1-5.20.
12
Engineering Structures 216 (2020) 110769
EN 1992-1-1-05 [22]
Average = 0.87
Average =1.22 SD = 0.21
SD = 0.21 COV (%) = 23.71
COV (%) = 17.20
[24] JSCE-97 [25]
Average =1.24 Mean =1.25
SD = 0.12 SD = 0.16
COV (%) = 9.69 COV (%) =12.92
[18] Salama AE, Hassan M, Benmokrane B. Effectiveness of GFRP Stirrups as Shear
Reinforcement in GFRP-RC Edge Slab-Column Connections. ACI Struct J
2019;116(5):97–112.
[19] Salama AE, Hassan M, Benmokrane B. Effect of GFRP Shear Stirrups on Strength of
Two-Way GFRP RC Edge Slabs: Experimental and Finite-Element Investigations. J.
Struct. Eng., ASCE 2020;146(5). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.
0002593.
[20] American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 318. “Building Code Requirements
for Structural Concrete.” ACI 318-19, Farmington Hills, MI; 2019.
[21] Canadian Standards Association (CSA). “Design of concrete structures for buildings.
” CSA-A23.3 M-14, Rexdale, Ontario, Canada; 2014.
[22] European Committee for Standardization (CEN). “Design of Concrete Structures –
Part 1–1 General Rules and Rules for Buildings.” EN 1992-1-1, Brussels, Belgium;
2005.
[23] American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 440. “Guide for the design and
construction of concrete reinforced with FRP bars.” ACI 440.1R-15, Farmington
Hills, MI; 2015.
[24] Canadian Standards Association (CSA). “Design and construction of building com-
ponents with fiber reinforced polymers.” CAN/CSA S806-12, Mississauga, Ontario,
Canada; 2012.
[25] Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE). “Recommendation for Design and
Construction of Concrete Structures Using Continuous Fiber Reinforcing Materials.”
Machida A, editor. Concrete Engineering Series 23, Tokyo, Japan; 1997, 325.
[26] Alexander S, Simmonds S. Bond Model for Concentric Punching Shear. ACI Struct J
1992;89(3):325–34.
[27] Kinnunen S, Nylander H. Punching of Concrete Slabs without Shear Reinforcement.
Transactions No. 158, Royal Inst. Tec., Stockholm 1960:112.
[28] Regan P, Braestrup M. “Punching Shear in Reinforced Concrete: A State-of-the Art
Report.” Bulletin d'lnjormation No. I68, Comite Euro-International du Beton,
Lausanne; 1985, 232.
[29] Simmonds S, Alexander S. Truss Model for Edge Column-Slab Connections. ACI
Struct J 1987;84:296–303.
[30] Shehata I, Regan P. Punching in R.C. Slabs. J Str Eng 1989;115(7):1726–40.
[31] Shehata I. Simplified model for estimating the punching resistance of reinforced
concrete slabs. Mater. Struct. J. 1990;23(137):364–70.
[32] Broms C. Punching of Flat Plates - A Question of Concrete Properties in Biaxial
Compression and Size Effect. ACI Struct J 1990;87:292–304.
[33] Afhami S. Strip model for capacity of flat plate-column connections Ph.D Thesis
Canada: University of Alberta; 1997.
[34] Afhami S, Alexander S, Simmonds S. “Strip Model for Capacity of Slab Column
Connections.” Struct. Eng. Report 223, University of Alberta, Canada; 1998, 231.
[35] Sherif A. “Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Flat Slabs”. Ph.D Thesis Calgary,
Canada: University of; 1996.
[36] Ospina CE, Alexander S, Cheng JJR. Punching of Two-Way Concrete Slabs with
Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforcing Bars or Grids. ACI Struct J
2003;100(5):589–98.
[37] Matthys S, Taerwe L. Concrete Slabs Reinforced with FRP Grids. II: Punching
Resistance. J. Comp. Constr. 2000;4(3):154–61.
[38] American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 318. “Building Code Requirements
for Structural Concrete.” ACI 318-99, Farmington Hills, MI; 1999.
[39] Standards Institution. “Structural Use of Concrete, BS8110: Part 1—Code of Practice
for Design and Construction.” London; 1997.
A.E. Salama, et al.
[40] Lantsoght E, van der Veen C, de Boer A. Plastic model for asymmetrically loaded
reinforced concrete slabs. ACI SP 2017;SP-321:1.1-1.20.
[41] Lantsoght E. “Extended Strip Model: Effect of Self-Weight and Size Effect.” Stevin
Report nr. 25.5-16-03, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands;
2016a, 42.
[42] Lantsoght E. “Modified Bond Model: Improvements and Deeper Theoretical
Analysis.” Stevin Report nr. 25.5-16-02, Delft Uni. Tec., Delft, the Netherlands;
2016b, 87.
[43] Lantsoght E. “Modified Bond Model: Analysis of Edge Effect and Influence of
Bearings.” Stevin Report nr. 25.5-13-08, Delft Uni. Tec., Delft, the Netherlands;
2013, 25.
[44] Lantsoght E, van der Veen C, de Boer A, Alexander SDB. Extended strip model for
slabs under concentrated loads. ACI Struct J 2017;114(2):565–74.
[45] Lantsoght E, van der Veen C, de Boer A, Walraven J. Influence of Width on Shear
Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Members. ACI Struct J 2014;111(6):1441–50.
[46] Lantsoght E, van der Veen C, Walraven J. Shear in One-Way Slabs under
13
Engineering Structures 216 (2020) 110769
Concentrated Load Close to the Support. ACI Struct J 2013;110(2):275–84.
[47] Lantsoght E, van der Veen C, Walraven J, de Boer A. Recommendations for the
Shear Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Slab Bridges from Experiments. Struct.
Eng. Inter”. 2013;23(4):418–26.
[48] Lantsoght E, van der Veen C, Walraven J. Shear Capacity of Slabs and Slab Strips
Loaded Close to the Support. ACI SP 2012;SP-287:5.1-5.18.
[49] Lantsoght E, van der Veen C, de Boer A, Walraven J. One-Way Slabs Subjected to
Combination of Loads Failing in Shear. ACI Struct J 2015;112(4):417–26.
[50] Lantsoght E, van der Veen C, de Boer A, Walraven J. Transverse Load Redistribution
and Effective Shear Width in Reinforced Concrete Slabs. Heron 2015;60(3):145–80.
[51] Lantsoght E, van der Veen C, Walraven J, de Boer A. Experimental Investigation on
Shear Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Slabs with Plain Bars and Slabs on
Elastomeric Bearings. Eng Struct 2015;103:1–14.
[52] Michaluk R, Rizkalla S, Tadros G, Benmokrane B. Flexural behavior of one-way
concrete slabs reinforced with fiber reinforced plastic reinforcements. ACI Struct J
1998;95(3):145–57.