ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 93-S50
Modeling Nonlinear Bond-Slip Behavior for Finite Element
Analyses of Reinforced Concrete Structures
by R. J. Allwood and Abdullah A. Bajarwan
Finite element analyses of reinforced concrete structures should
allow some representation of bond stiffness, particularly if there
are areas of high shear stress. This paper reviews research on bond
stiffness and then brings together earlier work on an efficient algo-
rithm for incorporating bond stiffness in a finite element analysis
and a nonlinear bond stiffness model developed from experimental
and theoretical studies. The resulting new method is used to
analyze pullout tests and the results are compared with experi-
mental data. Good agreement is obtained without resorting to the
unlikely notion of “position-dependent” stiffnesses adopted by
other researchers.
Keywords: bond-slip relationship/model; finite element analysis; nonlin-
ear bond stiffness; pullout tests; reinforced concrete.
INTRODUCTION
It is common for finite element analyses of reinforced
concrete structures to ignore the reinforcement altogether.
Even when it is included, it is usual to assume that there is no
relative movement between steel and concrete, i.e., no allow-
ance is made for any bond “slip” to occur. The consequence
of this assumption is an unrealistically rapid transfer of stress
between concrete and steel, particularly in areas of high
shear stress where there are inevitably high bond stresses.
Fig. 1 (taken from Reference 1) compares measured rein-
forcement stresses in a beam-column junction with those
calculated by finite element analyses assuming both infinite
and more realistic bond stiffnesses. This clearly shows how
the bar stresses computed with infinitely stiff bond fall off
far too rapidly within the column.
Ngo and Scordelis2 showed that the stiffness of the bond
connection could be incorporated in finite element analyses
by discrete springs connecting steel and concrete together at
discrete nodes. One spring parallel to a bar could model the
bond-slip stiffness, and a second spring normal to the bar
could model the much stiffer “dowel” action. Many authors
since have developed methods to represent continuous bond
stiffness along reinforcement bars. Unfortunately, this
generally increases the number of degrees of freedom in the
analysis, resulting in more costly data preparation and
computer time, particularly if a nonlinear model of bond-
slip behavior is adopted.
In a previous paper,3 the authors introduced a new method
for modeling linear bond stiffness that avoids these extra
costs by performing separate finite element analyses on the
538
TECHNICAL PAPER
concrete and reinforcement. The two solutions are brought
together by a rapidly converging iterative process yielding
the bond stresses that are the link between the steel and the
concrete. In this paper, the method is extended to represent
the bond-slip behavior by a realistic nonlinear model based
on the experimental observations of many researchers.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
This research studied the use of a nonlinear bond-slip model
in conjunction with a new method for incorporating bond
stiffness in finite element analyses of reinforced concrete
structures. Results obtained for pullout tests compare well
with experimental data and show that it is not necessary to
adopt the unlikely concept of “position-dependent” bond stiff-
ness proposed by other researchers. The method is efficient in
computing and could be adopted for practical application.
BOND-SLIP PHENOMENA
Early experimental studies of bond were concerned with
determining bond failure strengths and the influence of
surface deformations on them. Abrams4 studied the bond of
plain and deformed bars, but a later and thorough study by
Glanville5 revealed an important but much neglected effect.
He demonstrated that bond failure occurs at a higher stress
for a pushout test than for the normal pullout test. The
explanation for this is simple; the compressive axial stress
developed in the bar during a pushout test causes an increase
in bar diameter because of Poisson’s effect, which, in turn,
causes an increase in the radial pressure between bar and
concrete. Since friction is an important element in bond, this
increase in pressure leads to an increased bond strength, a
factor generally ignored but included in the authors’ model
of bond behavior described below.
Many researchers have also studied bond by performing
experiments on strain-gaged reinforcing bars embedded in a
variety of concrete specimens, e.g., Wilkins,6 Mains,7 Peattie
and Pope,8 Perry and Thompson,9 Nilson,10 and Scott and
Gill.11 In these tests, the axial strain in the bars was measured
directly but bond stresses can only be determined indirectly
ACI Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 5, September-October 1996.
Received July 17, 1995, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copy-
right © 1996, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of
copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion
will be published in the July-August 1997 ACI Structural Journal if received by
March 1, 1997.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1996
R. J. Allwood is Reader, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Technology,
Loughborough, Leicester, UK. His research interests include finite elements, inte-
grated design systems, expert systems, and the problems of representing bond in finite
element analyses of reinforced concrete structures.

ACI member Abdullah A. Bajarwan is an assistant professor of civil engineering at

King Abdul-Aziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. He obtained his PhD from Lough-
borough University of Technology. His research interests include structural analysis
and modeling.

from the results by some version of differentiation and bond-

slip by some attempt at integration. Many investigators have
concluded that there is some relative movement between bar
and concrete (bond-slip) before bond failure and some show
that it is partly recoverable upon unloading.
Dörr12 summarizes seven studies demonstrating a wide
variation in deduced bond-stress versus bond-slip relationships.
Nilson10 and Pochanart and Harmon13 appear to believe in
the unlikely effect of a different relationship applying to a
bar according to the distance from the loaded end. Since the
properties of the interface will not be different, this change
can only come from stress effects—the most obvious expla-
nation being the influence of axial strain and Poisson’s ratio,
as previously noted. Edward and Yannopoulos14 and
Nammur and Naaman15 conclude that the relationship is a
material property and, therefore, independent of location.
Another phenomena leading to changes in radial pressure
between bar and concrete is the effect of lateral stresses
acting on the concrete near reinforcement. Dörr12 deter-
mined bond-stress/bond-slip curves for specimens under
different lateral pressures showing an increase in stiffness
and ultimate bond strength. Robins and Standish16 also
showed that pullout loads increased with lateral pressure.
ASSUMED BOND-SLIP MODEL
Mathematical relationships between bond slip and bond
stress have been developed by many of the researchers
previously cited simply by fitting a curve to their results.
Being strongly influenced by the phenomenon observed by
Glanville and supported by later tests, i.e., the impact of
radial pressure between bar and concrete on bond strength,
the first author and his colleagues17 proposed a bond model
in 1982 based on a supportable physical explanation of bond.
The strength of bond is generally held to be due to the three
factors of chemical adhesion, friction, and mechanical
interlock. We assumed that the contribution of friction and
interlock is proportional to radial pressure, whereas that due
to adhesion is not. This leads to a simple linear relationship
between ultimate bond strength and radial pressure of
qu = a + μ · p r
where
qu = ultimate bond strength
a = bond strength due to adhesion
μ = “friction” coefficient
pr = radial pressure on bar
The radial pressure between bar and concrete comes from
the total effect of:
1. Pressure on the bar generated by the shrinkage of
concrete during setting.
2. Changes in diameter of the bar due to Poisson’s ratio as
axial stresses are developed in a bar.
3. Lateral confining stress in the surrounding concrete.
Fig. 1—Effect of different bond stiffnesses on finite
element stress calculations in beam-column intersection
(from Reference 1).
Rather than assuming values for Adhesion “a” and for the
radial pressure due to the shrinkage of concrete, i.e., Item (i)
previously, we preferred to replace the constant in Eq. (1) by
the bond strength qo at zero bar force and zero lateral
concrete stresses; thus, incorporating both factors in one
value. This leads to Eq. (2) illustrated on the left side of Fig. 2
in which pcr is the change in radial pressure due to loading
effects, i.e., Items (ii) and (iii) previously that may be
derived by the application of simple elasticity; details are
given in Reference 17.
qu = qo + μ · pcr (2)
The ultimate bond strength qu in a given bar under given
stresses as derived from Eq. (2) then pinpoints the maximum
value of the bond stress/slip curve shown on the right side of
Fig. 2, where qu occurs at a slip of Δu. The curve used to give
values from the origin to this high point is that proposed by
Saenz18 for concrete stress-strain behavior that allows for an
initial slope Ro, ultimate bond strength qu, and slip Δu to be
specified as independent variables. This relationship is
Ro
q = R o Δ ⁄ 1 + ⎛ ----------- Δ-⎞ + ⎛ -----
- – 2⎞ ⎛ ----- Δ-⎞ 2 (3)
⎝R ⎠ ⎝Δ ⎠ ⎝Δ ⎠
sec u u
(1)
where
q = bond stress at slip of Δ
qu = current local ultimate bond strength
Δu = slip at qu
Ro = initial slope of curve > 2Rsec
Rsec = qu/Δu
The model also assumes that when the bond stress q has
reached the ultimate bond strength value qu, q may be
reduced by a factor β to allow for the effect of slippage of the
bar relative to the concrete as bond fails locally. In principle,
β could allow for different lug patterns but this has not been
studied. Assumed values for β and other factors will be given
in the section comparing experimental and computed results.

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1996 539


Fig. 2—Bond stress-slip relationship linked to radial pressure
acting on reinforcing bar.
Fig. 3—Illustration of method of analyzing concrete and
steel separately.
Including bond in finite element analyses
problems with conventional approaches
Whether bond stiffness is represented by continuous
elements or by discrete springs, the need for pairs of extra
nodes along each bar and on the adjacent concrete greatly
increases the cost of an analysis. Some researchers, e.g.,
Phillips and Zienkiewicz,19 circumvented this problem by
“smearing” the steel into the concrete, thereby assuming an
infinitely stiff bond connection. Balakarishnan and Murray20
allowed for bond stiffness but only at the cost of a substantial
increase in the total number of degrees of freedom.
NEW APPROACH
Solving steel and concrete separately
The new approach to this problem introduced by Allwood
and Bajarwan3 allows bond stiffness to be incorporated with
very little increase in computer time over the analysis of the
concrete alone. The basis of the method is to analyze the
concrete and steel separately and then bring the two solu-
tions together by a rapidly converging iterative process that
adjusts the bond stresses linking the two components
together, as illustrated in Fig. 3.
Full details are given in the previous reference, but in
summary, we consider the stiffness equations derived from a
finite element analysis including concrete, steel, and bond
elements in which the displacement and force vectors are
subdivided to separate the steel and concrete nodes. The
stiffness equations for the steel and concrete elements can be
formed in the conventional way. The bond elements connect
steel nodes to adjacent nodes in the concrete, but the
540
displacements at these nodes can be easily expressed in
terms of the displacements of the nodes of the concrete
elements by a set of simple transformation matrices. The
resulting stiffness equations, now incorporating the bond
stiffnesses, are
⎛ ⎧ K c 0 ⎫ ⎧ K b – C t K b ⎫⎞ D c Pc
⎜⎨ ⎬+⎨ ⎬⎟ ⋅ ⎛ ⎞ = ⎛ ⎞ (4)
⎝ ⎩ 0 K s ⎭ ⎩ – K b C K b ⎭⎠ ⎝ D s ⎠ ⎝ P s ⎠
where
Kc = assembled stiffness matrix for all concrete elements
Ks = assembled stiffness matrix for all steel elements
KB = assembled matrix of all bond stiffnesses transformed
to global axes at their connections to concrete
C = assembled matrix of all of previous transformations
Kb = diagonal matrix of all bond stiffnesses in local axes
Dc,s = vectors of displacements at all concrete and steel
nodes
Pc,s = vectors of loads applied to concrete and steel nodes
An iterative solution process can be derived from the
upper and lower rows of submatrices in Eq. (4) as
i+1 i t i
Kc ⋅ Dc = Pc – ( KB ⋅ Dc – C ⋅ Kb ⋅ Ds ) (5)
i+1 i+1
( Ks + Kb ) ⋅ Ds = Ps + Kb ⋅ C ⋅ Dc (6)
It should be noted that matrix (Ks + Kb) has a half-band-
width of only 2 and that it can be created directly from details
of the reinforcement. In addition, this matrix and matrix Kc
need to be created and reduced by the Choleski method once
only at the start of a set of iterative cycles. Finally, it is not
necessary to assemble the bond matrices KB and Kb.C. Both
can be more efficiently left as a set of element-related matrices
with their contributions to Eq. (5) and (6) calculated
according to element node numbers.
Analyzing the concrete without any stiffness contribution
from the steel naturally results in over-large displacements,
but this can be automatically detected and corrected by a
damping factor that causes convergence to be very rapid;
typically five iterations are adequate.
There are many advantages to this approach. Any number
of reinforcing bars and all the shear links can be included in
an analysis with very little computer time penalty. The division
of the concrete into a mesh of finite elements can be made
without reference to the location and orientation of the bars.
The computer cost is increased over that for concrete alone
by no more than 50 percent since the iteration process
effectively creates only a few extra load cases and the main
matrix for the concrete elements has to be assembled and
reduced only once as for an analysis without steel.
Incorporating nonlinear bond stiffness model
into new numerical method
Many techniques have been developed to analyze
nonlinear problems by the finite element method. The
majority applies loads in increments and solves a sequence
of linear problems that incorporates modifications to the
stiffness of elements as stresses develop. These ideas are
discussed by Zienkiewicz21 and others.
Incorporating the nonlinear bond model into the numerical
technique previously described has proved to be very effective.
The method adopted is a combination of incremental loads
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1996
and the initial stress version of the modified Newton-
Raphson method. The basic iterative equations [Eq. (5) and
(6)] used to solve linear bond stiffness problems have been
retained but with the Newton-Raphson technique added to
adjust the result for the nonlinear bond stiffness relationship.
The method is best described by considering the steps
involved as a load increment is applied. The displacements
Dc and Ds and the resulting stresses due to all previous load
increments are known. From these, the axial stresses, lateral
stresses, and bond-slip movements can be derived for all
nodes on each reinforcement bar. If we consider those values
at one such node, we derive (from Fig. 2) the starting value
of the ultimate bond strength qu and the associated bond
stress-bond slip curve. The tangent at the current bond stress
q gives a value for the bond stiffness kb.
We now apply the load increment {Pcn, Psn }, substituting
for {Pc,Ps} in Eq. (5) and (6) and solve by the iterative
procedure previously summarized for further increments of
displacement Dc* and Ds*. From the accumulated displace-
ments (Dc + Dc*) and (Ds + Ds*), we can derive at each bond
node the latest values of bond stress q*, bond slip Δ*, axial
bar stress, and lateral concrete stress. Using Fig. 2 again, we
can derive a further change in radial stress from the axial bar
stress and the lateral concrete stress leading to a new value
for the ultimate bond strength qu* and a new bond-slip curve.
At a bond-slip of Δ*, this new nonlinear bond-slip curve Fig. 4—Iterations during 1-load increment.
gives a bond stress q1 less in value than the bond stress q*
derived from the tangent line. The difference (q* – q1) repre-
sents a residual stress not yet carried by the bond stiffness.
Residual stresses are calculated at all bond nodes, integrated
along the reinforcement and transformed to the nodes of the
concrete elements to form residual force vectors {Pc*,Ps*}.
These are now applied to the steel and concrete elements as
though they were a further load increment. The recalculation
and reapplication of residual force vectors continues until the
residual stresses are acceptably low. Fig. 4 illustrates the
process as it occurs at one bond node. Fig. 5 shows a flow
chart of the nested pair of iterative loops resulting from the
method. In its application, both loops have converged rapidly,
typically requiring only four to five repetitions.

APPLICATIONS
Two examples of the method are given, both pullout tests.
The first, on a plain steel bar, is included because strain gage
measurements on the bar were available. In the second test,
using a standard deformed reinforcing bar, only free-end slip
values were available.
The plain bar pullout test was studied by Parsons,22 both
experimentally and by a conventional nonlinear finite
element method using 6-noded bond elements. The bar
was 16 mm (0.63 in.) in diameter and was pulled out from
a 150-mm (6-in.) concrete cube. The parameters of the bond
model used for the FE analysis by the method described in
this paper are set out in Table 1, together with the corresponding
values for the deformed bar pullout described later. Values for
these bond parameters are not easily obtained. Published values Fig. 5—Flow chart of iterative method.
for the initial bond stress/slip slope [Ro in Eq. (3)] range from 50
to 1000 N/mm2 (0.18 to 3.68 ⋅ 106 psi/in.).
Greater agreement is found over the slip at ultimate bond will have after bond failure, i.e., when only a friction compo-
stress Δu and of the initial bond strength. The factor μ has nent will apply. For the deformed bar, the value is 1.0.
been estimated from the results of Robins and Standish.16 Fig. 6 shows how the axial load varies through the embedded
The parameter β, representing the reduction in bond strength length of the plain bar as measured experimentally and as
after bond failure, is not critical and has been set to 0.5 to computed. Axial load rather than axial stress has been
represent the likely reduction in bond strength a plain bar presented to illustrate how the pullout load is distributed

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1996 541


Fig. 6—Comparison of experimental and computed values
of axial force in plain 16-mm (0.63-in.) bar pullout test.
Fig. 7—Computed bond stresses for plain 16-mm (0.63-in.)
bar pullout test.
through the embedded length as bond transfers the load to
the concrete. The change in that distribution as the pullout
load increases is quite clear from the experimental results
that are partly but not completely matched by the computed
results. Fig. 7 shows the bond stresses from the computed
results (it was not possible to derive bond stresses from the
experimental values since the process of differentiation
exaggerated the errors in the readings). The distribution of
these stresses clearly shows bond failure developing from
the loaded end with the bond stress there being limited to
about 1.2 N/mm2 (175 psi). The limit is higher near the
unloaded end due to less reduction in bar diameter by
Poisson’s ratio effect.
542
Table 1—Values of parameters*
Parameter Symbol Plain bar Deformed bar
Ro 200 N/mm2/mm 300 N/mm2/mm
Initial bond modulus
(0.75 × 106 psi/in.) (1.1 × 106 psi/in.)
“Friction” coefficient μ 0.4 1.05
Δu 0.1 mm 0.1 mm
Slip at bond failure
(0.004 in.) (0.004 in.)
Reduction factor for
bond stress when β 0.5 1.0
slip > Δu
Initial bond stress qo 3 N/mm2 (435 psi) 9.5 N/mm2
(1400 psi)
*Used for computations on 16-mm (0.63-in.) plain bar and 12-mm (0.47-in.)
deformed bar (see Fig. 6 through 9).
The number of iterations needed to reduce the residual
forces to an acceptable limit increased as the pullout load
reached its maximum and the method failed to converge at a
load of 13 kN (2.9 kip-force), suggesting an ultimate pullout
value of between 12.5 and 13 kN (2.8 and 2.9 kip-force).
The second example is a pullout test on a 12-mm (0.47-in.)
diameter deformed bar described by Standish.23 The bar was
embedded in a 100-mm (4-in.) cube and the only experi-
mental readings taken were the displacements at the free end.
The bond model parameters used for the computations are
given in Table 1 and in comparison with those for the plain
bar, it will be seen that the initial bond-slip slope Ro and the
initial bond strength qo are increased due to the interlocking
of the reinforcement ribs. The factor μ is also increased
following the results of Robins and Standish16 and the factor
β set to 1 to represent no reduction in bond strength as bond
failure occurs.
Figure 8 shows a satisfactory agreement between the
experimental and computed values of the slip between the
concrete and the steel at the unloaded end of the specimen.
Bond failure occurred before the bar yielded. Figure 9 shows the
computed bond stresses through the specimen as the pullout
load increased. Just as for the plain bar, the maximum bond
strength at the loaded end is limited by the effect of the reduc-
tion in diameter of the bar due to Poisson's ratio, but the larger
value of μ enhances this effect as the load approaches failure.
CONCLUSIONS
The applications previously shown demonstrate that the
authors’ bond model produces the effect of a lower bond
stiffness at nodes near the concrete surface as reported by
Nilson10 and Pochanart and Harmon,13 not by using a bond
stiffness that depends on location, but by adjusting the bond
stiffness to the prevailing concrete and steel stress condi-
tions. The key effect is to allow for changes in bar diameter
due to Poisson’s ratio and for the impact that that has on
bond stiffness.
The analysis of a beam and column assembly designed to
ACI 318-83 specifications was presented by the authors in
Reference 3 using a linear bond and concrete model. The
problems described in this paper have used a nonlinear bond
model and a linear concrete model. Research continues and
there are no reasons why the nonlinear bond model described
and a nonlinear concrete model allowing cracks to form
should not show the bond stress reversals that take place
between cracks across reinforcement.
REFERENCES
1. Allwood, R. J., “Reinforcement Stresses in a Reinforced Concrete
Beam-Column,” Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 32, No. 112, Sept.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1996

Fig. 8—Comparison of experimental and computed values
of free-end slip of 12-mm (0.47-in.) deformed bar pullout test.
1980, pp. 143-146.
2. Ngo, D., and Scordelis, A. C., “Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced
Concrete Beams,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 64, No. 3. Mar. 1967,
pp. 152-163.
3. Allwood, R. J., and Bajarwan, A. A., “New Method for Modeling
Reinforcement and Bond in Finite Element Analyses of Reinforced Con-
crete,” International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, V. 28,
No. 4, Apr. 1989, pp. 833-844.
4. Abrams, D. A., “Test of Bond between Concrete and Steel,” University of
Illinois Bulletin, V. XI, No. 15, Paper No. 71, 1913, 238 pp.
5. Glanville, W. H., “Studies in Reinforced Concrete—Bond Resistance,”
Building Research Technical Paper 10, 1930.
6. Wilkins, R. J., “Experiments on the Load Distribution in Bond Tests,”
Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 2, No. 5, 1951, pp. 65-72.
7. Mains, R. M., “Measurement of the Distribution of Tensile and Bond
Stresses along Reinforcing Bars,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 48, No. 3,
1951, pp. 225-252.
8. Peattie, K. R., and Pope, J. A., “Tests of Bond between Concrete and
Steel,” Civil Engineering (London), V. 51, No. 596, 1956, pp. 181-184.
Also, No. 597, pp. 314-316.
9. Perry, E. S., and Thompson, J. N., “Bond Stress Distribution in
Reinforcing Steel in Beams and Pullout Specimens,” ACI JOURNAL,
Proceedings V. 63, No. 8, Aug. 1966, pp. 865-875.
10. Nilson, A. H., “Nonlinear Analysis of Reinforced Concrete by the
Finite Element Method,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 65, No. 9, Sept.
1968, pp. 757-766.
11. Scott, R. H., and Gill, P. A. T., “Short-Term Distributions of Strain
and Bond Stress along Tension Reinforcement,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, V. 65B(2) June 1987, pp. 39-43.
12. Dörr, K., “Bond Behavior of Ribbed Reinforcement under Transversal
Pressure,” Proceedings of the International Association on Spatial Struc-
ture, Symposium on Nonlinear Behavior of RC Shell Structures, V. 1,
Dormstadt, Germany, July, 1978.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 1996
Fig. 9—Computed bond stresses for deformed 12-mm (0.47-in.)
bar pullout test.
13. Pochanart, S., and Harmon, T., “Bond-Slip Model for Generalized
Excitations Including Fatigue,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 86, No. 5, Sept.-
Oct. 1989, pp. 465-474.
14. Edwards, A. D., and Yannopoulos, P. J., “Local Bond-Stress to Slip
Relationships for Hot-Rolled Deformed Bars and Mild Steel Plain Bars,”
ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 76, No. 3, May-June 1979, pp. 405-420.
15. Nammur, J. G., and Naaman, A. E., “Bond Stress Model for Fiber
Reinforced Concrete Based on Bond-Slip Relationship,” ACI Materials
Journal, V. 86, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1989, pp. 45-57.
16. Robins, P. J., and Standish, I. G., “Effect of Lateral Pressure on the
Bond of Round Reinforcing Bars in Concrete,” Proceedings, International
Conference of Bond in Concrete, Paisley, June 1982, pp. 262-272.
17. Allwood, R. J.; Parsons, S. D.; and Robins, P. J., “New Bond Model
for Reinforced Concrete,” Proceedings, International Conference on
Computer-Aided Analysis and Design of Concrete Structures, Sept. 1984,
pp. 215-230.
18. Saenz, L. P., Discussion of “Equation for the Stress-Strain Curve of
Concrete,” by P. Desayi and S. Krishman, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 61,
No. 9, Sept. 1964, pp. 1229-1235.
19. Phillips, D. V., and Zienkiewicz, O. C., “Finite Element Nonlinear
Analysis of Concrete Structures—Part 2,” Proceedings, Institute of Civil
Engineers, V. 61, 1976, pp. 59-88.
20. Balakarishnan, S., and Murray, D. W., “Prediction of Response of
Concrete Beams and Panels by Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis,” Pro-
ceedings, IABSE Colloquium, Complete Mechanics of Concrete Struc-
tures, Delft University Press, 1987, pp. 393-404.
21. Zienkiewicz, O. C., Finite Element Method, 4th Edition, McGraw
Hill, London, 1989.
22. Parsons, S. D., “Representations of Bond in Finite Element Analy-
ses of Reinforced Concrete Structures,” PhD thesis, Loughborough Uni-
versity of Technology, Leicester, UK, 1984.
23. Standish, I. G., “Effect of Lateral Pressure on Anchorage Bond in
Lightweight Aggregate Concrete,” PhD thesis, Loughborough University
of Technology, Leicester, UK, 1982, 256 pp.
24. Lutz, L. A., “Analysis of Stresses in Concrete near a Reinforcing
Bar Due to Bond and Transverse Cracking,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V.
64, No. 11, Nov. 1967, pp. 711-721.
543