Structures 28 (2020) 1580–1588

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Design and reliability analysis of FRP-reinforced concrete columns

Ahmad Tarawneh a, *, Sereen Majdalaweyh b
a
Civil Engineering Department, Hashemite University, Zarqa, Jordan
b
Glenn Department of Civil Engineering, Clemson University, Lowry Hall, SC 2963, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: ACI 440-15 does not provide design provisions for columns and requires ignoring the compression contribution
FRP-Reinforced columns of FRP bars. However, this paper provides a design recommendation to include FRP bars’ compression for more
Compressive contribution accurate predictions. The compressive contribution is included by limiting the strain to 0.002 for compression
Reliability analysis
bars. This recommendation is valid for circular and rectangle columns subjected to concentric and eccentric
Monte Carlo Simulation
GFRP
loading. This paper supports the design recommendation by reliability analyses using Monte Carlo simulations.
CFRP The analyses are based on the results of 194 column tests surveyed from literature. The analysis has been
conducted for a wide range of live to dead load ratios. Generally, the results show that FRP-reinforced columns
exhibit an acceptable levels of reliability index. Additionally, the reliability index was not sensitive to rein­
forcement ratio, eccentricity level, or concrete strength. However, the results show that CFRP columns have a
higher reliability index than GFRP columns. Consequently, a lower strength reduction factor for GFRP bars can
be utilized to achieve a consistent safety level.

1. Introduction
Reinforced concrete structural elements in harsh corrosive environ­
ments, especially bridges, suffer from deterioration because of rein­
forcing steel corrosion [1]. The cost of replacing or repairing
deteriorated reinforced concrete elements can be considerably high.
Consequently, Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) bars have emerged as a
promising alternative of conventional steel reinforcing bars for their
advantageous properties; primarily corrosion resistance. In addition, the
use of FRP reinforcing bars possess electromagnetic transparency that
makes them suitable for structures with magnetic resonance imaging
units [2]. While, FRP bars comprise of aligned fibers made of glass fibers
(GFRP), carbon fibers (CFRP), and Aramid fibers (AFRP). FRP bars have
an elastic brittle stress–strain curve [3] with an elastic modulus of 20 to
25 percent of steel elastic modulus for GFRP, 60 to 80 percent for CFRP,
and 20 to 60 percent for AFRP. The ultimate tensile strength range be­
tween 413 and 2070 MPa (60 to 300 ksi) [3].
Tracing the roots of the research conductions in the 1990 s, an
extensive experimental and analytical research works have been con­
ducted to investigate the flexural and shear behavior of FRP-reinforced
flexural concrete elements [3–4]. The research studies formed the FRP-
reinforced flexural design guidelines (ACI 440.1R-15 [5], CAN/CSA
S806-12 [6]for engineers. Consequently, FRP bars have been wildly used
in bridges’ decks and girders [4]. However, these design guidelines do
not provide provisions of using FRP for compression resistance and
require ignoring the contribution of FRP compression reinforcement in
beams, and columns. The reason behind such requirements is the com­
bined effect of the lower FRP elastic modulus and strength in
compression compared to the elastic modulus and strength in tension
[7]. This results in a small contribution of FRP bars in compression at
ultimate concrete strain (εcu = 0.003) [5].
Over the years, several research works attempted to improve the
understanding of FRP bars behavior in compression zones. Studies
showed that including the FRP compression contribution in the analysis
can result in a better prediction for the capacity, while neglecting the
contribution of FRP bars in compression leads to additional conserva­
tism [8–11]. Different design recommendations were suggested to
include the FRP bars compression contribution in concentrically loaded
columns. Afifi et al., [12] and Tobbi et al., [13] recommended including
the compression strength of GFRP bars equals to 0.35 of the tensile
strength, which would improve the accuracy of predicted nominal
compressive strength of GFRP-reinforced circular and rectangular col­
umns. Tobbi et al. reported that FRP bars contributed 10% of the column
capacity which is close to steel bars contribution of 12%. Mohamed
et al., [14] tested 14 full scale FRP-reinforced circular columns and
proposed to limit the FRP bars strain in compression to the initiation of

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ahmadn@hu.edu.jo (A. Tarawneh), smajdal@g.clemson.edu (S. Majdalaweyh).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.10.009
Received 2 August 2020; Received in revised form 28 September 2020; Accepted 6 October 2020
Available online 13 October 2020
2352-0124/© 2020 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Tarawneh and S. Majdalaweyh Structures 28 (2020) 1580–1588

Table 1
Concentrically loaded columns data.
Reference No. of specimens b × h or Dia., mm f’c, MPa FRP type Ef, GPa ρf %
Afifi et al. [12] 9 300 42.9 GFRP 55.4 1.1–3.2
De Luca et al. [16] 4 610 × 610 33–43.7 GFRP 44.2–44.4 1
Elchalakani and Ma [17] 3 260 × 160 32.75 GFRP 46.3 1.83
Elchalakani et al. [18] 3 260 × 160 26 GFRP 46.3 2.37
Hadhood et al. [19] 1 305 35 CFRP 141 2.17
Hadhood et al. [10] 2 305 70.2 GFRP 54.9 2.18–3.27
Hadi and Youssef [20] 1 210 × 210 33 GFRP 67.9 1.15
Khorramian and Sadeghian [8] 2 150 × 150 37 GFRP 41.2 5.36
Mohammad et al. [14] 9 300 42.9 CFRP 55.4–140 1.79,2.24
Othman et al. [21] 5 150 × 150 44.7 CFRP 145–151 1.4–3.6
Tobbi et al. [13] 5 350 × 350 32.6 GFRP 47.6–48.2 1.87, 1.95
Xue et al. [11] 3 300 × 300 39 GFRP 39 1.34

plastic deformation in the concrete of 0.002 to provide more accurate
results. Despite the fact that the ultimate limit state of the strain of the
concrete is equal to 0.003 according to ACI code and 0.0035 according
to the Canadian code. Mohamed et al. concluded that the use of FRP bars
as lateral confinement (spiral and hoops) was effective in confining
concrete. Guérin et al. [9] reported that the FRP-reinforced column’s
strength and contribution of FRP bars were significantly affected by the
eccentricity level. The study reported FRP bars contribution of 3%, 5%,
and 13% of the peak load for specimens with low eccentricity (0.1–0.2
h), medium eccentricity (0.4 h), and high eccentricity (0.8 h) respec­
tively, where h is the column dimension perpendicular to the axis of
bending. The study also indicates that the behavior of steel and FRP-
reinforced columns were similar under same eccentricity level. The
conclusions were based on testing 12 full-scale GFRP-reinforced
columns.
Several studies investigated the behavior and design of rectangle and
circular columns under eccentric loading. Xue et al. [11] investigated
the behavior of slender FRP-reinforced columns using experimental and
finite element analysis. They found that the behavior of FRP reinforced
columns are similar to steel reinforced columns but with less contribu­
tion for FRP bars. Additionally, it was concluded that the failure was not
triggered by the rupture of tensile FRP bars, rather by concrete crushing
even for columns with low reinforcement ratio and high eccentricity
level. Choo et al., [15] developed an analytical approach to investigate
the axial-bending interaction diagrams for FRP-reinforced concrete
columns. Choo et al. concluded that rectangle FRP reinforced columns
with reinforcement ratio between 1% and 8% do not exhibit balance
points unlike steel reinforced columns. This is due to the well-defined
yielding point for steel bars, unlike FRP bars where the behavior re­
mains linear elastic until failure. Their study also indicated that ignoring
FRP bars contribution leads to conservatism.
Including FRP bar contribution in compression zones has to be
investigated through the state-of-the-art Load and Resistance Factor
Design (LRFD) methodology, which targets a certain reliability level by
calibrating load and resistance factors. Limited research has been done
to find the reliability indices for column design: Peng et al., [4] con­
ducted a detailed reliability analysis for rectangular short eccentric
columns in order to calibrate the strength reduction factor for short
columns. Two methodologies for reliability analysis were used in this
study; first-order second moment and Monte Carlo simulation, followed
by sensitivity analysis. They concluded that including FRP compression
contribution results in accurate prediction and avoid high conservatism.
Additionally, the study showed that the reliability index was not sensi­
tive to the eccentricity ratio or concrete strength but was sensitive to the
live to dead load ratio expressed as D/(D + L). This study aimed to
achieve a uniform reliability index of 4.0 by recommending a strength
reduction factor of 0.6 for columns with axial stiffness less than or equal
2 GPa (290 ksi), and 0.65 for those with axial stiffness more than 4 GPa
(580 ksi), with linear interpolation in the transition region between the
two.
As mentioned earlier, design codes do not provide provisions
regarding FRP reinforced columns neither reliability-based calibration.
Accordingly, this study presents a general design procedure and LRFD
based reliability analysis for circular and rectangular FRP-reinforced
columns under concentrically and eccentrically loading. The design
procedure and reliability analysis are based on large experimental data
of circular and rectangle columns under eccentric and concentric
loading. The reliability analysis was conducted using LRFD based Monte
Carlo simulation.
2. Research significance
Currently, design codes do not provide design provisions for FRP-
reinforced concrete columns and require ignoring the compressive
contribution of FRP bars. This study will assess researchers in updating
ACI-440 design provisions by presenting design guidelines supported by

Table 2
Eccentrically loaded rectangle columns data.
Reference No. of specimens b × h mm f’c, MPa FRP type Ef, GPa ρf % e/h

Elchalakani and Ma [17] 4 260 × 160 32.8 GFRP 46.3 1.83 0.16–0.22
Elchalakani et al. [18] 6 260 × 160 26 GFRP 46.3 2.37 0.16–0.5
Gong and Zhang [22] 10 180 × 250 24,29 CFRP 139 0.46, 0.9 0.1–1.44
Guérin [22] 8 405 × 405 42.3 GFRP 48.2–53.3 1.1 0.1–0.8
Guérin [23] 8 405 × 405 42.3 GFRP 54.4 1.39–2.47 0.1–0.8
Hadi and Youssef [20] 2 210 × 210 33 GFRP 67.9 1.15 0.12–0.24
Issa et al. [24] 2 150 × 150 24.7 GFRP 32.7 2.01 0.16,0.33
Khorramian and Sadeghian [8] 6 150 × 150 37 GFRP 39 5.33 0.1–0.3
Khorramian and Sadeghian [25] 1 305 × 203 48 GFRP 46 4.7 0.25
Othman et al. [21] 10 150 × 150 44.7 CFRP 145–151 1.4–3.6 0.5,1
salah Eldin et al. [26] 4 400 × 400 71.2 GFRP 62.7 1 0.2–0.6
Sharbatdar [27] 5 230 × 230 54.1 CFRP 147 0.38 0.26, 0.33
Sun et al. [28] 9 180 × 250 26.8 GFRP 92.4 1.05 0.3–0.7
Tikka et al. [29] 8 150 × 150 35.7 GFRP 53 2.3, 3.4 0.2–0.8
Xue et al. [11] 12 300 × 300 29–55.2 GFRP 39–44 1.3–2.6 0.2–1

1581
A. Tarawneh and S. Majdalaweyh Structures 28 (2020) 1580–1588

LRFD based reliability analysis to evaluate the safety level. The result
shows that including the compressive contribution of FRP bars will
result in more accurate results with an acceptable safety level.
3. Experimental data
Proposing a dependable design recommendation for the use of FRP
bars in columns requires conducting analytical and reliability assess­
ment using a wide range of experimental data. Accordingly, experi­
mental data of FRP-RC columns under concentric and eccentric loading
has been collected. The experimental data is divided into three cate­
gories: concentrically loaded columns (Table 1), eccentrically loaded
rectangle column (Table 2), and eccentrically loaded circular columns
(Table 3). The data comprises FRP-RC column subjected to both
concentric and eccentric loading with respect to most influential pa­
rameters including: concrete strength (f’c, MPa), reinforcement ratio (ρf
%), FRP elastic modulus (Ef), eccentricity level (e/h), and column size
defined by the dimensions of the cross sectional area: width (b) and
height (h) of rectangular columns, and the diameter (D) for circular
columns. Concentrically loaded columns data comprises 47 tests of both
rectangle and circular columns, while eccentrically loaded rectangle
columns and circular columns data comprises 95 tests and 52 tests,
respectively. In addition, the collected data included both GFRP and
CFRP reinforced columns.

Table 3
Eccentrically loaded circular columns data.
Reference No. of specimens Dia, mm f’c, MPa FRP type Ef, GPa ρf % e/h

Hadhood [30] 36 305 35, 70.2 GFRP 54.9 2.18, 3.27 0.08–0.66
Hadhood [31] 8 305 35, 70.3 CFRP 141 2.18 0.08–0.66
Hadi et al. [32] 4 205 37 GFRP 50 2.3 0.08–0.163
Hadi et al. [33] 4 210 85 GFRP 52 2.19 0.12–0.24

Fig. 1. Effect of FRP compression bars contribution in predicting axial capacity of concentrically loaded columns: (a) neglecting FRP bars contribution; (b) including
FRP bars contribution (Note: 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa).
1582
A. Tarawneh and S. Majdalaweyh Structures 28 (2020) 1580–1588

Table 4 predicting the capacity of concentrically and eccentrically loaded

Statistics for investigated cases in predicting axial capacity of FRP-reinforced columns.
columns. ( )
Po = 0.85f ’c Ag − Af + 0.002Ef Af (3)
Concentrically loaded columns

Case Axial Capacity Formula Average Pexp/ COV RMSE The effectiveness of including FRP bars compressive contribution to
Pth (%) the nominal axial capacity is studied using the ratio of experimental
1
(
Po = 0.85f’c Ag − Af
)
1.15 9.55 476 loading capacity to the analytical axial loading capacity calculated from
2
( )
1.06 9.06 306
the aforementioned equations (Pexp/Pth). When the ratio is closer to
Po = 0.85f’c Ag − Af + 0.002Ef Af
unity means more accurate prediction of nominal capacity. Fig. 1 pre­
Eccentrically loaded rectangular columns
Case Case Description Average Pexp/ COV RMSE sents the relationship of this ratio with respect to concrete strength, FRP
Pth (%) elastic modulus, and reinforcement ratio if the FRP contribution is
1 Neglect FRP in compression, Subtract 1.08 14.7 165 neglected (Fig. 1 (a)), and if the FRP contribution is included (Fig. 1 (b))
FRP area
in concentrically loaded columns. The ratio (Pexp/Pth) values are more
2 Include FRP, fFRP = εEf ; ε < 0.002 1.01 13.7 154
scattered and higher in Fig. 1 (a) compared with ratio values Fig. 1 (b),
Eccentrically loaded circular columns
Case Case Description Average Pexp/ COV RMSE
which indicates that including FRP contribution in axially loaded col­
Pth (%) umns results in a more accurate prediction. Also, Pexp/Pth values do not
1 Neglect FRP in compression, subtract 1.05 12.8 224 follow a certain trend with respect to different parameters.
FRP area In order to further understand the effect of FRP contribution in
2 Include FRP, fFRP = εEf < 0.002 0.99 10.0 157
nominal axial capacity, different statistics figures are calculated (mean,
Coefficient of Variance (COV), and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)) for
the three categories: concentrically loaded columns; eccentrically
4. Nominal resistance
loaded rectangular columns; and finally, eccentrically loaded circular
columns. Neglecting FRP compression contribution to the nominal axial
The nominal axial capacity of concentrically loaded short columns
capacity results in higher COV and higher (Pexp/Pth) values. A similar
reinforced with mild steel longitudinal bars can be computed by sum­
conclusion is drawn for eccentrically rectangle and circular columns as
ming the contribution of the concrete and steel in compression. At the
shown in Table 4.
ultimate limit state, the steel bars yield (i.e. εsteel ≥ 0.002) and the col­
The axial capacity of eccentrically loaded rectangular columns can
umn capacity can be computed as shown in Eq. (1). The ACI-440 and
be computed by establishing two basic equilibrium equations: the sum of
CAN/CSA S806 state that the contribution of FRP reinforcement should
vertical forces equals to zero (Eq. (4)), and the sum of moments about
be neglected in compression. Based on this recommendation, the nom­
tension reinforcement equals to zero (Eq. (5)) as illustrated in Fig. 2. The
inal axial capacity of FRP-RC columns can be computed as given in Eq.
solution of these equilibrium equations can be iterative by assuming a
(2) which ignores the FRP contribution completely.
( ) value for the depth of neutral axis ‘c’ that satisfy Eq. (4) and (5),
Po = 0.85f ’c Ag − As + As fy (1)
Po − C c − C s + T = 0 (4)
( )
Po = 0.85f ’c Ag − Af (2) 1[ ( a) ]
Po = ’
Cc d − + Cs (d − d’ ) = 0 (5)
e 2
where, Po is the nominal axial capacity, Ag is the columns’ gross area, Af
is the area of FRP bars, Ef is the elastic modulus of FRP bars. where: Cc is the compression force in concrete (Cc = 0.85f’c ab); Cs is the
( ( ))
In the surveyed literature, several researchers suggested including compression force in compression bars Cs = A’ s f ’ s − 0.85f ’ c ; T is the
the FRP effect in nominal axial capacity through different approaches. tension force in tension bars (T = As fs ); fs is compressive stress in
One approach is to obtain the stress in the FRP bars by assuming a linear ( )
compression bars (f ’ s = ε’ t E); e’ is the applied load moment arm; d − 2a
stress–strain relationship (i.e. σ FRP = Ef × ε) and limiting the strain to
0.002 (Eq. (3)). is the concrete compression force moment arm; (d − d’ ) = bars
In this study, limiting the strain to 0.002 criteria will be utilized in compressive force moment arm (refer to Fig. 2 for variables definitions).

Fig.2. Equilibrium of forces at ultimate limit states in eccentrically loaded columns.

1583
A. Tarawneh and S. Majdalaweyh
Fig. 3. Normalized Pexp and Pth for all surveyed data based on limiting FRP strain to 0.002.
Alternatively, the analysis can be reduced into one cubic equation to
be solved directly in the form of Eq. (6), assuming compression-
controlled failure. The values A, B, C, D are calculated then ‘a’ value
can be determined and substituted in Eq. (5) to estimate the nominal
axial capacity (refer to Fig. 2 for variables definitions).
Aa3 + Ba2 + Ca + D = 0
Where
0.85f ’ c b
A=
2
B = 0.85f ’ c b(e’ − d)
C = A’ s (f ’ s − 0.85f ’ c )(e’ − d + d’ ) + 0.003EA’ s e’
D = 0.003EAs e’ β1 d
The stress in the compression FRP bars can be computed using strain
compatibility as in Eq. (7). In addition, the contribution of the FRP in
compression can be either neglected as recommended by design codes or
limited by specific stain value (e.g., 0.002) similar to concentrically
loaded columns. In the analysis, the compression elastic modulus of FRP
is assumed to equal the tensile modulus of elasticity, [34–35] unless the
compressive elastic modulus is reported in the study. However, the re­
ported compressive elastic modulus in the literature is within a 6%
difference in the tensile elastic modulus.
Structures 28 (2020) 1580–1588
( )
c − d’
ε’t = 0.003 (7)
c
The analysis of circular columns has been conducted utilizing
sectional analysis, where the cross section is divided into layers and
analyzed using strain compatibility. The analysis was conducted using
(6)
Response-2000 software [36].
Fig. 3 shows the normalized experimental versus the analytical ca­
pacity for FRP columns under concentric, eccentric loading, and com­
bined data. FRP bars’ contribution has been added with a 0.002 strain
limit. There is a good agreement between experimental and analytical
values with a low COV for all loading cases and a maximum error margin
of 30%.
5. Proposed reliability analysis
The level of safety in FRP-reinforced concrete columns is assessed by
calculating the probability of failure, and the reliability index. The
reliability index represents the number of standard deviations between
zero and the mean of the (Resistance – Demand) distribution. The
probability of failure and the safety index is calculated according to Eq.
(8) and Eq. (9) for normal distributions. Where Pf is the probability of
failure, Φ is cumulative distribution function, β is the reliability index,
μR and μL are the mean of the resistance and load, respectively, σR and σ L
are the standard deviation of the resistance and load, respectively.
1584
A. Tarawneh and S. Majdalaweyh Structures 28 (2020) 1580–1588

1) Start with assuming a dead load distribution with a mean of one.

Szerszen et al., [38] reported that dead load exhibit normal distri­
bution with bias and COV of 1.05 and 0.1, respectively. The nominal
live load mean is determined based on the selected live to dead load
(L/D) ratio. Szerszen et al., [38] reported that live load exhibit
extreme type I distribution with bias and COV of 1.00 and 0.18,
respectively. The actual mean equal nominal mean multiplied by the
bias.

Extreme type I distribution is also known as Gumbel distribution.

Extreme type I distribution is used to model the maximum (or the
minimum) of a number of samples of various distributions.

2) The nominal resistance distribution is computed using the LRFD

equation (Eq. (10)). The nominal resistance mean is equal to factored
load (using the controlling load combination) divided by strength
reduction factor similar to steel reinforced columns of (0.65). The
bias and COV of the resistance distribution are calculated from the
surveyed experimental data.

Fig.4. Cumulative distribution function for the resistance model fitted to a

normal distribution.

Pf = Φ(β) (8)
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
β = μR − μL / σ 2R + σ2L (9)

The current design practices for concrete accept a reliability index

between 3.0 and 3.5 for ductile failures and between 3.5 and 4 for brittle
and sudden failures [3]. Several reliability assessment methodologies
can be used to calculate β such as First-order Second Moment (FOSM)
method, or Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS).
In this paper a modified methodology of Farrow et al., [39] is
adopted to overcome different shortcomings in Farrow et al. reliability
assessment; which are: 1) assuming normal distribution for the demand
and capacity parameters; 2) considering live load only in the demand
model; 3) small number of simulations (10,000) were performed in the
MCS which might not guarantee convergence, thus it will give inaccu­
rate β values. Accordingly, to overcome these deficiencies this study
utilizes a more realistic distributions load and resistance, considering
live and dead load with a range of live to dead load ratios, consider two
load combinations, and a higher number of simulations (up to 109)
which ensures convergence is performed. The simulations have been
conducted using script loaded supercomputer. Fig. 6. Number of simulations versus the reliability index and probability of
The procedure of the reliability assessment used in this study is failure, the red line refers to the mean value. (For interpretation of the refer­
illustrated as follows: ences to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.)

Fig. 5. Illustrative diagram for determining loads and resistance distributions (for L/D ratio of 3).

1585
A. Tarawneh and S. Majdalaweyh Structures 28 (2020) 1580–1588

Fig.7. Reliability index of FRP reinforced concrete columns versus load ratio with respect to dataset, reinforcement ratio, concrete strength, eccentricity level, and
FRP type.

1586
A. Tarawneh and S. Majdalaweyh Structures 28 (2020) 1580–1588

{
1.4PD eccentricity level as the failure mode change from compression-
max ≤ ∅Rn (10)
1.2PD + 1.6PL controlled to tension-controlled [4] while in FRP-reinforced columns
compression-controlled failure only was considered. Similar findings
can be found in Fei Peng et al. [4] reporting no effect of eccentricity level
3) Kolmorgorov-Smirnov (KS) test [37] is performed for the resistance
on the reliability index.
model to examine if the resistance data are normally distributed, by
In addition, the analysis results show some variation in reliability
comparing the maximum absolute error between resistance Cumu­
index with respect to concrete strength. However, the reliability index
lative Distribution Function (CDF) and the CDF values of fitted
exceeds 3.5 and does not show significant change or trend with respect
normal distribution which is referred to as KS with the area of
to concrete strength. On the other hand. Fig. 7e shows the reliability
rejection which is called as KScritical. Fig. 4 shows the cumulative
index for CFRP and GFRP reinforced columns. GFRP-reinforced col­
distribution function for the resistance model fitted to a normal
umns; with FRP elastic modulus generally ranges from 30 to 70 GPa,
distribution for a significance level of 0.05, where KS (0.049) is less
exhibit lower reliability index compared to CFRP reinforced columns;
than KS critical of 0.097, which proves the normality of the resis­
with FRP elastic modulus ranges from 139 to 151 GPa.
tance model.
In summary, the results show an acceptable level of safety for FRP-
reinforced columns under concentric and eccentric loading. In addi­
Measurements of live loads in building codes are generally higher
tion, a consistent level of reliability is maintained for investigated pa­
than what the building actually experiences. For example, building
rameters except for FRP type. To account for the change in reliability
codes specify a live load at the 95 percentile for offices [39]. This means
based on FRP type; different strength reduction factor for GFRP rein­
the design load is higher than or equal to 95 percent of the observed live
forced columns is proposed. Fig. 7f shows reliability index based on FRP
loads. This value corresponds to 1.325 for live load extreme type I dis­
type with strength reduction factor of 0.6 for GFRP reinforced columns
tribution. Fig. 5 presents a simple illustrative diagram of the adopted
to achieve more consistent safety level.
procedure assuming (L/D) ratio of three.
6. Conclusions
4) With three distributions determined, MCS is performed for a wide
range of simulations starting with 100 to 2 billion, to reach the
The study provides design recommendation and reliability analysis
optimal number of simulations. Then the limit state function in Eq.
for FRP-reinforced columns under concentric and eccentric loading, the
(11) is used to find the probability of failure at each simulation.
following conclusions have pertained:
Where R is the ultimate capacity for the column, PD and PL are dead
and live loads, respectively.
1- Including the compressive contribution of FRP bars in columns
G = R − PD − P L (11) provides more accurate capacity predictions compared to ignoring
their contribution. The contribution can be included by limiting the
A negative value for G function represents a failure state while a safe
strain of compression bars to 0.002. This recommendation is valid for
state otherwise. The probability of failure is calculated by dividing the
circular and rectangular columns under eccentric and concentric
frequency for which the G function present failure state by the total
loading. Including the FRP bars contribution resulted in an average
number of simulations.
increase in capacity of 8% for both concentrically and eccentrically
The reliability analysis has been conducted for a range of L/D from
loaded columns and up to 17%.
0 to 4. The live to dead ratio is usually expressed by the term D/(D + L).
2- The reliability analysis for concentrically loaded columns, rectan­
The adopted range of L/D ratio corresponds to D/(D + L) ratio from 0.2
gular columns under eccentric loading, and circular columns under
to 1. The most probable load ratios D/(D + L) for columns are with the
eccentric loading provides reliability index β higher than 3.5 for a
range from 0.4 to 0.9 [40]. Reliability index β is evaluated using Eq. (8).
probable range of load.
3- Reliability index was not sensitive to changes in reinforcement ratio
5) A convergence study has been conducted for each simulation. Fig. 6
or eccentricity level. However, the reliability index exhibited some
presents a sample of the convergence study that shows the rela­
fluctuations with concrete strength but with no apparent trend.
tionship between the number of simulations versus Pf and β, it can be
4- CFRP-reinforced columns (E = 139 to 151 GPa) exhibited higher
noticed that the optimal number of simulations for this sample is 10
reliability index compared to GFRP-reinforced column (E = 30 to 70
million simulations.
GPa). To achieve consistent reliability level, a 0.6 strength reduction
factor can be used for columns with GFRP compared to 0.65 for
Fig. 7a presents the reliability index for each data set as a function of
columns with CFRP bars.
D/(D + L). For the probable range of load, the columns exhibit reliability
index higher than 3.5. It also can be noted how reliability index is
affected by the COV where the data with the lowest COV has a higher Declaration of Competing Interest
reliability index and vice versa. In addition, the figure shows a trend of
decreasing in reliability index with D/(D + L) ratio of 0.88. This change The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
is due to switching in the controlling load combination (Eq. (10)). A interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
similar finding was also observed in steel-RC members [38,40] and FRP- the work reported in this paper.
reinforced members [4].
To investigate the column properties’ effect on the reliability index, References
the reliability analysis discussed above has been conducted after sorting
data based on reinforcement ratio, concrete strength, eccentricity level, [1] Soltani M, Safiey A, Brennan A. A State-of-the-Art Review of Bending and Shear
Behaviors of Corrosion-Damaged Reinforced Concrete Beams. Struct J 2019;116
and FRP type. Fig. 7b, 7c, 7d show the reliability index for different (3).
reinforcement ratios, concrete strengths, and eccentricity levels with [2] De Luca, A.; Matta, F.; and Nanni, A., “Behavior of Full-Scale Glass Fiber-
respect to load ratio. It can be noted from Fig. 7b and Fig. 7d that the Reinforced Polymer Reinforced Concrete Columns under Axial Load,” ACI Struct J,
107, (5), Sept.-Oct. 2010, pp. 589-596.
reliability index was not affected significantly by the reinforcement ratio
[3] Wight JK. Reinforced concrete mechanics and design. 7th edition. Hoboken, New
nor eccentricity level. The results indicate a reliability index exceeds 3.5 Jersey: Pearson Education Inc; 2016. p. 07030.
in all figures for the probable load range for columns. It should be noted [4] Peng F, Xue W. Reliability Analysis of Eccentrically Loaded Concrete Rectangular
Columns Reinforced with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars. ACI Struct J 2019;116
that steel reinforced columns’ reliability is highly affected by the
(4):275–84.

1587
A. Tarawneh and S. Majdalaweyh
[5] ACI Committee 440, 2015, “Guide for the Design and Construction of Structural
Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars (ACI 440.1R-15),” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, pp. 83.
[6] Canadian Standards Association (CSA), 2012, “Design and Construction of Building
Components with Fiber Reinforced Polymers (CAN/CSAS806-12),” CSA Group,
Rexdale, ON, Canada, pp. 208.
[7] Kobayashi, K., Fijisaki, T., Compressive behavior of FRP reinforcement in non-
prestresses concrete members. Proceedings of the Second International RILEM
Symposium on Non-metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures
(FRPRCS-2). Ghent, Belgium; 1995: pp. 267-274.
[8] Khorramian K, Sadeghian P. Experimental and Analytical Behavior of Short
Concrete Columns Reinforced with GFRP Bars under Eccentric Loading. Eng Struct
2017;151.
[9] Guérin M, Mohamed HM, Benmokrane B, Nanni A, Shield CK. Eccentric Behavior
of Full-Scale Reinforced Concrete Columns with Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
Bars and Ties. ACI Struct J 2018;115(2):489–99. https://doi.org/10.14359/
51701107.
[10] Hadhood A, Mohamed HM, Benmokrane B. Axial Load-Moment Interaction
Diagram of Circular Concrete Columns Reinforced with CFRP Bars and Spirals:
Experimental and Theoretical Investigations. J Compos Construct, ASCE 2017;21
(2):04016092. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000748.
[11] Xue W, Peng F, Fang Z. Behavior and Design of Slender Rectangular Concrete
Columns Longitudinally Reinforced with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars. ACI Struct
J 2018;115(2):311–22. https://doi.org/10.14359/51701131.
[12] Afifi MZ, Mohamed HM, Benmokrane B. Axial Capacity of Circular Concrete
Columns Reinforced with GFRP Bars and Spirals. J Compos Constr 2014;18(1):
04013017. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000438.
[13] Tobbi, Hany, Farghaly, Ahmed Sabry, & Benmokrane, Brahim. Concrete Columns
Reinforced Longitudinally and Transversally with Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer
Bars. ACI Struct J ; 2012: 109(4). Doi: 10.14359/51683874.
[14] Mohamed HM, Afifi MZ, Benmokrane B. Performance Evaluation of Concrete
Columns Reinforced Longitudinally with FRP Bars and Confined with FRP Hoops
and Spirals under Axial Load. J Bridge Eng 2014;19(7):04014020. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000590.
[15] Choo, C.C., Harik, I. E., Gesund, H., Strength of Rectangular Concrete Columns
Reinforced with Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars. ACI Struct J, 103 (3), May-June;
2006: p. 452-459.
[16] De Luca, A., Matta, F., Nanni, A., Behavior of Full-Scale Glass Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer Reinforced Concrete Columns under Axial Load. ACI Struct J, 107, (5),
Sept.-Oct; 2010, pp. 589-596.
[17] Elchalakani M, Ma G. Tests of Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer Rectangular
Concrete Columns Subjected to Concentric and Eccentric Axial Loading. Eng Struct
2017;151:93–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.08.023.
[18] Elchalakani, M., Karrech, A., Dong, M., Ali, M., Yang, B., Experiments and Finite
Element Analysis of GFRP Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete Rectangular Columns
Subjected to Concentric and Eccentric Axial Loading. Structures, 14; 2018: pp. 273-
289. doi: 10.1016/j.istruc.2018.04.001.
[19] Hadhood A, Mohamed HM, Benmokrane B. Experimental study of circular high-
strength concrete columns reinforced with GFRP bars and spirals under concentric
and eccentric loading. J Compos Constr 2017;21(2).
[20] Hadi MN, Youssef J. Experimental investigation of GFRP-reinforced and GFRP-
encased square concrete specimens under axial and eccentric load, and four-point
bending test. J Compos Constr 2016;20(5).
1588
Structures 28 (2020) 1580–1588
[21] Othman, Z.S. Mohammad, A.H., 2019. Behaviour of Eccentric Concrete Columns
Reinforced with Carbon Fibre-Reinforced Polymer Bars. Adv Civil Eng; 2019.
[22] Gong Y, Zhang J. “Experimental Study of Reinforced Concrete Eccentric
Compression Columns with CFRP Tendons. China Civ Eng J 2009;42(10):46–52.
https://doi.org/10.15951/j.tmgcxb.2009.10.012. in Chinese.
[23] Guérin M, Mohamed HM, Benmokrane B, Shield CK, Nanni A. Effect of Glass Fiber-
Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement Ratio on Axial-Flexural Strength of Reinforced
Concrete Columns. ACI Struct J 2018;115(R4):1049–61. https://doi.org/
10.14359/51701279.
[24] Issa MS, Metwally IM, Elzeiny SM. Structural performance of eccentrically loaded
GFRP reinforced concrete columns. Int J Civil Struct Eng 2011;2(1):395–406.
[25] Khorramian K, Sadeghian P. April. Behavior of Slender GFRP Reinforced Concrete
Columns. ASCE-SEI Structures Congress 2019. American Society of Civil Engineers;
2019.
[26] Salah-Eldin A, Mohamed HM, Benmokrane B. Structural performance of high-
strength-concrete columns reinforced with GFRP bars and ties subjected to
eccentric loads. Eng Struct 2019;185:286–300.
[27] Sharbatdar MK. Concrete Columns and Beams Reinforced with FRP Bars and Grids
under Monotonic and Reversed Cyclic Loading. PhD dissertation. Ottawa, ON,
Canada: University of Ottawa; 2003. p. 371.
[28] Sun L, Wei M, Zhang N. Experimental Study on the Behavior of GFRP Reinforced
Concrete Columns under Eccentric Axial Load. Constr Build Mater 2017;152:
214–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.06.159.
[29] Tikka, T. K., Francis, M., Teng, B., “Strength of Concrete Beam Columns Reinforced
with GFRP Bars,” 2nd International Structures Specialty Conference, Winnipeg,
MB, Canada; 2010: pp. 1194-1203.
[30] Hadhood, A.A., Behavior, strength and flexural stiffness of circular concrete
columns reinforced with FRP bars and spirals/hoops under eccentric loading; 2017.
[31] Hadhood A, Mohamed HM, Benmokrane B, Nanni A, Shield CK. Assessment of
design guidelines of concrete columns reinforced with glass fiber-reinforced
polymer bars. ACI Struct J 2019;116(4):193–207.
[32] Hadi MN, Karim H, Sheikh MN. Experimental investigations on circular concrete
columns reinforced with GFRP bars and helices under different loading conditions.
J Compos Constr 2016;20(4).
[33] Hadi MN, Hasan HA, Sheikh MN. Experimental investigation of circular high-
strength concrete columns reinforced with glass fiber-reinforced polymer bars and
helices under different loading conditions. J Compos Constr 2017;21(4):04017005.
[34] Deitz D, Harik I, Gesund H. Physical Properties of Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer
Rebars in Compression. J Compos Construct ASCE 2003;7(4):363–6. https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2003)7:4(363).
[35] Tavassoli A, Liu J, Sheikh S. Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer-Reinforced Circular
Columns under Simulated Seismic Loads. ACI Struct J 2015;112(1):103–14.
https://doi.org/10.14359/51687227.
[36] Bentz EC. Sectional Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Members. PhD thesis. Canada:
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON; 2000.
[37] Farrow, B., Frigui, I., Klingner, R., Tensile Capacity of Single Anchors in Concrete:
Evaluation of Existing Formulas on an LRFD Basis. ACI Struct J 1996; 93: 1, p. 128-
137.
[38] Szerszen MM, Nowak AS. Calibration of Design Code for Buildings (ACI 318): Part
2—Reliability Analysis and Resistance Factors. ACI Struct J 2003;100(3):383–91.
[39] Kolmogorov A. Sulla determinazione empirica di una lgge di distribuzione. Inst Ital
Attuari Giorn 1933;4. pp. 83–91.42.
[40] Szerszen MM, Szwed A, Nowak AS. Reliability Analysis for Eccentrically Loaded
Columns. ACI Struct J 2005;102(5):676–88.