ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 104-S38

Combined Torsion and Bending in Reinforced and

Prestressed Concrete Beams Using Simplified Method
for Combined Stress-Resultants
by Khaldoun N. Rahal
This paper presents a simplified model for the design and analysis
of reinforced and partially- and fully-prestressed concrete beams
subjected to combined torsional and bending moments. This model
is an extension of the existing simplified method for combined
stress-resultants (SMCS) model. The interaction between torsion
and flexure is achieved by superposing the steel required for the
two moments. The observed ultimate loads of 111 beams are
compared with the calculations of the proposed model and very
good agreement is obtained. This includes comparing interaction
diagrams and the effects of concrete strength, stirrups spacing, and
T-beam flange width on the ultimate capacity. The calculations by
the ACI code equations are also evaluated and shown to give
satisfactory and, in some cases, overly conservative, results. The
simplicity of the proposed model is illustrated using a design and
an analysis example.
Keywords: beams; bending; prestressed concrete; reinforced concrete;
shear; stress; torsion.

INTRODUCTION
Many structural elements such as spandrel beams, eccentrically loaded bridge girders, and beams curved in plan are
subjected to the effects of combined actions. Torsional and
flexural moments (T and M, respectively) can be dominant in
the design of such members. Only longitudinal steel is required
to resist the flexural moment, whereas both transverse and
longitudinal steel are required to resist the torsional moment.
Designing for the flexural moment is simple, and the
flexure theory based on the assumption that plane sections
remain plane has been used with satisfactory results. The
treatment of pure torsion and torsion combined with other
stress resultants in design codes,1,2 however, is not unified.
The literature reports advanced models for combined
torsion.3-7 These models, however, require the use of
computers and are not readily suitable for implementation in
design codes. There is a lack of a simple model for the design
and analysis of sections subjected to various combinations of
the six possible stress resultants on a beam cross section.
The simplified method for combined stress-resultants
(SMCS) is a simplification of the results by the modified
compression field theory (MCFT).8 The SMCS model was
originally developed for the case of thin reinforced concrete
membrane elements subjected to in-plane shearing stresses,9
and was found to give very good results. Its application was
extended to apply to membrane elements subjected to inplane shearing and normal stresses,10 to reinforced concrete
beams subjected to pure torsion11 and to combined shear,
bending moment, and axial loads.12 The main features of this
model are its simplicity and generality, where it was applied
to both membrane elements and beam members under
various loadings without loss of its simplicity. The generality
402

Fig. 1Reinforced concrete membrane element subjected to

in-plane shearing stresses.
feature is not available in many other simple noniterative
methods for calculation of the torsional strength.1,13
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
There is a lack of a simple model for the analysis and
design of membrane elements and beam elements subjected
to various combinations of stress resultants. This paper
extends the application of the SMCS model to the case of
beams subjected to combined bending and torsion. This
model is applicable to members with adequate amounts of
longitudinal and transverse reinforcement.
SMCS FOR PURE SHEAR
IN MEMBRANE ELEMENTS
This section gives a summary of the basic SMCS model.
More details can be found elsewhere.9
Figure 1 shows a reinforced concrete membrane element
adequately reinforced in the x and y directions and subjected
to in-plane shearing stresses. The mechanical reinforcement
ratios in the x and y directions x and y are defined as
x f yx
x = ---------f c

(1)

ACI Structural Journal, V. 104, No. 4, July-August 2007.

MS No. S-2006-029.R1 received September 4, 2006, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright 2007, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,
including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright
proprietors. Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be published in the
May-June 2008 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by January 1, 2008.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

ACI member Khaldoun N. Rahal is a Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering

at Kuwait University, Kuwait City, Kuwait. He is a member of Joint ACI-ASCE Committee
445, Shear and Torsion. He is Past President of the ACI Kuwait Chapter.

Fig. 3Shear strength curves for reinforced membrane

elements.
Fig. 2Relationship between normalized shear strength v/fc
and mechanical reinforcement ratios.
y f yy
y = ---------fc

(2)

The ultimate strength of this element depends mainly on

the amount and strength of reinforcement in the x and y
directions and on the concrete strength. The equations of the
MCFT8 were used to calculate the ultimate strength and the
corresponding strains of the elements for various cases.
Figure 2 shows the increase in the normalized shear strength
v/fc as the reinforcement level y in the y direction is
increased while maintaining x constant. For example, a
20 MPa (2900 psi) concrete panel reinforced with x fyx = y fyy
= 2 MPa (290 psi) is analyzed, and the ultimate strength is
found to be 2 MPa (290 psi) with both x and y reinforcement
yielding before concrete crushing. These results correspond
to x = y = 0.1 and v/fc = 0.1, and plot as Point A in Fig. 2.
Analyzing a similar panel but with y fyy = 10 MPa (1450 psi)
results in an ultimate shear strength of 3.36 MPa (487 psi),
with only the x reinforcement yielding before concrete
crushing. These results correspond to x = 0.1, y = 0.4 and
v/fc = 0.168, and plot as Point B in Fig. 2.
Repeating the analysis for various amounts y results in
the lower curve in Fig. 2. Nearly the same curve can be
obtained if the analysis was based on x = 0.1 obtained by
setting fc = 35 MPa (5080 psi) and x fyx = 3.5 MPa (508 psi).
Increasing x fyx to 4.0 MPa (580 psi) to give x = 0.2 and
repeating the analyses at various values of y results in the
upper curve in Fig. 2. For reinforcement levels below those
corresponding to points marked C and D, the y reinforcement
yields before crushing of the concrete, and the element is
under-reinforced. For larger reinforcement ratios, the
concrete crushes before yielding of the y reinforcement
(partially or fully over-reinforced element) and the relative
increase in strength is significantly lower.
The analysis was repeated for various values of x and y
and the results are plotted in Fig. 3. Reinforcement levels
corresponding to those marked C and D in Fig. 2 are joined
together to form a balanced curve. Figure 3 shows two
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

balanced curves, one corresponding to levels of x beyond

which x reinforcement does not yield, and the other corresponding to levels of y beyond which y reinforcement does
not yield. Due to symmetry, x and y can be interchanged.
The two balanced curves split the graph into four regions
corresponding to four modes of failures of the membranes.
The first region is where both x and y reinforcement yield
before concrete crushing (Mode 1: fully under-reinforced
section), the second region is where only x reinforcement
yields before concrete crushing (Mode 2: partially underreinforced section), the third region is where only the y
reinforcement yields before concrete crushing (Mode 3:
partially under-reinforced section), and the fourth region is
where concrete crushing takes place before any yielding in
the reinforcement (Mode 4: fully over-reinforced section).
Hence, Fig. 3 gives not only the maximum shear stress but
also the mode of failure at ultimate conditions.
Part of the behavior summarized in Fig. 2 and 3 can be
explained by studying the equations that govern the equilibrium
of the membrane element shown in Fig. 1
x = f2cos2 + f1sin2 + x fsx

(3)

y = f2sin2 + f1cos2 + y fsy

(4)

v = (f2 + f1)sincos

(5)

In under-reinforced elements, both x and y reinforcement

yield (fsx = fyx and fsy = fyy), and the ability of the diagonal
cracks to transmit the tensile stresses drops to zero (f1 = 0).
For pure shear, the normal stresses x and y are equal to
zero, and Eq. (3) to (5) can be rearranged to give the ultimate
shear stress of under-reinforced elements and the corresponding angle as follows
=

x f yxy f yy; or v f c =
=

y f yy
-------------- =
x f yx

y
-----x

x y

(6)

(7)

403

walls and if the reinforcement indexes (Eq. (1) and (2)) are
related to the actual longitudinal and transverse reinforcement
in the section.
Based on the results of a simplified model,13 the thickness
of the wall and the area and perimeter enclosed by the shear
flow path can be taken as

Fig. 4Hollow tube model for torsional strength.

Equation (6) is plotted in Fig. 2, and is shown to match with
the results of the MCFT up to Points C and D (that is, for
Mode 1, fully under-reinforced elements). It shows that for
these elements, the shear strength comes solely from the
steel contribution. For partially or fully over-reinforced
elements, there is a significant concrete contribution, which
is implicitly included in the total shear strength v.
It is noted that Eq. (6) is similar to the plastic solution for
fully under-reinforced membranes presented by Braestrup.14
However, SMCS and the theory of plasticity are different in
three of the four regions in Fig. 3, and in the boundaries
between these regions. A detailed comparison between the
results of the plastic theory and the SMCS for membrane
elements subjected to in-plane shear stresses is given in
Reference 9 (closure to discussion).
Equal reinforcement in the x and y directions leads to the
following simplifications of Eq. (6)
v = x fyx = y fyy

(8a)

v
----- = x = y
f c

(8b)

SMCS FOR TORSION

The equations of the SMCS for torsion are based on the
hollow tube analogy, where the cross section subjected to a
torque T is modeled as a hollow tube with constant thickness
td (refer to Fig. 4). The torque causes a field of shearing
stresses (nonuniform over td) that circulate around in the
walls of the tube. Similar to the use of the equivalent
compressive stress block in the theory of flexure, an equivalent
field of constant principal compressive stresses and shear
flow q can be assumed over a thickness a0 of the tube. The
basic relationship between T and q is given by
T = 2qA0

(9)

where A0 is the area enclosed by the shear flow path shown

in Fig. 4. The shear flow is related to the shear stress v and
the equivalent thickness of the wall as follows
q = a0v

(11)

A0 = 0.8Ac

(12)

p0 = 0.9pc

(13)

For normal-strength concrete where the concrete strength is

below 50 MPa (7250 psi), the stress-strain relationship in
compression can be represented by a parabola. If the peak
compressive strain equal to (1.5 the strain at peak stress),
the relationship between a0 and td can be taken as
a0 = 0.833td

(14)

Substituting Eq. (10), (11), (12), and (14) into Eq. (9) gives
the following equation for the nominal torsional moment T
2

Ac
-v
T = 0.67 ------pc

(15)

Equation (15) provides the relationship between the

torsional capacity of the cross section and the shear stress
capacity of the thin membrane walls.
The transverse steel ratio (taken as the y direction steel for
a vertical wall) is calculated as
A
y = -------tsa 0

(16)

The total symmetrical longitudinal steel provides reinforcement

for a series of membrane elements of length p0 and thickness
a0. Hence, the longitudinal steel ratio is calculated as follows
AL
x = ---------p0 a0

(17)

Combining Eq. (1), (2), (11), (13), (14), (16), and (17) and
accounting for the prestressed reinforcement in the element
gives the following equations for the reinforcement indexes
in the walls
A L f yL + A ps f py
L = ------------------------------------0.375A c f c

(18)

A t f yt p c
t = -------------------------0.42sA c f c

(19)

(10)

The walls of the twisted beam (Fig. 4) are assumed to be thin

membrane elements similar to those shown in Fig. 1. Their
ultimate shear strength can hence be obtained from Fig. 3.
Consequently, the SMCS model can be applied to the case of
torsion if the torque is related to the shear strength v in the
404

A
t d = 0.5 -----c
pc

Equations (18) and (19) apply to sections symmetrically

reinforced in the longitudinal direction.
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

It is to be noted that the torsion equations are based on the

outer dimensions of the cross sections, which implies that the
concrete outside the hoops does not spall at ultimate load. If
spalling is expected due to a relatively large concrete clear
cover, the terms pc and Ac in Eq. (15), (18), (19), and (21) can
be replaced with the ph and A0h, respectively.
Unsymmetrically reinforced sections
Figure 5(a) shows an unsymmetrically reinforced section.
The membrane element in the top flange of the tube is
weaker than that in the bottom flange, and its ultimate shear
strength is critical in calculating the ultimate torsional
capacity. The additional strength of the stronger wall can not
be achieved, and the strength of the unsymmetrical section
can be accurately and conservatively taken as that of a section
symmetrically reinforced with the weaker reinforcement.15,16
Hence, the strength of the section shown in Fig. 5(a) is taken to
be the same as that shown in Fig. 5(b) where the stronger
bottom steel is replaced with an amount equal to the weaker
top steel.
FLEXURE BY SUPERPOSITION
OF REINFORCEMENT
Superposition of the longitudinal reinforcement required
to resist M to that required to resist T is adopted to account
for the interaction between the two moments. This is illustrated
in the following procedures for the cases of design and analysis,
and is verified in the following section.
Design procedure
1. Design for M (say positive) using the flexure theory, and
calculate amount of tensile (bottom) steel.
2. Calculate using Eq. (15).
3. Select a reinforcement indexes (say, L ) and obtain the
other index (t) using Fig. 3 (or using Eq. (6) if section is
fully under-reinforced).
4. Calculate amounts of longitudinal and transverse steel
from Eq. (18) and (19). Select stirrups size and spacing.
Distribute longitudinal steel symmetrically to top and bottom
flanges (and on sides if skin reinforcement is to be provided).
5. In the tension zone, combine (bottom) longitudinal steel
from Steps 1 and 4 (to resist M and T, respectively).
6. In the compression zone, reduce the (top) longitudinal
steel (required to resist T) by the amount equivalent to the
compression force caused by bending, given approximately by
M---------jdf yL

(20)
1

Step 6 is similar to the approach permitted in the ACI code

(where jd = 0.9). General design requirements such as
providing a minimum of four longitudinal corner bars and
limiting the spacing of the transverse and longitudinal steel
need to be respected. The procedure is illustrated in
Appendix A using a solved example.
Capacity calculation
If the cross section is not symmetrically reinforced or if a
bending moment is acting, either the top or the bottom flange
(whichever is weaker in the longitudinal direction) can be
critical in determining the beam strength. The flexural
tension flange typically has larger reinforcement, but is
weakened by the flexural tensile force, while the flexural
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

Fig. 5Strength of unsymmetrically reinforced sections.

compression flange typically has smaller reinforcement, but
is strengthened by the flexural compressive force.1,16 The
strength in the longitudinal direction effective in resisting the
torsional moment is that from the actual reinforcement,
modified by the flexural tensile or compressive force. As
shown in Fig. 5, the total amount of longitudinal reinforcement
resisting torsion is twice the critical (modified) steel. Any
skin reinforcement that contributes to the resistance of the
wall can be added to this longitudinal index. Accordingly,
the longitudinal reinforcing index is taken as

2M jd + 2 ( A s f y ) top
-------------------------------------------------------0.375A c f c

2 M jd + 2 ( A s f y ) bot
-----------------------------------------------------------0.375A c f c

(21)

where M is positive if it causes tension in the bottom of the

cross section and negative otherwise, and steel includes
nonprestressed and prestressed reinforcement, as well as
skin reinforcement.
Capacity calculation procedure
1. Select bending moment M at which co-existing
torsional moment is to be calculated.
2. Calculate t based on Eq. (19) and L based on Eq. (21).
3. Use Fig. 3 (or, if the section is under-reinforced, Eq. (6))
to obtain v/f c.
4. Calculate T using Eq. (15).
The procedure is illustrated in Appendix B using a
solved example.
ACI PROVISIONS
The basic ACI1 equilibrium equation that relates the
torsional strength to the amount of transverse reinforcement
and is based on the hollow tube model
A t f yt
T = 2A 0 --------- cot
s

(22)

ACI permits the area enclosed by the shear flow A0 to be taken

as 0.85A0h. A similar equilibrium equation relates the torsional
strength to the amount of longitudinal reinforcement
A L f yL
- tan
T = 2A 0 -----------ph

(23)

405

Fig. 6Details of beams used in detailed evaluation of SMCS model.

To avoid concrete crushing before yielding of the reinforcement and to limit the crack width at service load, the ACI
code requires that

Table 1Properties of reinforcement in beams

used in verification

Hoops

Longitudinal steel

Bar size Area, mm2 (in.2) fy , MPa (ksi)

Used in

No. 3

71 (0.11)

366 (53.0)

Groups 1 to 4

No. 3

71 (0.11)

376 (54.5)

TB

No. 3

71 (0.11)

406 (58.9)

TBS

No. 3

71 (0.11)

552 (80.0)

TBU

No. 4

129 (0.20)

433 (62.8)

TBS

No. 4

129 (0.20)

393 (57.0)

TBU

No. 5

200 (0.31)

337 (48.9)

Groups 1 to 4

No. 5

200 (0.31)

363 (52.6)

TB

No. 6

283 (0.44)

323 (46.8)

Groups 1 to 4

No. 8

510 (0.79)

436 (63.2)

TBU, TBS

4.2

13.9 (0.022)

Tp h
----------------- 0.83 f c
2
1.7A 0h

640 (92.8) A-2, B11, C17, D15 flanges

12

113 (0.175)

540 (78.3)

No. 3

71 (0.11)

376 (54.5)

TB

No. 3

71 (0.11)

379 (55.0)

1-1 to 1-5, Group 3

No. 3

71 (0.11)

370 (53.6)

1-6, Groups 2, 4

No. 4

129 (0.20)

379 (55.0)

TBU

No. 4

129 (0.20)

443 (64.2)

TBS

4.2

13.9 (0.022)

640 (92.8) A-2, B11, C17, D15 flanges

6.5

33.2 (0.051)

330 (47.8)

A-2, B11, C17, D15 webs

A-2, B11, C17, D15 webs

Note: TB series prestressing steel: effective prestress 1145 MPa (166 ksi), ultimate
strength 1703 MPa (247 ksi).

Equating T from Eq. (22) and (23) results in the ACI equation
for the required amount of longitudinal reinforcement for
torsional resistance
A f yt
2
A L = -----t p h ----- cot
s f yL

(24)

ACI requires that the angle of inclination of the diagonal

struts of the truss model shall not be smaller than 30 degrees
nor larger than 60 degrees. ACI further suggests that the
angle to be taken as 45 degrees for reinforced members and
37.5 degrees for prestressed members. The Commentary, on the
other hand, suggests that the angle can be obtained by analysis.
406

(25)

If the cross section is hollow and its wall thickness t is

smaller than A0h/ph, then the left-hand side term for torsional
shearing stress is replaced with T/(1.7A0ht).
The steel required to resist the torsional moment is
superimposed on the steel required to resist the flexural moment.
In the compression zone, the longitudinal steel required for
torsion can be reduced using Eq. (20) (with jd = 0.9d) due to
the favorable effect of the flexural compression force.
EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION
A total of 111 beam specimens4,17-23 are used to evaluate
the ability of the proposed model and of the ACI code
provisions to calculate the strength of reinforced and
partially prestressed beams subjected to combined torsion
and bending. The specimens tested in these series include
hollow and solid, nonprestressed and partially prestressed,
symmetrically and nonsymmetrically reinforced, and rectangular and T sections. These test results studied the effects of
T to M ratio, nonsymmetry in longitudinal reinforcement,
amount of transverse reinforcement, concrete compressive
strength, and size of T-beam flanges. Thirty-eight of these
beams are selected for detailed comparisons, and the cross
section geometry and reinforcement are given in Fig. 6 and
Table 1. A summary of the results of the 111 test specimens
is given in Table 2. The results from the ACI equations are
also listed. One set of results is based on an angle of 45 degrees
for reinforced members and 37.5 degrees for partially
prestressed members, and the other set is based on calculating
an angle between 30 and 60 degrees that satisfies the truss
model Eq. (22) to (24) is also shown.
Symmetrically reinforced nonprestressed beams
Group 2 of the specimens tested by McMullen and
Warwaruk17,18 contained five nonprestressed solid
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

Table 2Experimental verification

Experimental/calculated

Reference

Number and type of beam

specimens

Distribution of
longitudinal
reinforcement

McMullen and
Warwaruk17-18

20 rectangular solid
reinforced beams

Five symmetrical
15 unsymmetrical

152 x 305
(6 x 12)

Mardukhi19

Five rectangular hollow

partially prestressed beams

Symmetrical

305 x 432
(12 x 17)

Onsongo4

Five hollow and four solid

rectangular reinforced beams

Unsymmetrical

508 x 410
(20 x 16.1)

Gesund et al.20

12 rectangular solid
reinforced beams

Unsymmetrical

Zararis and
Penelis21

42 T- and four rectangular

solid reinforced beams

Unsymmetrical

100 x 210*
(4 x 8.3)

Pandit and
Warwaruk22

14 rectangular solid
reinforced beams

Three symmetrical
11 unsymmetrical

152 x 305
(6 x 12)

Lampert and
Thurlimann23

Five square hollow

reinforced beams

Unsymmetrical

500 x 500
(19.7 x 19.7)

Nominal size,
mm (in.)

Concrete
strength,
MPa (psi)

SMCS

ACI
( = 450
degrees)

ACI
(30 degrees
60 degrees)

Mean COV, % Mean COV, % Mean COV, %

30 to 40
0.98
(4350 to 5800)

5.8

1.31

14.9

1.19

12.9

1.03

5.5

1.34

22.8

1.13

10.5

15 to 46
(2200 to 6670) 1.15

13.1

1.38

20.9

1.35

21.1

203 x 203,152 x 305

27 to 40
(8 x 8, 6 x 12)
(3900 to 5800) 0.91

14.1

1.34

13.6

1.26

14.9

14 to 41
(2030 to 5950) 1.11

15.2

1.98

20.9

1.65

18.3

32 to 40
(4650 to 5800) 0.95

10.3

1.25

13.3

1.15

12.7

1.04

4.5

1.32

13.2

1.11

3.76

1.04

14.7

1.59

28.2

1.39

23.5

111 beam specimens

38
(5500)

26
(3770)

Flange dimensions of T beams: 152 to 203 mm (6 to 8 in.) thickness, and 400, 700, and 1000 mm (15.7, 27.6, and 39.4 in.) width.

specimens tested under various combinations of T to M

ratios. The longitudinal reinforcement was symmetrically
distributed around the solid cross section as shown in Fig. 6.
Figure 7(a) shows the experimentally observed and the
calculated T-M interaction curves. The model is capable of
accurately modeling the interaction. For the five beams, the
average ratio of experimental to calculated ultimate moment
was 1.00 and the coefficient of variation (COV) was 2.6%.
These numbers were 1.32 and 15.2% for the ACI variable
analysis and 1.36 and 11.7%, respectively, for the ACI
45-degree analysis. Equation (25) (safeguard against
concrete crushing) was critical in determining the strength of
members with significant torsion, and is shown to give
relatively more conservative results. Where bending was
significant, the results based on = 60 degrees provided
more accurate results compared with the calculations based
on = 45 degrees.
Symmetrically reinforced-partially
prestressed beams
Mardukhi19 tested five symmetrically reinforced, partially
prestressed hollow members (Series TB) under various
combinations of torsion and bending. Figure 7(b) shows the
comparison between the calculated and observed results and a
good agreement is observed. For the five beams, the average
ratio of experimental to calculated ultimate moment was 1.03
and the COV was 5.5%. These values are relatively similar to
those of Group 2, pointing to consistency in the results of the
method for reinforced and partially prestressed concrete
beams when symmetrically reinforced in the longitudinal
direction. In the zone of predominant bending, both the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement were below balanced
values, and Eq. (6) was used instead of Fig. 3 to calculate the
torsional shear strength v.
The average and COV values were 1.13 and 10.5% for the
ACI variable analysis and 1.34 and 22.8%, respectively, for
the ACI 45-degree analysis. In pure torsion and predominant
torsion, the amount of transverse reinforcement was critical,
and using a small of 30 degrees provided more accurate
results. In predominant bending, the amount of longitudinal
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

Fig. 7T-M interaction diagrams in symmetrically

reinforced and partially prestressed beams.
reinforcement was critical, and a larger value of the angle
55 degrees provided more favorable results.
Unsymmetrically reinforced beams
The six nonprestressed solid specimens of Group 117,18
were similar to those in Group 2, except that a smaller
amount of longitudinal reinforcement was provided in the
407

values were 1.21 and 8.8% for the ACI variable analysis and
1.38 and 15.0%, respectively, for the ACI 45-degree analysis.
The specimens of Group 317,18 had smaller amounts of
transverse and bottom longitudinal reinforcement. Figure 8(b)
shows the observed and the calculated T-M interaction
curves. The proposed model was unconservative for two
specimens. The average ratio of the experimental to calculated
ultimate moment in the five specimens was 0.96 and the
COV was 10.0%. These values were 1.11 and 11.6% for the
ACI variable analysis and 1.21 and 21.2% respectively for
the ACI 45-degree analysis.
The under-reinforced TBU series tested by Onsongo4
consisted of five hollow beams unsymmetrically reinforced
in the longitudinal direction. Figure 8(c) shows the observed
and calculated interaction diagrams. The proposed model
accurately calculated the interaction, while the ACI code
provisions were considerably conservative, except for
Specimen TBU2. This specimen, along with TBU4 suffered
from difficulties during casting, which led to a reduced wall
thickness in the top flange and hence possibly a reduced
capacity. The average ratio of the experimental to calculated
ultimate moments in the five specimens was 1.08 and the
COV was 8.3%, respectively.
Similar to the observation in Fig. 7(a) and 8(a), Eq. (25)
under-estimated the maximum torsional strength where it
was critical (in pure torsion and at relatively low T/M). Also,
larger values of the angle were obtained when the strength
in the longitudinal direction in the top or bottom flanges
was critical. The average and COV of the experimental to
calculated ultimate strength were 1.39 and 27.8% for the
variable analysis, and 1.44 and 26.8% for the = 45-degree
analysis, respectively.

Fig. 8T-M interaction diagrams in unsymmetrically

reinforced beams.
flexural compression flange. Figure 8(a) compares the
experimentally observed and the calculated T-M interaction
curves. Smaller levels of flexural moments increased the
torsional capacity due to the strengthening effect of the flexural
compressive force on the weaker top flange. The SMCS
model was capable of accurately modeling the interaction,
including the increase in torsional strength at relatively low
flexural moments. The average ratio of the experimental to
calculated ultimate moment in the six specimens was 1.00
and the COV was 4.1%.
The ACI equations were considerably conservative in
calculating the torsional strength at relatively low flexural
moment, but were more accurate at higher levels of M. In the
cases where the longitudinal reinforcement in either the
compression or the tension flange was critical in determining
the overall strength, using larger values of provided larger
strength and more accurate calculations. The average and COV
408

Effect of concrete strength

The four specimens of the TBS4 series were tested to study
the effect of the fc on the strength at a T/M of approximately
1.25. The specimens were solid and unsymmetrically
reinforced in the longitudinal direction, as shown in Fig. 6,
and the concrete strength ranged from 15.5 to approximately
46 MPa (2200 to 6670 psi). Figure 9(a) shows the observed
and calculated results. The tests showed an increase in beam
capacity at higher concrete strength. The proposed SMCS
captured this trend, but over-estimated the increase for
concrete strength above 33 MPa (4800 psi). The average and
COV of the ratio of observed to calculated moment were
1.24 and 14.2%, respectively, for the proposed SMCS model,
and 1.31 and 9.1% for both ACI methods. The ACI calculated
strength was limited by concrete crushing (Eq. (25)) and are
shown again to be conservative.
Effect of stirrups spacing
The four specimens of Group 417,18 were tested to study
the effect of the stirrups spacing on the strength at a T/M of
approximately 0.6. The cross sections of these specimens
were similar to that of Group 3, and Specimen 3-4 from
Series 3 tested at the same T/M fits within the graph. The
spacing of the stirrups ranged from 76 to 230 mm (3 to 9 in.),
and was larger than the ACI limit of ph/8 in four out of the
five specimens. The proposed SMCS model and the ACI
variable analysis accurately captured the decrease in
strength at larger stirrups spacing even where the spacing
can be considered inadequately large. The average and COV
of the ratio of observed to calculated strength were 0.97 and
4.8% for the proposed SMCS model, 1.10 and 1.2% for the
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

Table 3Comparison with performance of SMCS

in other studies (total 415 specimens)
Observed/
calculated
No. of
specimens Mean COV, %

Type of elements

Stress-resultants

Beams (this study)

Torsion and bending

111

1.04

14.7

In-plane shear

46

1.01

12.5

10

In-plane shear
and normal

14

1.17

12.2

Beams11

Pure torsion

83

1.03

11.1

Beams12

Shear, bending and

axial load

161

1.28

18.8

Membrane elements
Membrane elements

ACI variable analysis, and 1.25 and 8.5% for the ACI
45-degree analysis, respectively.
Effect of flange width in T-beams
Figure 9(c) shows the experimentally observed and the
calculated strength of a series of four specimens from an
experimental program21 designed to study the effect of
flange size on the strength of T-beams subjected to
combined torsion and bending. Both the web and the flange
were reinforced with longitudinal and transverse steel, and
the flange width ranged from 100 mm (4 in.) (rectangular
section) to approximately 1000 mm (39.4 in.) (refer to Fig. 6).
The four specimens were tested under T/M of approximately
1.18. The proposed method captured the trend in increase in
strength with an overhang width up to approximately five
times the flange thickness, but slightly under-estimated the
increase in strength at larger overhang size. The average and
COV of the ratio of observed to calculated moment were
1.09 and 9.0%, respectively, for the proposed SMCS model;
1.94 and 5.6%, respectively, for the ACI variable angle
analysis; and 2.00 and 6.5% for the ACI 45-degree analysis,
respectively. The ACI results are shown to be unduly
conservative.
Overall performance of proposed model
Table 2 shows the average and COV of the experimental
to calculated strength of the 111 specimens.4,17-23 The ACI
results were more conservative than those of the proposed
model, mainly in members subjected to significant torsion as
shown in the previous section. The conservatism in Eq. (25)
is partially due to the assumption of spalling of the concrete
cover in torsion, a phenomenon that did not affect the results
most (if not all) of the 111 specimens because of the relatively
small thickness of clear cover used. In addition, spalling
does not affect all sides of the cross section subjected to
combined stresses24 as assumed by the ACI equation. The
proposed model resulted in a smaller COV, pointing to a
more uniform calculation of the strength at the various levels
of T/M and variables affecting the results.
Table 3 compares the performance of the SMCS model for
combined torsion and bending with that for the case of
beams subjected to pure torsion;11 membrane elements
subjected to in-plane shearing stresses;9 membrane elements
subjected to in-plane shearing and normal stresses;10 and
beam elements subjected to shear, bending, and axial
loads.12 The results were slightly more conservative and
with slightly higher variation when shear was combined with
bending. In general, however, the performance of the SMCS
model can be considered consistent in both beam and
membrane elements subjected to the stress-resultants shown.
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

Fig. 9Effect of fc , stirrups spacing and T-beam flange

width on strength of beams.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A simple method for the design and capacity calculation of
strength of reinforced and prestressed concrete members
subjected to combined torsion and bending was presented.
The interaction between the two moments was achieved by
adopting the concept of superposition of the longitudinal
reinforcement for the two cases.
The calculations of the SMCS model were compared with
the experimental results from 111 nonprestressed and
partially prestressed rectangular and T-beam specimens
subjected to combined torsion and bending. Full interaction
curves were calculated using the proposed model, and were
shown to be in very good agreement with the observed
results. The model also captured the effect of the concrete
strength, the amount of transverse reinforcement, the
409

distribution of the longitudinal reinforcement, and the size of

the T-beam flanges on the beam strength. The performance of
the model was consistent with that in previous studies on:
1) pure torsion in beams; 2) combined shear, bending, and axial
load in beams; 3) pure shear in membrane elements; and
4) combined shear and normal stresses in membrane elements.
The equations of the ACI code were also compared with
the experimental results and were found to be satisfactory.
They showed a significantly higher level of conservatism in
beams subjected to pure or predominant torsion, especially
when the upper limit set by ACI Eq. (11-18) (Eq. (25)) was
critical in determining the strength. This conservatism can be
partially attributed to the assumption of spalling of the
concrete outer cover in torsion calculation.
In using the ACI code for capacity calculations,
calculating the angle (between 30 and 60 degrees) based on
the actual reinforcement was found to provide more accurate
results than simply using 45 degrees for nonprestressed
members and 37.5 degrees for prestressed members. This
calculation typically provided larger torsional strength.
In general, the results of the proposed SMCS model were
more favorable than those of the ACI equations. Given that
this proposed model can be applied not only to beam elements
but also to membrane elements subjected to various stress
resultants, it is suggested that the SMCS model can be the basis
of a more general and unified treatment of shear and torsion in
reinforcement and prestressed concrete structural elements.
NOTATION
A0
A0h
Ac
AL

=
=
=
=

Aps

As
At
a0
b
bw
d
f c
f1, f2
fpy
fsx, fsy
fy
fyL

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

fyt
=
fyx, fyy =
hf
jd
M
p0
pc
ph
q
s
T
t
td
v

x, y
x,y

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

area enclosed in shear flow resultant

area enclosed in centerline of outermost closed stirrup or hoop
area enclosed in outer perimeter of cross section
total area of symmetrical non-prestressed longitudinal reinforcement
in section
total area of symmetrical prestressed longitudinal reinforcement
in section
area of bottom or top longitudinal reinforcement in section
area of one leg of transverse closed stirrup or hoop
depth of equivalent stress block in shear flow zone
width of flange in T-beam
width of web in T-beam
effective depth in bending
compressive strength of concrete
principal tensile and compressive stress in membrane element
yield strength of symmetrical prestressed longitudinal reinforcement
stress in x and y direction reinforcement in membrane element
yield stress in bottom or top longitudinal reinforcement in section
yield stress in symmetrical non-prestressed longitudinal
reinforcement
yield stress of stirrups or hoops
yield stress of x direction and y direction reinforcement in
membrane element
depth of flange in T-beam
flexural lever arm, can be taken as 0.9d
acting flexural moment
perimeter of the shear flow resultant
outer perimeter of section
perimeter of centerline of outermost closed stirrup or hoop
shear flow in hollow tube model
spacing of stirrups or hoops
torsional moment
thickness of walls in hollow sections
depth of shear flow zone
maximum shear stress in walls of tube
angle of inclination of diagonal strut in truss model
reinforcement ratio in x and y directions
membrane element stresses in x and y directions

REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2005, 430 pp.

410

2. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and Commentary, SI
Units, 3rd Edition, Washington, D.C., 2004.
3. Ewida, A. A., and McMullen, A. E., Torsion-Shear-Flexure
Interaction in Reinforced Concrete Members, Magazine of Concrete
Research, V. 33, No. 115, 1981, pp. 113-122.
4. Onsongo, W. M., The Diagonal Compression Field Theory for
Reinforced Concrete Beams Subjected to Combined Torsion, Flexure, and
Axial Load, PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 1978, 246 pp.
5. Cocchi, G. M., and Volpi, M., Inelastic Analysis of Reinforced
Concrete Beams Subjected to Combined Torsion, Flexural and Axial
Loads, Computers and Structures, V. 63, No. 3, 1996, pp. 479-494.
6. Rahal, K. N., and Collins, M. P., Analysis of Sections Subjected to
Combined Shear and TorsionA Theoretical Model, ACI Structural
Journal, V. 92, No. 4, July-Aug. 1995, pp. 459-469.
7. Karayannis, C. G., and Chalioris, C. E., Strength of Prestressed
Concrete Beams in Torsion, Journal of Structural Engineering and
Mechanics, V. 10, No. 2, 2000, pp. 165-180.
8. Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., Modified Compression Field
Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear, ACI
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 219-231.
9. Rahal, K. N., Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete, Part I
Membrane Elements Subjected To Pure Shear, ACI Structural Journal,
V. 97, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2000, pp. 86-93, and closure to discussion, V. 97,
No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2000, pp. 910-913.
10. Rahal, K. N., Membrane Elements Subjected to In-Plane Shearing
and Normal Stresses, ASCE Structural Journal, V. 128, No. 8, 2002,
pp. 1064-1072.
11. Rahal, K. N., Analysis and Design for Torsion in Reinforced and
Prestressed Concrete Beams, Structural Engineering and Mechanics,
V. 11, No. 6, 2001, pp. 575-590.
12. Rahal, K. N., Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete, Part II: Beams
Subjected to Shear, Bending Moment and Axial Loads, ACI Structural
Journal, V. 97, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2000, pp. 219-224.
13. Rahal, K. N., and Collins, M. P., Simple Model for Predicting the
Torsional Strength of Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Sections, ACI
Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1996, pp. 658-666.
14. Braestrup, M. W., Plastic Analysis of Shear in Reinforced Concrete,
Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 26, No. 89, Dec. 1974, pp. 221-228.
15. Mitchell, D., and Collins, M. P., The Behaviour of Structural
Concrete in Pure Torsion, Publication No. 74-06, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 1974, 88 pp.
16. Lampert, P., and Collins, M. P., Torsion, Bending, and Confusion
An Attempt to Establish the Facts, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 69,
No. 8, Aug. 1972, pp. 500-504.
17. McMullen, A. E., and Warwaruk, J., Concrete Beams in Bending,
Torsion and Shear, Proceedings, ASCE, V. 96, 1970, pp. 885-903.
18. McMullen, A. E., and Warwaruk, J., The Torsional Strength of
Rectangular Reinforced Beams Subjected to Combined Loading, Report
No. 2, Civil Engineering Department, University of Alberta, Alberta,
Canada, 1967, 162 pp.
19. Mardukhi, J., The Behaviour of Uniformly Prestressed Concrete
Box Beams in Combined Torsion and Bending, MASc thesis, University
of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 1974, 73 pp.
20. Gesund, H.; Schuette, F. J.; Buchanan, G. R.; and Gray, G. A.,
Ultimate Strength in Combined Bending and Torsion of Concrete
Beams Containing Both Longitudinal and Transverse Reinforcement,
ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings, V. 61, No. 12, Dec. 1964, pp. 1509-1521.
21. Zararis, P. D., and Penelis, G. G., Reinforced Concrete T-Beams in
Torsion and Bending, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 1, Jan.-Feb.
1986, pp. 145-155.
22. Pandit, G. S., and Warwaruk, J., Reinforced Concrete Beams in
Combined Bending and Torsion, Torsion in Structural Concrete, SP-18,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1968, pp. 133-163.
23. Lampert, P., and Thurlimann, B., Torsions-Biege-Versuche an
Stahlbetonbalken, Bericht Nr. 6506-3, Institut fur Baustatik, ETH Zurich,
Germany, Jan. 1969.
24. Rahal, K. N., and Collins, M. P., Effect of Cover Thickness on
Shear and Torsion Interaction-An Experimental Investigation, ACI
Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 3, May-June 1995, pp. 334-342.

APPENDIX A: DESIGN EXAMPLE

Design a reinforced concrete section for: M = 1500 kNm
(1106 kft), T = 700 kNm (516 kft). Use fc = 30 MPa
(4350 psi), fyt = fyL = 400 MPa (58 ksi), cover to steel = 30 mm
(1.18 in.). Preliminary analysis suggests the section shown in
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

Fig. A1 with geometric properties: pc = 3925 mm (154.5 in.),

Ac = 945,000 mm2 (1464.8 in.2).
Step 1: Design for flexure: Assuming 25 mm (1 in.)
longitudinal bars and 14 mm (0.55 in.) hoops are used, d =
900 30 14 13 = 843 mm (33.2 in.). The required ratio of
reinforcement is 0.501% corresponding to a bottom steel area
of approximately 5150 mm2 (8 in.2) (within limits of
maximum and minimum reinforcement).
Step 2: Equation (15) gives a shear stress v = 700 (106)(3925)/
(945,0002)/(0.67) = 4.59 MPa (665 psi). The normalized
shear stress is v/fc = 4.59/30 = 0.153.
Step 3: Because the section is under-reinforced for torsion
resistance, the most straight-forward design, though not
necessarily the most economical, is to use Eq. (8).
Step 4: With t = L = 0.153, the amounts of steel are
calculated using Eq. (18) and (19):
At /s = 0.153(0.42)(945,000)(30)/(400)/(3925) = 1.16 mm2/mm
(0.0457 in.2/in.)
AL = 0.153(0.375)(945,000)(30)/400 = 4066 mm2 (6.3 in.2)
The maximum spacing of 14 mm (0.55 in.) stirrups is
132 mm (5.2 in.). Choose s = 130 mm (5 in.). This satisfies
the upper limit of d/2 and 1/8 hoop perimeter usually considered
in building codes.
Step 5: The depth is relatively large, and hence 614 bars
are provided as skin reinforcement. The remaining area is
4066 6(154) = 3142 mm 2 (4.87 in.2) is split in two halves
(1571 mm 2 [2.44 in.2] each) in the top and bottom flange.
Total bottom steel is that from M and that from T = 5150 +
1571 = 6721 mm 2 (10.4 in.2). Fourteen 25 (No. 8) bars
provide the required amount and are placed with clear
spacing of approximately 60 mm (2.36 in.), which satisfies
the code requirements of minimum spacing.
Step 6: The top steel can be reduced using Eq. (20) by:
1500(106)/0.9/843/400 = 4942 mm2 (7.66 in.2). Hence, no
top reinforcement is needed. However, 414 are used to
provide minimum reinforcement in the top flange.
The results of the design are summarized in Fig. A-1.
APPENDIX B: CAPACITY CALCULATION EXAMPLE
Calculate the torsional capacity of a TBU4 specimen (Fig. 6
and Table 1) when a moment M = 277 kNm (204.3 kft) is
acting. The area and perimeter enclosed within the outer
dimensions of the section are calculated as pc = 1836 mm
(72.3 in.) and Ac = 208,280 mm2 (322.8 in.2). The stirrups
are No. 4: At = 129 mm2 (0.2 in.2), fyt = 379 MPa (55 ksi),
spacing s = 76 mm (3 in.) The concrete compressive strength
fc is 34.8 MPa (5050 psi).
Step 1: M = 277 kNm (204.3 kft).
Step 2: Calculate the transverse reinforcement index using
Eq. (19)

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

Fig. A1Cross section in design example.

129 ( 379 ) ( 1836 )
t = ------------------------------------------------------------ = 0.388
0.42 ( 76 ) ( 208280 ) ( 34.8 )
Calculate critical L using Eq. (21). Top steel: As = 387 mm2
(0.6 in.2), fy = 393 MPa (57 ksi), skin steel As = 1/2(426)
mm2 (0.33 in.2), fy = 552 MPa (80 ksi), d = 376 mm (14.8 in.)
6

( 2 ( 277 ) ( 10 ) ) ( 0.9 ) ( 376 ) + 2 ( 387 ) ( 393 ) + 426 ( 552 )

L top = -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- =
0.375 ( 208,280 ) ( 34.8 )
0.80

Bottom flange steel: As = 3570 mm2 (5.53 in.2), fy = 436 MPa

(63.2 ksi), skin steel As = 1/2 (426) mm 2 (0.33 in.2), fy =
552 MPa (80 ksi)
6

2 ( 277 ) ( 10 ) ( 0.9 ) ( 376 ) + 2 ( 3570 ) ( 436 ) + 426 ( 552 )

L bot = -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- = 0.63
0.375 ( 208,280 ) ( 34.8 )

The bottom reinforcement is critical.

Step 3: With L = 0.63, t = 0.388, Fig. 3 gives v/fc =
0.32, and v = 0.32(34.8) = 11.14 MPa (1616 psi).
Step 4: The ultimate T is calculated using Eq. (15) as follows
2

( 208,208 )
T = 0.67 --------------------------11.14 = 176 kNm (130 kft)
1836
This point corresponds to the same T/M as Specimen TBU3.

411

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.