# ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

Title no. 104-S38

TECHNICAL PAPER

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. 1—Reinforced 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 ωx and ωy are defined as ρ x f yx ω 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 author’s 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. 3—Shear strength curves for reinforced membrane elements. Fig. 2—Relationship between normalized shear strength v/fc′ and mechanical reinforcement ratios. ρ y f yy ω y = ---------fc ′ (2) balanced curves, one corresponding to levels of ωx beyond which x reinforcement does not yield, and the other corresponding to levels of ωy beyond which y reinforcement does not yield. Due to symmetry, ωx and ωy 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 σx = f2cos2θ + f1sin2θ + ρx fsx σy = f2sin2θ + f1cos2θ + ρy fsy v = (–f2 + f1)sinθcosθ (3) (4) (5)

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 ωy in the y direction is increased while maintaining ωx constant. For example, a 20 MPa (2900 psi) concrete panel reinforced with ρx fyx = ρy 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 ωx = ωy = 0.1 and v/fc′ = 0.1, and plot as Point A in Fig. 2. Analyzing a similar panel but with ρy 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 ωx = 0.1, ωy = 0.4 and v/fc′ = 0.168, and plot as Point B in Fig. 2. Repeating the analysis for various amounts ωy results in the lower curve in Fig. 2. Nearly the same curve can be obtained if the analysis was based on ωx = 0.1 obtained by setting fc′ = 35 MPa (5080 psi) and ρx fyx = 3.5 MPa (508 psi). Increasing ρx fyx to 4.0 MPa (580 psi) to give ωx = 0.2 and repeating the analyses at various values of ωy 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 ωx and ωy 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

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 σx and σy 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 θ as follows ν= ρ x f yxρy f yy; or v ⁄ f c ′ = θ = ρ y f yy ------------- = ρ x f yx ωy ----ωx ωx ωy (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 A t d = 0.5 ----c pc A0 = 0.8Ac Fig. 4—Hollow 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 = ρx fyx = ρy fyy v ---- = ω x = ω y f c′ (8a) (8b) p0 = 0.9pc (11) (12) (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 Ac T = 0.67 ------- v pc
2

(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 At ρ y = ------sa 0 (16)

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)

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 ρx = ---------p0 a0 (17)

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 (10)

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 ω L = ------------------------------------0.375A c f c′ A t f yt p c ω t = -------------------------0.42sA c f c′ (18)

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

(19)

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 ν using Eq. (15). 3. Select a reinforcement indexes (say, ωL ) and obtain the other index (ωt) 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

Fig. 5—Strength 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 ⎧ ⎪ ⎪ ωL ≤ ⎨ ⎪ ⎪ ⎩ 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 ωt based on Eq. (19) and ωL 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 θ s (22)

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

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 T = 2A 0 ------------ tan θ ph (23)

405

Fig. 6—Details of beams used in detailed evaluation of SMCS model. Table 1—Properties of reinforcement in beams used in verification
Bar size Area, mm2 (in.2) fy , MPa (ksi) No. 3 No. 3 No. 3 Longitudinal steel No. 3 No. 4 No. 4 No. 5 No. 5 No. 6 No. 8 φ4.2 φ12 No. 3 No. 3 Hoops No. 3 No. 4 No. 4 φ4.2 φ6.5 71 (0.11) 71 (0.11) 71 (0.11) 71 (0.11) 129 (0.20) 129 (0.20) 200 (0.31) 200 (0.31) 283 (0.44) 510 (0.79) 13.9 (0.022) 113 (0.175) 71 (0.11) 71 (0.11) 71 (0.11) 129 (0.20) 129 (0.20) 13.9 (0.022) 33.2 (0.051) 366 (53.0) 376 (54.5) 406 (58.9) 552 (80.0) 433 (62.8) 393 (57.0) 337 (48.9) 363 (52.6) 323 (46.8) 436 (63.2) 540 (78.3) 376 (54.5) 379 (55.0) 370 (53.6) 379 (55.0) 443 (64.2) 330 (47.8) Used in Groups 1 to 4 TB TBS TBU TBS TBU Groups 1 to 4 TB Groups 1 to 4 TBU, TBS A-2, B11, C17, D15 webs TB 1-1 to 1-5, Group 3 1-6, Groups 2, 4 TBU TBS A-2, B11, C17, D15 webs

To avoid concrete crushing before yielding of the reinforcement and to limit the crack width at service load, the ACI code requires that Tp h ----------------- ≤ 0.83 f c ′ 2 1.7A 0h (25)

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

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 θ 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

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

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 θ s f yL (24)

ACI requires that the angle of inclination θ 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

Table 2—Experimental verification
Experimental/calculated Distribution of longitudinal reinforcement Five symmetrical 15 unsymmetrical Symmetrical Unsymmetrical Unsymmetrical Unsymmetrical Three symmetrical 11 unsymmetrical Unsymmetrical 111 beam specimens
*

Reference McMullen and Warwaruk17-18 Mardukhi19 Onsongo4 Gesund et al.20 Zararis and Penelis21 Pandit and Warwaruk22 Lampert and Thurlimann23

Number and type of beam specimens 20 rectangular solid reinforced beams Five rectangular hollow partially prestressed beams Five hollow and four solid rectangular reinforced beams 12 rectangular solid reinforced beams 42 T- and four rectangular solid reinforced beams 14 rectangular solid reinforced beams Five square hollow reinforced beams

Nominal size, mm (in.) 152 x 305 (6 x 12) 305 x 432 (12 x 17) 508 x 410 (20 x 16.1)

Concrete strength, MPa (psi)

SMCS

ACI (θ = 450 degrees)

ACI (30 degrees ≤ θ ≤ 60 degrees)

Mean COV, % Mean COV, % Mean COV, % 5.8 5.5 13.1 14.1 15.2 10.3 4.5 14.7 1.31 1.34 1.38 1.34 1.98 1.25 1.32 1.59 14.9 22.8 20.9 13.6 20.9 13.3 13.2 28.2 1.19 1.13 1.35 1.26 1.65 1.15 1.11 1.39 12.9 10.5 21.1 14.9 18.3 12.7 3.76 23.5

30 to 40 0.98 (4350 to 5800) ≈38 (5500) 1.03

15 to 46 (2200 to 6670) 1.15

203 x 203,152 x 305 27 to 40 (8 x 8, 6 x 12) (3900 to 5800) 0.91 100 x 210* (4 x 8.3) 152 x 305 (6 x 12) 500 x 500 (19.7 x 19.7) 14 to 41 (2030 to 5950) 1.11 32 to 40 (4650 to 5800) 0.95 26 (3770) 1.04 1.04

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 θ 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 θ = 60 degrees provided more accurate results compared with the calculations based on θ = 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 θ 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 θ of 30 degrees provided more accurate results. In predominant bending, the amount of longitudinal ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

Fig. 7—T-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 θ 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 θ 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 θ 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 θ analysis, and 1.44 and 26.8% for the θ = 45-degree analysis, respectively. 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 θ 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

Fig. 8—T-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 θ provided larger strength and more accurate calculations. The average and COV 408

Table 3—Comparison with performance of SMCS in other studies (total 415 specimens)
Observed/ calculated No. of specimens Mean COV, % 111 46 14 83 161 1.04 1.01 1.17 1.03 1.28 14.7 12.5 12.2 11.1 18.8

Type of elements Beams (this study) Membrane elements Membrane elements Beams11 Beams12
9

Stress-resultants Torsion and bending In-plane shear In-plane shear and normal Pure torsion Shear, bending and axial load

10

ACI variable θ 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. 9—Effect 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 θ (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 fc ′ f1, f2 fpy fsx, fsy fy fyL = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 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

fyt = fyx, fyy = hf jd M p0 pc ph q s T t td v θ ρx, ρy σx,σy = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

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 Torsion—A 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.

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.

APPENDIX A: DESIGN EXAMPLE Design a reinforced concrete section for: M = 1500 kN·m (1106 k·ft), T = 700 kN·m (516 k·ft). 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

410

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 φ25 mm (1 in.) longitudinal bars and φ14 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 ωt = ωL = 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 φ14 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 6φ14 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 φ25 (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, 4φ14 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 kN·m (204.3 k·ft) 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 kN·m (204.3 k·ft). Step 2: Calculate the transverse reinforcement index using Eq. (19)

Fig. A1—Cross section in design example. 129 ( 379 ) ( 1836 ) ω t = ----------------------------------------------------------- = 0.388 0.42 ( 76 ) ( 208280 ) ( 34.8 ) Calculate critical ωL 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.)
( 2 ( 277 ) ( 10 ) ) ⁄ ( 0.9 ) ( 376 ) + 2 ( 387 ) ( 393 ) + 426 ( 552 ) ω L – top = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- = 0.375 ( 208,280 ) ( 34.8 ) 0.80
6

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)
– 2 ( 277 ) ( 10 ) ⁄ ( 0.9 ) ( 376 ) + 2 ( 3570 ) ( 436 ) + 426 ( 552 ) ω L – bot = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- = 0.63 0.375 ( 208,280 ) ( 34.8 )
6

The bottom reinforcement is critical. Step 3: With ωL = 0.63, ωt = 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 ( 208,208 ) T = 0.67 -------------------------11.14 = 176 kN·m (130 k·ft) 1836 This point corresponds to the same T/M as Specimen TBU3.
2

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2007

411

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