applied

sciences
Article
Modeling the Full Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Flanged Beams under Torsion
Luís Bernardo
C-MADE—Centre of Materials and Building Technologies, Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture,
University of Beira Interior, Edifício II das Engenharias, Calçada Fonte do Lameiro, 6201-001 Covilhã, Portugal;
lfb@ubi.pt; Fax: +351-275-329969




Received: 10 June 2019; Accepted: 1 July 2019; Published: 5 July 2019


Featured Application: This study aims to propose an analytical model which can be used by
structural engineers to check and design reinforced concrete flanged beams.

Abstract: Recently, an analytical model called the generalized softened variable angle truss-model
(GSVATM) aimed to predict the full behavior of reinforced concrete (RC) rectangular beams under
torsion. In this article, such a model is used to compute the full torsional behavior of RC flanged
beams, namely T- and L-shaped beams. The calculation procedure to include the influence of the
flanges is described. A comparative analysis between the predictions from the GSVATM and some
experimental results, related with RC flanged beams under torsion and found in the literature, is also
presented. From this comparative analysis and for high loading levels, the GSVTM is reliable. Yet, for
low loading levels, the theoretical model still needs to be refined.

Keywords: RC flanged beams; torsion; softened truss model; GSVATM

1. Introduction
The space truss analogy (STA) constitutes a comprehensive theoretical model which allows to
understand and model the torsional behavior of reinforced concrete (RC) beams. It is used by several
researchers and actually constitutes the base model for most of the current codes of practice. In its
early versions, proposed in the first years of the 20th century, the STA was only able to compute the
resistance of RC beams to torsion. Since then, and mainly in the last three decades, the STA has been
further developed by several researchers. Nowadays, the model is able to predict the full response of
RC beams under torsion, including low loading levels. This is important because some requirements
from codes of practice include design rules for service loads. Among the developments of the STA that
are proposed in the literature, the generalized softened variable angle truss-model (GSVATM) is one of
the most recent.
The GSVATM was firstly proposed by Bernardo et al. in 2015 [1] for RC rectangular plain beams.
The derivation of this model was based on the generalization of a previous one, the variable angle truss
model (VATM) from Hsu and Mo in 1985 [2,3]. This model aimed to unify RC and prestressed concrete
(PC) rectangular beams with small or large cross sections. The VATM was able to model correctly the
torsional behavior of RC beams only for the ultimate stage because the concrete tensile strength was
neglected. However, this concrete property is an important one because it governs in the early loading
stages. By correcting this drawback, and by incorporating adequate smeared constitutive relationships
for the materials [4], the GSVATM correctly predicted the full torque (MT )–twist (θ) curve of RC beams.
In the last years, the GSVATM has been continuously refined to cover RC rectangular hollow beams
under torsion [5], PC rectangular beams [6] and RC rectangular beams under torsion with external
axial forces [7]; and the work is ongoing. In general, the theoretical predictions from the GSVATM

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2730; doi:10.3390/app9132730 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2730 2 of 16
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 16

predictions
compare wellfrom
withthetheGSVATM compare
experimental well
results with
of RC andthePC
experimental
rectangular results
beams of RC and
under PC rectangular
torsion, including
beams
the under
cracking and torsion, including
ultimate torques.the cracking and ultimate torques.
Beamswith
Beams withflanged
flangedcross
crosssections
sectionsare
areused
usedininmany
manystructural
structuralsystems,
systems,such
suchasasbuildings
buildingsand and
bridges. T-
bridges. T- and
and L-shaped
L-shaped beams
beams areare widely
widely used
usedto tosupport
supportprecast
precastmembers
members(slabs(slabsand
andbeams,
beams,
(Figure1a))
(Figure 1a))ororwalls
walls(Figure
(Figure1b).
1b).InIncurrent
currentRCRCpavements
pavementsofofbuildings
buildings(Figure
(Figure1c),
1c),part
partofofthe
theslabs
slabs
canbe
can beconsidered
consideredasasaacomponent
componentofofthe thecross
crosssection
sectionof ofthe
thespandrel
spandrelbeams
beamslocated
locatedatatthe
theperimeter.
perimeter.
Suchend
Such endbeams
beamswith withslab
slabon
ononly
onlyoneoneside
sideare
aredesigned
designedas asflanged
flangedcross
crosssections,
sections,namely
namelyasasL-shaped
L-shaped
beams. Due
beams. Due toto asymmetric
asymmetric or or eccentric
eccentricloading
loading(Figure
(Figure1b,c)
1b,c)and
anddueduetotothe torsional
the torsionalstiffness of of
stiffness the
end
the beam
end beam(Figure
(Figure 1c),
1c),such
suchbeams
beamsmaymayhave
have to
to withstand
withstand highhigh torsional
torsional moments,
moments,amongamongotherother
internalforces.
internal forces.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure
Figure 1. T-
1. T- andand L-shaped
L-shaped beams
beams with
with torsional
torsional moments:
moments: (a)(a) supporting
supporting beam,
beam, (b)(b) eccentric
eccentric wall,
wall, (c)
end beam. (c) end beam.

Thickflanges,
Thick flanges,ininaddition
addition totothethe
web,web,areare favorable
favorable forfor
thethe torsional
torsional strength
strength of RC of RC beams.
beams. ThisThis
is
is because
because thethe torsional
torsional moment
moment is distributed
is distributed between
between thethe
webweb andand thetheflanges
flanges(without
(withoutwarping
warpingofof
thecross
the crosssection
sectionififthethecomponents
componentsare arethick),
thick),while
whilethe thewebweband anditsitstransverse
transversereinforcement
reinforcementcarry carry
mostofofthe
most theshear
shearforce.
force.However,
However,the thebehavior
behaviorofofflanged
flangedbeamsbeamsunder undertorsion
torsionisismore morecomplicated
complicated
whencompared
when compared with
with rectangular
rectangular beamsbeamsand andhighlyhighly
depends depends
on theon thesection
cross cross section
shape, on shape, on the
the relative
relative dimensions of the components of the cross section and also on the detailing of
dimensions of the components of the cross section and also on the detailing of the reinforcement the
(both
reinforcement
longitudinal and(both longitudinal
transverse) [8–11]. and transverse)
For the [8–11]. For
case of L-shaped the case
beams, of L-shaped beams,
the non-symmetric the non-
shape induces
ansymmetric
additionalshape complexinduces an additional
behavior under torsion complexwhich behavior
needs tounder torsion[12].
be assessed which This needs to bethe
explains assessed
small
[12]. This
number of explains
articles on thethesmall number behavior
theoretical of articlesof onRC theflanged
theoreticalbeamsbehavior
underof RC flanged
torsion. beams
In fact, under
previous
torsion.mainly
studies In fact,dealprevious
with the studies mainly
torsional deal with
behavior the torsional
of rectangular behavior
beams of rectangular
(for instance [13–17]).beams
Despite(for
instance [13–17]). Despite this, some previous studies in the literature focus on the experimental
this, some previous studies in the literature focus on the experimental torsional behavior of RC flanged
torsional
beams, andbehavior
some ofof RC flanged
them also propose beams, and some
analytical of them
models to also
assess propose
mainlyanalytical
the torsional models to assess
strength of
mainly
such beamsthe torsional
(for instance strength of such
[9,18–27]). beams (for
However, to instance
assess and [9,18–27]).
calibrateHowever,
theoretical to models
assess andwhichcalibrate
aim
totheoretical
predict the models which aim
full torsional to predict
behavior of thethebeams,
full torsional behavior ofdata
full experimental the beams,
are needed. full experimental
As will be
data are needed.
discussed later, only Asawill
fewbe discussed
studies were later,
foundonlyin thea few studies
literature were
that found
related to in
thethe literature that
experimental related
behavior
oftoRCthe experimental
flanged beams under behavior
torsion of and
RC which
flanged beams all
provided under torsion anddata
the experimental which thatprovided
were needed all the
to
experimental
properly assessdataand that weretheoretical
calibrate needed to models.
properly assess and calibrate theoretical models.
ItItshould
shouldalso alsobe bementioned
mentionedthat thatcurrent
currentcodescodesofofpractice
practicestillstilldodonotnotincorporate
incorporatespecific
specificand and
detailedrules
detailed rulesfor forthe
thedesign
designofofRC RCflanged
flangedcrosscrosssections
sectionsunderundertorsion,
torsion,despite
despiteattempts
attemptsmade madeinin
earlierversions
earlier versions of some
of some codes,codes,
suchsuch
as theas the American
American and Europeanand European
codes [28,29].codesAs [28,29].
a result,As a result,
engineers
engineers
still need tostillrelyneed to rely on
on personal personal to
judgement judgement
design RC toflanged
design RC beamsflanged
under beams under torsion.
torsion.
Fromthe
From theabove,
above,ititisisclear
clearthat
thatthethemodeling
modelingofofRC RCflanged
flangedbeamsbeamsunder undertorsion
torsionisisstill
stillananopen
open
issueand
issue andneeds
needsfurther
furtherresearch
research[8,30].
[8,30].
InInthis
thisarticle,
article,the
theGSVATM
GSVATMisisproposedproposedfor forRCRCflanged
flangedbeams beamsunderundertorsion,
torsion,namely
namelyfor forT-T-and
and
L-shapedbeams.
L-shaped beams.The The calculation
calculation procedure
procedure to include
to include the the influence
influence of theofflanges
the flanges is presented,
is presented, as wellas
aswell as the solution
the solution procedure procedure used to the
used to calculate calculate the fullresponse
full torsional torsionalofresponse
such beams. of such beams. The
The predictions
predictions computed from the GSVATM are also compared with some experimental results of RC
flanged beams under torsion which were found in the literature.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2730 3 of 16

Appl. Sci. 2019,

computed 9, x FOR
from PEER REVIEW
the GSVATM are also compared with some experimental results of RC flanged beams 3 of 16
under torsion which were found in the literature.
2. The GSVATM
2. The GSVATM
For the sake of this article, this section summarizes the GSVATM model for RC rectangular
beams.ForThe mainofequations,
the sake this article,asthis
well as thesummarizes
section solution procedure,
the GSVATM are model
also presented here. Additional
for RC rectangular beams.
information about the model can be found in [1]. The first equations (Equations (1–5), see Table 1) are
The main equations, as well as the solution procedure, are also presented here. Additional information
derived
about thebased
model oncan
a plain truss used
be found in [1].to The
model a RC
first thin beam
equations element under
(Equations a shear
(1–5), see Tableforce
1) are (Figure
V derived
2a). This
based on aloading induces
plain truss useda to
shear
modelflow a RC
q in
thinthe cross
beam section
element of
underthe thin
a beam.
shear This
force V beam
(Figure element
2a). is
This
used to induces
loading model the wallsflow
a shear of theq inequivalent RC box of
the cross section beam element
the thin beam. underThistorsion M T illustrated
beam element is used to in
model the walls of the equivalent RC box beam element under torsion MT illustrated in (Figure 2b),
(Figure 2b), and from which Equations (6–11) are derived (see Table 1). When compared to the VATM
and from which Equations (6)–(11) are derived (see Table 1). When compared to the VATM [2,3],
[2,3], the GSVATM incorporates an additional feature which is a concrete tie with a tensile force T
the GSVATM incorporates an additional feature which is a concrete tie with a tensile force T in the
in the perpendicular direction to the concrete strut (see Figure 2a). This last one carries a compressive
perpendicular direction to the concrete strut (see Figure 2a). This last one carries a compressive force
force C and makes an angle  to the longitudinal axis of the beam. This angle is equal to the angle
C and makes an angle α to the longitudinal axis of the beam. This angle is equal to the angle of
of cracks (see Figure 2a). The concrete tie aims to simulate the tensile concrete in the referred
cracks (see Figure 2a). The concrete tie aims to simulate the tensile concrete in the referred direction.
direction. In Figure 2a, R is the resulting force (Equation (1)) with an angle  (Equation (2)) to the
In Figure 2a, R is the resulting force (Equation (1)) with an angle β (Equation (2)) to the force C and
force C and with an angle  (Equation (3)) to the longitudinal axis of the beam. Forces C
with an angle γ (Equation (3)) to the longitudinal axis of the beam. Forces C (Equation (4)) and T
(Equation (5))
(Equation (4))are,
andrespectively,
T (Equation the(5)) are, respectively,
resultants the resultants
of the compressive of the compressive
and tensile and
stress fields in tensile
concrete
stress fields in concrete (
(σ2 and σ1 , respectively).Parameter
c c c
2
and , respectively). Parameter
 1 dv is the distance betweendthe
c
v
is the distance between the
centers of longitudinal bars and centers
of longitudinal
parameter bars
tc is the and of
width parameter
the thin crosst c issection
the width (seeofFigure
the thin2a).cross
Thissection
latter is(see Figure
equal 2a).
to the Thisof
width latter
the
is equal to the width of the concrete strut and tie.
concrete strut and tie.

MT

T c1


T T V q
R dv Cracks
 V C Asl fsl
 q

C q
C 
q q 
c2 d v cotg 
tc
s

(a) (b)

Figure
Figure 2. 2. Beam
Beam elements
elements to derive
to derive thethe equations
equations for generalized
for the the generalized softened
softened variable
variable angleangle truss-
truss-model
(GSVATM): (a) thin beam,model (GSVATM)
(b) box beam. [1,6]. : (a) thin beam, (b) box beam.

In the
In the box
box beam
beam element,
element, the the torsional
torsional moment
moment MMT Tand andthethe shear
shear flow
flow q are are related
q related by using
by using the
classical Bredt 0 s thin tube theory for thin tubes. Three equilibrium equations (Equations (6)–(8)) are
the classical Bredt′s thin tube theory for thin tubes. Three equilibrium equations (Equations (6–8)) are
derived
derived to tocalculate
calculatethe thefollowing:
following:the thetorsional
torsional moment
momentMT , the, effective thickness
the effective tc and the
thickness angle
M t c and the
α. If γ = α + β > 90◦ , Equation (7) is multiplied by the factorT (−1). In the previous equations, the
angle  . If       90  , Equation (7) is multiplied by the factor (−1). In the previous equations,
other parameters are the following: A and p are, respectively, the area enclosed and the perimeter
thethe
of other
centerparameters
line of theare the flow
shear following: and p  are,
q whichAis assumed respectively,
to coincide thecenter
with the area enclosed
line of the and the
walls
perimeter
(A = (x − tcof
)(the
y − center
tc ), with line of the
x and shear
y the flow q and
minimum which is assumed
maximum todimensions
outer coincide with the cross
of the centersection,
line of
the walls
and p = 2((Ax −tc)x +

y y−tct)); ,A
 t2c ( c
with x and
sl is the area yof the
the minimum andsteel
longitudinal maximum outer dimensions
reinforcement; Ast is theofarea
the
of one bar of the transverse steel reinforcement (closed stirrups); s is the spacing of the stirrups
cross section, and p   2( x  t c )  2( y  tc ) ); Asl is the area of the longitudinal steel reinforcement;
in the longitudinal direction; fsl and fst are the stresses in the longitudinal and transverse steel
A is the area of one bar of the transverse steel reinforcement (closed stirrups); s is the spacing of
reinforcement, respectively.
st

the stirrups in the longitudinal direction; f sl and f st are the stresses in the longitudinal and
transverse steel reinforcement, respectively.
 Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 16
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 16
Appl.Sci.
Appl. Sci.2019,
2019,9,9,2730
x FOR PEER
TableREVIEW
1. Equations for GSVATM (reinforced concrete (RC) beams) [1].
44 of
of16
16
Table 1. Equations for GSVATM (reinforced concrete (RC) beams) [1].
Equations for theTable
plain1.truss (RC thin
Equations beam under
for GSVATM shear):concrete (RC) beams) [1].
(reinforced
Equations for the plain truss
Table (RC thinfor
1. Equations beam under(reinforced
GSVATM shear): concrete (RC) beams).
Equations for the plain truss (RC thin beam under shear):
Equations for the plain truss (RC thin beam under shear):

Equations for the space truss (RC box beam under torsion):
Equations for the space truss (RC box beam under torsion):
Equilibrium equations:
Equations forfor
thethe
space
spacetruss
truss(RC
(RCbox
box beam undertorsion):
torsion):
Equilibrium
Equations equations: beam under
Equilibrium equations:
Equilibrium equations:

Compatibility
Compatibilityequations:
equations:
Compatibility equations:
Compatibility equations:

For the box beam element, three compatibility equations (Equations (9–11)) are also derived to
For the box beam element, three compatibility equations (Equations (9–11)) are also derived to
calculateFor thethe
boxfollowing:
beam element, the strainsthree in compatibility
the transverse equations (Equationssteel
and longitudinal (9–11)) are also derived
reinforcement, to
 st εand
calculate
calculate For thethe following:
the box beam element,
following:
the strains
the strains threein the
in thecompatibility
transverseequations
transverse and longitudinal
and longitudinal (Equations steel (9–11))
reinforcement,
steel reinforcement, are also εderivedst and
 st and to
sl
 sl respectively,
calculate
respectively, theandfollowing:
the and the angular
angular the strains
deformation deformation
in the per unitper
transverse lengthunit (twist)
length θ.
and longitudinal
(twist)
Equation  . Equation
steel reinforcement,
(12) relates (12) therelates
strains.and
the
respectively, and the angular deformation per unit length c(twist)  . Equation (12) relates  st the
 slstrains.
In the previous In the previous
equations, equations,
the otherthe other parameters
parameters are: εc2s is are:themaximum is the maximum compressive compressive
strain which strain
 sl respectively, and the angular deformation per unit length 2 s(twist)  . Equation (12) relates the
strains. Inthe
theouter
previous equations, the other parameters
ε c and εc are are: c average
c
is the maximum compressive strain
which occurs at the outer fiber of the concrete
occurs at fiber of the concrete strut; strut; the 2and
s
 c
are
strains thein average
the concrete strains
strut in
and the
strains. In the previous equations, the other parameters are: 1 2 1 c is the2 maximum compressive strain
which
tie, occurs atThe
respectively. the distribution
outer fiber of ofthe thestrains
concrete among strut; thethickness
c
and 2 s  cofare the the
struts average
and ties strains
accounts in the
for
concrete strut and tie, respectively. The distribution of the 1 strains2 among the thickness of the struts
which
the bending occurs ofxandat the
the walls outer
which fiber
induces of thea strain
concrete strut; (Figure
gradient and3). c2 are the average strains in the
1cstrains
concrete
Appl. Sci. strut
2019, 9, FOR tie,
PEER respectively.
REVIEW The
and ties accounts for the bending of the walls which induces a strain distribution of the among gradientthe thickness
(Figure 3). of the5struts of 16
concrete
and ties strut and
accounts for tie,
the respectively.
bending of Thewalls
the distribution
which of the strains
induces a strain among
gradient the(Figure
thickness 3). of the struts
A smeared and softened stress (  )–strain (  ) relationship is used for the compressive concrete
and A ties accounts forsoftened
the bending of(the walls which induces a strain = gradient
k (Figure 3). concrete
c c c

in thesmeared strut. Asand stress  )–strain (  in

) relationship is used
the for  the compressive
2s  c 2 2  c
justified in [4],
CONCRETE
forSTRUTthe concrete compression, relationship proposed by
inBelarbi A
the strut.smearedAs and
justified softened
in [4], stress
for the (  )–strain
concrete (
in ) relationship
compression, is
the used  for
 the compressive
relationship proposed concrete by
and Hsu [31] (Equations center line (13)
of and (14) in Table 2) with softening factor        for both
in the strut.
Belarbi and Hsu As justified
[31] (Equations in [4],
shearforflowthe
(13) andconcrete
(14) in in compression,
Table 2) with softening the   factor  relationship  (Equations
   proposed
for both by
the peak stress and corresponding strain proposed by Zhang and Hsu in 1998 t [32] (15–18)
Belarbi and Hsu [31] (Equations (13) and (14) t in Table
  2)
=
c c
 with softening factor
c
     for both
theinpeak Tablestress and corresponding
2) is used. neutral axisstrain proposed t /2
c
by Zhang and Hsu in 1998 [32] (Equations
2 2s
   (15–18)

the
in Table peak stress and corresponding strain proposed by
2) is used. a smeared and stiffened    relationship is used for the tensile concrete Zhang and Hsu in 1998 [32] (Equations (15–18)
Additionally, in the
in Table 2) is used.a smeared and stiffened    relationship is used for the tensile concrete in the
tie Additionally,
and also for the tensile steel bars. For the tensile concrete, the    relationship from Belarbi and
tieHsu and Additionally,
also for[33] a smeared
the tensile steel and
bars. stiffened
For Hsu  relationship
 f is used for the tensile
 = k relationship concrete in the
Jengthe tensile concrete, the from Belarbi
2) is and
c c c f
in 1994 and modified CONCRETE by TIE and in1s
2009 [34] cr
(Equations
1 1 cr
(19–23) in Table used.
tie
Hsu and
in also
1994 for
[33] the
and tensile
modified steel bars.
by Jeng For the
and tensile
Hsu in concrete,
2009 [34] the 
(Equations   relationship
(19–23) in from
Table Belarbi
2) is and
used.
For the steel bars in tension, as justified in [4], the    relationship from Belarbi and Hsu in 1994
Hsuthe
For in steel
1994 bars
[33] in and modified
tension,
center
as by Jeng and
line of Hsu thein2009 [34] (Equations (19–23)
Belarbiinand Table 2) inis used.
[33] (Equations (30–32) shearjustified
in Table 2) is used.
flow in [4],   relationship from Hsu 1994
For the
[33] (Equations steel bars in tension,
(30–32) equations, as
in Table 2) is justified in [4], the    relationship from t Belarbi and Hsu in 1994
In the previous theused. meaning ofthe parameters
 = are as follows: f c is the average
c c c
t 1 
1s

[33] In (Equations (30–32) in Tableneutral2) t /2

theismeaning
axis used.
the previous equations, of the parameters are as follows: f c is the average
c

compressive strength of concrete and  o is the corresponding strain; l is the longitudinal

In the previous equations, the meaning of the parameters are as follows: c is the average
compressive strength of concrete and  o is the corresponding strain; l is fthe longitudinal
reinforcement ratio ( l  Asl / Ac , with Ac  xy ); t is the transverse reinforcement ratio (
compressive strength of concrete and  o is the corresponding strain; l is the longitudinal
reinforcement ratio ( l  Asl / AcFigure , with3. Stress Ac  xy );strain is the transverse reinforcement ratio (
t stresses
t  Ast u / Ac s ,ratio with u  2 x  2 yFigure ); ly 3. and Stress fty andarestrain
and the gradients
gradients. corresponding to the yielding of the
reinforcement ( l  Asl / Ac , fwith A  xy );  is the transverse reinforcement ratio (
t  Ast u / Ac s , with u  2 x  2 y ); fly and ftyc are the stresses t corresponding to the yielding of the
longitudinal and transverse
t AAstsmearedu / Ac s , and with 2reinforcement,
y ); (σ)–strain
 2 x 2.stress
uTable
softened Stress–strainfly and( f
respectively;
are the stresses
ty  ) relationship for
(ε) relationship Eis is
c used
thefor Young´s
corresponding
the materials. the compressivemodulus
to the yielding for concrete;
concrete of the
in
longitudinal and transverse reinforcement, respectively; E is the Young´s modulus for concrete;
is the tensile
f crstrut. As justified concrete strength and is the
 crrespectively; corresponding
compression, the σ strain;
− ε relationship and are the
 s forbyconcrete; stress
Young´sf smodulus
c
the
longitudinal in [4], forreinforcement,
and transverse the concrete in proposed Belarbi
Concrete is intensile
the[31] compressionconcrete [4,31,32]:
strength Ec is the
f crand
and Hsu strain in the steel (13)
(Equations and (14)and
reinforcement,  cr is2)the
in respectively;
Table with corresponding
is
softening
Es the Young´s
factor strain;
β ∗ = βf sσ =
modulus
and β ε for
for are the
 s both
steel; the stress
is the
peak
f y stress
f is the tensile concrete strength and  is the corresponding strain; f and  are the
and
stresscr strain in the steel reinforcement,
and corresponding strain proposed respectively;
bycrZhang and Es Hsu is the in Young´s
1998 [32] modulus (Equations s for steel;
s
(15–18) is the
inf yTable 2)
stress
and corresponding
strain in the steel to the yielding ofrespectively;
reinforcement, the steel reinforcement; is the and  modulus
Young´s is the reinforcement
for steel; ratio.
is the
is used. E f
stress corresponding to the yielding of the steel reinforcement; s and  is the reinforcement ratio. y

stress corresponding to the yielding of the steel reinforcement; and  is the reinforcement ratio.

Concrete in tension [33,34]:

 neutral axis
shear flow t tc /2 t
neutral axis tc /2
shear flow t  c1c1=
=c
c1s 
tcc
neutral axis t tc /2  c= 1s  tc
neutral axis t tc /2  1
c
1s 
neutral axis tc /2

Figure
Figure 3.
3. Stress
Stress and
and strain
strain gradients
gradients
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2730
Figure 3. Stress and strain gradients
Figure 3. Stress and strain gradients 5 of 16
Table 2. Figure 3.
Stress–strainStress
Table 2. Stress–strain ((   and
 ) strain gradients
) relationship for
relationship for the
the materials.
materials.

Table 2.
Table 2. Stress–strain
Stress–strain ((    )) relationship
relationship for
for the
the materials.
materials.
Concrete   ) relationship
Concrete inin compression
compression [4,31,32]:
Table 2. Stress–strain
[4,31,32]: (    for the materials.
Table 2. Stress–strain (σ − ε) relationship for the materials.
Concrete in
Concrete in compression
compression [4,31,32]:
[4,31,32]:
Concrete incompression
Concrete in compression [4,31,32]:
[4,31,32]:

Concrete
Concrete in
in tension
tension [33,34]:
[33,34]:
Concrete in tension
Concreteinintension [33,34]:
tension [33,34]:
Concrete
Concrete in tension[33,34]:
[33,34]:

Stress
Stress in
in the
the concrete
concrete struts
struts [1]:
[1]:
Stress in the
Stressininthe concrete
the concrete struts
struts [1]:
[1]:
Stress
Stress in theconcrete
concretestruts
struts
[1]:[1]:

Stress in
Stressin the
inthe concrete
theconcrete
concrete ties [1]:
Stress tiesties
[1]:[1]:
Stress in the concrete
Stress in the concrete tiesties [1]:
[1]:
Stress in the concrete ties [1]:

Steel reinforcement
Steelreinforcement
reinforcement in tension [33]:
Steel in in tension
tension [33]:[33]:
Steel reinforcement
Steel reinforcement in in tension
tension [33]:
[33]:
Steel reinforcement in tension [33]:

The
The stress
stress a2c2 smeared
Additionally,
c
represents
representsandthe
the average
average
stiffened σ stress
− in
in the
the concrete
ε relationship
stress concrete strut
is used for (Equation
strut the tensile(24)
(Equation (24) in
in Table
concrete Table
in the2)
2) and
and
tie
The
accounts stress
for
The stressthe c2 represents
strain
 c
gradient the average
(Figure 3). stress
The stressin the c concrete
represents
1c concrete σ strut
εthe (Equation
average (24)
stress in
in Table
the 2) and
concrete
c 2 represents the average stress in the strut
the(Equation (24) in inTable 2) and
and also
accounts for the
for the  tensile
strain steel bars.
gradientthe For
(Figure the tensile
3). The concrete,
stress the −
represents relationship from
average stress Belarbi and
the concrete
The stress  represents average stress in the 1concrete strut (Equation (24) in Table 2) and
Hsuaccounts
tie in 1994for[33]
the strain
and gradient
modified by(Figure
Jeng 3).
and The
Hsu stress
infor2009 c1 represents
[34] (Equationsthe average
average
(19–23) stress
in3).
Table in the
the
2) isconcrete
used.cc
tie (Equation (27) in
in Table 2)
2) and also accounts for the strain
strain gradient (Figure 3). Parameters
2 c
accounts for
(Equation the strain gradient (Figure 3). The stress c1 represents the stress in concretek2
accounts
For the steel the(27)
forbars strain
in
Table
gradient
tension, as
and
(Figure
justified
also3).
in
accounts
Thethe
[4], stress
σ − ε
the represents
relationship
gradient
from
(Figure
the average
Belarbi stress
and Hsu
Parameters
in the1994
in [33]k 2c
concrete
tie (Equation
(Equations (25) (27) in
andin(26)) Tableand2) and also
kk1c (Equationsaccounts(28) for
and the
1
strain
(29)) gradient
represent the (Figure
average 3). Parameters
compressive
Parametersand
tie (Equation (27) Table 2) and also accounts for the strain gradient (Figure 3). kkc2c2
c
(Equations
tie (Equation
(Equations (25)
(27)and
(30–32) in (26))
Tableand
in Table 2)2)
isand
used. (Equations
also accounts (28)for andthe (29)) represent
strain gradient the(Figure
average3). compressive
Parameters and
1 k
(Equations (25)
(Equations (25) and
and (26)) (26)) and
and k1cc (Equations
(Equations (28) (28) andand (29))(29)) represent
represent the the average
average0 compressive
compressive and and 2
In the previous equations, kthe meaning of the parameters
(Equations (25) and (26)) and k1 (Equations (28) and (29)) represent the average compressive and
c1 are as follows: f c is the average
compressive strength of concrete and εo is the corresponding strain; ρl is the longitudinal reinforcement
ratio (ρl = Asl /Ac , with Ac = xy ); ρt is the transverse reinforcement ratio (ρt = Ast u/Ac s , with
u = 2x + 2y); fly and fty are the stresses corresponding to the yielding of the longitudinal and transverse
reinforcement, respectively; Ec is the Young´s modulus for concrete; fcr is the tensile concrete strength
and εcr is the corresponding strain; fs and εs are the stress and strain in the steel reinforcement,
respectively; Es is the Young´s modulus for steel; f y is the stress corresponding to the yielding of the
steel reinforcement; and ρ is the reinforcement ratio.
The stress σc2 represents the average stress in the concrete strut (Equation (24) in Table 2) and
accounts for the strain gradient (Figure 3). The stress σc1 represents the average stress in the concrete
tie (Equation (27) in Table 2) and also accounts for the strain gradient (Figure 3). Parameters k2c
(Equations (25) and (26)) and k1c (Equations (28) and (29)) represent the average compressive and tensile
stresses, respectively. These parameters are computed from integration of Equations (13), (14) and (19),
(20), respectively.
The solution procedure of the GSVATM to calculate the MT − θ curve accounts for the nonlinearity
of the equations and is based on an iterative trial-and-error technique. To start the calculation, some
tensile stresses, respectively. These parameters are computed from integration of Equations (13), (14)
and (19), (20), respectively.
The solution procedure of the GSVATM to calculate the M T   curve accounts for the
nonlinearity of2730
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, the equations and is based on an iterative trial-and-error technique. To start6 of the
16
calculation, some variables must be assumed or estimated and checked latter. Figure 4 illustrates the
calculation algorithm. The first input value is the strain  c2 s  2  c2 (see Figure 3). In each cycle this
variables must be assumed or estimated and checked latter. Figure 4 illustrates the calculation algorithm.
value is incremented and a pointc to draw the M T   curve is calculated. In [1] the solution
The first input value is the strain ε2s = 2εc2 (see Figure 3). In each cycle this value is incremented and
procedure for the GSVATM was computationally implemented
a point to draw the MT − θ curve is calculated. In [1] the solution withprocedure
language Delphi. The resulting
for the GSVATM was
computing
computationallytool was also used with
implemented in this study toDelphi.
language calculate
Thethe curve fortool
M T  computing
resulting some reference
was RC
also used in
flanged beams (Section 4). T
this study to calculate the M − θ curve for some reference RC flanged beams (Section 4).

Figure
Figure4.4.Flowchart
Flowchartfor
forthe
theGSVATM.
GSVATM.

The
The solution procedureofofthe
solution procedure theGSVATM
GSVATM ends
ends whenwhen
one oneof theofmaterials
the materials (concrete
(concrete orreaches
or steel) steel)
reaches its assumed
its assumed conventional
conventional ultimateultimate
(failure)(failure) strain
strain (εcu (  cu for compressive
for compressive εsu forand
concrete
concrete and tensile for
 su steel
reinforcement). In [1], such values were defined from the European code of practice, Eurocode 2 [35],
tensile steel reinforcement). In [1], such values were defined from the European code of practice,
and were also adopted here.
Eurocode 2 [35], and were also adopted here.
3. Calculation Procedure for RC Flanged Beams
3. Calculation Procedure for RC Flanged Beams
This section aims to present the adopted calculation procedure to model RC flanged beams
This section aims to present the adopted calculation procedure to model RC flanged beams
under torsion, namely T- and L-shaped beams, and which is implemented using the GSVATM.
under torsion, namely T- and L-shaped beams, and which is implemented using the GSVATM. A
A similar calculation procedure as the one proposed by Deifalla in 2015 [36] to model RC T- and
similar calculation procedure as the one proposed by Deifalla in 2015 [36] to model RC T- and L-
L-shaped beams was adopted, which constitutes a generalization of the one proposed by Deifalla and
shaped beams was adopted, which constitutes a generalization of the one proposed by Deifalla and
Ghobarah in 2010 [37] for RC rectangular beams under torsion wrapped with fiber reinforced polymers
Ghobarah in 2010 [37] for RC rectangular beams under torsion wrapped with fiber reinforced
(FRP). The proposed calculation procedure divides the equivalent box cross section into rectangular
polymers (FRP). The proposed calculation procedure divides the equivalent box cross section into
sub-elements which are independently analyzed under torsion by using a theoretical model for RC
rectangular sub-elements which are independently analyzed under torsion by using a theoretical
rectangular beams. In the end, the superposition principle is used to compute the response of the
model for RC rectangular beams. In the end, the superposition principle is used to compute the
original cross section.
response of the original cross section.
To apply this calculation procedure to RC T- and L-shaped beams, Deifalla [36] proposed
To apply this calculation procedure to RC T- and L-shaped beams, Deifalla [36] proposed
subdividing the cross section into three different ways, as shown in Figure 5 (subdivisions I, II and III),
subdividing the cross section into three different ways, as shown in Figure 5 (subdivisions I, II and
and test each of them. The idea to divide the cross section into rectangular components comes from the
III), and test each of them. The idea to divide the cross section into rectangular components comes
classical Bach´s theory for thin walled cross sections under torsion. For thick walled cross sections, the
connection area between the web and the flange is not negligible when compared to the area of the
entire cross section. This raises doubts about how to perform the division into rectangular components.
To solve this issue, Deifalla [36] proposed dividing the cross section into different ways and test each of
them to find which was the best.
 3rd step: for a given subdivision (I, II or III), and from the list of point solutions ( M Ti ;  i ) for
each rectangular sub-element i , the torque M T in the original cross section is computed
according to Equation (33) and by using deformation compatibility;
 4th step: the M T   curve for each subdivision (I, II and III) is obtained. The curves can be
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2730 7 of 16
compared with experimental results in order to assess which subdivision gives the best result.

Subdivision I Subdivision II Subdivision III

Figure
Figure 5.
5. Subdivisions
Subdivisions (I,
(I, IIII and
and III)
III) of
of T-
T- and
and L-shaped
L-shaped beams
beams into
into rectangular
rectangular sub-elements.
sub-elements.

As
Forexplained in the next
each subdivision, eachsection, flanged
rectangular beams under
sub-element torsion partially
was analyzed or fully reinforced
as an independent with
RC rectangular
glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars were also incorporated in this study as reference beams
beam under torsion by using the GSVATM to compute its full response. After this, the superposition
to assess the
principle waspredictions
applied in from
orderthe calculation
to calculate theprocedure MT − θ curve
theoreticalpreviously explained. For this reason,
for the original flanged abeam.
new
For
 relationship
this, by using for GFRP
deformationmust be incorporated
compatibility, it is in the
assumed GSVATM
that the to
twist θ
model the
must tensile
be the behavior
same, of
either
GFRP bars, either for longitudinal or transverse reinforcement. The following elastic
for the original cross section or for each rectangular sub-element. The torque M T of and linear law
the original cross
adopted
section isby Deifalla
given in 2015 [36]
by Equation is also
(33), where used
MTihere:
is the torque of each rectangular sub-element i which
imposes the same twist θ. Parameter n represents the number of rectangular components.
n
X
MT = MTi (33)
i=1

Based on the previously described calculation procedure, the main equations and solution
procedure of the GSVATM do not need to be changed since each sub-element of the flanged cross
section is a rectangle. The followed calculation procedure is summarized as follows:

• 1st step: the original flanged cross section is subdivided (subdivisions I, II and II);
• 2nd step: the GSVATM is used to calculate independently the full MTi − θi curve for each
rectangular sub-element i and for each subdivision;
• 3rd step: for a given subdivision (I, II or III), and from the list of point solutions (MTi ; θi ) for each
rectangular sub-element i, the torque MT in the original cross section is computed according to
Equation (33) and by using deformation compatibility;
• 4th step: the MT − θ curve for each subdivision (I, II and III) is obtained. The curves can be
compared with experimental results in order to assess which subdivision gives the best result.

As explained in the next section, flanged beams under torsion partially or fully reinforced with
glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars were also incorporated in this study as reference beams to
assess the predictions from the calculation procedure previously explained. For this reason, a new
σ − ε relationship for GFRP must be incorporated in the GSVATM to model the tensile behavior of
GFRP bars, either for longitudinal or transverse reinforcement. The following elastic and linear law
adopted by Deifalla in 2015 [36] is also used here:

σf = Ef εf (34)

where σ f and ε f are the tensile stress and strain in the fiber direction of the GFRP bar, respectively, and
E f is Young´s modulus.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2730 8 of 16

The conventional ultimate (failure) strain of the GFRP bar ε f tu was assumed to be the one
prescribed by ACI 440.1R-06 [38]:
ε f tu = 0.75ε f u (35)

where ε f u is the tensile failure strain, which can be computed from Hooke´s law, with σ f tu being the
tensile failure stress of the GRFP bar:
σ f tu
εfu = (36)
Ef

4. Reference Beams
To assess the calculation procedure explained in the previous section, experimental data related
with RC flanged beams under pure torsion were searched in the literature [39]. As referred in the
introduction section, few experimental studies were found in the literature for which full data were
given. Some studies do not give all the properties of the beams (mechanical and geometrical) that
are needed to calculate the MT − θ curve using the GSVATM. For instance, the full detailing of the
reinforcement, the concrete cover or the full mechanical properties of the materials are not given.
Other studies do not present the full experimental MT − θ curve, which is needed to compare with the
theoretical one from the GSVATM. Finally, some studies include beams with atypical detailing for the
reinforcement (for instance, flanges with insufficient or without transverse reinforcement) which led to
atypical failure of the beams. All these reported cases were disregarded for the present study.
As a result, only three RC L-shaped beams and one RC T-shaped beam were found and for which
all the data are given. The beams are as follows: beam LB1 (L-shaped) and beam TB1 (T-shaped)
from Deifalla et al. in 2013 and 2014 [10,40]; beams BL1 (L-shaped) from El-Kateb et al. in 2013 [41];
and beam BK-T (L-shaped) from Kaminski and Pawlak in 2011 [30].
Due to the aforementioned, the literature review was expanded in order to incorporate additional
reference flanged beams. Some recent studies were found which deal with flanged beams under pure
torsion partially or fully reinforced with GFRP bars. From those studies, some beams (for which all
Appl.
dataSci. 2019,
were 9, x FOR
given) PEER
were REVIEW
also incorporated in this study as reference beams. These are as follows9 ones: of 16
beams LB2, LB3, LB4 and LB5 (L-shaped) from Deifalla et al. in 2014 [10].
the stresses
Tables corresponding
3–5 summarizeto the the properties
failure of the oflongitudinal
the chosen and transverse
reference beams.GFRP reinforcement;
Figure 6 defines the Ec
is Young´s parameters
geometrical modulus of forconcrete;
the T- and EL-shaped
sl
and cross
E st are, respectively,
sections presented Young´s
in Table modulus
3. for the
In Tables 3 and 4 the meaning of the
longitudinal and transverse steel reinforcement; E fl and parameters are: xi and yi are the width and the height,
E ft are, respectively, Young´s modulus
respectively, of the rectangular component i (see Figure 6); x1.i and y1.i are the width and the height,
for the longitudinal and transverse GFRP reinforcement;   and  cu are, respectively, the strain
respectively, of the internal stirrup for the rectangular component i (see Figure 6); Asl is the area
corresponding
of the longitudinal to thesteel
peakreinforcement;
stress and the conventional ultimate
Asti is the area of onestrain for the concrete
bar constituting the in compression;
transverse steel
 slu and
reinforcement stu (closed stirrup) in the rectangular component i; s is the spacing of the closedtransverse
are, respectively, the conventional ultimate strains for the longitudinal and stirrup in
steel reinforcement;
the longitudinal  flu Aand
direction; are,
 ftuarea
f l is the respectively,
of the longitudinalthe conventional
GFRP ultimate
reinforcement; and Astrains
f ti is thefor
areathe
of
one bar constituting
longitudinal the transverse
and transverse GFRP GFRP reinforcement (closed stirrup) in the rectangular component i.
reinforcement.

Figure
Figure 6.
6. Geometrical
Geometrical parameters
parameters presented
presented in
in Table
Table 3.
3.

Table 3. Reference beams: geometrical properties.

x1 y1 x1.1 y1.1 x2 y2 x1.2 y1.2

Beam Shape
cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm
LB1 [10] L 15 35 9.4 30.4 30 15 25.4 11.4
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2730 9 of 16

Table 3. Reference beams: geometrical properties.

Beam Shape x1 cm y1 cm x1.1 cm y1.1 cm x2 cm y2 cm x1.2 cm y1.2 cm

LB1 [10] L 15 35 9.4 30.4 30 15 25.4 11.4
LB2 [10] L 15 35 9.4 30.4 30 15 25.4 11.4
LB3 [10] L 15 35 9.4 30.4 30 15 25.4 11.4
LB4 [10] L 15 35 9.2 30.2 30 15 25.2 11.2
LB5 [10] L 15 35 9 30.0 30 15 25.0 11.0
BL1 [41] L 12 30 6.4 24.4 30 15 24.0 9.0
BK-T [30] L 18 25 13.2 20.7 33 10 28.7 6.2
TB1 [40] T 12 40 6.4 38.4 40 8 36.4 4.4

Table 4. Reference beams: steel and glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) reinforcement quantities.

Beam Asl cm2 Ast1 /s cm2 /m Ast2 /s cm2 /m Afl cm2 Aft1 /s cm2 /m Aft2 /s cm2 /m
LB1 [10] 6.88 2.02 2.02 - - -
LB2 [10] - 2.02 2.02 6.88 - -
LB3 [10] - - - 6.88 2.02 2.02
LB4 [10] - - - 6.88 3.59 3.59
LB5 [10] - - - 6.88 5.61 5.61
BL1 [41] 12.75 1.41 3.93 - - -
BK-T [30] 12.57 4.02 4.02 - - -
TB1 [40] 16.59 2.02 2.02 - - -

Table 5. Reference beams: material properties.

fc fct fly fty flf ftf Ec Esl Est Efl Eft ε◦ 1 εcu 1 εslu 1 εstu 1 εflu 2 εftu 2
Beam
MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa GPa GPa GPa GPa GPa % % % % % %
30.0
LB1 [10] 28.0 2.2 1 360 240 - - 1 210 210 - - 1.97 3.5 10 10 - -
30.0
LB2 [10] 28.0 2.2 1 - 240 400 - 1 - 210 36.7 - 1.97 3.5 10 10 8.2 -
30.0
LB3 [10] 28.0 2.2 1 - - 400 400 1 - - 36.7 36.7 1.97 3.5 10 10 8.2 8.2

1 30.0
LB4 [10] 28.0 2.2 - - 400 400 1 - - 36.7 36.7 1.97 3.5 10 10 8.2 8.2
30.0
LB5 [10] 28.0 2.2 1 - - 400 400 1 - - 36.7 36.7 1.97 3.5 10 10 8.2 8.2
28.6
BL1 [41] 24.0 1.9 1 360 240 - - 1 210 210 - - 1.87 3.5 10 10 - -
BK-T [30] 27.1 2.8 576 435 - - 26.4 204 203 - - 1.95 3.5 10 10 - -
30.0
TB1 [40] 28.0 2.2 1 360 240 - - 1 210 210 - - 1.95 3.5 10 10 - -

1 Values computed according to Eurocode 2 [35]; 2 values computed from Equation (35).

In Table 5, the meaning of the parameters are: fc is the strength of concrete in compression; fct
is the strength of concrete in tension; fly and fty are, respectively, the stresses corresponding to the
yielding of the longitudinal and transverse steel reinforcement; fl f and ft f are, respectively, the stresses
corresponding to the failure of the longitudinal and transverse GFRP reinforcement; Ec is Young´s
modulus of concrete; Esl and Est are, respectively, Young´s modulus for the longitudinal and transverse
steel reinforcement; E f l and E f t are, respectively, Young´s modulus for the longitudinal and transverse
GFRP reinforcement; ε◦ and εcu are, respectively, the strain corresponding to the peak stress and
the conventional ultimate strain for the concrete in compression; εslu and εstu are, respectively, the
conventional ultimate strains for the longitudinal and transverse steel reinforcement; ε f lu and ε f tu are,
respectively, the conventional ultimate strains for the longitudinal and transverse GFRP reinforcement.

5. Comparative Analyses
This section discusses the comparative analyses performed between the theoretical results
obtained from the calculation procedure presented in Sections 2 and 3, by using the GSVATM, with the
 Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2730 10 of 16

experimental results for the reference RC flanged beams presented in Section 4. Such comparative
analyses include the MT − θ curves and the torsional strength.
It must be referred that subdivisions I, II and III for T- and L-shaped beams, as shown in Figure 5,
only show how the concrete cross section is divided into concrete rectangular components. In [36] it is
not clearly explained how the reinforcement is divided for each concrete rectangle component. For this
study the following criteria are assumed:

• for the transverse reinforcement, since two independent closed stirrups exist (one for the web and
another one for the flange, see Figure 6), it is assumed that the closed stirrup of the web constitutes
the transverse reinforcement of sub-element 1 and that the closed stirrup of the flange constitutes
the transverse reinforcement of sub-element 2 (see Figure 5);
• for the longitudinal reinforcement, it is assumed that the total area of reinforcement is divided
among the concrete rectangular components 1 and 2 (see Figure 5) as a function of their area with
respect to the total area of concrete in the cross section.

Figures 7–14 present, for each reference beams, the MT − θ curves. Each graph includes the
experimental curve and three theoretical curves, one for each subdivision.
Figures 7–14 show high variability between the theoretical curves computed with subdivision II
and
Appl.
Appl. those
Sci. Sci.
2019, 9,computed
2019,x9,FOR
x FOR with
PEER
PEER subdivisions I and III. These latter are quite similar for most of the beams.
REVIEW
REVIEW 1111of of
1616

Figure 7. M T   curves for beam LB1 [10].

7. M7.T M
Figure
Figure − θ curves for beam LB1.
T curves for beam LB1 [10].

Figure 8. M − θ curves for beam LB2.

Figure 8. M T T  curves for beam LB2 [10].

Figure 8. M T   curves for beam LB2 [10].

 Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2730 11 of 16
Figure 8. M T   curves for beam LB2 [10].

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 16

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 16
Figure 9. MT − θ curves for beam LB3.
Figure 9. M T   curves for beam LB3 [10].

Figure 10. M T   curves for beam LB4 [10].

Figure 10. MT − θ curves for beam LB4.
Figure 10. M T   curves for beam LB4 [10].

Figure 11. MT − θ curves for beam LB5.

Figure 11. M T   curves for beam LB5 [10].
Figure 11. M T   curves for beam LB5 [10].
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2730 12 of 16
Figure 11. M T   curves for beam LB5 [10].

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 16

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 16
Figure 12. M − θ curves for beam BL1.
Figure 12. M T T curves for beam BL1 [41].

Figure 13. M T   curves for beam BK-T [30].

Figure 13. MT − θ curves for beam BK-T.
Figure 13. M T   curves for beam BK-T [30].

Figure 14. M − θ curves for beam TB1.

Figure 14. M T T  curves for beam TB1 [40].
When the experimental curves Figure are
14. compared
M T   curves
with for
thebeam TB1 [40].
theoretical ones, it can be stated that, as far
as theFor the ultimate
ultimate state isstate, the results
concerned, agree with curves
the theoretical those observed
computed bywith
Deifalla in 2015 II
subdivision [36],
arewhich also
in general
observed
For
better thanthat
the thesubdivision
ultimate
otherstate, II
ones.theshows
Inresultsbetter results.
agreesubdivision
fact, when with those observed
II is usedby Deifalla
good in 2015
results [36], which
are observed foralso
the
Figures
observed that7–14 also show
subdivision that, for
II shows most
better of the beams, the theoretical M T   curves from the
results.
modelFigures 7–14 also show
with subdivision II do that, for most
not follow wellofwith
the the
beams, the theoretical
experimental ones inMthe curveszone
transition
T  
fromfrom
the
the uncracked state to the cracked state. Except for beams BL1 and BK-T, the cracking torque
model with subdivision II do not follow well with the experimental ones in the transition zone from is highly
overestimated.
the For to
uncracked state beams LB1 and
the cracked TB1,Except
state. the torsional
for beamsstiffness
BL1 andforBK-T,
the uncracked state
the cracking is also
torque highly
is highly
overestimated.
overestimated. For beams LB1 and TB1, the torsional stiffness for the uncracked state is also highly
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2730 13 of 16

maximum torque, although the corresponding twist is overestimated for most of the beams. In general,
the MT − θ curves computed with subdivision I and III highly underestimate the maximum torque.
The overestimation of the ultimate twists can be explained because the deformations in the ultimate
state are more difficult to capture correctly with analytical models. This drawback is also observed for
RC rectangular beams and is due to the complexity to correctly model the effect of the damages in the
torsional stiffness for the ultimate state [1]. However, since the ultimate deformations are not very
important for the design, this drawback turns out to be less important.
For the ultimate state, the results agree with those observed by Deifalla in 2015 [36], which also
observed that subdivision II shows better results.
Figures 7–14 also show that, for most of the beams, the theoretical MT − θ curves from the
model with subdivision II do not follow well with the experimental ones in the transition zone from
the uncracked state to the cracked state. Except for beams BL1 and BK-T, the cracking torque is
highly overestimated. For beams LB1 and TB1, the torsional stiffness for the uncracked state is also
highly overestimated.
The previous observations show that the theoretical model does not predict well the response of
most the reference beams for low loading levels. This shows that the used procedure to subdivide the
cross section, as explained in Section 3, is not entirely valid for low loadings and should be studied in
the future in order to be refined.
Despite the issues related with the overestimation of the cracking torque and ultimate twist, for
almost all beams (except for beams LB1, LB2 and TB1) the GSVATM with subdivision II captured all
the behavioral states of the beams, from the beginning of the loading until failure.
Figures 7–14 also show that the theoretical MT − θ curves show a drop in the torsional moment
right after the concrete cracking. This behavior reflects the drop of the stress in the used smeared σ − ε
relationship for tensile concrete (Equations (19) and (20)) right after the peak stress. This behavior
was also observed in previous studies from the author [1,6] and in other studies using a different base
model, for instance [34]. A detailed discussion about this observation can be found in [1].
Since the torsional strength constitutes an important property to be estimated for the design,
Table 6 presents the theoretical and experimental values for the torsional strengths (MII Tu,th
and MTu,exp ,
respectively) for all reference beams. Only the theoretical values from the GSVATM with subdivision II
are presented, since from Figures 7–14 it was clear that this subdivision provided the best results for
the ultimate stage. Table 6 also presents the ratio between the experimental to the theoretical values
(MTu,exp /MIITu,th
) and the corresponding values for the average (x), standard deviation (s) and correlation
coefficient (cv).

Table 6. Comparative analysis for the torsional strength.

MTu,exp
Beam MTu,exp kNm MII
T
kNm MII
u,th T u,th

LB1 [10] 8.16 8.61 0.948

LB2 [10] 8.40 9.01 0.932
LB3 [10] 10.00 10.34 0.967
LB4 [10] 14.00 13.41 1.044
LB5 [10] 20.00 20.93 0.956
BL1 [41] 6.36 6.97 0.912
BK-T [30] 16.80 16.38 1.026
TB1 [40] 11.70 12.36 0.947
x= 0.967
s= 0.045
cv = 4.70%

The results from Table 6 confirm that the GSVATM with subdivision II provides very good
predictions for the torsional strength (x = 0.967), with a low dispersion of the results (cv = 4.70%).
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2730 14 of 16

6. Conclusions
A theoretical model based on the GSVATM for RC rectangular beams was proposed to predict the
full behavior of RC flanged beams under torsion, namely T- and L-shaped beams. The calculation
procedure to consider the influence of the flanges was presented. The predictions from the theoretical
model were compared with the experimental results of some reference RC flanged beams. From the
obtained results, the following conclusions can be stated:

• it was found that the GSVATM with subdivision II best predicts the full behavior of the reference
RC flanged beams under torsion, mainly for the ultimate state. This observation confirms the
results from previous studies;
• very good predictions were observed for the torsional strength, although the corresponding twist
was overestimated for most of the reference beams;
• the proposed theoretical model does not predict well the response of most of the reference beams
for low loading levels, namely the transition zone from the uncracked to the cracked state. It was
observed that the cracking torque is, in general, highly overestimated;
• the previous observation shows that the used procedure to subdivide the cross section is not fully
appropriate for low loading levels and must be refined.

Author Contributions: Luís Bernardo worked the theoretical model, developed the solution algorithm, calculated
the reference beams, analyzed the data, wrote and reviewed the paper.
Funding: This work was financed by Portuguese national funds through FCT—Foundation for Science and
Technology, IP, within the research unit C-MADE, Centre of Materials and Building Technologies (CIVE-Central
Covilhã-4082), University of Beira Interior, Portugal.
Acknowledgments: The author would like to thank Eric J. S. Abrunhosa for his support in this study.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

References
1. Bernardo, L.F.A.; Andrade, J.M.A.; Nunes, N.C.G. Generalized softened variable angle truss-model for
reinforcement concrete beams under torsion. Mater. Struct. 2015, 48, 2169–2193. [CrossRef]
2. Hsu, T.T.C.; Mo, Y.L. Softening of Concrete in Torsional Members–Theory and Tests. J. Am. Concr. Inst. 1985,
82, 290–303.
3. Hsu, T.T.C.; Mo, Y.L. Softening of Concrete in Torsional Members–Prestressed Concrete. J. Am. Concr. Inst.
1985, 82, 603–615.
4. Bernardo, L.F.A.; Andrade, J.M.A.; Lopes, S.M.R. Softened Truss Model for Reinforced NSC and HSC Beams
under Torsion: A Comparative Study. Eng. Struct. 2012, 42, 278–296. [CrossRef]
5. Bernardo, L.F.A. Generalized Softened Variable Angle Truss Model for RC Hollow Beams under Torsion.
Materials. in review.
6. Bernardo, L.F.A.; Taborda, C.S.B.; Andrade, J.M.A. Generalized Softened Variable Angle Truss Model for PC
Beams Under Torsion. Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 2018, 12, 15. [CrossRef]
7. Taborda, C.S.B.; Bernardo, L.F.A. GSVATM for RC Beams Under Torsion Combined with External Axial
Forces. Comput. Concr 2019. in review.
8. Deifalla, A.; Ghobarah, A. Behavior and analysis of inverted T-shaped RC beams under shear and torsion.
Eng. Struct. 2014, 68, 57–70. [CrossRef]
9. Karayannis, C.G. Torsional analysis of flanged concrete elements with tension softening. Comput. Struct.
1995, 54, 97–110. [CrossRef]
10. Deifalla, A.; Hamed, M.; Saleh, A.; Ali, T. Exploring GFRP bars as reinforcement for rectangular and L-shaped
beams subjected to significant torsion: An experimental study. Eng. Struct. 2014, 59, 776–786. [CrossRef]
11. Chariolis, C.E.; Karayannis, C.G. Effectiveness of the use of steel fibres on the torsional behavior of flanged
concrete beams. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2009, 31, 331–341.
12. Ibraheem, O.F.; Bakar, B.H.A.; Johari, I. Behavior and crack development of fiber-reinforced concrete spandrel
beams under combined loading: An experimental study. Struct. Eng. Mech. 2015, 54, 1–17. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2730 15 of 16

13. Hsu, T.T.C. Torsion of Structural Concrete–Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Rectangular Members. Torsion
of Structural Concrete, SP-18. Am. Concr. Inst. 1968, 18, 261–306.
14. Lampert, P.; Thurlimann, B. Torsionsversuche An Stahlbetonbalken (Torsion Tests of Reinforced Concrete Beams);
Bericht, Nr. 6506-2; Institut fur Baustatik: ETH, Zurich, 1969; 101p. (In German)
15. Leonhardt, F.; Schelling, G. Torsionsversuche An Stahlbetonbalken (Torsion Tests of Reinforced Concrete Beams);
Deutcher Ausschuss fur Stahlbeton: Berlin, Germany, 1974; Vol. Bulletin No. 239; p. 122.
16. Fang, I.K.; Shiau, J.K. Torsional Behavior of Normal- and High-Strength Concrete Beams. ACI Struct. J. 2004,
101, 304–313.
17. Bernardo, L.F.A.; Lopes, S.M.R. Torsion in HSC Hollow Beams: Strength and Ductility Analysis. ACI Struct. J.
2009, 106, 39–48.
18. Mirza, S.A.; Furlong, R.W. Serviceability Behavior and Failure Mechanisms of Concrete Inverted T-shaped
beam Bridge Bentcaps. ACI J. 1983, 294–304.
19. Hassan, T.; Lucier, G.; Rizkalla, S.; Zia, P. Modeling of L-Shaped, Precast, Prestressed Concrete Spandrels.
PCI J. 2007, 78–92. [CrossRef]
20. Hsu, T.T.C. Torsion of Reinforced Concrete; Van Nostrand Reinhold Company: New York, NY, USA, 1984; 516p.
21. Erosy, U.; Ferguson, P.M. Behavior and Strength of Concrete L-beams Under Combined Torsion and shear.
ACI Struct. J. 1967, 64, 767–776.
22. Farmer, L.E.; Ferguson, P.M. T-shaped beams Under Combined Bending, Shear and Torsion. ACI Struct. J.
1967, 64, 757–766.
23. Lash, S.D.; Kirk, D.W. Concrete Tee-beams Subjected to Torsion and Combined Bending and Torsion; Report RR160;
Department of Highways Ontario Canada; p. 19.
24. Victor, D.J.; Aravindan, P.K. Prestressed and Reinforced Concrete T-shaped beams under Combined Bending
and Torsion. ACI J. 1978, 75, 526–532.
25. Razaqpur, A.G.; Ghali, A. Design of Transverse Reinforcement in Flange of T-shaped beams. ACI J. 1986,
680–689.
26. Zararis, P.D.; Penelis, G. Reinforced Concrete T-shaped beams in torsion and Bending. ACI J. 1986, 526–532.
27. Logan, D.R. L-Spandrels: Can Torsional Distress Be Induced by Eccentric Vertical Loading. PCI J. 2007, 46–61.
[CrossRef]
28. ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete, (ACI 318–89) and Commentary
(ACI 318R-89); American Concrete Institute: Detroit, MI, USA, 1989.
29. CEB-FIP. Model Code for Concrete Structures. CEB-FIP Inernational Recommendations; Comité Euro-International
du Béton: Paris, France, 1978; p. 348.
30. Kaminski, M.; Pawlak, W. Load capacity and stiffness of angular cross section reinforced concrete beams
under torsion. Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 2011, XI, 885–903. [CrossRef]
31. Belarbi, A.; Hsu, T.T.C. Constitutive Laws of Softened Concrete in Biaxial Tension-Compression. Struct. J.
Am. Concr. Inst. 1995, 92, 562–573.
32. Zhang, L.X.; Hsu, T.C. Behaviour and Analysis of 100 MPa Concrete Membrane Elements. J. Struct. Eng.
1998, 124, 24–34. [CrossRef]
33. Belarbi, A.; Hsu, T.C. Constitutive Laws of Concrete in Tension and Reinforcing Bars Stiffened by Concrete.
Struct. J. Am. Concr. Inst. 1994, 91, 465–474.
34. Jeng, C.H.; Hsu, T.C. A Softened Membrane Model for Torsion in Reinforced Concrete Members. Eng. Struct.
2009, 31, 1944–1954. [CrossRef]
35. NP EN 1992–1-1. Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures—Part 1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings;
European Committee for Standardization – CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2010.
36. Deifalla, A. Torsional Behavior of Rectangular and Flanged Concrete Beams with FRP Reinforcements.
J. Struct. Eng. 2015, 141, 04015068. [CrossRef]
37. Deifalla, A.; Ghobarah, A. Full torsional behavior of RC beams wrapped with FRP: Analytical model.
J. Compos. Constr. 2010, 14, 289–300. [CrossRef]
38. ACI 440.1R-06. Guide for the Design and Construction of 290 Structural Concrete Reinforced with GFRP Bars; ACI
Committee 440; American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2006; p. 300.
39. Abrunhosa, E.J.S. Theoretical Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Beams under Torsion with L and T Cross
Sections. Master’s Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Faculty of Engineering of
University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal, 2015. (In Portuguese).
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2730 16 of 16

40. Deifalla, A.; Awad, A.; Elgarhy, M. Effectiveness of externally bonded CFRP strips for strengthening flanged
under torsion: An experimental study. Eng. Struct. 2013, 56, 2065–2075. [CrossRef]
41. El-Kateb, M.; Abdel Rahman, A.; Hassan, T. Torsional strengthening of reinforced concrete beams using
CFRP Sheets. Civ. Eng. Res. Mag. 2013, 35, 1–14.

© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).