See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/269052754

Design of Reinforced Concrete Beams for Shear and Torsion

Conference Paper · March 2014

DOI: 10.5176/2301-394X_ACE14.07

CITATIONS READS

0 174

1 author:

Khaldoun Rahal
Kuwait University
58 PUBLICATIONS   1,694 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Shear Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Elements made using Recycled Concrete Aggregate View project

Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete - Simplified design and analysis procedure View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Khaldoun Rahal on 25 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Design of Reinforced Concrete Beams for Shear and
Torsion

Khaldoun Rahal
Civil Engineering Department
Kuwait University
Kuwait
khaldoun.rahal@ku.edu.kw

Abstract—This paper presents a new model for the design of
reinforced concrete beams subjected to combined shear and
torsion. This model is based on an existing model for the shear
strength of membrane element and for the shear and torsional
strength of beams. The design is based on a treatment of the
combined shearing stresses on the critical side of the beam cross
section. The calculations of the model are compared with the
experimental results from eighteen beams and good correlation is
obtained.
application was extended to cover the case of beams subjected
to shearing forces and bending moments [8], and beams
subjected to pure torsion [9]. The original model relied on a
graph that relates the shearing strength to two reinforcement
indexes, one for each of the orthogonal reinforcement. The
latest development [10] in the model replaced the graph with
equations similar in format to those of the Plasticity Theory
[11].

Keywords: Beams; Reinforced Concrete; Shear; Strength;

Torsion

I. INTRODUCTION
The cross sections of reinforced concrete (RC) beams can
be subjected to a complex combination of six possible stress-
resultants. In structural elements such as spandrel beams,
beams that are curved in plan, helical staircases, utility poles
and bridge girders subjected to non-eccentric gravity loading,
the combination of shear and torsion can be critical in design.
The cross sections are designed according to the provisions
of codes such as those of the ACI building code [1], the
AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications [2] and the CSA-
A23.3 building code [3]. The design provisions for combined Figure 1. Reinforced concrete membrane element subjected to in-plane
stress resultants can be significantly different from one code to shearing stresses
another. This is mainly true due to the difference in the Figure 1 shows a membrane element subjected to in-plane
treatment of the shearing force, and the combination of shear shearing stresses. The SMCS model relates the shearing
and torsion. Bentz et al. [4] reported that the flexural strength strength vn to the properties of the membrane elements as
calculated by different code equations is not likely to vary by follows:
more than 10%, while for a particular beam cross section, the
shearing strength calculated by different code equations can vn
 x  y (  ) (1)
differ by factors of more than 2. The situation becomes more f c'
complex when torsional moments are also acting [5]. A more
rational shear model can provide a unified approach to the where x and y are the reinforcement indexes in the x- and y-
treatment of combined actions. This paper describes the directions, respectively and f c' is the concrete compressive
application of the Simplified Model for Combined Stress
strength. The indexes are given by:
Resultants (SMCS) to the case of combined shear and torsion.
x f y x
II. SMCS FOR SHEAR x   (2-a)
f c'
The SMCS model is based on a series of simplifications of
the results of the Modified Compression Field Theory (MCFT) y f y y
[6]. It was originally developed for the case of membrane y   (2-b)
f c'
elements subjected to in-plane shearing stresses [7]. Its
 The upper limit () that is set on x and y is an over-
reinforcement limit. It also leads to a crushing limit on the
strength as shown in Eq. (1). This limit depends on the
concrete compressive strength f c' and is given by:
1 f c'
   (3)
3 900
where f c' is in MPa.
The SMCS model can be easily generalized to cover the
case of beams subjected to shear [8]. See Figure 2. The
reinforcement indexes become:
The axial force N is taken as positive if tensile.
III. SMCS FOR TORSION
Figure 3 shows a hollow-tube equivalent of a beam
subjected to pure torsion. In this analogy, the torsional
shearing stresses are assumed to be circulating near the outer
perimeter of the cross section, and that they are uniform in
magnitude. In the SMCS model for torsion [9], the shearing
stresses are assumed uniform across a thickness equal to:
Ac
a0  0.42 (6)
pc

A L f y x The model assumes that the area enclosed within the shear
x  (4-a) flow of the hollow tube (A0) can be taken as 0.8Ac (where Ac is
bw dv f c' the outer area of the cross section). It also assumes that the
perimeter of this shear flow zone (p0) can be taken as 0.9pc
Av f y  y (where pc is the outer perimeter of the cross section). Based on
y  (4-b)
bw s f c' these assumptions, the reinforcement indexes are calculated as:

where the terms of the equations are as follows: AL f y x

x  (7-a)
0.375 Ac f c'
AL= total area of symmetrical longitudinal steel,
At f y  y
Av= total area of transverse steel within spacing s, y  (7-b)
0.42 Ac s f c'
bw= width of web in cross section,
where At is the area of leg of torsional hoop reinforcement.
dv= shear depth in beam cross section, taken as 0.9d,
The nominal torsional moment Tn is related to the ultimate
d= effective depth of cross section shearing stress  (or ) near the periphery of the cross section
as follows:
s= spacing of transverse reinforcement
Ac2
T n  0.67   (8)
pc

where  is equal to the nominal shearing strength calculated

using Eq. (1).

Figure 2. Beam element subjected to shearing and axial forces and bending
moment

If the top and bottom longitudinal reinforcement capacities

( As f y x and As' f y x ' ) are not equal, the weaker one controls
the calculation of x . In addition, if a bending moment M is
applied, the flexural compression force enhances the strength
of the steel in the compression zone while the flexural tension
force weakens the strength of the steel in the tension zone.
Similarly, an axial force N strengthen the reinforcement if Figure 3. Hollow tube model for torsional strength
compressive and weakens it if tensile. Consequently, the
longitudinal reinforcement capacity AL f y x that is needed in
Eq. (4-a) can be modified to take into consideration non- IV. SMCS FOR COMBINED SHEAR AND TORSION
symmetrical longitudinal steel and the presence of M and N as
follows [8]: The shearing stresses due to torsion and shear are additive
on one side of the cross section and are subtractive on the other
 
 2A ' f
 s y x ' 
M
jd
N 
2
side [1;5]. Figure 4 shows schematically this combination.
The larger shearing stresses at the critical side of cross section
A L f y  x  min   (5)
 
 2A s f y  x 

M
jd
 N
2 
causes larger strains in the stirrups and in the longitudinal
reinforcement and larger compressive diagonal strains and bw
v  a0
stresses in the principal direction [5]. 2
v eq  (10)
The proposed SMCS approach to the design of beams t eq
subjected to combined T and V includes calculating an The transverse reinforcement index is calculated based on
effective width of the critical wall of the hollow tube that resist the equivalent thickness (teq) of the critical wall using the
the combined shearing stresses and an equivalent transverse following equation:
reinforcement index. The longitudinal index remains
unchanged as given by Eq. (7-a) because the change in the At f y  y
thickness of the tube along the perimeter was approximate in y  (11)
s t eq f c'
the first place. The change of effective thickness affected not
only the critical wall but also the opposite one, and the overall
change did not warrant a change in the assumptions regarding V. VERIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED MODEL
A0 and p0. This approach is similar to that in the ACI, Experimental data were collected from the literature and
AASHTO and CSA codes [1, 2, 3].
were used to verify the model. Klus [13] tested ten specimens
under combined T and V, and relatively low M. Two of the
specimens were tested in pure torsion and two under zero
  ( + ) torsion. The remaining specimens were tested under a
combination of the two stress resultants. Figure 6 shows a
comparison between the calculated and observed results. A
good agreement is obtained.

16
V T T and V KLUS TESTS
14
Figure 4. Shearing stresses due to shear, torsion, and shear combined with
12
TORSION (KN.M)
torsion [from 12]
10

8 experiment

6
SMCS
4

0
0 50 100 150 200

SHEAR (KN)

Figure 6. Correlation with test results from Klus [13]

Figure 5. Equivalent thickness in V and T resistance

Rahal and Collins [14] tested four specimens. The test
setup allowed subjecting the test regions of the beams to
combined torsion and shear, and relatively low bending
Figure 5 shows the critical wall where the shearing stresses moment. The objective of their study was to investigate the
(v) caused by the shearing force and those stresses () caused effect of a large clear cover on the behavior of specimens
by the torsional moment are additive. The thickness of the subjected to combined shear and torsion. The ultimate strength
beam that is effective in resisting the shear is bw/2, while the of the specimens was affected by spalling of the relatively large
thickness effective in resisting the torsional moment is a0. The concrete cover, and the ultimate strength was reduced. Figure
equivalent thickness of the wall under combined shear and 7 shows a correlation between the calculated and observed
torsion (teq) is given by: results. The concrete strength was not constant in the beams.
For this reason, two interaction curves are shown, one for the
 bw  bw 1   a0 
v 2  2 2    a0   2  concrete strength that is suitable for the two specimens with the
t eq  2      (9) highest and lowest T/V, and another suitable for the remaining
bw
v   a0 specimens tested under intermediate T/V. The calculations
2 were slightly on the unconservative side, mainly because the
The equivalent combined shearing stress (veq) is calculated model does not take into consideration the effect of the
as: spalling. Overall, the correlation in Figure 7 is good.
 TABLE I. COMPARISON BETWEEN CALCULATED AND OBSERVED
RESULTS
200
Texp Vexp Tn Vn Exp Mean
180 Ref. Spec.
(kN.m) (kN) (kN.m) (kN) Calc (COV)
160 1,2 0 157 0.0 142.0 1.11
10 3.26 132 3.0 121.6 1.09
140
6 5.88 117 5.3 105.4 1.11
TORSION (KN.M)

120 SMCS 9 7.4 101 6.9 93.9 1.08 1.06

13
51.3 MPa 5 8.82 93 8.1 85.0 1.09 (6.5%)
100 experiment
7 11.6 63.2 11.1 60.4 1.05
80 8 12.5 30.5 13.8 33.6 0.91
SMCS 3,4 14.7 0 14.6 0.0 1.00
60 40.8 MPa RC2-3 135.0 111.0 156.3 128.5 0.86
40 RC2-1 83.5 535.0 94.0 602.4 0.89 0.91
14
RC2-4 57.6 715.0 58.3 723.2 0.99 (6.1%)
20 RC2-2 0.0 796.0 0.0 876.1 0.91
0 S2 13.56 0 11.2 0.0 1.21
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 S5 0 151.2 0.0 137.9 1.10 1.20
15
S6 8.93 93.41 6.9 72.4 1.29 (6.5%)
SHEAR (KN) S7 11.65 48.93 9.7 40.6 1.20

Figure 7. Correlation with test results from Rahal and Collins [14]
VI. CONCLUSINS
16
This paper presented an extension of the application of an
TESTS BY BADAWY ET AL. [15]
14 existing shear strength model to the case of combined shear
M/V=0.22 m and torsion. The interaction between the stresses caused by the
12
shearing force and those by the torsional moment was
TORSION (KN.M)

10 modelled by modifying the thickness and the reinforcement

ratio in the side of the cross section where the two shearing
8 stresses are additive.
6 To evaluate the proposed model, the calculations of the
SMCS experiment model were compared with the experimental results from three
4
series of beam specimens tested under combined shear and
2 torsion. The results of the comparison showed a very good
agreement.
0
0 50 100 150 200 The proposed model serves as a unified approach to the
treatment of shear and torsion, and other stress resultants.
SHEAR (KN)

Figure 8. Correlation with test results from Badawy et al. [15] ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The research reported in this paper was supported by
Research Sector, Kuwait University, research grant EV05/13.
Badawy et al. [15] tested specimens under combined shear, This support is gratefully acknowledged.
torsion and bending. One specimen was tested under pure
shear and three under shear and torsion and M/V=0.22 m REFERENCES
Figure 8 shows the correlation between the calculated and [1] ACI-318, “Building code requirements for reinforced concrete and
observed results. A very good agreement is observed. The commentary (ACI 318M-11),” American Concrete Institute, Committee
figure shows that the shape of the interaction diagram was well 318, 2011.
predicted. [2] AASHTO, “LRFD bridge design specification (interim),” American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington,
Table 1 summarizes the results. A good agreement is D.C., 2008.
observed. The relatively low coefficient of variation (C.O.V.) [3] CSA-A23.3, “Design of concrete structures (A23.3-04),” Canadian
reported in the table shows that the proposed model was Standards Association, Canada; 2004.
capable of accurately calculating the shape of the interaction [4] E. Bentz, F. Vecchio and M. Collins, “Simplified modified compression
field theory for calculating shear strength of reinforced concrete
diagrams. elements,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, pp. 614–624, 2006.
[5] K. Rahal and M. Collins, “Analysis of sections subjected to combined
shear and torsion–A theoretical model,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 92,
No. 4, pp. 459–469, 1995.
[6] F. Vecchio and M. Collins, “Modified compression field theory for
reinforced concrete elements subjected to shear,” ACI Journal, Vo. 83,
pp.219–2, 1986.
[7] K. Rahal, “Shear strength of reinforced concrete, part I: membrane
elements subjected to pure shear,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 1,
pp. 86–93, 2000.
[8] K. Rahal, “Shear strength of reinforced concrete, part II: beams
subjected to shear, bending moment and axial loads,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 97, No. 2, pp. 219–224, 2000.
[9] K. Rahal, “Torsional strength of reinforced concrete beams,” Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 27, No. 3, pp. 445–453, 2000.
[10] K. Rahal, “Simplified design and capacity calculation of shear strength
in reinforced concrete membrane elements,” Engineering Structures, V.
30, No. 10, pp. 2782–2791, 2008.
View publication stats
[11] M. Bræstrup, “Plastic analysis of shear in reinforced concrete,”
Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 26, pp. 221–228, 1974.
[12] ACI 445, “Report on Torsion in Structural Concrete,” Joint ACI-ASCE
Committee 445. 2012.
[13] J. Klus, “Ultimate Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams in Combined
Torsion and Shear,” ACI Journal, V. 65, No. 3, pp. 210-216, 1968.
[14] K. Rahal and M. Collins, “Effect of thickness of concrete cover on shear
and torsion interaction–An experimental investigation,” ACI Structural
Journal, V. 92, No. 3, pp. 334–342, 1995.
[15] H. Badawy, A. McMullen and I. Jordaan, “Experimental Investigation of
the Collapse of Reinforced Concrete Curved Beams,” Magazine of
Concrete Research, V. 29, No. 99, pp. 59-69, 1977.