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

net/publication/349704806

An Experimental Study on Torsional Strength of Concrete Beams

Conference Paper · March 2021

CITATIONS READS
0 144

4 authors, including:

H. M.A. Mahzuz Mushtaq Ahmed

Shahjalal University of Science and Technology Shahjalal University of Science and Technology
39 PUBLICATIONS   131 CITATIONS    34 PUBLICATIONS   132 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Use of stone powder in concrete and mortar View project

All content following this page was uploaded by H. M.A. Mahzuz on 02 March 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

6th International Conference on Engineering Research, Innovation and Education
School of Applied sciences & Technology, SUST, Sylhet

ICERIE-2021-129

An Experimental Study on Torsional Strength of Concrete Beams

H.M.A.Mahzuz1, Mushtaq Ahmed2, Shariful Islam3, Md. Ashraf Ullah4

1Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Shahjalal University of Science &
Technology, Sylhet-3114, Bangladesh (Author of correspondence, Email:
mahzuz_211@yahoo.com)
2Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Shahjalal University of Science &

Technology, Sylhet-3114, Bangladesh (Email: mushtaq_cee@yahoo.com)

3Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Shahjalal University of Science&

Technology, Sylhet-3114, Bangladesh (Email: shariful08@student.sust.edu)

4Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Shahjalal University of Science&

Technology, Sylhet-3114, Bangladesh (Email: ashrafullah07@gmail.com)

Author of correspondence: H.M.A. Mahzuz

Abstract
Keywords:
Torsion failure is an unwanted brittle failure of reinforced concrete structure
Beam;
that should be prevented particularly in regions susceptible to earthquakes.
Shear
Realizing this problem, a lot of studies were performed on the torsional strength
reinforcement:
of reinforced concrete beams using different techniques. In this research, the
Torsional
torsional behavior of different Reinforced Cement Concrete beams has been
behavior:
studied using distinct patterns of shear reinforcements to find out the best
Warren truss;
alternative shear reinforcements compared with the conventional Non-welded
Torsional
Rectangular Stirrup Beam (NRSB). A new form of warren truss shaped shear
Moment;
reinforcement has been used in this research. Total three types of beam, i.e.
Angle of twist.
Non-welded Rectangular Stirrup Beam (NRSB), Welded Rectangular Stirrup
Beam (WRSB), and Welded Warren Truss-shaped Beam (WWTB) were used
with a fixed concrete dimension and same reinforcement weight and yield
strength. For the bottom and top longitudinal reinforcement 16 mm bars and for
shear reinforcements 10 mm bars were employed in all beams. One concrete
mix ratio were taken into account, i.e. 1:2.5:2.5 (by volume). The angle of twist
of each beam was calculated theoretically using elastic theory. From the test
results, the torsional moment for WRSB and WWTB was 10% higher and

383
 2.4% lower respectively compared to NRSB. So, WRSB specimens hold the
maximum torsional moment for the current mix ratio.

1. 0 Introduction:

A truss is a structure made of connected lines arranged in different ways. It has many
patterns and shapes, among the triangles are very popular and common. There are many reasons
that triangles are used to shape trusses. Among them, there are three main reasons: their
exceptional geometric properties, their mechanism for transferring loads, and their spatial
openness. Two or more triangles are used in a truss to support a heavy load. They are widely
used and are most common with road traffic bridges due to their heavy load carrying capabilities
and also in buildings at the roof. Many types of trusses are available at present. For RCC beams
if the reinforcement pattern is rearranged as any of the trusses shown in Fig 1 (c and d) the better
performance is expected to be happened. Moreover welding in the connecting joints certainly
increases the load-carring capacity.

Keeping this in mind very recently Mahzuz and Ahmed (2017) did a study on the vertical
load taking ability of four types of beams having different reinforcement patterns. It was found
that respectively 17.6%, 14.9%, and 34.2% increment in ultimate load was obtained from
Welded Rectangular Stirrup Beam (WRSB), Non-welded Warren Truss Beam (NWTB), and
Welded Warren Truss Beam (WWTB), compared to conventional Non-welded Rectangular
Stirrup Beam (NRSB) for mix ratio of 1:1.5:1.5. For mix ratio of 1:2.5:2.5 the increment in
ultimate load for WRSB, NWTB and WWTB was 17.3%, 11% and 30.2% respectively (Fig 2).

A major limitation of the research was that the comparison of the torsional strength of
such a beam was not experimentally done. Therefore, in the proposed project this lacking will be
tried to be fulfilled with a fully new experimental setup.

a) Non-welded b) Welded c) Non-welded d) Welded Warren

384
 Rectangular Stirrup Rectangular Stirrup Warren Truss Beam Truss Beam (WWTB).
Beam (NRSB). Beam (WRSB). (NWTB).
Fig 1: RCC beams having different reinforcement pattern studied by Mahzuz and Ahmed (2017)

Fig 2: Comparison of the four types of beam

1.1 Objectives of the Study:
a) To experiment the torsional resistance of 3 different types of beams (NRSB, WRSB,
WWTB).
b) To propose the best alternative shear reinforcement pattern comparing with conventional
Non-welded Rectangular Stirrup Beam (NRSB).
2.0 Few Relavent Studies on Torsional behavior of different RCC Beams
Kandekar and Talikoti (2018) studied on the torsional behavior of reinforced concrete beam
wrapped with aramid fiber shown in Fig 3. The result shows that a fully wrapped RC beam gives
more torsional strength as compared to a controlled beam and there is a significant improvement
in torsional strength of beams wrapped in strips.

Fig 3: Test Setup of beams wrapped with

aramid fiber

385
Chalioris (2008) performed an experimental study on the torsional strengthening of rectangular
and flanged beams using carbon fiber-reinforced-polymers. This study deals with the torsional
strengthening of concrete beams without stirrups using epoxy-bonded carbon fiber-reinforced-
polymer (FRP) sheets and strips as external transverse reinforcement shown in Fig 4. The
experimental program comprises 14 rectangular and T-shaped beams tested under pure torsion
using a moderate experimental test setup. In this setup, the load was applied through a diagonally
placed steel spreader beam on the ends of two steel arms and these arms were fixed at the end
parts of each tested beam as shown in Fig 5. The strengthened rectangular beams using full
wrapping with continuous FRP sheets performed enhanced torsional behavior and higher
capacity than the strengthened beams with FRP strips.

Fig 4: Crack patterns of FRP brams

Okay and Engin (2012) conducted a study on the torsional behavior of steel fiber reinforced
concrete beams. In this study, beams with Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete (SFRC) were tested
to observe the failure under torsional moments. The test specimens are subjected to uniform
torsion using the test setup illustrated in Fig 6. It was observed that not only the torque capacity
of r/c beam is modified by the addition of steel fiber reinforcement (SFR) but also the energy
absorption capacity is significantly affected by the SFR addition. Besides, an empirical equation
relating the torque to twist for SFRC beams is proposed and tested against the test data.

386
 Fig 5: Sketch of Test Setup Fig 6: Test Setup for SFRC beam testing

Rathi et al. (2015) have conducted a study on the strengthening of the RC beam using carbon
fiber to study its torsional behavior (Fig 7). Three beams are designed for torsion and the twelve
beams designed as normal beams in which nine beams are strengthened using different patterns
of unidirectional carbon fiber having the same properties, to study its torsional behavior. The
effect of different types and configurations of carbon fiber on the first crack load, ultimate load
carrying capacity, and failure mode of the beams were taken into consideration and its study
using ANSYS software gives a better result for further study. It was observed that CFRP
increases the strength of the retrofitted beam 45-140% more than the normal beam.

a) Moment arm of the setup b) Test setup

c) Beam specimen subjected to torsion d) Unidirectional carbon fiber sheet

Fig 7: Presentation of experimental steps

387
3.0 Methodology:
All the beams were of the same dimensions and reinforcement, i.e., 1220 mm (4 feet) long, 127
mm (5 inch) wide, and 203 mm (8 inch) deep. Nine beams were used. For the bottom and top
longitudinal reinforcement 16 mm bars and for shear reinforcements 10 mm bars were employed
in all beams. Stone chips, sand, and cement were also used as coarse aggregate, fine aggregate,
and binder material respectively. Three cylindrical molds were also cast for each mix ratio to find
out the compressive strength (fc') of concrete. All the molds were 152 mm (6 inch) in diameter
and 304 mm (12 inch) in height.

3.1 Preparation of Reinforcement Specimens:

As mentioned earlier, 3 pattern of beam for tested under the current mix ratio. For each pattern of
reinforcement, 3 beams were prepared and tested. Therefore, a total of 09 beams were prepared.
For all the 09 beams, two 16 mm bars 1143 mm (45 inch) long were used at the bottom and also
at the top as longitudinal reinforcements. Shear reinforcement pattern for NRSB and WRSB was
the same, i.e.,10 mm rectangular tie bars having a dimension of 102 mm x 152 mm (4''×6'')
spaced at 133 mm (5.25'') center to center as shown in Fig 8. On the other hand in WWTB, 10
mm bars were used in the shape of warren truss as shear reinforcement. Transverse horizontal
links of 10 mm bars were also used at both top and bottom to connect the two collateral trusses at
every joint as shown in Fig 9. The casing of reinforcement of all beams was such that the weight
was the same (10.2±0.2 Kg, each). This was done to see the effect of the same weight (as well as
cost). The welding of WRSB and WWTB are shown in Fig 10 and 11. The geometric
information in detail of the reinforcements is given in Fig 12. Same as NRSB, before welding GI
wires were used to hold the joints of the reinforcement just in place, for WRSB and WWTB
specimens. Then all the specimens were brought to a workshop and welded at the joints properly.
The used electrodes for welding were E6012.

Fig 8: Reinforcement for Non-welded Fig 9: Transverse links and truss elements of

388
Rectangular Stirrup Beam (NRSB) and Welded a Welded Warren Truss Beam (WWTB)
Rectangular Stirrup Beam (WRSB)

Fig 10: Welding of WRSB Fig 11: Welding of WWTB

Fig 12: Geometric information of the reinforcements

3.2 Materials for concrete:

All the required materials were collected ensuring the specific qualities. For coarse aggregate,
well-graded sharp-edged stone chips were collected. Two different sized stone chips (19mm and
12.7mm) were used. For fine aggregate, Sylhet Sand was (Fineness Modulus-2.86) collected.

389
Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC, ASTM C-150, Type-1) was used as binding materials. The
composition of the cement was 95-100% Clinkers and 0-5% Gypsum. The used materials for
concrete preparation are shown in Fig 13.

a) 19 mm stone chips b) 12.7 mm stone c) Fine aggregate d) Ordinary Portland

chips (Sylhet Sand) Cement (OPC)
Fig 13: Materials used in concrete casting.

3.3 Preparation of Formwork and Placement of Reinforcement Specimens:

The conventional formwork was prepared for 18 beams. Wood slices were used and jointed by
nails. Required dimensions were maintained properly. A layer of paper and a double layer of
polythene was laid under the formwork as shown in Fig 14. It was made sure that there was no
moisture loss in the formwork. After preparing the reinforcement specimens they were placed
into the formwork accordingly (Fig 15). Small mortar blocks of 19mm depth were used under the
bottom bars to maintain the clear cover. The specimens were carefully marked to allow separate
recognition of each beam.

Fig 14: Wood formwork Fig 15: Reinforcement in formwork

390
3.4 Preparation of Concrete Mixture, Casting, and Curing:

Water cement ratio was 0.45 for 1:2.5:2.5 mix ratio. The stone chips were washed properly and
the sand was made in saturated surface dry condition before mixing. All the aggregates were
mixed well and a uniform mixing was maintained. No entry of any debris or unwanted particles
was carefully ensured. The slum value of concrete was 82 ±5 mm (3.2 inch), which indicates the
good workability for the concrete. The mixing process is shown in Fig 16.

Three cylindrical specimens were also casted to find out the compressive strength of concrete. All
the beams and the cylinders were uniformly compacted with a tamping rod. The formwork was
removed at 24 hours after casting. Then for curing, the beams and the cylinders were marked
according to different types and were kept drowned in water for 28 days. A curing tub with
sufficient volume capacity was built in the meantime.

a) mixture of cement,
b) water addition c) Mixing d) Slump test
sand and stone
Fig 16: Concrete mixing is going on

3.5 Test Setup and Testing:

For test setup, Angle (50mm x 50mm x 5mm; 500W), four Plate bars (350mm x200mm
x16mm), channel (150mmx16 kg/m) eight steel bolts (200mm in length & 16mm in diameter)
were used in plate bars and also four steel bolts (50 mm in length & 10 mm in diameter) for
simple support were collected. Then the angles were cut & welded for the moment arm shown in
Fig 17.a. An I-beam of 600mm long was also collected, which is shown in Fig 17.d. Then the
channel section was welded with one side of the arm where the load was applied through the I
beam & the other side was welded with the plate bar shown in Fig 17.c.

391
 a) Angle cutting b) Welding of angle c) Lever Arm d) I beam
for the lever arm
Fig 17: Lever arm preparation.

The lever arm is attached around the concrete beams to apply the torsional moment. The
schematic diagram of the test setup shown in Fig 18, when a single vertical load is applied, it is
equally distributed to the lever arms. For this reason, the middle part of the reinforced concrete
beam is subjected to pure torsion. These lever arms were 610 mm long and were bolted around
the beam. A long steel wide flange I-beam (2000 mm) was diagonally laid down resting on
hinged end supports on top of the lever arms. The specimen is placed over the two steel roller
bearings, a 0.15 m gap between them shown in Fig 19. The test setup was placed upon the base
of the UTM machine for each beam specimen. The used UTM model was UTE 60, SR. No.
2/2008-3849, Maximum capacity 800 KN is shown in Fig 20.

Fig 18: Schematic Diagram of Fig 191: Mechanism of Fig 20: Real-life picture in
Torsion Setup Torsion sketch UTM

4.0 Result and Discussion:

4.1 Results of Compressive Strength Test of Cylinders:

392
For each mix ratio, 3 cylinders were cast and tested. So, the total numbers of cylinders were 6.
The dimensions of the cylinders were 152.4 mm (6 inch) in diameter and 304.8mm (12 inch) in
height. The results are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Compressive strength of concrete, fc'

Mix ratio Cylinder Compressive strength, (MPa) Average Compressive strength, (MPa)

C-01 21.83
1:2.5:2.5 C-02 23.13 22.92
C-03 23.78

4.2 Test Results of Beams:

A total of 18 beams were tested in UTM for four types of shear reinforcement and two concrete
mix ratios. The test result and related discussion are given below:
4.2.1 Failure Mode of Beams:
It was seen that the torsional crack pattern was the same in all beams. Cracks were normally
developed in inclined form starting from the support and ending near to the bracket of the
moment arm. Cracks were formed creating almost 45° angle with the longitudinal direction of
the beam. Some examples of the occurred failures are shown in Fig 21.

Fig 21: Failure mode (45° angle) of some tested beams

4.2.2 Test Results of Beams:

The UTM gave load vs. displacement graphs of the tested beams for the mix ratio 1:2.5:2.5
shown in Fig 22. The calculated ultimate torsional moment and average ultimate load are shown
in Table 2.

393
a) Load vs Deflection graphs b) Load vs Deflection graphs of c) Load vs Deflection graphs
of NRSB WRSB beam of WWTB beam
Fig 22: Load vs Deflection graphs of three types of beam
Table 2: Details test results of the beams having mix ratio of 1:2.5:2.5

Avg. Average
Ultimate
Ultimate Ultimate Ultimate Arm Ultimate
Beam Beam Torsional
Load Load Load P/2 Length Torsional
Type Specimen Moment
P (KN) P (KN) (KN) d(m) Moment
T = P/2 x d
T (KN-m)
NR-1 23.51 11.755 7.876
NRSB NR-2 27.53 26.79 13.765 9.223 8.975
NR-3 29.33 14.665 9.826
WR-1 29.45 14.725 9.866
WRSB WR-2 28.82 29.423 14.41 0.67 9.655 9.857
WR-3 30 15 10.05
WT-1 26.57 13.285 8.901
WWTB WT-2 26.44 26.49 13.22 8.857 8.762
WT-3 25.46 12.73 8.529

4.3 Angle of Twist Calculation:

The angle of twist was calculated by using the elastic theory for the mix ratio 1:2.5:2.5 shown in
Table 3. From Young and Budynas (2002) and Okay and Engin (2012) the following equations
for the angle of twist are used:

394
 TL
✓ ∅ = KG

✓ E= 5000√fc ′(Mpa)
E
✓ G =2(1+γ)

16 b b4
✓ K= ab3 [ 3 -3.36 a (1- 12a4 )]

Where,
∅ = Angle of twist; T = twisting moment (force-length); L = Beam length; E = modulus of
elasticity of concrete; G = modulus of rigidity (force per unit area); K= Torsional stiffness
constant/polar moment of inertia (length to the fourth); 2a =longer edge length; 2b= shorter edge
length; fc ′= Compressive strength; γ = Poison’s ratio
4.3.2 Angle of twist for mixing ratio 1:2.5:2.5:
Here,
L = 1.2192 m
a = 4” = 0.1016 m
b = 2.5” = 0.0635 m
fc ′= 22.92 Mpa
K = 84.808× 10−6 m4
E= 5000√fc ′ = 5000√22.92 = 23937.4184 Mpa = 23.9374 Gpa
E 23.9374
G =2(1+γ) = 2(1+0.2) = 9.974 Gpa = 9.974 × 106 KN/ m2

Table 3: Angle of twist having a mix ratio of 1:2.5:2.5

Beam Sample Ultimate Torsional Ultimate Angle of Average ultimate Angle of

Type No Moment, T= P/2 x d twist twist
∅ (Rad/m) × 10−3 ∅ (Rad/m)× 10−3
1 7.876 11.352
NRSB 2 9.223 13.294 12.9363
3 9.826 14.163
1 9.866 14.22
WRSB 2 9.655 13.916 14.2073
3 10.05 14.486

395
 1 8.901 12.829
WWTB 2 8.857 12.766 12.6293
3 8.529 12.293

4.4 Comparison Based on Ultimate Torsional Moment:

The Ultimate Load and Ultimate Torsional Moment of each type of beam was taken and
compared with NRSB. The comparison of the three types of the beam is demonstrated in Fig 23
for the mix ratios of 1:1.5:1.5 and 1:2.5:2.5 respectively. Identical esplanation is also applicable
to angle of twist as well

Fig 23: Comparison of the three types of beam for 1:2.5:2.5 mix
ratio.
4.5 Discussion:

In Fig 4.6, it is seen that the Ultimate Torsional Moment of WRSB was increased by 10% than
NRSB for 1:2.5:2.5 (fc′ = 22.92 MPa). While But the Ultimate Torsional Moment of WWTB
was decreased by 2.4% than NRSB for 1:2.5:2.5.

396
 As mentioned in Section 1.0 (Introduction), from shear test Mahzuz and Ahmed (2017)
found that respectively 17.6%, 14.9% and 34.2% increment in ultimate load was obtained from
WRSB, NWTB and WWTB, compared to conventional NRSB for mix ratio of 1:1.5:1.5. For
mix ratio of 1:2.5:2.5 the increment in ultimate load for WRSB, NWTB and WWTB was 17.3%,
11% and 30.2% respectively. (Noting that, torsional behavior NWTB was experimented in the
present study) the qualitative comparison can be presented as NRSB<WRSB<WWTB. Hasan
and Alam (2018) conducted research on four types of shear reinforced beam having a concrete
compressive strength of 20.5, 22.3, and 28.7 MPa. They used ANSYS for simulation. It was seen
that WWTB and WRSB have a higher percentage of load enhancement compared to NRSB. On
the contrary, for each fc', NWTB shows poor performance in shear compared to NRSB. That
means, the result is quite similar to that of Mahzuz and Ahmed (2017). From the above two
studies is found that WWTB gives the maximum shear strength that the other beams, particularly
this value is more than 30% with respect to NRSB. In the present work, WRSB gives the
maximum torsional moment, though NRSB and WWTB gave almost the same value.

5.0 Conclusion:

In this work, the same weight of shear reinforcement for all types of beams was maintained to
compare the torsional moment accurately. Cost for each type of beams were the same. Because
the same dimensions and same weight of reinforcements were used for different beams though
their shear reinforcement patterns were different. Preparation of WWTB Reinforcement
specimens consumed almost the same time compared to the other patterns. From the present
study, it is found that WRSB specimens hold the maximum torsional moment (also angle of
twist) value for the current mix ratios, and the value 10% compared to NRSB. But for the
WWTB specimens, the values are a little bit low, -2.4% compared to NRSB. It is to note that,
all the tested beams of the research were of the same spacing of shear reinforcement, yield
strength of steel, beam size, and span. Therefore continuation of the same research having
varied inputs can give more generalized and confident results. Other types of truss patterns e.g.
Pratt, Howe, etc (except Warren truss, as it was used in this study) can also be used as
alternative shear reinforcement. Research can be done with different types of fiber used in
beams to compare the torsional moment. Modified warren truss and swimmer bars can be used

397
 as shear reinforcement and can be tested for the better torsional moment.

Acknowledgment: The authors are grateful to the SUST Research Center for providing the
necessary fund for this research in the FY 2019-20.
Reference:

1. Chalioris, C. E. (2008). "Torsional strengthening of rectangular and flanged beams using

carbon fibre-reinforced-polymers–Experimental study." Construction and Building
Materials22(1): 21-29.
2. Hasan, K. and M. M. Alam (2018). "Stimulation of Reinforced Concrete Beam Using
ANSYS for Different Pattern of Shear Reinforcement." Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, Sylhet-3114, Bangladesh.: 1-
72.
3. Kandekar S & Talikoti R., (2018). “Torsional Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Beam
Wrapped with Aramid Fiber”, Journal of King Saud University - Engineering Sciences. 31
(2019), 340-344.
4. Mahzuz HMA, Ahmed M (2017) ‘Use of welded and trussed reinforcement in concrete
beams’– a research project funded by SUST Research Center in the FY 2017-18, Shah Jalal
University of Science & Technology, Sylhet, Bangladesh.
5. Okay, F. and S. Engin (2012). "Torsional behavior of steel fiber reinforced concrete beams."
Construction and Building Materials28(1): 269-275.
6. Rathi S, Kandekar S, Talikoti R.S. (2015) "Strengthening of RC Beam using Carbon and
Aramid Fibre for its Torsional Behaviour.", International Journal for Scientific Research &
Development| Vol. 3, Issue 07, 416-419.
7. Young, W. C. and Budynas R. G. (2002). Roark’s Formulasfor Stress and Strain, 7th edition,
McGraw-Hill, found in: http:// materiales.azc. uam.mx/gjl/Clases/ MA10_I/
Roark's%20formulas%20for%20stress%20and%20strain. pdf

398

View publication stats