Professional Documents
Culture Documents
INTRODUCTION
Many structural elements such as beams curved in plan,
eccentrically loaded bridge girders, and spandrel beams in
buildings are subjected to significant torsional moments. To
design such members, it is essential to recognize whether the
torsional moments are required to maintain equilibrium or
compatibility. These two cases are generally referred to1-4 as
equilibrium torsion and compatibility torsion, respectively.
Torsion in determinate structures is always equilibrium
torsion, while that in indeterminate structures can be of
either type.1
Figure 1 shows examples of the two cases of torsion. The
traffic load on the statically determinate multi-cell bridge in
Fig. 1(a) is eccentrically applied, and torsion on the transverse
cross-section is required to maintain equilibrium. Redistribution
of this torsional moment is not possible, and the total Fig. 1—Examples of torsion in reinforced concrete: (a) equi-
moment calculated using statics must be designed for. A librium torsion; and (b) and (c) compatibility torsion.
similar situation arises if the bridge is curved in plan.
Figure 1(b) shows torsion in a spandrel beam of a building
uncracked stiffness in the structural analysis greatly over-
caused by loading from a cast-in-place slab. This torsional
estimates the torsion for the specific level of twist.1,2,5-8 The
moment is due to imposed rotations from the slab, and is
redistribution of the torsional moment to positive flexural
equal to the negative bending moment in the slab. The
compatibility torsion due to the required twist in this statically moment near midspan of the floor beam leads to a more
indeterminate structure depends on the torsional stiffness of economic design because the flexural capacity of a typically
the spandrel beam relative to the flexural stiffness of the slab. reinforced concrete section is significantly larger than its
A similar phenomenon takes place if a floor beam frames torsional capacity. In addition, the cost of manufacturing and
into the spandrel beam, as shown in Fig. 1(c). placing the longitudinal steel in the floor beam or slab is less
In most of the cases, torsional moments encountered in than that for the transverse steel in the spandrel beam.
reinforced concrete buildings are of the compatibility type,
and their calculation poses a challenge. Once the spandrel ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 3, May-June 2006.
MS No. 03-486 received February 22, 2005, and reviewed under Institute publication
beam cracks in torsion, its torsional stiffness reduces policies. Copyright © 2006, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
substantially. The reduction causes a significant redistribution the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent
discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the March-April
of the torque to the framing elements. Assuming a gross 2007 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by November 1, 2006.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The ACI and CSA provisions dealing with compatibility
torsion such as that encountered in spandrel beams are simple Fig. 3—Flow chart of proposed procedure.
and conservative for design. There is a lack of analytical
models, however, that can account for the influence of the
variable factors that affect the performance of spandrel in each of the elements obtained from the structural analysis
beams in buildings, and of members subjected to compat- output. These values, along with the geometrical and
ibility torsion in general. The MCFT is used to calculate reinforcement details of the element’s cross sections, are then
more realistic cracked torsional and flexural stiffness that used in COMBINED, the sectional analysis computer program,
can be used in the structural analysis procedure for more to calculate the state of strains and stresses in the materials and
accurate results. The procedure applies to the practical the overall sectional deformations (twist ψ and flexural
case where the beams contain properly detailed transverse and curvature ζ). Refined values of the assumed effective torsional
longitudinal reinforcement. and flexural stiffness (GK)eff and (EI)eff are calculated from the
twist and flexural curvature using the following equations
PROPOSED ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
Figure 3 shows a flow chart of the proposed procedure. A (GK)eff = T/ψ (3)
typical structural analysis of the indeterminate frame is
performed based on assumed flexural and torsional stiffness
of the structural members. These assumed values can be the (EI)eff = M/ζ (4)
uncracked gross values, or smaller values if cracking is
expected at the level of the load applied. Generally, the where E is the modulus of elasticity of concrete and G is the
stiffness varies considerably along the length of the structural shear modulus of concrete, which may be taken as 0.5E.
members such as beams. Hence, modeling a beam or a Refined values of effective K and I are then calculated for
column using only one element does not lead to an accurate each of the elements and used as input in the structural analysis.
representation of the variation in stiffness. Hence, similar to Shear deformations can also be included, but are neglected
nonprismatic sections, structural members need to be for the type of frames considered in this study.
modeled using numerous elements, with lengths recommended Members subjected to shear, bending, and torsion, acting
not to exceed twice the depth. individually or in combination, experience significant elongation
The average values of the shearing force V, axial load N, after cracking. In addition, members subjected to combined
and bending and torsional moments (M and T, respectively) shear and torsion experience lateral curvature.15,17 The floor
Fig. 7—Average torque-twist diagrams for spandrel beams. Restraining axial force in spandrel beam
The spandrel beam in Specimen MTV2 was restrained from
underestimated the ultimate load by approximately 6%. expanding longitudinally using a 100 ton jack bearing on end
Comparing the results of the three specimens, it is found that plates and 1-1/4 in. Dywidag bar positioned in the center of a
the behavior and strength are significantly affected by the 100 mm (4 in.) hole running at the center of the beam. This bar
longitudinal restraint and the amount of reinforcement in the was prestressed at the different levels of the loading to ensure
spandrel beam. that the longitudinal strains in the spandrel beam were negli-
gible. The restraining force was measured during the test. As
Torque-twist diagrams observed from Fig. 6 and 7, the restraining force had a signif-
The twist along the length of the spandrel beams in icant effect on the load-torque and torque twist response.
Specimens S1 and S2 was measured using a Metrisite Figure 8 shows the calculated and the experimentally
extending from the center the joint to the clamping truss at measured restraint axial force in the spandrel of Specimen
the edge of the beams as shown in Fig. 2. Figure 7(a) and (b) MTV2 at different levels of the applied floor load P. The
compares the observed and calculated torque-twist response restraint force was negligible until the occurrence of torsional
Load-deflection diagrams
Figure 9 compares the observed and calculated load-
deflection curve in the floor beam for the three specimens.
The response showed considerable softening when the
longitudinal steel in the floor beam yielded. The longitudinal
restraint in the spandrel beam of Specimen MVT2 increased
the torque and hence reduced the flexure and consequently
the vertical deflection in the floor beam. The proposed
method accurately predicted the general trends in the
response, but overestimated the stiffness.
using Method A (providing larger amounts of transverse reported are the average of the three values calculated along
reinforcement in the spandrel) significantly reduce the width the height of the section16 from Element 11. Figure 11(a) shows
of the diagonal cracks. that the stirrup strains in Specimen S1 were negligible before
torsional cracking, and increased upon cracking and reached
Strains in transverse reinforcement yielding levels. The proposed procedure accurately calculated
The strains in the stirrups on the inside face of the spandrel this behavior including the occurrence of yielding before the
beams were measured using 200 mm (8 in) targets as shown ultimate conditions were reached.
in Fig. 2. These strains are critical because the stirrups in the Figure 11(b) shows a flat post-cracking behavior in
spandrel are designed to resist the combined shearing Specimen S2, which twisted as the load was increased,
stresses from torsion and shear. Figure 11 compares the allowing redistribution of the torsional moment. The model
observed and the calculated strains. The theoretical values captured the precracking and the post-cracking behavior, and