Engineering Structures 206 (2020) 110174

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Torsion in concrete beams reinforced with GFRP spirals T

a,b a a
Abdeldayem Hadhood , Mohammed Gamal Gouda , Mohamed H. Agamy ,
⁎
Hamdy M. Mohameda,c, , Alaa Sherifa
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Queen’s University, Kingstone, ON, Canada
c
Department of Civil and Building Engineering, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Current FRP guidelines do not have enough evidence on the torsional performance of beams reinforced with
Concrete glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) reinforcement due to the lack of research and complexity of the problem.
Beam A review of the past work was presented in the state-of-the-art section to stand on mile-stone prospective
GFRP considering the variety and development of GFRP manufacturing. This study examined the rectangular spirals
Spirals
and rectilinear stirrups to reinforce concrete beams in the transverse direction under pure torsion loading. The
Code
test parameters included four levels of transverse reinforcement ratio and the type of transverse reinforcement in
Design
Experiment terms of rectilinear stirrups vs. spirals. The test results demonstrated that rectangular GFRP spirals provided
Torsion superior tensile resistance required to develop high ultimate torsional moments after cracking and hence can be
Truss effectively used. The failure of the tested beams was attributed to the rupture of GFRP rectangular spirals at bent
Bars portions. The test results of the spiraled specimens were discussed and compared with predictions from a de-
veloped analytical model and based on CSA equations. Two values of failure plane angle and stress levels were
considered. The 45-degree inclination angle provided safe predictions with an average experimental-to-practiced
result of 1.16 compared to 0.99 using the 37.5-degree. Design equations were proposed and validated for the ACI
code for a probable future incorporation.

1. Background truss model.

Reinforced Concrete (RC) beams in buildings and bridges can be
subjected to different levels of torsion, and they should, therefore, have
adequate resistance to torsion. Common examples are the act of ec-
centric loading on the connected cantilever slabs and the continuity of
beams on rigid floors. Beams subjected to significant torsion must in-
clude enough transverse reinforcement in terms of closed stirrups or
continues spiral and longitudinal reinforcement. The principles of
equilibrium, compatibility conditions, and materials stress-strain re-
lationships formulated the primary foundation to develop the space truss
model and skew-bending theory for torsion problems during the 1990s
[1–5]. The design of RC beams reinforced with steel (steel-RC) pertains
to the crushing of concrete struts or the yielding of steel reinforcement.
Torsion transfers by shear stress on a plane perpendicular to the long-
itudinal axis of beams. These stresses cause inclined cracks that spiral
around the beam at which the torsion reinforcement can provide tensile
resisting forces. Design provisions have been well established for tor-
sion problems in building codes [6–8] based on the thin-tube space
Early studies showed that steel-RC beams could develop higher le-
vels of torque, after cracking, based on the amount and strength of their
tensile longitudinal and transverse reinforcement as well as their
compressed concrete struts between inclined cracks [9–12]. The failure
mechanism, post-cracking stiffness, and failure plane angle are sub-
stantially affected by the longitudinal ρl and transverse ρT reinforcement
ratios. Beams with high steel reinforcement ratios are called “over-re-
inforced” and fail due to the crushing of concrete before the yielding of
steel in either direction occurs [13]. Others with low steel reinforce-
ment are called “under-reinforced” and fail in a ductile manner due to
the yielding of steel in both the longitudinal and transverse directions.
Procedures for constructing the failure boundaries can be approached
elsewhere [13]. The relation between the failure plane angle θ, ρl, and
ρT can be established based on the thin-tube and space truss model,
which will be explained later in this paper.
ρl fl
cot2 θ =
ρT fT (1)

⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Civil Engineering, Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt/ Department of Civil and Building Engineering, University of
Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
E-mail address: Hamdy.Mohamed@Usherbrooke.ca (H.M. Mohamed).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110174
Received 14 October 2019; Received in revised form 29 December 2019; Accepted 2 January 2020
Available online 10 January 2020
0141-0296/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Hadhood, et al.
Eq. (1) can be simplified to Eq. (2) for the under-reinforced beams
since the stresses in the steel longitudinal and transverse directions are
equal to the yield stress.
ρl
cot2 θ =
ρT (2)
The failure plane angle for the under-reinforced beams can be,
therefore, estimated. For example, under-reinforced beams with equal
ρl and ρT should fail at 45 degrees, by substituting in Eq. (2).
Glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) reinforcement demonstrated
a decent behavior compared to steel in different problems [14–18].
Whereas steel is isotropic, susceptible to electrochemical corrosion, and
yields, GFRP is anisotropic, non-corroding material, and has superior
performance particularly in tension. FRP has also been used, in strips
and sheets, to enhance shear and torsional performances for RC beams
on strengthening and retrofitting applications [19–23]. The effective-
ness of the urged technique can significantly vary from case to case as it
depends on several parameters [22–23]. The FRP full wrapping
strengthening technique was found to be the most effective technique
for T-beams subjected to combined torsion and shear although it is not
practical due to the lack of access to all sides of the impaired beam [21].
GFRP, as an internal reinforcement, can develop high tensile strains, in
torsion problems, to maintain the structural integrity of the section.
Very limited research has, however, addressed the torsional behavior of
RC beams with GFRP bars and stirrups (GFRP-RC) due to the com-
plexity of the analysis and experimental testing.
2. Research motivations and objectives
The effectiveness of GFRP reinforcement is an essential issue for
torsional problems which has not yet been considerably addressed. The
performance of GFRP spirals as a torsional reinforcement in the trans-
verse direction has not however been put to the test. Few publications
have appeared in recent years utilizing various commercial types of FRP
transverse reinforcement. This study aimed at presenting a state-of-the-
art review on the past research and investigating the performance of
GFRP spirals and bars in beams subjected to significant pure torsion.
3. State-of-the-art review on FRP
Limited research was conducted to investigate the performance of
FRP reinforcement as an alternative to steel in concrete beams sub-
jected to torsion [24–29,31]. The failure of beams in torsion is mainly
contingent on the amount and strength of reinforcement, especially in
the transverse direction, as reflected by the design equations on North-
America’s codes. Referring to limited studies, various types of FRP were
used in the transverse direction in terms of FRP type (glass and carbon);
cross-sectional shape (strips and bars); surface texture (undefined,
ribbed or sand coated); and most critical, the method of closing stirrups
(heat-bent, epoxy-adhesively bonded, double pairs of C-shaped, closed
rectilinear). The authors reviewed the results of the past studies in
terms of failure mechanism and performance of FRP as a transverse
reinforcement.
3.1. Bonded GFRP bars in the transverse direction
Considerable efforts were exerted to fabricate closed stirrups by
heat-bending GFRP bars [24]; and adhesively-bonding GFRP bars [26].
The heating-bending procedure [24] was not favorable since the outer
fibers at the bent portions were overstressed, and the inner buckled.
The bond between these stirrups and the surrounding concrete at the
corners was also weak, causing a significant loss in strength. The ef-
fectiveness of these stirrups was not adequately examined since the
failure initiated in the compressed struts. Closed stirrups fabricated
from GFRP bars were not either effective due to the weak bond between
GFRP and concrete [25]. Deifalla et al. [26] incorporated other results
2
Engineering Structures 206 (2020) 110174
from a past study on rectangular sections [24] into their investigation
on L-shaped beams which were reinforced with adhesively bonded
GFRP bars or mild-steel in the transverse direction. The ultimate stress
and elastic modulus of the GFRP bars were 400 MPa and 36.7 GPa,
respectively, while the average compressive strength of cubes after
28 days was 25 MPa. Their testing revealed that their three GFRP-RC L-
shaped beams failed due to concrete crushing, although different ulti-
mate torques were developed when changed the diameter of their
bonded stirrups. Based on their limited tests, these stirrups were,
therefore, recommended as an alternative transverse reinforcement to
either mild steel stirrups or bent GFRP stirrups since they were intact.
3.2. Bent-manufactured FRP stirrups in the transverse direction
Landmark studies on FRP-RC beams under pure torsion were con-
ducted by Mohamed et al. [27] and Mohamed and Benmokrane
[28,29]. These studies used sand-coated FRP closed stirrups manu-
factured by Pultral Inc. [30] in forms of rectilinear or connected “C”
shaped stirrups. These studies investigated vital parameters such as the
type of reinforcement (steel, GFRP, CFRP) and spacing of stirrups.
Three comparable beams of 250 mm width and 600 mm height and
different reinforcement type (steel, CFRP and GFRP) were compared
[29]. The compared specimens achieved similar torque at cracking. The
maximum torques at the peak were 53.5 kN m, 62.9 kN m and 52.7 kN
m for the steel-, CFRP- and GFRP-RC specimens, respectively, which can
be considered close (20% maximum difference). The GFRP-RC spe-
cimen had, however, a reduced post-cracking torsional stiffness com-
pared to its steel and CFRP counterparts. Their test results revealed that
the failure of the steel-, CFRP- and GFRP-RC beams with no transverse
stirrups was controlled by concrete splitting. The CFRP- and GFRP-RC
beams with a transverse-reinforcement ratio of 0.54% failed due to the
rupture of the FRP stirrups at the bent portion, whereas the torsional
failure of the CFRP and GFRP beams with high transverse-reinforce-
ment ratios of 1.07% resulted from the concrete crushing in the diag-
onal strut. It can be inferred from their study on GFRP specimens [28]
that beams with ρT ≤ 0.54% can be considered as under-reinforced,
where they fail due to rupture of stirrups at bent portions. In some cases
(ρT ≤ 0.27%), the rupture of stirrups initiated by the appearance of
significant wide diagonal cracks which was attributed to the large
spacing of GFRP stirrups and their low modulus [28]. This study
eventually revealed that closed GFRP stirrups could develop strain le-
vels up to 0.0085 at the marked straight portions, which was equivalent
to the stress level of 381 MPa. The strength of the bent portion was very
close to the yielding stress of steel (around 480 MPa).
The influence of polypropylene fibers on the torsional capacity of
beams was addressed by Zhou et al. [31]. The surface texture and
bending technique of the closed GFRP stirrups were not reported. Three
comparable beams of 150 mm width and 200 mm height with different
concrete characteristics (ordinary concrete, OC; fiber-reinforced con-
crete, FRC; and engineered cementitious composite, ECC) were com-
pared. The compressive strength of each was 42.5, 40.2 and 32.8 MPa,
respectively, and the corresponding tensile strength was 2.41, 2.37 and
2.27 MPa, respectively. Their test results showed that the torsional
moment of the FRC and ECC beams were 10% and 40% greater than OC
beams, respectively, although their concrete tensile strengths were si-
milar. That might raise a question on the methodology of estimating the
contribution of FRC and ECC in torsion on the ACI [32] and CSA [33]
codes where it has been deemed, in these codes, to zero to simplify
design especially with the involvement of shear.
3.3. Steel spirals in the transverse direction
Steel spirals enhance the confinement of concrete and provide
adequate resistance to the diagonal cracks due to torsion action if they
are used in the locking direction to the applied torque, as reported by
past studies [34,35]. Beams with rectangular steel spirals in the locked
A. Hadhood, et al.
Fig. 1. GFRP reinforcement: (a) individual rectangular GFRP rectilinear closed
stirrups; (b) rectangular GFRP spiral; (c) cages of spirally-specimens.
direction achieved 14–18% higher ultimate torque over their counter-
parts with stirrups [35]. However, using the spirals in the unlock di-
rection of the external twist resulted in a decrease in the ultimate
torque by 19–23% compared to their counterparts with stirrups. To the
best knowledge of the authors, the behavior of GFRP spirals as trans-
verse torsional reinforcement in beams has never been investigated.
4. Experimental program
4.1. Properties of materials
Sand-coated GFRP bars, rectilinear rectangular stirrups, and rec-
tangular spirals were used to reinforce the beams in the longitudinal
and transverse directions, respectively, as shown in Fig. 1. The sand-
coated surface is known to be prominent in enhancing the bond per-
formance between the bars/stirrups/spirals and surrounding concrete.
3
Engineering Structures 206 (2020) 110174
The GFRP longitudinal bars were fabricated by a local manufacturer,
while the stirrups and spirals were fabricated by Pultral inc [30]. No. 4
GFRP bars were used as longitudinal torsional reinforcement for all the
beams; No. 3 GFRP closed stirrups and continues spirals were used as
transverse torsional reinforcement. The rectilinear GFRP stirrups were
closed, cut from continuous rectangular spirals with adequate overlaps,
as shown in Fig. 2. The rectangular spiral in each specimen was fabri-
cated in one part without lap splices. The tensile properties of the
longitudinal GFRP bars and straight portions of stirrups/spirals were
determined according to ASTM D7205 [36] and ACI 440.3R [37],
whereas the nominal values are reported in Table 1. Normal-weight
concrete was cast using a tilting drum mixer. The targeted compressive
strength after 28 days was 35 MPa with a maximum aggregate size of
20 mm. The actual compressive strength of concrete was determined by
ASTM C39/C39M [38] by testing 150 mm × 300 mm cylinders that
were cured adjacent to the beams under similar curing conditions, as
shown in Table 2.
4.2. Specimen design, fabrication and details
The beam specimens were designed to examine the influence of the
configuration of transverse torsional GFRP reinforcement on the gen-
eral behavior and torsional resistance. Six full-scale RC beams re-
inforced with GFRP bars were designed to provide different levels of
torsional resistance. Four were entirely reinforced with GFRP bars and
continuous GFRP spirals; one was entirely reinforced with GFRP bars
and stirrups, and the last beam had not any transverse reinforcement
and marked as the reference specimen. The test parameters included
the configuration of transverse torsional reinforcement (GFRP spirals
versus GFRP stirrups) and transverse torsional reinforcement ratio ρT
(in terms of spiral pitch). Four levels of ρT were considered in this study
where they varied between 0.36% and 0.89% (represented by spiral
spacings, s varied between 250 mm and 100 mm), as calculated by Eqs.
(3) and (4). The longitudinal reinforcement ratio ρl was maintained
constant at 0.72%, as calculated by Eq. (5).
At × ρo
ρT =
Acp × s (3)
ho bo
ρo = 2 × ( + )
sin φfront sin φtop (4)
Al
ρl =
b×h (5)
where At and Al are the nominal area of GFRP stirrups/spirals and
GFRP longitudinal bars, respectively; ρo , bo and ho are the perimeter,
width, and height of closed stirrups or continues spirals at centerlines
considering members’ inclinations as given in Eq. (4); Acp is the area
enclosed by the outside perimeter of the section which can simply be
calculated as the multiplication of the width, b and the height, h; φfront
and φtop are inclination angles of a rectangular spiral in the vertical and
horizontal directions, respectively. All specimens had a rectangular
cross-section with dimensions of 3,000 mm long, 200 mm wide, and
400 mm deep, as shown in Fig. 3. The concrete clear cover was main-
tained constant at 25 mm around all specimens. The details of re-
inforcement, dimensions of test specimens, and different configurations
are shown in Table 2. Each specimen was identified by a code denoting
the tested parameters, where the characters B, G, GST, and GW refer to
beam, reinforced with GFRP spirals, GFRP stirrups, and without
transverse reinforcement, respectively; the number refers to the spiral
pitch/stirrups’ spacing in mm.
4.3. Test setup
The test setup was designed to allow for the prerequisite degrees of
freedom at ending supports and the applied torsional loading. Beam
A. Hadhood, et al.
Fig. 2. Details of the tested specimens (dimensions in mm).
specimens were typically held in place on prefabricated bi-directional
roller supports to release the in- and out-of-plane rotations, as shown in
Fig. 4a and b. The center-to-center beam spans were maintained at
2,090 mm. The beam specimens were fastened and clamped to rigid
steel box frames close to ending supports in two opposite directions.
These frames were welded to 450 mm cantilever steel I-beams, which
transferred the torsional load through secondary load cells to the beam
specimens, as shown in Fig. 4b. The torque was calculated by multi-
plying the load P at each side and the structural arm (500 mm) from the
load cell to the beam centerline. Overhang portions of 460 mm on each
side were also created to provide adequate anchorage length and pre-
clude slippage of reinforcement throughout the testing.
4
Engineering Structures 206 (2020) 110174
4.4. Testing procedure and instrumentations
The beam specimens were tested at a two-point torsional loading
setup, as previously described. The torsional loading was applied using
a 1000 kN universal testing machine through a spreader beam on tor-
sional arms to produce the required torque. Two load cells were in-
stalled between the spreader beam and the steel arms to equalize the
applied loads on both sides. Electrical resistance strain gauges were
fixed on the torsional reinforcement (longitudinal bars, rectangular
spirals, and closed stirrups) at critical locations within the test regions.
Concrete gauges were also attached to surfaces at 45-degrees to record
concrete strains. The relative twist angles were determined at cracking
φcr and at the peak φu by capturing the lateral displacements at beam
ends, which were recorded by linear variable displacement transfor-
mers (LVDTs). The load cells, strain gauges, and LVDTs were connected
A. Hadhood, et al. Engineering Structures 206 (2020) 110174

Table 1
Mechanical properties of the GFRP reinforcement.
Bar Size Diameter Area Elastic Tensile Tensile Tensile
(mm) (mm2) Modulus Strength (MPa) Strain (%)
(GPa)

GFRP rectangular spiral/rectilinear stirrups

#3 9.5 71 44.8 f fu = 950 1.89
* f ftb = 474
†
f ftb = 485
GFRP bars
#4 13.5 143 35.2 f fu = 595 1.71

* f ftb is the ultimate tensile bend strength obtained from the B.5 test method
according to ACI 440 [37].
†
f ftb is the estimated tensile bend strength using the ACI 440.1R [32] equation
(† f ftb = (0.05(rb/ db) + 0.30) f fu ≤ f fu ), rb is the bend radius, and db is the stirrup
diameter.

over channels to the data-acquisition system.

5. Experimental results

5.1. Torsional behavior until cracking

This section discusses the behavior of the tested specimens before

cracking. The torque-twist relationships were developed based on the
twist at edges and the corresponding torque, as shown in Fig. 5a and b.
The torque was approached as the load times the lever arm concerning
the beam axis. The lever arm in the current experiments was 450 mm
from the point of loading to the beam axis. The tested specimens de-
monstrated almost identical initial stiffness kcr , with linear responses,
until the cracking occurred where each specimen developed a different
response. The cracking torques for all specimens varied between 11.6
kN m and 12.9 kN m which were higher (12–25%) than the ACI 318
(2014) cracking torque of 10.34 kN m, as per Eq. (6). This equation was
developed based on the Thin-walled tube space truss analogy, in which
the concrete torsional resistance was neglected in calculations after the
1995 ACI version.
Acp2
Tcr = 0.33 fc′ ( )
ρcp
where Acp and ρcp are the area enclosed by the outside perimeter and
the outside perimeter of the concrete cross-section, respectively.
5.2. Post-cracking behavior and failure mechanisms
Cracking typically occurs, as previously described, when the prin-
cipal tensile stress, acting on any face, equals the tensile strength of
concrete. After cracking, strains on concrete surfaces and on long-
itudinal and transverse reinforcement gradually increased, as shown in
Fig. 3. Cross-sections and transverse reinforcement details of the test specimens
(dimensions in mm).
Figs. 6–8. As the load and strains were simultaneously increasing, in-
clined cracks propagated along the section periphery. These cracks
started at long faces and rapidly spiraled around specimens. Funda-
mental and modern theories for torsion presumed that the beam model
is made up of 45-degree diagonal concrete struts, longitudinal and
transverse reinforcing truss elements. Beams can sustain the applied
torque as long as the resistance provided by these elements con-
tinuously maintained.
5.2.1. Beam with no transverse torsional reinforcement
The absence of transverse reinforcement was fundamentally ex-
(6) amined in specimen BGW that was reinforced only in the longitudinal
direction. As the cracking torque approached, inclined cracks initiated
on the long faces at 30 degrees, measured on the longitudinal axis, as
shown in Fig. 9, and extended to the short faces. These cracks rapidly
propagated and widened, which undermined the concrete integrity to
withstand compression in the perpendicular direction. The beam BGW
went, accordingly, in a softening response. The failure was controlled
by concrete splitting due to the lack of torsional reinforcement. A si-
milar response was reported in a past study ([28]; here will be referred
to as “MB study”) where the specimen with only longitudinal GFRP
reinforcement also failed by concrete splitting in a brittle manner with a

Table 2
Test matrix and specimen details.
Beam ID fc′ Bar Type Longitudinal Torsional Reinforcement Transverse Torsional
(MPa) Reinforcement

Bottom Top ρl Configuration db s ρT

(%) mm mm (%)

BG100 36.6 GFRP 2 No.4 2 No.4 0.72 RSP 9.5 100 0.89
BG150 36.6 GFRP 2 No.4 2 No.4 RSP 9.5 150 0.59
BG200 36.6 GFRP 2 No.4 2 No.4 RSP 9.5 200 0.44
BG250 36.6 GFRP 2 No.4 2 No.4 RSP 9.5 250 0.36
BGST-200 36.6 GFRP 2 No.4 2 No.4 RST 9.5 200 0.43
BGW 36.6 GFRP 2 No.4 2 No.4 — — — —

“RSP” stands for rectangular spirals and “RST” stands for rectilinear stirrups.

5
A. Hadhood, et al. Engineering Structures 206 (2020) 110174

Steel arm 500 mm

length
Fig. 5. Torque–twist relationships of specimens: (a) specimens with spirals; (b)
specimens with spiral/stirrup spaced at 200 mm.
Fig. 4. Test setup components for pure torsional loading: (a) Load application;
final installation of the specimen (Elevation View); (b) Fixation of the steel arm
to generate the applied torsional moment (Side View).

failure plane angle of 27 degrees. Their specimen exhibited, however, a

slight hardening response after cracking. That was attributed to the
high reinforcement ratio provided in the longitudinal direction
(ρl = 1.5%). The maximum torque of a beam with no transverse re-
inforcement should, therefore, be conservatively approached as the
cracking torque which can be estimated as per the elastic theory.

5.2.2. Beams with transverse torsional reinforcement

Unlike BGW, the transverse torsional reinforcement intersected the
initiated cracks at long and short faces and provided additional re-
sistance to resist the induced torque. These specimens developed,
therefore, hardening responses after cracking. The post-cracking rigid-
ities ku significantly decreased compared to their initial, where ku
varied between 83 kN m2 to 184 kN m2 (4–10% of their initial rigid-
ities), as shown in Table 3. This reduction was much pronounced at Fig. 6. Torque-diagonal compressive concrete strain curves of specimens.
specimens with larger spiral pitches. Similarly, high decreases in post-
cracking torsional rigidities were also reported for MB study [28], 6. Discussions on the experimental results
where their specimens (with GFRP stirrups) lost 97–99% of the initial
torsional rigidities. The previous sections described the failure modes of beams with
The measured strains on concrete surfaces varied between −0.0012 and without transverse torsional reinforcement where ρl = 0.72% and
and −0.0024, which were less than the ultimate compressive strain as ρT varied between 0.36% and 0.89%. The failure of specimens with
per the ACI 440.1R [32] and the CSA S806 [33]. The resistance pro- transverse reinforcement was dominant by GFRP spiral/stirrups rupture
vided by the torsional reinforcement continuously increased until the at the bent portions, as shown in Fig. 10, and not controlled by concrete
failure occurred, which was initiated by the rupture of the GFRP crushing. The maximum usable stress for GFRP spirals or stirrups
transverse reinforcement. The GFRP spirals/stirrups failed in the bent should not, therefore, exceed the strength of their bent portions. This
portions, which hold lower strength compared to the straight parts.

6
A. Hadhood, et al.
Fig. 7. Torque-longitudinal reinforcement strain response.
Fig. 8. Torque-spiral/stirrup strain response.
Fig. 9. Failure plane angles of the tested specimens.
7
Engineering Structures 206 (2020) 110174
section discusses the influence of test parameters and the efficiency of
GFRP transverse reinforcement on the torsional behavior and code
design requirements.
6.1. Influence of test parameters on torsional behavior
The ACI 440.1R [32] and the CSA S806 [33] limit the maximum
spacing of GFRP stirrups to approximately half of the flexural depth d to
ensure that at least one stirrup can intercept shear cracks. Four levels of
GFRP spiral spacings were investigated: 0.7d (ρT = 0.36%), 0.55d
(ρT = 0.44%), 0.4d (ρT = 0.59%), and 0.3d (ρT = 0.89%); while
maintaining the longitudinal reinforcement ratio at 0.72%. The heavily
reinforced specimens outperformed their counterparts in terms of
strength and post-cracking stiffness. The spacing between spiral turns
(s) controlled the post-cracking responses and the ultimate torque of the
tested specimens. The bar-chart presented in Fig. 11 shows the increase
in the ultimate torque for each specimen after the cracking (△T ), as
given in Eq. (7). The GFRP spirals could enhance the ultimate torque of
the tested specimens, after cracking, up to 148% (at s = 0.3d).
Tu − Tcr
△T = × 100
Tcr (7)
where Tu and Tcr are the experimental ultimate and cracking torques
for each beam, respectively. Similar results were reported in [28],
where their beams achieved ultimate torques up to 200% over their
cracking torques.
Specimen BG200 exhibited higher post-cracking stiffness over
BGST200, as shown in Fig. 5b, and could, therefore, achieve higher
ultimate torque than BGST200. That was attributed to the superior
performance of spirals over stirrups in terms of confining concrete and
providing better distribution of spiral legs inside the cross-section. That
helped, consequently, to intersect and capture more cracks over a larger
distance. The failure of these specimens was similar and controlled by
the strength of the bent portions. The stirrups could, however, achieved
slightly higher strains over the spirals at the marked positions.
6.2. Effectiveness of GFRP torsional reinforcement
The level of ultimate torque for an RC beam depends on the effec-
tiveness of its entire torsional reinforcement and concrete core. The
design codes in North-America [6,7,33] followed the analogy of thin-
walled tube space truss to establish nominal torsional strength in which
the concrete core is ignored. The strain results demonstrated that
longitudinal and spirals were not activated until the cracking, after
which, the strains gradually increased until failure. The longitudinal
GFRP bars exhibited a variable level of stresses, as shown in Fig. 7, in
which higher levels achieved at closer pitches of spirals. The maximum
recorded strains (and estimated stresses) were 0.0059 (208 MPa),
0.0054 (190 MPa), 0.0048 (169 MPa) and 0.0044 (155 MPa) for
BG100, BG150, BG200, and BG250, respectively, where the stresses
were calculated by multiplying the measured strains by the GFRP ten-
sile modulus. These levels did not exceed 35% of the ultimate tensile
strength of the used GFRP bars. The results revealed that the GFRP bars
were intact during the tests and could develop the required forces to
maintain the equilibrium until the end of the tests. The strain responses
of spirals at mid-span are shown in Fig. 8. The GFRP spirals had a po-
sitive impact on the torsional behavior of all specimens and dominated
their failure. At the peak, the strains were 0.0084, 0.0077, 0.0072, and
0.0060 for BG100, BG150, BG200, and BG250, respectively, which
correspond to stress levels of 376 MPa, 345 MPa, 322 MPa, and
269 MPa, respectively. The experiments conducted by the authors and
other studies revealed that the failure of beams subjected to torsion is
governed by the stress of rectangular spirals/rectilinear stirrups at the
bent portions. The maximum stress in transverse reinforcement should
not, therefore, exceed the ultimate tensile bend strength.
A. Hadhood, et al. Engineering Structures 206 (2020) 110174

Table 3
Experimental test results.
Beam ID At cracking At the peak Failure

Tcr φcr k cr Tu φu ku θexp Type

(kN m) (rad/m) (kN m2) (kN m) (rad/m) (kN m2) (Deg)

BG100 12.6 0.0066 2083 31.2 0.1079 184 50 Tension

BG150 12.7 0.0062 2048 21.2 0.0741 167 49 Tension
BG200 12.0 0.0061 1966 16.5 0.0652 125 45 Tension
BG250 11.6 0.0064 1818 12.9 0.0537 83 42 Tension
BGST-200 12.9 0.0060 2145 14.2 0.0811 125 43 Tension
BGW 11.9 0.0069 1724 — 0.0069 — 30 Splitting

q s = FfT , t cot θ (9)

The shear flow can be substituted by the toque multiplied by twice

the area enclosed by the shear flow path [39], which was formulated in
Eq. (10).

T
q =
2Ao (10)

From Eqs. (8) and (10), the ultimate toque of RC beams with GFRP
Fig. 10. Close-up views (rupture of GFRP spirals at failure). bars and spirals was established in Eq. (11).

AfL f fL + AfT f fT cos φfront

TL = 2Ao tan θ
po (11)

Likewise, the ultimate toque was established in Eq. (12) based on

the GFRP spirals in transverse reinforcement:

AfT f fT sin φfront

TT = 2Ao cot θ
s (12)

Also, the failure plane angle θ was finally developed by combining

Eqs. (11) and (12).

AfL f fL + AfT f fT cos φfront s

cot2 θ =
AfT f fT sin φfront po (13)

where Ao is the area enclosed by the centerline of the shear flow, as

Fig. 11. Influence of GFRP transverse torsional reinforcement ratio on the
torque increase after cracking.
7. Theoretical investigation
7.1. Analytical model for GFRP-RC beams with spirals
The ultimate torque of GFRP-RC beams can be approached con-
sidering the inclination of GFRP spirals based on the thin-tube and
space truss model developed by Rausch [1]. The model consists of
longitudinal and spiral reinforcement-resisting tension forces and con-
crete struts-resisting compression. The shear flow path follows the
centerline of the hoop reinforcement, as shown in Fig. 12. In this model,
the torsional moment T was assumed to be resisted by an internal
torque resulting from the shear flow q, which developed in the center of
a shear flow zone with an effective wall thickness td. The equilibrium
equations were then established in the longitudinal and transverse di-
rections considering a failure plane angle θ, as given by Eqs. (8) and (9),
respectively, with the aid of Fig. 12c. The force equilibrium along the
longitudinal direction:
q po = (FfL + FfT , l ) tan θ
(8)
Force equilibrium along the transverse direction:
given in Eq. (14); AfL is the area of GFRP longitudinal top and bottom
bars; AfT is the branch area of a GFRP spiral; s is the GFRP spiral pitch;
ffL and ffT are the stresses on GFRP bars and spirals, respectively.
ho bo
Ao = 0.85 × ( × )
sin φfront sin φtop (14)
ho and bo are the height and width of the plane section that is en-
closed by the centerlines of GFRP spirals; φfront and φtop are the acute
angles of inclination of GFRP rectangular spirals, as shown in Figs. 2
and 12.
7.2. Ultimate torsion in FRP North-America’ design guidelines
The ACI 440.1R [32] and CSA S806 [33] limit the tensile strain in
GFRP shear reinforcement to 0.004 and 0.005, respectively, but not
exceeding the strength of the bent portion. These values were adopted
to prevent degradation of aggregate interlock and concrete in shear.
Nevertheless, the CSA S806 [33] replaced the 0.005Ef by 0.4 times the
ultimate tensile strength (ffu) of the straight portion for sections sub-
jected to shear and torsion which allowed for increasing the usable
stress level. The experimental evidence of the current study indicated
that the GFRP spirals achieved strain and stress levels up to 0.0084 and
376 MPa (0.4 ffu), respectively, which accurately hits the boundary
limit of the CSA S806 [33]. The following section summarizes the de-
sign equations provided by the CSA S806 [33] and the proposed
equations for the ACI 440.1R [32].

8
A. Hadhood, et al. Engineering Structures 206 (2020) 110174

Fig. 12. Simplified torsional analysis based on the space truss theory.

7.2.1. CSA S806 [33] ⎧

A f
t yt

The CSA S806 [33] includes a design approach for sections sub-
⎪ 2Ao s cot θ (a)
Tnsteel =
jected to combined shear and torsion where the transverse reinforce- ⎨ 2A Al fy cot θ (b)
⎪ o po (18)
ment shall be equal to the sum of that required for shear and that re- ⎩
quired for the coexisting torsion. The factored torsional resistance Tr is The angle θ is permitted to take equal to 45 degrees for non-pre-
calculated as given in Eq. (15) such that to exceed the factored torsional stressed members. The yield stress in transverse and longitudinal steel
moment Tf . can be replaced by other stress levels adequate to the GFRP stirrups and
longitudinal bars as proposed by MB study [28]. The nominal torsional
ϕf AfT f fT strength of GFRP-RC beams can be then established.
Tr = 2Ao cot θ
s (15)
AfT f fT
TnGFRP = ⎧2Ao
where Ao = 0.85 Aoh and f fT is the smaller of 0.4 f fu and 1200 MPa. ⎨
⎩ s (19)
Additionally, the longitudinal reinforcement in tension/compression
shall be designed to resist the additional tension forces caused by shear Afl f fl
and torsion. In pure torsion problems, the longitudinal reinforcement in 2Ao
po (20)
each side of any beam must satisfy Eq. (16). Tr can now be formulated in
Eq. (17) in terms of longitudinal bars by rearranging Eq. (16) and The stress level in the GFRP transverse torsional reinforcement
considering AfL on the both sides. should be limited to control diagonal crack widths at service loads and
to avoid failure at the bent portion of the GFRP stirrup [28], similar to
Tf ph what is required for shear. It is, therefore, substantial to correlate the
AfL / side ⩾ 0.45 cot θ (at tension or compression sides)
2Ao f fL (16) stress value to the experimental results.

7.3. Comparison with experimental results

AfL f fl
Tr = 2Ao tan θ
0.9po
7.2.2. ACI 440.1R [32]
The current version of the ACI 440.1R [32] does not include any
provision to beams subjected to torsion. However, the design procedure
in the ACI 318 [6] used for steel‐RC beams can be adapted for GFRP‐RC
beams and validated with the current tests. The torsional design
strength ϕ Tn must equal or exceed the factored torsional moment Tu .
(17) In this part, a comparison was made between the torque results
obtained from the experimental testing and those from the analytical
model, CSA S806 [33], and the proposed ACI 440.1R. In the analytical
model: the torque was calculated as the minimum of Eqs. (11) and (12);
ffL was taken as the ultimate bar strength, as given in Table 1; θ was
obtained from experimental results. Two levels of spiral stress were
examined: (i) equal to the B.5 ultimate tensile bend stress fftb given in
Table 1 and (ii) 0.4 ffu as specified in the CSA S806 [33] for torsion
problems. The prediction using CSA S806 [33] included the use of two
values for θ: (i) the general value of 45 degrees and (ii) 37.5 degrees as

9
A. Hadhood, et al. Engineering Structures 206 (2020) 110174

Table 4
Experimental-to-predicted ultimate torque assessment.
Beam ID Exp. Analytical Model S806-12 Proposed ACI 440.1R

ffT = fftb ffT = 0.4 ffu θ = 37.5 deg θ = 45 deg ffT = 0.004Ef ffT = 0.005Ef

Tu Tn Tu/Tn Tn Tu/Tn Tn Tu/Tn Tn Tu/Tn Tn Tu/Tn Tn Tu/Tn

(kN.m) (kN.m) (kN.m) (kN m) (kN m) (kN m) (kN m)

BG100 31.2 26.0 1.20 20.8 1.50 25.1 1.24 27.6 1.13 13.0 2.40 16.3 1.92
BG150 21.2 20.0 1.06 16.0 1.32 24.0 0.88 18.4 1.15 8.7 2.44 10.9 1.95
BG200 16.5 17.2 0.96 13.8 1.20 18.0 0.92 13.8 1.20 6.5 2.54 8.1 2.03
BG250 12.9 15.3 0.84 12.3 1.05 14.4 0.90 11.0 1.17 5.2 2.48 6.5 1.99

inferred in the substitutions in clause 8.4.7. Three values of ffT were
examined for the proposed model of the ACI 440.1R to estimate the
level of conservatism of each: (i) 0.004Ef as given for shear problems
and (ii) 0.005Ef as specified in the CSA S806 [33] for shear problems.
The results of this comparison indicated that the considered models
could predict the ultimate torque with different levels of conservatism.
The analytical model could not safely predict the experimental ultimate
torque, particularly for specimens with low torsional reinforcement,
while using the B.5 ultimate tensile bend stress fftb. The experimental-
to-predicted ultimate torque ratios ranged from 0.84 to 1.20. Better
predictions were obtained when the stress in spirals was taken as 0.4 ffu,
where the experimental-to-predicted ultimate torque ratios ranged from
1.05 to 1.50. That revealed that the effective stress for spirals in torsion
is less than the B.5 bend stress fftb. The CSA-Model had the best safe
predictions with θ = 45 degrees, which was closer to the experimental
inclination angles. Using θ = 37.5 degrees underestimated the ultimate
torque for three specimens. Mohamed and Benmokrane [28] also in-
dicated that the CSA-Model with θ = 45 degrees had reasonable but
rather conservative results where the experimental-to-predicted ulti-
mate torque ratios ranged from 1.25 to 1.78 compared to 1.13 to 1.20
in this study. The proposed ACI-Model had the highest overestimations
among all approaches. That was returned to the low-stress level con-
sidered for this model. Using a spiral strain of 0.005Ef could safely
predict the experimental ultimate torque with a high level of con-
servatism of all specimens. Table 4 summarizes the results of this
comparison.
8. Conclusions
The current study investigated the performance of GFRP beams with
GFRP spirals as a transverse torsional reinforcement. Summing up the
results, the following remarks were drawn.
were still intact and did not crush.
7. Using a 45-degree to account for the inclination angle of compres-
sive struts in the CSA S806-12 is recommended based on the safe
predictions to the experimental results. The 37.5-degree angle
overestimated the torque of some specimens.
8. An analytical model was proposed to the ACI 440.1R to predict the
torsional capacity of beams. This model had a similar form as ACI
318-14, and it recommends using a maximum strain level in the
transverse reinforcement of 0.5% to provide safe predictions with a
reasonable level of conservatism.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Abdeldayem Hadhood: Writing - original draft. Mohammed
Gamal Gouda: . Mohamed H. Agamy: Methodology. Hamdy M.
Mohamed: Supervision, Methodology, Writing - review & editing. Alaa
Sherif: Supervision, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
We declare that we have no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgment
The authors thank the technical staff of the structural laboratory in
the Department of Civil Engineering at Helwan University. The authors
would like to express their special thanks for Pultrall Inc. for the do-
nation of GFRP materials. The first author would like to acknowledge
the funding received from the Fonds de recherche du Québec - Nature et
technologies (FRQNT) on his postdoctoral research fellowship.
References

1. The rectangular-spiraled GFRP beam (spirals in the locking direction
to the applied torque) outperformed its counterpart with stirrups in
terms of post-cracking stiffness and ultimate torque. This specimen
provided, however, a reduced angle of twist.
2. The GFRP reinforcement provided in the longitudinal and transverse
directions could provide high tensile stresses, which allowed for the
development of ultimate torques up to 148% of those at cracking.
3. The rectangular GFRP spirals developed a significant tensile re-
sistance up to the ultimate B.5 tensile bend strength, which was
approximately 474 MPa (0.5ffu).
4. All beams failed in tension due to the rupture of GFRP transverse
reinforcement at bent portions where ρT varied between 0.36% and
0.89%.
5. Reducing the pitches of the rectangular spirals, in this study, en-
hanced the post-cracking stiffness and ultimate torsional capacity up
to the failure of spirals at bent portions.
6. Based on point 4, using GFRP spirals as a transverse torsional re-
inforcement up to 0.89% for beams with 36 MPa concrete strength
can be considered as under-reinforcement, where concrete struts
[1] Rausch E. Design of Reinforced Concrete in Torsion and Shear, (Berechnung des
Eisenbetons gegen Verdrehung [Torsion] und Abscheren), Technische Hochschule,
Berlin, Germany, 53 pp. (in German); second edition in 1938; third edition in 1953,
“Drillung (Torsion) Schub und Scheren in Stahlbelonbau, Deutcher Ingenieur-Verlag
GmbH,” Dusseldorf, Germany; 1929. p. 168.
[2] Lampert P, Thürlimann B. Ultimate strength and design of reinforced concrete
beams in torsion and bending, publications. Int Assoc Bridge Struct Eng (Zurich)
1971;31-I:107–31.
[3] Lampert P, Collins MP. Torsion, bending, and confusion—an attempt to establish
the facts. ACI J 1972;69(8): p. 500–4.
[4] Collins MP, Mitchell D. Shear and torsion design of prestressed and non-prestressed
concrete beams. PCI J 1980;25(5):32–100.
[5] Hsu TTC, Mo YL. Softening of Concrete in Torsional Members, Research Report No.
ST-TH-001-83, Department of Civil Engineering. Houston, TX: University of
Houston; 1983. p. 107 pp..
[6] American Concrete Institute (ACI). Building code requirements for structural con-
crete. ACI 318-14 and commentary, ACI 318R-14. Farmington Hills, Mich; 2014.
[7] Canadian Standards Association (CSA), 2014. Design of concrete structures. CSA
Standard A23.3-14, Rexdale, Ontario, Canada.
[8] Eurocode 2 (2005): Design of concrete structures EN1992-1-1. In Symposium
Eurocodes: Background and Applications, Brussels.
[9] Lessig NN. Determination of Load-Carrying Capacity of Rectangular Reinforced
Concrete Elements Subjected to Flexure and Torsion, Trudy No. 5, Institut Betona i
Zhelezobetona (Concrete and Reinforced Concrete Institute), Moscow, pp. 5-28 (in
Russian). Translated by Portland Cement Association, Foreign Literature Study No.

10
A. Hadhood, et al.
371 (Available from S. L. A. Translation Center, John Crerar Library Translation
Center, Chicago, IL); 1959.
[10] Yudin VK. Determination of the load-carrying capacity of rectangular reinforced
concrete elements subjected to combined torsion and Bending, Beton i
Zhelezobeton (Concrete and Reinforced Concrete), Moscow; 1962, No. 6, p. 265–9.
[11] Collins MP, Walsh PF, Archer FE, Hall AS. Ultimate strength of reinforced concrete
beams subjected to combined torsion and bending, torsion of structural concrete,
SP-18. Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute; 1968. p. 279–402.
[12] Elfgren L, Karlsson I, Losberg A. Torsion-bending-shear interaction for concrete
beams. J Struct Divis 1974;100(8):1657–76.
[13] Leu LJ, Lee YS. Torsion design charts for reinforced concrete rectangular members.
J Struct Eng 2000;126(2). pp. 210–218. H.K.
[14] Mohamed HM, Benmokrane B. Design and performance of reinforced concrete
water chlorination tank totally reinforced with GFRP bars: case study. J Compos
Constr 2014;18(1):05013001.
[15] Hadhood A, Mohamed HM, Ghrib F, Benmokrane B. Efficiency of glass-fiber re-
inforced-polymer (GFRP) discrete hoops and bars in concrete columns under
combined axial and flexural loads. Compos Part B Eng 2017;114:223–36.
[16] Hadhood A, Mohamed HM, Benmokrane B, Nanni A, Shield CK. Assessment of
design guidelines of concrete columns reinforced with glass fiber-reinforced
polymer bars. ACI Struct J 2019;116(4):193–207.
[17] Eladawy M, Hassan M, Benmokrane B, Ferrier E. Lateral cyclic behavior of interior
two-way concrete slab–column connections reinforced with GFRP bars. Eng Struct
2019:109978.
[18] Ali AH, Mohamed HM, Chaallal O, Benmokrane B, Ghrib F. Shear resistance of RC
circular members with FRP discrete hoops versus spirals. Eng Struct
2018;174:688–700.
[19] Salom PR, Gergely J, Young DT. Torsional strengthening of spandrel beams with
fiber-reinforced polymer laminates. J Compos Constr 2004;8(2):157–62.
[20] Chalioris CE. Torsional strengthening of rectangular and flanged beams using
carbon fibre-reinforced-polymers–experimental study. Constr Build Mater
2008;22(1):21–9.
[21] Deifalla A, Ghobarah A. Strengthening RC T-beams subjected to combined torsion
and shear using FRP fabrics: experimental study. J Compos Constr
2010;14(3):301–11.
[22] Deifalla A, Awad A, Elgarhy M. Effectiveness of externally bonded CFRP strips for
strengthening flanged beams under torsion: an experimental study. Eng Struct
2013;56:2065–75.
[23] Hadhood A, Agamy MH, Abdelsalam MM, Mohamed HM, El-Sayed TA. Shear
strengthening of hybrid externally-bonded mechanically-fastened concrete beams
using short CFRP strips: experiments and theoretical evaluation. Eng Struct
11
Engineering Structures 206 (2020) 110174
2019;201:109795.
[24] Shehab HK, El-Awady HS, Husain M, Mandour S. Behavior of concrete beams re-
inforced by FRP bars under torsion. Proceedings of the 13th ICSGE. 2009. p. 6.
[25] Ragab KS, Eisa AS. Torsion behaviour of steel fibered high strength self compacting
concrete beams reinforced by GFRP bars. Int J Civil Sci Eng 2013;7(9):218–28.
[26] 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;59:776–86.
[27] Mohamed HM, Chaallal O, Benmokrane B. Torsional moment capacity and failure
mode mechanisms of concrete beams reinforced with carbon FRP bars and stirrups.
J Compos Constr 2015;19(2):04014049.
[28] Mohamed HM, Benmokrane B. Torsion behavior of concrete beams reinforced with
glass fiber-reinforced polymer bars and stirrups. ACI Struct J 2015;112(5):543.
[29] Mohamed HM, Benmokrane B. Reinforced Concrete Beams with and without FRP
Web Reinforcement under Pure Torsion. J Bridge Eng 2016;21(3):04015070.
[30] Pultrall Inc., 2012. Composite Reinforcing Rods Technical Data Sheet. Thetford
Mines, Canada, www.pultrall.com.
[31] Zhou J, Shen W, Wang S. Experimental study on torsional behavior of FRC and ECC
beams reinforced with GFRP bars. Constr Build Mater 2017;152:74–81.
[32] American Concrete Institute (ACI). Guide for the Design and Construction of
Structural Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars. ACI 440.1R-15, Farmington Hills,
MI; 2015. p. 44.
[33] Canadian Standards Association (CSA). Design and construction of building struc-
tures with fibre-reinforced polymers. CAN/CSA S806-12, Mississauga, Ontario,
Canada; 2012. p. 206.
[34] Prakash S, Belarbi A, You YM. Seismic performance of circular RC columns sub-
jected to axial force, bending, and torsion with low and moderate shear. Eng Struct
2010;32(1):46–59.
[35] Chalioris CE, Karayannis CG. Experimental investigation of RC beams with rec-
tangular spiral reinforcement in torsion. Eng Struct 2013;56:286–97.
[36] ASTM. Standard test method for tensile properties of fiber reinforced polymer
matrix composite bars. ASTM D7205-11, West Conshohocken, PA; 2011.
[37] American Concrete Institute (ACI). Guide Test Methods for Fiber-Reinforced
Polymers (FRPs) for Reinforcing or Strengthening Concrete Structures. ACI 440.3R-
04, Farmington Hills, MI; 2004. p. 40.
[38] ASTM. Standard test method for compressive strength of cylindrical concrete spe-
cimens. ASTM C39/C39M-12, West Conshohocken, PA; 2012.
[39] Bredt R. Kritische Bemerkungen zur Drehungselastizität, Zeitschrift des Vereines
Deutscher Ingenieure, Band 40, No. 28, July 11, pp. 785-790; No. 29, July 18; 1896.
p. 813–7 [in German].