Professional Documents
Culture Documents
com
ACI 445.1R-12
Report on Torsion
in Structural Concrete
First Printing
April 2013
American Concrete Institute®
Advancing concrete knowledge
Copyright by the American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI. All rights reserved. This material may not be
reproduced or copied, in whole or part, in any printed, mechanical, electronic, film, or other distribution and storage
media, without the written consent of ACI.
The technical committees responsible for ACI committee reports and standards strive to avoid ambiguities, omissions,
and errors in these documents. In spite of these efforts, the users of ACI documents occasionally find information
or requirements that may be subject to more than one interpretation or may be incomplete or incorrect. Users who
have suggestions for the improvement of ACI documents are requested to contact ACI via the errata website at
www.concrete.org/committees/errata.asp. Proper use of this document includes periodically checking for errata for
the most up-to-date revisions.
ACI committee documents are intended for the use of individuals who are competent to evaluate the significance and
limitations of its content and recommendations and who will accept responsibility for the application of the material
it contains. Individuals who use this publication in any way assume all risk and accept total responsibility for the ap-
plication and use of this information.
All information in this publication is provided “as is” without warranty of any kind, either express or implied, includ-
ing but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose or non-infringement.
ACI and its members disclaim liability for damages of any kind, including any special, indirect, incidental, or con-
sequential damages, including without limitation, lost revenues or lost profits, which may result from the use of this
publication.
It is the responsibility of the user of this document to establish health and safety practices appropriate to the specific
circumstances involved with its use. ACI does not make any representations with regard to health and safety issues
and the use of this document. The user must determine the applicability of all regulatory limitations before applying
the document and must comply with all applicable laws and regulations, including but not limited to, United States
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) health and safety standards.
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Participation by governmental representatives in the work of the American Concrete Institute and in the develop-
ment of Institute standards does not constitute governmental endorsement of ACI or the standards that it develops.
Order information: ACI documents are available in print, by download, on CD-ROM, through electronic subscription,
or reprint and may be obtained by contacting ACI.
Most ACI standards and committee reports are gathered together in the annually revised ACI Manual of Concrete
Practice (MCP).
ACI 445.1R-12
*
Subcommittee members who produced this report.
†
Subcomittee Chair.
The committee would like to thank the following individuals for their contribution to this report: Mohammad Ali, Neal S. Anderson, Shri Bhide, Michael D. Collins, Maria Cristina
Vidigal de Lima, Leonard Elfgren, Christos Karayannis, Liang-Jenq Leu, Mohammad Mansour, Basile Rabbat, Khaldoun Rahal, and Paul Zia.
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
A clear understanding of the effects of torsion on concrete The behavior of members subjected to torsion combined with
members is essential to the safe, economical design of reinforced bending moment, axial load, and shear is discussed. This report
and prestressed concrete members. This report begins with a brief deals with design issues, including compatibility torsion, span-
and systematic summary of the 180-year history of torsion of drel beams, torsional limit design, open sections, and size effects.
structural concrete members, new and updated theories and their The final two chapters are devoted to the detailing requirements
applications, and a historical overview outlining the development of transverse and longitudinal reinforcement in torsional members
of research on torsion of structural concrete members. Historical with detailed, step-by-step design examples for two beams under
theories and truss models include classical theories of Navier, torsion using ACI (ACI 318-11), European (EC2-04), and Cana-
Saint-Venant, and Bredt; the three-dimensional (3-D) space truss of dian Standards Association (CSA-A23.3-04) standards. Two design
Rausch; the equilibrium (plasticity) truss model of Nielson as well examples are given to illustrate the steps involved in torsion design.
as Lampert and Thürlimann; the compression field theory (CFT) Design Example 1 is a rectangular reinforced concrete beam under
by Collins and Mitchell; and the softened truss model (STM) by pure torsion, and Design Example 2 is a prestressed concrete
Hsu and Mo. girder under combined torsion, shear, and flexure.
This report emphasizes that it is essential to the analysis of torsion
in reinforced concrete that members should: 1) satisfy the equi- Keywords: combined action (loading); compatibility torsion; compression
librium condition (Mohr’s stress circle); 2) obey the compatibility field theory; equilibrium torsion; interaction diagrams; prestressed concrete;
condition (Mohr’s strain circle); and 3) establish the constitutive reinforced concrete; shear flow zone; skew bending; softened truss model;
spandrel beams; struts; torsion detailing; torsion redistribution; warping.
relationships of materials such as the “softened” stress-strain rela-
tionship of concrete and “smeared” stress-strain relationship of
steel bars. CONTENTS
and axial load is discussed in Chapter 6. Chapter 7 introduces D = cross-sectional depth used in fracture mechanics
additional design issues related to torsion, such as precast calculations, mm (in.)
spandrel beams, torsion limit design, size effect, open sections, D0 = size effect constant for computing sN for plain
and torsional moment distribution. Detailing of torsional concrete section
members is described in Chapter 8. Chapter 9 covers detailed D1 = normalized constant to represent characteristic
design examples of several beams subjected to torsion using structural dimensions used in fracture mechanics
ACI 318, EC2-04, and CSA-A23.3-04 design equations, and calculations
additional graphical design methods reported by researchers. Db = size effect constant for computing sN for reinforced
concrete section
1.2—Scope Dc = total energy dissipated on discontinuous concrete
Theories presented in this report were developed and verified yield surface
for building members of typical size. For application to large- Ds = total energy dissipated by reinforcement
scale members, size effects should be considered. They could e = moment arm for torsion, mm (in.)
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
present a serious safety issue when using the shear strength Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete, MPa (psi)
equations provided in the design standard, which cannot take Eps = modulus of elasticity of prestressed reinforcement
into account the shear strength reduction in large-scale members in flexural tension zone, MPa (psi)
caused by loss of aggregate interlock behavior. Experimental Eps′ = tangential modulus of Ramberg-Osgood curve at
information on large-scale torsional members is lacking. zero load MPa (psi)
Es = modulus of elasticity of reinforcement and struc-
CHAPTER 2—NOTATION AND DEFINITIONS tural steel, MPa (psi)
The material presented is a summary of research carried EJw = rigidity of beam under warping torque, N∙m2 (lb-in.2)
out worldwide and spanning more than four decades, fc′ = characteristic concrete cylinder compressive
making unification of the symbols and notations used by the strength, MPa (psi)
various researchers and design codes a challenge. In some fc* = concrete effective (plastic) compressive stress,
cases, mostly for graphs and figures, the notation is kept as MPa (psi)
originally published. fck = characteristic compressive strength of concrete,
MPa (psi); fck = fcm – 8 MPa (fck = fcm –1200 psi)
2.1—Notation fcm = mean compressive strength of concrete, MPa (psi)
a = moment arm for bending, mm (in.) fd = diagonal concrete stress, MPa (psi)
ac = geometric property index fds = diagonal concrete stress corresponding to strain eds,
ao = depth of equivalent rectangular stress block in MPa (psi)
concrete strut of torsional member, mm (in.) fℓ = reinforcement stress in ℓ direction, MPa (psi)
A = area of yield surface, mm2 (in.2) fℓp = prestressing reinforcement stress in the l direction,
Acp = area enclosed by outside perimeter of concrete MPa (psi)
cross section, mm2 (in.2) fℓy = specified yield strength of longitudinal reinforce-
Aℓ = total area of longitudinal reinforcement to resist ment, MPa (psi)
torsion, mm2 (in.2) fp = stress in prestressing reinforcement; fp becomes fℓp
Ao = gross area enclosed by shear flow path, mm2 (in.2) or ftp when applied to longitudinal and transverse
(noted as Atb in Eq. (7.2.6)) reinforcement, respectively, MPa (psi)
Aoh = area enclosed by centerline of outermost closed fp0.1 = characteristic yield strength of prestressing rein-
transverse torsional reinforcement, mm2 (in.2) forcing strands, MPa (psi); fp0.1 = 0.9fu
Aps = area of prestressing reinforcement in flexural fpc = compressive stress in concrete due to prestress,
tension zone, mm2 (in.2) MPa (psi)
As = area of nonprestressed longitudinal tension rein- fpk = characteristic tensile strength of prestressing rein-
forcement, mm2 (in.2) forcing strands, MPa (psi); fpk = fpu
As′ = area of longitudinal compression reinforcement, fpo = effective prestress after losses in prestressing rein-
mm2 (in.2) forcement, MPa (psi)
At = area of one leg of a closed stirrup resisting torsion fpu = specified tensile strength of prestressing reinforce-
within spacing s, mm2 (in.2) (noted as Atb in Eq. ment, MPa (psi)
(7.2.6)) fp,ud = design ultimate strength of prestressing reinforcing
b = width of compression face of member, mm (in.) strands, MPa (psi); fp,ud = fpk/gs (gs = 1.15)
bc = width of stirrups, mm (in.) fr = modulus of rupture of concrete, MPa (psi)
B = integral of Tw ft = reinforcement stress in t direction, MPa (psi)
C = cross-sectional constant to define torsional proper- ft′ = uniaxial tensile strength of concrete, MPa (psi)
ties of a beam ft* = concrete effective (plastic) tensile stress, MPa (psi)
dv = distance between top and bottom longitudinal rein- ftp = prestressing reinforcement stress in t direction,
forcement, mm (in.) MPa (psi)
fty = specified yield strength of transverse reinforcement, To =pure torsional strength of section, N∙m (in.-lb)
MPa (psi) Ts =nominal torsional strength provided by reinforce-
fy = specified yield strength of reinforcement, MPa (psi) ment, N∙m (in.-lb)
fyd = design yield strength reinforcing steel, MPa (psi); Tu = factored torsional moment at section, N∙m (in.-lb)
fyd = fy/gs (gs = 1.15) Tw = warping torsional moment, N∙m (in.-lb)
fyℓ = yield strength of the torsional longitudinal rein- Txu = factored balanced torsional strength, N∙m (in.-lb)
forcement, MPa (psi) Txub = balanced torsional strength, N∙m (in.-lb)
fyv = torsional hoop yield strength reinforcement, MPa T xub = nondimensional balanced torsional strength, N∙m
(psi) (in.-lb)
G = shear modulus, MPa (psi) v = shearing stress due to shear, MPa (psi)
h = overall thickness or height of a member, mm (in.) v* = plastic flow rate (Chapter 7)
Ho = horizontal force in radial direction, N (lb) (Chapter 7) vu = ultimate shear stress, MPa (psi)
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Ip = polar moment of inertia, mm4 (in.4) V = applied shear force at section, N (lb)
k1 = ratio of average stress to peak stress Vc = nominal shear strength provided by concrete, N (lb)
K = value from Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion Vo = pure shear strength of section, N (lb)
Kf = flexural stiffness of floor beams, N∙m2 (lb-in.2) Vu = factored shear force at section, N (lb)
Kts = torsional stiffness of spandrel beam, N∙m/rad w = ultimate distributed load on helical stair, N/m (lb/ft)
(in.-lb/rad) (Chapter 7)
ℓ = span length of beam, mm (in.) W = external work, N/m (lb/ft)
ℓf = length of flexural beam, mm (in.) x = shorter overall dimension of rectangular part of
ℓq = width of shear flow q along top wall (Fig. 4.2(a) cross section, mm (in.)
and (b)), mm (in.) x1 = distance section centroid and an infinitesimally
m = ratio of effective (plastic) compressive stress to small area of yield surface, mm (in.)
effective (plastic) tensile stress of concrete y = longer overall dimension of rectangular part of
M = applied flexural moment at section, N∙m (in.-lb) cross section, mm (in.)
Mo = pure flexural strength of section, N∙m (in.-lb) z = distance along axis of beam, mm (in.)
n = integer value a, b = Saint-Venant’s coefficients for homogeneous
nR = number of redundants torsional section
nV = coefficient describing an under-reinforced, partially a*, b*= rotational angles in beam subjected to torsion
under-reinforced, or completely over-reinforced section (Chapter 7)
N = applied axial load at section, N (lb) a1 = stress block factor given as ratio of fd to fc′ (Chapter 5)
No = pure axial strength of section, N (lb) b = factor relating effect of longitudinal strain on shear
ph = perimeter of centerline of outermost closed trans- strength of concrete (American Association of State
verse torsional reinforcement, mm (in.) Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
po = perimeter of outer concrete cross section, mm (in.) LRFD (general message)
(sometimes noted as pcp) b1 = factor relating depth of equivalent rectangular
P = applied concentrated load, N (lb) compressive stress block to neutral axis depth; also,
q = shear flow, N/m (lb/in.) block factor given as ratio of ao to td (Fig. 4.5)
r = ratio of top-to-bottom yield forces of the longitu- g1 = angle along helical stair (in plan) at which maximum
dinal reinforcement torsional moment is assumed to occur
r = size effect constant for computing sN g2 = angle along helical stair (in plan) at which vertical
R = shape parameter used in Ramberg-Osgood moment is assumed to be zero
s = center-to-center spacing of longitudinal and trans- gℓt = shear strain
verse reinforcements, mm (in.) ed = strain in d direction
sl = center-to-center spacing of longitudinal reinforce- edec = strain in prestressing reinforcement at decompres-
ment, mm (in.) sion of concrete
st = center-to-center spacing of transverse reinforce- eds = maximum strain at concrete strut surface (Fig. 4.3)
ment, mm (in.) eh = strain in hoop direction eℓ
t = wall thickness of hollow section, mm (in.) eℓy = yield strain in ℓ direction
td = thickness of shear flow zone, mm (in.) eo = strain at peak compressive stress fc′ in concrete
T = applied torsional moment at section, N∙m (in.-lb) ep = peak strain in concrete
Tc = nominal torsional strength provided by concrete, er = strain in r direction
N·m (in.-lb) es = strain in nonprestressed reinforcement; es becomes
Tcr = torsional cracking resistance of cross section, N∙m eℓ or et when applied to longitudinal or transverse
(in.-lb) reinforcement, respectively
Tf = applied torsional moment, N∙m (in.-lb) (Chapter 9) et = strain in t direction
Tmax = maximum torsional moment, N∙m (in.-lb) (Chapter 7) ety = yield strain in t direction
Tn = nominal torsional moment strength, N∙m (in.-lb)
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
euk = characteristic total elongation of reinforcing steel at F = angle of twist in torsional beam, radians/m
ultimate load (radians/in.)
ex = longitudinal strain at midheight of concrete section F′ = second derivative of rotation with respect to beam’s
z = softening coefficient of concrete strut axis z
hℓ = normalized reinforcement ratio of longitudinal F′′ = third derivative of rotation with respect to beam’s
reinforcement axis z
hℓb = balanced normalized reinforcement ratio of longi- Y = bending curvature of concrete strut
tudinal reinforcement wℓ = reinforcement index in ℓ direction
ht = normalized reinforcement ratio of transverse steel ws = functional indicator of an index of reinforcement
reinforcement wsℓ = reinforcement ratio index
htb = balanced normalized reinforcement ratio of trans- wt = reinforcement index in t direction
verse steel reinforcement
q = angle between axis of strut, compression diagonal, 2.2—Definitions
or compression field and tension chord of the ACI provides a comprehensive list of definitions through
member; also, the angle between ℓ-t direction/axis an online resource, “ACI Concrete Terminology,” http://
and d-r direction/axis, radians terminology.concrete.org.
x = coefficient equal to 1 for rectangular sections and
to p/4 for circular cross sections; x can be taken CHAPTER 3—HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF
as unity for all shapes of cross sections with only TORSION THEORIES AND THEORETICAL MODELS
negligible loss of accuracy for Ao and po 3.1—Navier’s theory
rℓ = reinforcement ratio in ℓ direction A theory for torsion of elastic homogeneous members
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
rℓp = prestressing reinforcement ratio in ℓ direction was first developed by C. L. Navier (1826) for circular cross
rt = reinforcement ratio in t direction sections. His theory, which was based on equilibrium condi-
rtp = prestressing reinforcement ratio in t direction tions, compatibility conditions, and a linear stress-strain
s = compressive stress acting in combination with relationship like Hooke’s Law, has guided the development
torsional moment, psi (MPa) of various theories about the behavior of reinforced concrete
s0 = nominal torsional strength according to the current members subjected to torsion after cracking.
code specifications based on plastic limit analysis,
MPa (psi) 3.2—Thin-tube theory
sd = principal stress in d direction for concrete struts, Navier’s torsion theory for members of circular sections
MPa (psi) was followed by Saint-Venant’s (1856) solution for rectan-
sℓ = normal stress in longitudinal direction for reinforced gular sections. Saint-Venant’s torsional constants considered
concrete, MPa (psi) warping of rectangular cross sections. According to Saint-
smax = maximum principal tensile stress, MPa (psi) Venant’s circulatory shear flow theory, the most efficient
sN = nominal strength of structure, MPa (psi) cross section to resist torsion is a thin tube. Bredt (1896) was
sr = principal stress in r direction for the concrete struts, able to derive simple equations for thin tubes. His thin-tube
MPa (psi) theory states that the shear stress multiplied by wall thick-
st = normal stress in the transverse direction for rein- ness has a constant value around the perimeter and that this
forced concrete, MPa (psi) shear flow is found by dividing the torsion by twice the area
s∞ = strength of plain beams according to elastic analysis enclosed by the shear flow path. Bredt’s theory has served as
with maximum stress limited by material strength, the basis for modern theories of cracked reinforced concrete
MPa (psi) members subjected to Saint-Venant torsion.
t = shearing stress due to torsion and shear, MPa (psi) 3.2.1 Two- and three-dimensional plane truss models—
tmax = maximum shear stress, MPa (psi) The first theoretical models for shear in cracked reinforced
tℓt = applied shear stress in ℓ-t coordinate for reinforced concrete members date back to the turn of the century when
concrete, MPa (psi) Ritter (1899) and Mörsch (1902) formulated the two-dimen-
n = uniform plastic effectiveness factor (Chapter 7) sional (2-D) plane truss model concept, where reinforced
nc = plastic effectiveness factor for compression concrete members were modeled as an assembly of two
(Chapter 7) types of linear elements—concrete struts and reinforcement
nt = plastic effectiveness factor for tension (Chapter 7) ties. The axis of concrete struts in the model was assumed
j = friction angle to be inclined at 45 degrees to longitudinal members, and
f = strength reduction factor shear strength was assumed to be controlled by the yielding
fc = strength reduction factor for concrete (0.65 for of transverse reinforcement ties. By extending the 2-D
cast-in-place, 0.70 for precast concrete) plane truss model, Rausch (1929) developed a three-dimen-
fp = strength reduction factor for prestressing tendons sional (3-D) space truss model for torsion that consisted of
(0.90) longitudinal and hoop reinforcement-resisting tension and
fs = strength reduction factor for nonprestressed rein- concrete struts-resisting compression. He also assumed that
forcing bars (0.85)
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
the shear flow path would follow the centerline of the hoop
reinforcement.
3.2.2 Skew-bending and space truss theories—In later
years, research on torsion followed two theoretical tracks—
skew-bending and space truss. Lessig (1959) first proposed a
skew-bending theory for reinforced concrete members with
two modes of failure, Mode 1 and Mode 2, as explained in
3.3.5. The skew-bending theory used only equilibrium equa-
tions and assumed that all reinforcement yielded before
failure. Lessig’s research was followed by the skew-bending
theory of Walsh et al. (1966) and Collins et al. (1968a,b), who
proposed a third failure mode, Mode 3, and used all three
modes to derive nondimensional torsion-bending moment
interaction equations (Walsh et al. 1967), as described in Fig. 3.3.2—ACI Committee 438—Torsion, Mexico City,
3.3.5. Based on three modes of failure, a nondimensional October 1976: Tom Hsu, Lennart Elfgren, Phil Ferguson,
interaction surface of torsion, shear, and flexure was derived Art McMullen, Emory Kemp, Gordon Fisher, Paul Zia, and
by Elfgren (1972a,b) and Elfgren et al. (1974a,b). Rausch’s Michael Collins.
space truss theory for torsion was generalized by Lampert
and Thürlimann (1969, 1971), who showed how the angle relationships) have been the basis for research in torsion
of inclination of the compression diagonals at failure could of reinforced concrete members. (Equation notation in this
be determined from equilibrium if both the hoops and longi- section are provided in Chapter 2.)
tudinal reinforcement were assumed to yield. Lampert and 3.3.2 Twentieth century—In the first 60 years of the twen-
Collins (1972) showed that predictions of skew-bending and tieth century, progress in reinforced concrete theories was
space truss theories were in close agreement. made primarily on flexure. Early flexural theories for rein-
3.2.3 Compression field theory (CFT)—The truss model forced concrete assumed plane sections remained plane
with linear elements developed by Rausch was replaced in the and stress-strain relationships of concrete and reinforce-
1960s by a new type of truss model with membrane elements ment were linear. Equilibrium conditions for longitudinal
that were subjected to in-plane normal and shearing stresses. stresses were used to determine the location of the neutral
In determining the torsional strength of members where some axis and stresses in concrete and reinforcement caused by
reinforcement does not yield, consider compatibility conditions. the moment. The contribution of concrete tensile stresses
Such conditions were introduced by Baumann (1972) for shear was disregarded if concrete cracking was expected. Later
and by Collins (1973) for torsion. Mitchell and Collins (1974) flexural theories accounted for the nonlinear stress-strain
incorporated compatibility conditions in their CFT, which also response of the concrete and steel reinforcement so that the
relied on equilibrium equations and nonlinear material models complete moment-curvature relationship for a section could
for concrete and reinforcement. Unlike previous models, the be predicted. In terms of shear and torsion research, a signifi-
CFT calculates cracked member torsional behavior up to the cant achievement was made with the development of truss
peak torque. A compatibility condition derived by minimizing models (Ritter 1899; Mörsch 1902; Rausch 1929). Research
the strain energy in the system is used to calculate the angle of in torsion of reinforced concrete underwent significant
inclination in the truss model struts. advances during the last 40 years of the twentieth century.
3.2.4 Softened truss model (STM)—In 1985, Hsu and Mo Two theories were developed—skew-bending and truss
(1985a,b,c) proposed the STM by softening the concrete models with membrane elements. Skew-bending includes
stress-strain curve. All of the aforementioned models satisfy the theories of Lessig (1959), Yudin (1962), Collins et al.
Navier’s theory. Earlier models overestimated test strengths (1968a), Hsu (1968a), and Elfgren (1972a,b). Truss models
(Hsu 1968c), whereas the CFT, which uses spalling of include the theories of Nielsen (1967), Lampert and Thür-
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
concrete cover, and STM, which uses softening of concrete, limann (1968, 1969), Collins (1973), Mitchell and Collins
have been shown to predict test results accurately (McMullen (1974), Elfgren et al. (1974a,b), Collins and Mitchell (1980),
and El-Degwy 1985). and Hsu and Mo (1985a,b,c). Several researchers involved
in the development of theories for torsion were members of
3.3—Historical development of theories for ACI Committee 438 for Torsion, which is now the Joint ACI-
reinforced concrete members subjected to torsion ASCE Committee 445 for Shear and Torsion (Fig. 3.3.2).
3.3.1 General—Section 3.1 summarizes the historical Development of these modern truss models was based on
models developed to describe reinforced concrete members the same three principles of mechanics, which, in terms of
subjected to torsion, covering almost two centuries of torsion and shear, include the softened stress-strain relation-
research from 1826 to the early twenty-first century (2007). ship of concrete.
Classical theories include Navier (1826), Saint-Venant 3.3.3 Classical torsion theory for homogeneous members—
(1856), Bredt (1896), and Bach (1911). This review shows Navier (1826) derived a theory for torsion of homogeneous
that the three principles of mechanics of materials (equilib- elastic members with circular cross sections. His theory is
rium, compatibility conditions, and materials stress-strain based on the three principles of mechanics of materials:
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
Fig. 3.3.4.2—Number of published papers on torsion from 1900 to 2007 (plot prepared by
A. Belarbi).
the shear problem of membrane elements in a tube and the as a truss with two types of linear elements: struts made
warping of tube walls that cause flexure in concrete struts. out of concrete and ties made out of steel reinforcement.
Figure 3.3.4.2 shows that the number of globally published The Ritter and Mörsch model represents the struts and ties
papers on torsion began to surge around 1960 and peaked as lines without cross-sectional dimensions, where forces
around 1970. The principles of equilibrium, compatibility satisfy equilibrium at points of intersection—a model with
conditions, and materials stress-strain relationships that the advantage of conceptual clarity. Extending the 2-D plane
were needed to solve torsion problems in reinforced concrete truss model to a 3-D space truss model, Rausch (1929) devel-
members were primarily developed between 1960 and 1985 oped a theory for torsion of reinforced concrete. Rausch’s
(Lampert and Thürlimann 1971; Lampert and Collins 1972; space truss model, as shown in Fig. 3.3.5a, is made up of
Elfgren et al. 1974a,b; Collins and Mitchell 1980; Hsu and 45-degree diagonal concrete struts, longitudinal reinforcing
Mo 1983). Theories and tests produced before 1980 are bars, and hoop reinforcing bars connected at the joints by
summarized in detail by Hsu (1984). hinges. Torsional moment is carried by the concrete struts
By 1985, researchers solved the basic problems of reinforced in axial compression (dotted lines), and by the straight rein-
concrete design by applying Navier’s theory. Further research forcing bars in axial tension (solid lines) in the longitudinal
was necessary to refine the constitutive laws of materials for (horizontal) and lateral (hoop) directions. Equilibrium of
torsion and shear. The experimental work needed to generate the joints in the longitudinal, lateral, and radial directions
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
new advancements is tedious and requires highly sophisticated requires that the forces in the longitudinal bars (X), in the
testing equipment. Only two universities in North America— hoop bars (Q), and in the inclined struts (D) should be evenly
the University of Toronto and University of Houston—are distributed among all cells and joints. To satisfy equilibrium,
capable of studying the behavior of reinforced concrete shell the relationship between these forces should be X = Q =
and panel elements subjected to in-plane shear and normal D/√2. As shown in Fig. 3.3.5a, the series of hoop forces Q
stresses. The study of softened concrete in shear elements, at the joints constitute a shear flow q = Q/s. Using Bredt’s
which has been the subject of extensive research worldwide lever arm area concept, T can be related to q (or Q/s) by
in the last three decades, continues to be a major research 2Ao, as expressed by Bredt’s equation (Eq. (3.3.3)). The term
topic. The need for larger and more complex specimens has Ao refers to the area enclosed by a series of straight lines
increased ongoing work at both universities. The high cost of connecting joints of the cross section.
experimental research needed for new developments in torsion Assuming that ultimate torque is reached when the forces
imposes a limiting constraint on new research. For example, in the transverse reinforcement reach the yield stress, then q
studying the behavior of full-scale girders with open sections = Q/s = Atfty/st and Eq. (3.3.3) becomes
that involve Saint-Venant and warping torsion is expensive. The
future of torsion research is largely tied to available equipment At fty
or to the combined efforts of many institutions, or both. Tn = 2 Aoh (3.3.5)
st
3.3.5 Space truss model using struts and ties—The first
theory for shear design of reinforced concrete was developed
at the turn of the twentieth century when Ritter (1899) and Although the space truss model has the advantage
Mörsch (1902) formulated the concept of plane trusses with of conceptual clarity in terms of simple assemblage of
struts and ties. They modeled a reinforced concrete member compression struts and tension ties, Rausch’s equation (Eq.
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
Fig. 3.3.6.2—Three failure modes in skew-bending theories (Lessig 1959; Yudin 1962;
Collins et al. 1968a; Elfgren et al. 1974a,b).
skew compression zone and force equilibrium about the axis combined torsion and flexure, Lampert and Collins (1972)
perpendicular to the center of the compression zone. The showed that both the skew-bending theory and the space
crack angles defining the skew failure surfaces were deter- truss theory predict the same parabolic shape for the interac-
mined by minimizing the torsional resistance. The resulting tion curve. Elfgren et al. (1974a,b) then derived a nondimen-
equations were complicated. sional interaction surface for combined torsion, shear, and
Yudin (1962) took a different approach by deriving three flexure based on the three modes of skew-bending failure. If
equilibrium equations: moment equilibrium about the longi- the inclination angle of cracks in each wall is adjusted so that
tudinal and transverse axes through the compression zone both longitudinal and transverse reinforcement can yield, the
center, and force equilibrium about the axis perpendicular to interaction surface becomes identical to that derived from
the compression zone center. Assuming all the crack angles the equilibrium (plasticity) truss model (Elfgren 1972a,b),
to be 45 degrees, he showed that his equation for ultimate as explained in 5.5.
torque was the same as Rausch’s. Lessig and Yudin’s research 3.3.7 Truss models with membrane elements
was followed by the skew-bending theory of Walsh et al. 3.3.7.1 Equilibrium (plasticity) truss model for torsion—
(1966, 1967) and Collins et al. (1968a,b), who also identified Rausch’s space truss model with struts and ties (1929) was
Mode 3 failure. The three modes of failure—1, 2, and 3—are replaced by a new and more realistic type of truss model
governed by the dominant effect of positive flexure moment, in the 1960s. As shown in Fig. 3.3.7.1a, the new model is
torsion shear, and negative flexure moment, respectively. For
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
made up of membrane elements treated as trusses made up
of struts and ties after cracking. Three equilibrium equations = Atfty/st), Lampert and Thürlimann’s Eq. (3.3.7.1e) looks
for the elements were first derived by Nielsen (1967) and identical to Rausch’s Eq. (3.3.5), except the term Ao is
Lampert and Thürlimann (1968). defined differently. The former is based on the centerline
of longitudinal reinforcement and the latter is based on
sℓ = sdcos2q + srsin2q + rℓ fℓ (3.3.7.1a) the centerline of hoop reinforcement. Equation (3.3.7.1e)
was first used in the European CEB-FIP code in 1978 and
s t = s d sin 2 q + s r cos2 q + rt ft (3.3.7.1b) ACI 318-95. By combining Eq. (3.3.7.1e) with equations
for shear and flexure, Elfgren (1972a,b) and Elfgren et al.
tℓt = (–sd + sr)sinqcosq (3.3.7.1c) (1974a) established a nondimensional interaction surface
as shown in Fig. 3.3.7.1b, based on the equilibrium (plas-
Because Eq. (3.3.7.1a) through (3.3.7.1c) describe the ticity) truss model as explained in 6.5. Elfgren also showed
transformation of stresses, they form a system of stresses the interaction surface derived from the truss model is iden-
that should satisfy Mohr’s stress circle, a type of equilib- tical to the skew-bending theory. Actual testing has shown,
rium condition called Mohr’s circular stress equilibrium. however, that Elfgren’s interaction surface overestimates the
The longitudinal and transverse reinforcement stresses are experimental results in the region adjacent to torsion and
assumed to yield at failure (fℓ = fℓy, ft = fty), and the concrete shear because softening concrete was not considered.
tensile stress is neglected (sr = 0). Equations (3.3.7.1a) 3.3.7.2 Compatibility truss model for torsion
through (3.3.7.1c) were simplified to yield the shear stress tℓt 3.3.7.2.1 General—According to Navier, the strain
in the case of pure shear without normal stresses (sℓ = st = 0) compatibility (or geometric) condition should be considered
if the angle of twist is to be related to the torsional moment.
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Assuming the membrane element to behave as a truss as
t ℓ t = rℓ fℓ y rt fty (3.3.7.1d)
shown in Fig. 3.3.7.1a(b), three strain compatibility equa-
tions have been derived by Baumann (1972) and Mitchell
A reinforced concrete tube subjected to torsion can be and Collins (1974).
visualized as an assembly of shear elements similar to the
one shown in Fig. 3.3.3. e ℓ = e d cos2 q + e r sin 2 q (3.7.2.1a)
The torsional moment at yielding, Tn, can then be derived
by substituting the shear stress tℓt (tℓt = q/t) into Eq. (3.3.3)
and substituting rℓ = Aℓ/sℓt and rt = At/stt e t = e d sin 2 q + e r cos2 q (3.7.2.1b)
Aℓ fℓ y At fty g ℓt
Tu = 2 Ao (3.3.7.1e) = (− e d + e r )sin q cos q (3.7.2.1c)
sℓ st 2
tension stress and a principal compressive stress in the ficient on the torsional strength is evident, explaining why
45-degree direction. Robinson and Demorieux (1972) found Rausch’s equation for Tn (Eq. (3.3.5)) overestimated the test
that when a membrane element is subjected to a biaxial results, as shown in Fig. 3.3.5b. Because the shear flow zone
stress condition, the principal compressive stress is reduced thickness td occupies such a crucial position in the STM,
(or “softened”) by the principal tensile stress in the perpen- torsion research is now focused on a better understanding of
dicular direction. Performing biaxial tests of shear elements, the shear flow zone (Alkhrdaji and Belarbi 2003).
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
3.3.8 Derivation of ACI 318: torsion design equations—As torsion proved to be much more difficult because they were,
discussed previously, ACI equations for designing members respectively, two-dimensional and three-dimensional prob-
under torsion are based on the space truss model theory. lems. From a historical perspective, the development of the
There are two basic design equations: one for torsional current torsional theories spanned over 40 years. Equilib-
hoop reinforcement, and another for torsional longitudinal rium equations were developed in the 1960s, compatibility
reinforcement. conditions were added in the 1970s, and the formulation and
From the truss model (Fig. 3.3.7.1a(b)), equilibrium of the expressions of softening coefficients were introduced in the
top face of the element relates the shear flow q to the force 1980s and 90s.
in the torsional hoop reinforcement per unit length (Atft/s) Since 1960, the bulk of work has focused on beams
through the equation subjected to monotonic torsional loading. Early tests on
members subjected to reverse cyclic loading were conducted
q = At ft cotq (3.3.8a) by Collins and Chockalingam (1979) on reinforced concrete
s beams subjected to pure torsion and by Stevens et al. (1991)
on membrane elements subjected to reversed cyclic shear up
Substituting Eq. (3.3.8a) into Bredt’s Eq. (3.3.3) and to reinforcement yielding. Significant recent advances have
assuming yielding of the hoop reinforcement renders the ACI applied rational models such as the STM and the modified
318 requirement for transverse reinforcement for torsion. CFT to shear elements subjected to cyclic loading. Vecchio
(1999) and Palermo and Vecchio (2003, 2004) applied the
MCFT for cyclic loading up to yielding of the reinforcement.
At Tu
= (3.3.8b) Mansour et al. (2001), Zhu et al. (2001), Zhu and Hsu (2002),
s f2 Ao f yv cot q and Mansour and Hsu (2005a,b) studied cyclic torsion and
shear, including the unloading and reloading branches of the
Similarly, from the equilibrium of the left face of the softened stress-strain curves (hysteretic loop) and the effect
element, shown in Fig. 3.3.7.1a(b), the shear flow q can be of Poisson’s ratio in a membrane element. The latter was
related to the force in the torsional longitudinal reinforce- crucial in determining the descending branch of the softened
ment per unit length (Aℓfℓ/sℓ) through the equation stress-strain curve.
Belarbi and Greene tested several full-scale box girders
Aℓ fℓ under cyclic torsion and combined torsion and shear
q= tan q (3.3.8c) (Belarbi and Greene 2004; Greene and Belarbi 2008). The
sℓ
cyclic shear tests of membrane elements (Mansour and
Hsu 2005a,b) permitted the establishment of cyclic stress-
The term Al is defined in ACI 318 as the total area of strain curves of concrete and reinforcement. These cyclic
torsional longitudinal reinforcement in the cross section, constitutive laws laid the foundation for the Cyclic Soft-
assuming that po = ph, where ph is the perimeter of the ened Membrane Model (Mansour and Hsu 2005a,b), which
centerline of the outermost hoop bars. Equation (3.3.8c) then could be used for the design of seismic-resistant reinforced
becomes concrete structures (Hsu et al. 2006).
q=
Aℓ fℓ
tan q CHAPTER 4—BEHAVIOR OF MEMBERS
(3.3.8d)
ph SUBJECTED TO PURE TORSION
4.1—General
The torsional strength of concrete beams depends on many
An expression for the amount of torsional longitudinal
factors, such as the amount and distribution of transverse
reinforcement in ACI 318 is obtained by equating the shear
and longitudinal reinforcement, concrete strength, cross
flow q of Eq. (3.3.8d) and (3.3.8a)
section shape, and, for rectangular cross sections, aspect
ratio (depth-to-width ratio). Concrete strength and amount
A f yv
Aℓ = t ph cot 2 q (3.3.8e) of reinforcement can change the failure characteristics. The
s f yℓ failure mechanism varies from ductile to sudden and brittle,
depending on the longitudinal and transverse reinforce-
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
on the nature and size of the aggregate. The role of the size
effect on the fracture process zone width should also be
considered. Between the microcracks of this zone, there are
less damaged or even elastic parts; this can be considered a
result of the strong tendency for eventual localization of the
damage and the simultaneous recovery of the undamaged or
less-damaged parts between the final cracks.
4.3—Reinforced concrete
Before the concrete cracks, a member under pure torsion
is assumed to behave elastically with a nearly linear torque-
twist curve. After cracking, the resistance mechanism
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
changes and stirrups and longitudinal reinforcement carry
most of the tensile load whereas the concrete carries the
compression. The longitudinal reinforcement tensile strains Fig. 4.3a—Diagonal cracks in members under pure torsion
cause the member to lengthen. Increased torque causes a (Mitchell and Collins 1974).
nearly linear increase in the beam length. A longitudinal
restraint acts as a compressive prestress force and increases
the torsional strength. the surface, crack width, beam strength and stiffness, and
Members reinforced for torsion typically have closed stir- failure mode. The reinforcement ratios have a strong influ-
rups and at least one longitudinal bar in each stirrup corner, ence on the inclined crack angles and the size of the cracks.
as originally required in ACI 318-63. Members with only The crack width is related to the principal tensile strain.
longitudinal reinforcement behave similarly to a plain When the volumetric ratios rl and rt are equal, q is approxi-
concrete member in regards to torsional rigidity and torsional mately 45 degrees and the cracks have the smallest width
strength, and they fail after cracking in a brittle manner. because the strains in the longitudinal and transverse direc-
An uncracked beam loaded in pure torsion has only shear tions are also equal. For beams with rt larger than rl, the
stresses on a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis. angle is greater than 45 degrees relative to the horizontal and
The associated principal tensile stress causes inclined cracks the strain larger in the longitudinal direction, which causes
on the beam surface in the principal compressive stress wider cracks. Similarly, in beams with rt less than rl, the
direction. These cracks spiral around the beam. The tensile angle is less than 45 degrees relative to the horizontal, the
cracks are due to strain in the principal tensile stress direc- transverse strain is larger, and the cracks are also wider than
tion, and they affect the concrete acting in compression. The when q is 45 degrees (Mitchell and Collins 1974; Hsu 1993).
tensile strains have the effect of weakening the concrete’s The volumetric ratios of longitudinal and transverse rein-
ability to withstand compression in the perpendicular direc- forcement to concrete affect the failure mechanism. Large
tion. This is known as “softening” of the concrete compres- rl and rt result in reinforcement stresses less than yield
sive strength. Tests performed by Vecchio and Collins (1982, when the concrete reaches its ultimate compressive strain at
1986) identified the principal tensile strains as the primary the surface. In this condition, the concrete is crushed and
variable influencing tension softening and quantified them. the beam experiences sudden and brittle failure. Beams of
Continued work by Belarbi and Hsu (1994, 1995), Pang and this type are called over-reinforced. Figure 4.3b shows an
Hsu (1995), Hsu and Zhang (1997), Hsu and Zhu (2002), example of beam failure boundaries (Leu and Lee 2000).
and Hsu and Mo (2010) has improved the understanding The condition known as balanced failure point is met when
of compression softening. Other studies, such as those of concrete reaches its ultimate strain at the point where both
Vecchio and Collins (1993) and Koutchoukali and Belarbi transverse and longitudinal reinforcement begin to yield
(2001), have also been reported based on further calibration simultaneously. Beams with rl and rt less than the rein-
of their original models. After cracking, the longitudinal and forcement ratios at the balanced condition are called under-
transverse reinforcement are in tension, and the concrete reinforced (Region I). Under-reinforced beams are capable
struts between the diagonal cracks are in compression, as of continued twist as the reinforcement yields, producing
shown in Fig. 4.3a. The faces of the beam are warped as a ductile failure. Over-reinforced beams are in Region IV
the beam is twisted, causing bending stresses, in addition where the failure is brittle. For lower ratios of either rℓ or rt,
to compressive stresses, in the concrete struts (Mitchell the longitudinal or transverse reinforcement yields before the
and Collins 1974). The concrete between inclined cracks concrete is crushed. Beams of this type are called partially
is capable of acting in tension and will increase the overall under-reinforced (Regions II and III).
beam torsional stiffness. This effect, known as tension stiff- The volumetric ratios of longitudinal and transverse rein-
ening, is most predominant immediately after the first cracks forcement have a strong influence on the beam’s postcracking
appear and decreases with increased torsion. torsional stiffness and strength as shown in Fig. 4.3c. For
The volumetric ratios rl and rt have a significant effect on under-reinforced beams with equal volumetric ratios rℓ
the behavior of reinforced concrete beams subject to pure and rt, an increase in the total reinforcement increases the
torsion. The ratios affect the angle of the inclined cracks on torsional rigidity, which is the slope of the torque-twist curve
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
To satisfy equilibrium, the concrete compressive stress
that resists torsion after cracking changes directions at the
Fig. 4.3c—Torque-twist curves of beams with various outside corners of the beam. The resultant tensile stress in
percentages of reinforcement (Hsu 1968a). (Note: 1 in.-kip the concrete causes the concrete cover to spall off when the
= 0.113 kN·m; 1 in. = 0.0254 m.) tensile stress is high enough. Typically the spall occurs at the
stirrups. The resulting section is smaller and has a reduced
after cracking. It also increases the torsional yield strength, torsional strength (Mitchell and Collins 1974). Mitchell and
which is the amount of torque the beam can sustain at the Collins (1974) tested two beams, PT5 and PT6, to inves-
onset of yielding. As the total amount of reinforcement tigate the effects of spalling. The beams had similar rein-
increases, however, the post-yield twist decreases. There- forcing cages and concrete strength, but PT5 had a cover of
fore, an increase in the total amount of reinforcement results 1.5 mm (1/16 in.) and PT6 had a cover of 40 mm (1-9/16 in.).
in a stiffer and stronger beam, but at the cost of decreased The results of the tests showed that, although the concrete
ductility. The minimum amount of reinforcing steel is the outside the hoop reinforcement had a significant effect on
amount causing the reinforcement to yield at the same the cracking torque, it had little effect on the peak torque
torque that causes cracking. Where this occurs, the total rein- after significant spalling occurred (Fig. 4.3d).
forcement ratio, including both longitudinal and transverse In tests performed by Rahal and Collins (1995b), speci-
reinforcement, is approximately 0.01 for normal-strength mens with small covers did not experience spalling until
concrete (Hsu 1984). A beam with less reinforcement than after the torsional strength had been reached. Beams with
the minimum fails in a brittle manner after cracking. The larger covers spalled before reaching the torsional strength.
behavior of solid members compared with hollow ones
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
do not consider the area removed by voids in hollow sections
(Rahal and Collins 1996).
4.4—Prestressed concrete
Adding longitudinal prestressing to a concrete member
subjected to torsion will increase its cracking torque and,
to a lesser extent, its failure torque. The longitudinal
prestressing force creates a compression-shear biaxial state
of stress that delays cracking of concrete. This effect is illus-
trated by Cowan’s failure criteria, shown in Fig. 4.4a. The
Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion has been simplified into two
straight lines in Fig. 4.4a(a). If the Mohr circle of stresses
touches the straight line BD described by t = c – tanj, where
j is the friction angle (a typical value for concrete is 37
degrees), failure is by sliding. If the Mohr circle touches the
tension cutoff line DE described by s = ft′, failure is by sepa- Fig. 4.4b—Ultimate torque-versus-reinforcement factor for
ration. In Fig. 4.4a(b), smax = OE = FE – FO = FP – FO. The prestressed and reinforced beams under pure torsion (Hsu
variable smax can then be expressed as 1984). (Note: 1 in.-kip = 0.113 kN·m.)
2
f pc f pc only the prestress and the concrete tensile strength. In effect,
s max = + t 2 − (4.4a) the longitudinal prestress increases the cracking strength,
2 2
as shown in Fig. 4.4b. Expressions for prestressed member
torsional strength are similar to those of reinforced concrete
f pc members with a factor that increases the strength due to the
t = ft ′ 1 + (4.4b) prestress. Pure torsion tests have shown that the prestressed
ft ′
beams appear to require approximately the same minimum
torsional reinforcement as the nonprestressed beams (Hsu
Cowan’s failure envelope using Mohr’s circle is a simple 1984). Similar to beams without prestressing, prestressed
and concise model for explaining the compression-shear state beams without web reinforcement fail shortly after cracking.
of stress. Equation (4.4b) for shear stress is derived from the Testing has shown that as the amount of longitudinal rein-
geometry of Cowan’s failure envelope, and it is a function of forcement and prestress increase, the torque at cracking,
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
g ℓt
= ( − e d + e r ) sin q cos q (5.3.1c)
2
po
F= g ℓt (5.3.2)
2 Ao
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
e ds zero in the equilibrium Eq. (5.2.1a) through (5.2.1c).
ed = (5.3.4b) 5.4.2 Mild reinforcement—When the tensile strength of
2
the concrete is neglected, the stress-strain relationship of
mild reinforcement is taken as the elastic perfectly plastic
Equations (5.3.2), (5.3.3), (5.3.4a), and (5.3.4b) are the relationship, expressed as
four additional compatibility equations for torsion. They
introduce four additional variables, F, Y, td, and eds. fℓ = Eseℓ eℓ < eℓy (5.4.2a(a))
E ps′ (e dec + e s )
fp =
{ ( E ′ (e ) }
1/ R
1+ + e s ) / f pu
R
fp > 0.7fpu
ps dec
(5.4.3a(b))
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
of this non-softening assumption, CFT also assumes spalling
concrete cover before reaching the peak torque. As a result, direction; therefore, it can be derived from compatibility Eq.
CFT is also called the “spalling theory.” The CFT and the (5.3.1a) and (5.3.1b), by combining them to form
STM are described in detail in 5.5 and 5.6, respectively,
by combining the stress-strain relationships of concrete eℓ + ed
and reinforcement given in Eq. (5.4.1a(a)) and (5.4.1a(b)), tan 2 q = (5.5a)
et + ed
and through (5.4.3a(b)) with the equilibrium Eq. (5.2.1a)
through (5.2.1c) and (5.2.2) and compatibility Eq. (5.3.1a)
through (5.3.4b). The solution algorithms of the two theories Equation (5.5a) shows the angle q can be expressed as a
are also different. function of the strain in the concrete diagonals (ed), the strain
in the longitudinal reinforcement (eℓ), and the strain in the
5.5—Compression field theory transverse reinforcement (et). The full behavioral response
Collins and Mitchell (1980) and Mitchell and Collins of reinforced concrete members subjected to torsion can be
(1974, 1978) proposed the CFT for structural concrete in predicted by using compatibility (Eq. (5.5)), equilibrium (Eq.
torsion. This section provides a basic summary of the theory. (5.2.1a) through (5.2.1c)), the stress-strain relationships of
Before the truss analogy equilibrium equations can be used concrete [Eq. (5.4.1a(a)) and (5.4.1a(b))], and those for mild
to design a member for torsion, the diagonal struts’ inclina- reinforcement [Eq. (5.4.2a(a)) through (5.4.2b(b))]. Besides
tion should be determined from the compatibility equations. these fundamental equations, additional torsional aspects
Wagner (1929) dealt with an analogous problem in studying were considered in the CFT. In resisting the torsion, not all
the post-buckling shear resistance of thin-webbed metal of the concrete is effective in providing diagonal compres-
girders. He assumed that after buckling, the thin webs would sive stresses. Estimating the equilibrium of a corner element
not resist compression and the shear would be carried by a for a beam in torsion (Fig. 5.5a) reveals that the compres-
field of diagonal tension. To determine the angle of inclina- sion in the concrete tends to push off the corner whereas the
tion of the diagonal tension, Wagner considered the systems’ tension in the hoops holds it in place. Because concrete is
deformations. He assumed that the angle of inclination of weak in tension, the concrete outside of the hoops spalls off
the diagonal tensile stress would coincide with the angle at higher torsions. Because of concrete cover spalling, the
of inclination of the principal tensile strain. This approach effective outer surface of the concrete is assumed to coincide
became known as Tension Field Theory. Applying Wagner’s with the hoop centerline.
approach to reinforced concrete, the concrete is assumed to Examining the deformed shape of the twisted beam in
be unable to carry tension, and the shear is assumed to be Fig. 5.5b reveals that the diagonal concrete stresses vary in
carried by a diagonal compression field. The inclination q magnitude over the thickness of the effective concrete tube,
of the diagonal compression represents the principal strain from zero at the inside to a value fds corresponding to the
strain eds at the effective outer surface. As in the case of
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
DN At ft
q= (5.5d)
po s
and
At ft po
tan q = (5.5e)
s DN
DN At ft
T = 2 Ao (5.5f)
po s
ao a b f ′A s
Ao = Aoh − ph (5.5b) e t = 1 1 c oh − 1 e ds (5.5h)
2 2 ph At ft
po = ph – 4ao (5.5c)
a b f ′A p
e ℓ = 1 1 c oh o − 1 e ds (5.5i)
Based on the equilibrium of an element in the shear flow 2 ph DN
zone, shown in Fig. 5.2.1(b), the shear flow, q, in a box
section can be expressed in terms of the longitudinal rein- A trial-and-error process can be used to solve the eight
forcement force, DN, and the transverse reinforcement force, variables (q, ao, et, eℓ, Ao, po, DN, and Atft) using Eq. (5.5a)
Atft. The longitudinal reinforcement force DN is assumed to through (5.5c), (5.5e), and (5.5h) through (5.5i). First, select
be distributed uniformly along the shear flow path po. Equi- a value of eds and assume a pair of forces, Atft and DN, from
librium Eq. (5.2.1a) through (5.2.1b) are simplified in three which the four variables q, ao, et, and eℓ, can be calculated
respects: 1) for pure torsion, sℓ = st = 0; 2) concrete tensile from Eq. (5.5e), (5.5g), (5.5h), and (5.5i), respectively.
stress is neglected, sr = 0; and 3) when no prestressing rein- Given the value of ao, the variables Ao and po can be calcu-
forcement is used, rℓp = rtp = 0. In the CFT, several approxi- lated from Eq. (5.5b) and (5.5c). Based on the values of et,
mate algorithms have been developed to plot the torque-twist eℓ, and ed (related to eds by geometry), another q can be calcu-
curve using the equilibrium and compatibility relationships lated from Eq. (5.5a). If the q from Eq. (5.5a) is not equal
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
to the q from Eq. (5.5e), assume another pair of Atft and DN, This equation is valid for HSC up to 100 MPa (14.5 ksi).
and repeat the cycle until Eq. (5.5a) and Eq. (5.5e) produce As proposed by Belarbi and Hsu (1995), for NSC up to 42
the same q. MPa (6.0 ksi), z becomes
Once these eight variables are solved, the torque T can be
calculated from Eq. (5.5f) and the angle of twist, F, from 0.9
z= (5.6.2d)
Eq. (5.3.3). In Eq. (5.3.3), the curvature of the concrete 1 + 400 e r
struts, Y, can be obtained from Eq. (5.3.4a), where the neutral
axis depth td is equal to ao/b1, and eds is the chosen value. The
torque-twist response (T-versus-F curve) is then determined The softening coefficient z usually varies in the range of
by repeating these calculations for a series of eds values. 0.2 (0.045) to 0.6 (0.003).
5.6.3 Centerline of shear flow zone and formulas for Ao
5.6—Softened truss model and po—As shown in Fig. 5.3.4(c), the resultant force of
5.6.1 General—The softened truss model is built on satis- the compression stress block C is located at a distance k2td
fying the equilibrium Eq. (5.2.1a) through (5.2.2), the compat- from the surface, where the coefficient k2 defines the loca-
ibility Eq. (5.3.1a) through (5.3.4b), the stress-strain materials tion of the resultant force C. By integrating the concrete
relationships in Eq. (5.4.1a(a)) and (5.4.1a(b)) for concrete, stress-strain curve given in Eq. (5.4.1a(a)) and (5.4.1a(b)),
and Eq. (5.4.2a(a)) through (5.4.2b(b)) for reinforcement. the coefficient k2 is found to vary in the range of 0.40 to 0.45,
The properties of concrete stress block and shear flow zone depending on concrete strength. To simplify, the centerline
are derived from the softened stress-strain relationships of of the shear flow is assumed to coincide with the centerline
concrete. of the shear flow zone, located at a distance 0.5td from the
5.6.2 Concrete stress block—As shown in Fig. 5.3.2, the extreme compression fiber. This assumption also results in a
diagonal concrete struts in the shear flow zone are subjected compatible agreement between theory and tests.
to axial stress and bending. The compressive strains in the Based on this simple centerline assumption of the shear
concrete struts are assumed to vary linearly from eds at the flow, formulas for calculating the lever arm area Ao and the
surface to zero at the neutral axis, as shown in Fig. 5.3.4(b). perimeter po for a thick tube, whose thickness is usually
The compression zone depth td is defined as the shear flow quite large with respect to the overall dimension of the cross
zone. The distribution of compressive stresses within the section and different from the thin tube assumption in CFT
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
thickness td is shown by the solid curve in Fig. 5.3.4(c), when the softening of concrete is considered, are
based on the softened stress-strain relationship shown in Fig.
5.3.4(e). The peak stress is zfc′ and the average compressive 1
Ao = Ac − pc t d + t d2 (5.6.3a)
stress is sd. The average stress sd of the concrete stress block 2
in Fig. 5.3.4(c) can be expressed as follows
po = pc – 4td (5.6.3b)
sd = zfc′ (5.6.2a)
When the softening coefficient z of concrete is consid-
where the coefficient k1 is the ratio of the average stress to ered, the shear flow zone thickness td is usually large with
the peak stress. By integrating the stress-strain curve in Eq. respect to the overall cross section dimensions. The formula
(5.4.1a(a)) and (5.4.1a(b)), the coefficient k1 can be expressed for calculating Ao, therefore, is expressed in Eq. (5.6.3a) and
should include the third term td2. The thin tube formula used
e ds 1 e ds e ds in the CFT (Eq. (5.5b)) is not used because it neglects the
k1 = 1 − 3 ze ≤1 (5.6.2b(a))
ze o ep ao2 term.
o
5.6.4 Solution algorithm—The 18 governing equations
for a torsional member are: four equilibrium, (Eq. (5.2.1a)
z 2 1 e ds z2 e ds 1 e ds through (5.2.2); seven compatibility, (Eq. (5.3.1a) through
k1 = 1 −
2
1 − + 1 −
( 2 − z) 3 ze o ( 2 − z) ze o 3 ze o
2 (5.3.4b)); seven constitutive (Eq. (5.4.2a(a)) through
(5.4.3a(b)) and (5.6.2a) through (5.6.2d)).
e ds For a member subjected to pure torsion, the normal
>1
ep stresses sl and st acting on an element in the shear flow zone
(5.6.2b(b)) are equal to zero (sl = st = 0). When the concrete tensile
strength is neglected, sr = 0. Disregarding these three vari-
The coefficient k1 is tabulated as a function of eds and z in the ables (sl, st, and sr) in the analysis, the 18 equations contain
work by Hsu (1993), and equals approximately 0.8. The soft- 19 unknown variables as follows: seven stress or force vari-
ening coefficient was first proposed by Zhang and Hsu (1998) ables, including tlt, sd, fl, ft, flp, ftp, and T; 10 strain or geom-
as a function of tensile strain er and concrete strength fc′ etry variables, including el, et, glt, ed, er, q, F, Y, td, and eds;
and two material coefficients, including z and k1. If one of
5.8 1 5.8 the unknown variables is selected—for example, ed—then
z= ≤ 0.9
fc′(MPa ) 1 + 400 e r and fc′(MPa ) (5.6.2c) the remaining 18 unknown variables can be solved using the
18 equations.
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
Next, select the concrete strain ed as the independent vari- Equations (5.6.8a) and (5.6.8b) will facilitate solution
able because it varies monotonically from zero to maximum. procedures (5.6.9).
The solutions for a series of ed values make it possible to 5.6.9 Solution procedure and flow chart—The solution
trace the loading history. A solution algorithm is given by procedure is illustrated by a flow chart shown in Fig. 5.6.9.
Hsu (1993) and is briefly described. This method requires This solution procedure uses 12 equations, Eq. (5.4.2a)
the derivations of Eq. (5.6.5) through (5.6.8b). through (5.4.3b) and (5.6.2a) through (5.6.8b), to solve 12
5.6.5 Thickness td as a function of strain—The thickness unknown variables (z, k1, sd, fℓ, ft, fℓp, ftp, eℓ, et, er, eds, and
of the shear flow zone td can be expressed in terms of strain td) for each selected value of ed. From these stresses and
using the seven compatibility equations: Eq. (5.3.1a) through strains, the remaining six variables (q, tℓt, T, gℓt, F, Y) can
(5.3.4b). The substitutions and manipulations result in be calculated using the appropriate equilibrium or compat-
ibility equations. Selecting a series of ed values produces the
Ao ( − e d ) ( e r − e d ) entire loading history of the 18 variables. The efficiency of
td = this solution procedure arises from the fact that the angle q
po ( e ℓ − e d ) ( e t − e d )
(5.6.5)
is eliminated in the expressions of Eq. (5.6.5) through (5.6.7)
and is, therefore, not involved in the iteration process of td.
The variable td is expressed in terms of strains in all d, r, In addition, the derivation of Eq. (5.6.6) and (5.6.7) allows
ℓ, and t directions (ed, er, eℓ, et). The compressive strain is the iteration to include nonlinear stress-strain relationships
defined as negative and tensile as positive. The variable td (Eq. (5.4.3a) and (5.4.3b)) of prestressing strands, therefore
is also involved in equilibrium equations through the terms making this solution algorithm applicable to prestressed
Ao, po, rℓ, and rt. Therefore, the variable td should first be concrete beams. A hand-calculation example illustrating
assumed and then checked by Eq. (5.6.5). this solution procedure is given by Hsu (1993). The STM
5.6.6 Longitudinal strain el as a function of longitudinal theory was used by Hsu and Mo (1983, 1985a) to calculate
stresses fℓ, fℓp—The strain eℓ can be related to the reinforce- the strength and behavior of 108 torsional beams. For the
ment stresses fℓ and fℓp by eliminating the angle a from the 61 under-reinforced beams with stirrup spacings within ACI
equilibrium Eq. (5.2.1a) using compatibility equations (Eq. code limits, the experiment-to-calculated torsional strengths
(5.3.1c) to (5.3.4b)). These manipulations result in had a mean value of 1.014 and a standard deviation of 0.051.
The post-cracking deformations (angle of twist and strains
Ao ( − e d ) ( −s d ) in reinforcement and concrete) were also correctly evalu-
eℓ = ed +
(A f + A f )
ℓ ℓ ℓp ℓp
(5.6.6) ated. McMullen and El-Degwy (1985) compared the STM
(softened theory) and the CFT (spalling theory) using their
extensive torsion tests. They concluded that “the space truss
The three unknown variables eℓ, fℓ, and fℓp can be solved model with softening of concrete gives a better prediction of
using Eq. (5.6.6) and the stress-strain relationships, Eq. maximum torque for the beams tested in this investigation
(5.4.2a), (5.4.2b), (5.4.3a), and (5.4.3b), for longitudinal (average Tu,exp/Tu,th = 1.03 and standard deviation = 0.091).”
reinforcement. The space truss theory with spalling of concrete cover gave
5.6.7 Transverse strain et as a function of transverse an average Tu,exp/Tu,th of 1.10 and a standard deviation of
stresses ft, ftp—Similarly, the strain et can be related to the 0.129. McMullen and El-Degwy also observed that concrete
reinforcement stresses ft and ftp by eliminating the angle q cover spalled only after maximum torque was reached.
from equilibrium Eq. (5.2.1b) using the compatibility equa-
tions (Eq. (5.3.1b) through (5.3.4b)). 5.7—Graphical methods
5.7.1 Rahal’s method—Rahal developed a simplified
Ao s ( − e d ) ( −s d ) method for design and analysis of reinforced concrete panels
et = ed +
(
po At ft + Atp ftp ) (5.6.7) subjected to pure shear (Rahal 2000a) and extended the
method to reinforced concrete beams subjected to torsional
moments (Rahal 2000b). The original method for calculating
The three unknown variables et, ft, and ftp can be solved shear relates the normalized ultimate shear strength vu/fc′ of
using Eq. (5.6.7) and the two stress-strain relationships, Eq. reinforced concrete panels to the reinforcement indexes wt
(5.4.2c) and (5.4.2d) and (5.4.3a) and (5.4.3b), for transverse and wL in the transverse and longitudinal directions, respec-
reinforcement. tively. The reinforcement indexes are given by
5.6.8 Useful compatibility equations—By combining
compatibility Eq. (5.3.1a) and (5.3.1b), the two variables er and rt fty rl f l y
wt = ; wL = (5.7.1a)
q can be expressed directly in terms of strains eℓ, et, and ed as fc′ fc′
er = e ℓ + et − e d (5.6.8a)
Figure 5.7.1 gives the relationship between the indices and
the normalized shear strength obtained using the results of
eℓ + ed the modified CFT (Collins and Mitchell 1991). Each curve
tan 2 q = (5.6.8b)
et + ed
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
At fty po
wt = (5.7.1b)
0.42 sAcp fc′
Aℓ fℓ y + Aps f py
wL = (5.7.1c)
0.375sAcp fc′
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Acp2
Tu = 0.67 vu (5.7.1d)
pcp
Fig. 5.7.1—Normalized shear strength curve for reinforced
concrete members (Rahal 2000a).
In contrast to the STM and CFT, Rahal’s method is used
to calculate approximate strength only and not the entire
perimeter, and therefore can be applied to closed sections of
torque-twist relationship. Equations (5.7.1b), (5.7.1c), and
various shapes.
(5.7.1d) depend on the gross area and outer cross section
5.7.2 Leu and Lee’s Method—Leu and Lee (2000)
proposed a graphical solution to the STM. Their strength
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
76 11, 000
hℓb = (fy in MPa) or hℓb = (f in psi)
200 + f y 30, 000 + f y y
(5.7.2c)
76 11, 000
htb = (fy in MPa) or htb = (f in psi)
100 + f y 15, 000 + f y y
(5.7.2d)
hℓ
wL = (5.7.2e)
hℓ b
ht
wt = (5.7.2f)
htb
the difference in the yield stresses, fℓy and fty, when calculating
fy = (fℓy + fty)/2. Thirty-eight specimens from Hsu (1968a)
were used to evaluate the accuracy of the design charts. The
f y At pcp mean and maximum errors of torsional strength were only 1.5
ht = (5.7.2b)
fc′ Acp s percent and 4 percent, respectively, when compared with the
strengths of those obtained using the STM.
where fy = (fℓy + fty)/2 is the average yield strength of longitu-
CHAPTER 6—MEMBERS SUBJECTED TO
dinal and transverse reinforcement bars, fℓy and fty.
TORSION COMBINED WITH OTHER ACTIONS
2. Calculate the balanced normalized reinforcement ratios
6.1—General
when both longitudinal and transverse reinforcements yield
Torsion rarely occurs in concrete structures unaccompa-
simultaneously with crushing of diagonal struts hlb and htb
nied by other stress resultants. In the general case of loading,
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Zurich group (Lampert and Thürlimann 1968, 1969). The ence of a flexural moment increased torsional strength by
ratio of compression to tension longitudinal reinforcement approximately 18 percent. Presence of a flexural moment
yield force r = (As′fy/Asfy) ranged from 0.1 to 0.27. reduces the torsional ductility of a member with symmetrical
Figures 6.2.3c and 6.2.3d show that the addition of a small or unsymmetrical longitudinal reinforcement, as shown in
flexural moment can significantly increase the torsional Fig. 6.2.3a and 6.2.3c.
strength and post-cracking stiffness of unsymmetrically The torque-twist diagrams show that the ultimate torsional
reinforced beams. In pure torsion, the additional bottom strength was reached at a smaller twist. Similarly, the pres-
longitudinal reinforcement available in unsymmetrically ence of relatively small flexural moment, T/M = 4.27 in Fig.
reinforced sections does not increase the ultimate strength 6.2.3c, also affected the curvature of unsymmetrically rein-
because the weaker top reinforcement is critical. The addi- forced members subjected to torsion. Figure 6.2.3e shows
tion of a flexural moment introduces compression in the the moment-curvature diagrams of two unsymmetrically
weaker top reinforcement and increases its resistance to reinforced hollow specimens tested by Onsongo and Collins
torsional shear stresses. Based on the same experimental (Onsongo 1978). The flexural moment was predominant in
study (Onsongo 1978), it appears that a small axial compres- one specimen (T/M = 0.63), whereas torsion was predomi-
sive force substantially increases post-cracking stiffness of nant in the other (T/M = 4.27). Torsional shearing stresses
a torsionally cracked member with strength also enhanced. were equilibrated by tensile stresses in the longitudinal
This is because the compressive axial load counteracts the direction. Upon cracking, the weaker top reinforcement
widening of spiral cracks. This point may be particularly elongates more than the stronger bottom reinforcement,
relevant in the case of structures under seismically-induced causing greater reverse curvature than that caused by less-
torsion. predominant flexural moment in the torsion predominant
beam (T/M = 4.27). Therefore, the section is subjected to an
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
In spite of its practicality, work on T-V interaction is
relatively limited mainly because shear cannot be induced
without causing a flexural moment along the beam’s test
region. Therefore, the torsion-shear condition is achieved
only at the point of inflection. Otherwise, an experimentally
observed T-V interaction curve is only a projection of a part
Fig. 6.2.3h—Interaction curves predicted by combined- of the T-V-M curve on the T-V coordinate plane. Addition-
action STM and Elfgren Model for McMullen and Warwaruk ally, the pure shear strength of a beam cannot be determined
(1967). Series 1 and 2 (Greene 2006). (Note: 1 kN·m= 8.85 experimentally. Typically, this maximum should be defined
in.-kip.) from a calculated value.
6.3.2 Members without transverse reinforcement—
for two series of beams under combined torsion and flexure Nylander (1945) reported that tests on members containing
tested by McMullen and Warwaruk (1967). Members of only longitudinal reinforcement showed considerable scatter,
Series 1 in Fig. 6.2.3h(a) were symmetrically reinforced and with most tests falling between a linear and circular interac-
members of Series 2 in Fig. 6.2.3h(b) had more reinforce- tion curve. Other tests by Birkland (1965), Hamilton (1966),
ment on the flexural tension side. For comparison, the model and Ersoy and Ferguson (1968) have shown that a circular
by Elfgren et al. (1974a) was also used to predict the inter- interaction is more accurate. Nylander’s model (1945) and
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
Fig. 6.3.3a—Normalized T-V linear and circular interaction 6.3.3a). Because the pure shear strength Vo is significantly
curves for members with transverse reinforcement. affected by the accompanying bending moment, it cannot
be accurately represented and a calculated value is used.
those proposed by other researchers conservatively recom-
Different researchers use varying definitions of Vo, making
mend a linear interaction.
it difficult to compare the suggested curves in Fig. 6.3.3b.
Mirza and McCutcheon (1968) tested quarter-scale speci-
Figure 6.3.3a shows that the presence of torsional moment
mens and found that the longitudinal reinforcement has a
reduces shear strength, especially if the torque is more than
significant effect on the interaction curve. The result’s
25 percent of pure torsional strength. The amount of trans-
scatter was considerable and a lower-bound linear interac-
verse reinforcement is considered the main factor affecting
tion was recommended. McMullen and Woodhead (1973)
the shape of the curve.
tested eccentrically prestressed beams under various combi-
Based on an experimental testing program, Klus (1968)
nations of torsion, shear, and flexure and found that Eq.
suggested a bilinear interaction curve as shown in Fig.
(6.3.2) adequately fit the results
6.3.3b. The theoretical model and the experimental results
2
of Ewida and McMullen (1981) showed the amount of rein-
V T forcement has a considerable effect on the interaction curve.
+ =1
Vo To
(6.3.2) They suggested a simplified equation
nV
T V
When torsion design provisions were introduced in + =1
To Vo
(6.3.3a)
ACI 318-71, a circular interaction between Vc and Tc was
assumed. This approach slightly increased the design time in
members with transverse reinforcement. Abandoned in ACI
where
318-95, concrete contribution to torsion, Tc, was disregarded
nV = 1.2 for under-reinforced sections in which all rein-
to simplify design. Considerable scatter produced by test
forcement (both longitudinal and transverse) yields
specimens without transverse reinforcement confirms the
when the section reaches ultimate strength
sound principle that members subjected to such combined
= 1.75 for partially under-reinforced sections in which
actions should contain a minimum amount of transverse and
only stirrups yield or only the longitudinal reinforce-
longitudinal reinforcement.
ment yields when the section reaches ultimate strength
6.3.3 Members with transverse reinforcement—Develop-
= 3.0 for completely over-reinforced sections in
ment of models for torsion and shear has made it possible to
which concrete crushes before yielding in any of
calculate shear strength with accuracy similar to the flexure
the reinforcement.
theory’s. Early work on T-V interaction was largely experi-
All three curves are shown in Fig. 6.3.3b. For under-
mental. Figure 6.3.3a shows some of the experimental results
reinforced sections (nV = 1.2), the curve is almost linear,
and Fig. 6.3.3b presents some proposed interaction curves.
whereas for completely over-reinforced sections, the inter-
Experimental results were scattered, with most strength
action is closer to a circular curve. Klus’s (1968) bilinear
values falling between linear and circular curves (Fig.
interaction curve lies between the linear and circular curves.
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
able value of q = 30 degrees gives less consistent results,
overestimating failure loads at high torsion-to-shear ratios.
Nonetheless, the AASHTO (1998) provisions resulted in a
calculated value for q of approximately 36 degrees for the
series of beams studied. This value compared well with
the inclinations of cracks observed in the tests, producing
better correlation with failure loads. Calculations from ACI
and AASHTO resulted in a nearly linear interaction curve,
with a cut-off horizontal plateau defined by the limit set on
torsional strength to avoid concrete crushing before the rein- Fig. 6.3.3d—Variation of angle of diagonal compressive
forcement yields. Variation in the intensity and direction of stresses depending on T/V (Rabbat and Collins 1978).
shear stresses (Fig. 6.3.1) affects the concrete crack patterns
Stresses in the transverse and longitudinal reinforcement
and reinforcement strains. Figure 6.3.3d shows the angle
are also significantly larger on the side where the shear
of diagonal compressive stresses and crack orientation at
stresses are additive (t + v) rather than subtractive (t – v).
variable T/V ratios calculated by Rabbat and Collins (1977,
The difference in longitudinal stress magnitude on vertical
1978) using a Variable Angle Space Truss Model. In pure
sides of the section shown in Fig. 6.3.1 causes a lateral
shear, the side cracks are parallel, where in pure torsion, they
curvature, as shown in Fig. 6.3.3e, tested by Rahal and
are nearly perpendicular. Crack orientation on the side where
Collins (1995b). They observed lateral curvatures in two of
shear stresses are subtractive (t – v) depends on the rela-
the specimens tested at a T/V of 76 mm (3.0 in.) (Specimen
tive intensity of stresses t and v. This trend was confirmed
RC2-4) and 156 mm (6.14 in.) (Specimen RC2-1). Calcula-
in tests by Rahal and Collins (1995b), Greene (2006), and
tions of the model (Rahal and Collins 1995a) plotted with
Greene and Belarbi (2008).
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
Fig. 6.3.3e—Observed and calculated lateral curvature in Fig. 6.4a—Torsion-axial compression interaction in rein-
sections subjected to combined torsion and shear (Rahal forced concrete (tests from Bishara and Peir [1968]). (Note:
and Collins 1995a). 1 in.-kip = 0.113 kN·m.)
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
dashed lines show that available theoretical models capture the descending branch plotted in Fig. 6.4a demonstrate suit-
this phenomenon. ability to capturing the behavior of Bishara’s tests. The results
provided (Bishara and Peir 1968), however, were less conser-
6.4—Torsion and axial load vative than experimental results from prestressed beams
Elements subjected to combined torsion and compressive without stirrups tested by Humphreys (1957) and Zia (1961).
forces, N, include bridge piers under gravity and horizontal The square root factor in Eq. (6.4a) was labeled the
loads, and prestressed concrete beams subjected to torsion. prestressed factor by Hsu (1968b). He showed that this
Cracked spandrel beams subjected to torsion tend to elon- prestressed factor can be derived theoretically from an
gate. Columns and walls restraining the elongation induce element subjected to shear and compression, assuming
beam compression acting in combination with the compat- the principal tensile stress reached the tensile strength of
ibility torsion and other stress-resultants. Though the combi- concrete. The prestressed factor can also be derived from the
nation of torsional moment (T) and axial force (N) can be skew-bending theory of a beam in pure torsion. To ensure
critical in design for these cases, it has not been adequately best fit with the test results, the constant 12 in the prestressed
studied, particularly in experimental research on nonpre- factor was reduced to 10, resulting in Eq. (6.4b).
stressed elements and combined torsion and axial tension.
Lack of adequate studies is due to the relative rarity of this 1 + 10 ( s fc′) (6.4b)
combination compared with others discussed. Torsion tests
on concrete beams subjected to various prestressing levels
simulate conditions similar to those of reinforced concrete The torsional strength based on a 45-degree angle of
beams subjected to combined torsion and axial compres- the compression diagonals and spalled dimensions of the
sion. Experimental results on members without stirrups by section described previously is 2.1 kN·m (18.6 in.-kip)—38
Humphreys (1957) and Zia (1961) showed trends similar to percent of experimental strength. This strength is increased
those observed by Bishara and Peir (1968), which are given to 4.62 kN·m (40.9 in.-kip)—84 percent of experimental
in Fig. 6.4a. A drop in torsional strength beyond the “trans- strength—if unspalled dimensions are used. For prestressed
formation point” was clear only in Zia’s tests on prestressed members, ACI 318 allows a 37.5 degrees value for the
concrete beams subjected to torsion. Humphreys reported angle of the compression diagonals, leading to a strength
a 170 percent increase in torsional strength and Zia a 190 of 6.05 kN·m (53.3 in.-kip). This value, which is plotted
percent increase in torsional strength due to prestressing. in Fig. 6.4a, remains considerably smaller than the experi-
Based on their experimental findings, Bishara and Peir (1968) mentally observed maximum torque of 17.2 kN·m (151.9
recommended Eq. (6.4) to calculate an increase in torsional in.-kip) acting in combination with a compressive stress of
strength in the presence of an axial compressive load approximately 0.65fc′. The general procedure for the torsion
and shear design method in AASHTO (1998) specifications
s accounts for the effect of compression and prestressing on
T = To 1 + 12 (6.4a) torsional strength.
fc′
Figure 6.4a shows calculations for the AASHTO LRFD
method (general method) based on unspalled dimensions,
The descending part is taken as a line joining the transfor- which are more likely for small concrete cover (19 mm [0.75
mation point (defined as the point at s = 0.65fc′ and Tu = 3To) in.]) used in Bishara and Peir’s (1968) tests. Although this
and pure compression strength. Results from Eq. (6.4) and method underestimates an increase in torsional strength at
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
combined with flexure, and torsion combined with shear in 6.5a illustrates the three interaction relationships for the case
members with or without reinforcement is aimed at under- of r = 1/3, where r = (As′fy/Asfy). A systematic derivation of
standing the general behavior of the three stress-resultants Elfgren’s nondimensional interaction surface is found in
T, M, and V. Similar to work on the combinations discussed Hsu’s (1993) book.
above, early research (Hsu 1968a; Johnston 1971; McGee and
Zia 1973; Elfgren et al. 1974a) focused on studying ultimate 2 2
M V T
strength and sought to produce three-dimensional interac- Mode 1: +r +r =1 (6.5a)
tion surfaces. Further work created the ability to obtain the Mo Vo To
full response of reinforced and prestressed concrete beams
subjected to various stress combinations (Rabbat and Collins 2 2
1978; Rahal and Collins 1995a, 2003a). 1 M V T
Mode 2: − + + =1
r M o Vo To
(6.5b)
Elfgren et al.’s (1974a) theory assumes that a rectangular
box section subjected to torsion, shear, and flexure could
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
Figure 6.5d(a) shows that for this test series, ACI 318-11
is unconservative in its calculation of To, which affects the
calculation of the interaction curves, similar to the observa-
tion related to Fig. 6.2.3h(a).
Leonhardt et al. (1968) performed large-scale tests on two
prestressed concrete box beams representing hollow box
bridges loaded in torsion, shear, and flexure. Figure 6.5e
shows crack patterns after failure. The beams had a depth
of 0.78 m (2.6 ft) and a span of 6.00 m (19.7 ft), and web,
top, and bottom flange widths of only 80 mm (3.1 in.). The
beams were eccentrically loaded at a midspan diaphragm,
Fig. 6.5b—Kinematics failure model: (a) General view; and the bottom slab reinforcement was varied between an
(b) Model seen from above; (c) Deformations in bottom; orthogonal mesh and mesh inclined at 45 degrees. In both
(d) Bending moment diagram (Elfgren 1979). beams, the web near the eccentrically applied load failed in
Fig. 6.5c—Crack pattern and failure mechanism for a beam loaded in combined torsion,
shear, and flexure (Elfgren 1979).
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
design of structural concrete members subjected to torsion.
When considering torsion, it is necessary to distinguish
between when the torsional moment cannot be reduced by
redistribution of internal forces (equilibrium torsion) and
Fig. 6.5d—Interaction curves predicted by combined-action when the torsional moment can be reduced by redistribu-
TM and the Elfgren model for McMullen and Warwaruk tion of internal forces (compatibility torsion) after cracking.
(1967) Series 5 and 6 (torsion, shear, and flexure) and Spec- To allow torsional moment redistribution, a limit analysis
imen 1-1 (pure torsion) (Greene 2006). (Note: 1 kN·m= 8.85 method similar to moment redistribution is addressed. This
in.-kip; 1 m = 39.4 in.) method requires the formation of torsional plastic hinges at
critical sections. Also addressed are precast spandrel beams,
torsion limit design, treatment of open concrete sections
subjected to torsion, and the size effect on torsional members.
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Fig. 7.2.1.4b—Idealization of spandrel beam under lateral sway (Pantazopoulou and
Moehle 1990).
Fig. 7.2.1.4c—Testing of spandrel beams under lateral sway (Pantazopoulou and Moehle 1990).
the column (location of maximum torsion in the elastic anal- 7.2.4 Existing code status—In ACI 318, a flexural moment
ysis) would reduce the torsion affecting the spandrel beam. redistribution formula has been maintained since 1971.
7.2.2 Design benefits from torsion redistribution—Plastic In 1977, ACI 318 introduced the torsional limit design,
hinges and moment redistribution permit full strength use allowing the torsional plastic hinge to have a torsional shear
of the strength of the flexural member’s cross section. With stress of 0.33 fc′ MPa (4 fc′ psi). Alternatively, Section
torsion, elastic analysis typically results in high torsional 8.6.1 of ACI 318-77 specifies that any set of reasonable
moments, which in turn require both stirrups and longitu- assumptions can be used for computing relative torsional
dinal reinforcement beyond minimum requirements. Torsion stiffnesses of structural elements. Commentary indicates
redistribution can reduce design torsional moments, allowing that member stiffnesses should reflect the degree of cracking
for more economical designs. and inelastic action occurring along the member length
7.2.3 Disregarding structural torsion—Although one
before yielding. The stress limit of 0.33 fc′ MPa (4 fc′
common practice is to ignore spandrel beams’ torsional stiff-
psi), however, has been extended to prestressed and nonpre-
ness and similar members under gravity loads, effectively
stressed members subjected to an axial tensile or compres-
assuming full torsional redistribution, it is also common to
sive force in the subsequent editions, including ACI 318-11.
disregard spandrel beams’ torsional moments resulting from
In commentary Section 8.6.1 of ACI 318-77, in the case of
wind or earthquake actions. Sections 7.2.4 through 7.2.6
compatibility torsion (torsion not required to satisfy equilib-
address codes, experimental evidence, and discussions of
rium), torsional stiffness can be disregarded. Section 8.6.1
their limitations.
commentary effectively permits up to 100 percent torsional
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
of torsional-to-flexural stiffness will drop at cracking, the spandrel beam in these two specimens was not designed
causing redistribution of the torsion and flexural moments. to sustain any torsion.
7.2.5.2 Strength and adequate values of torsion redistri-
They concluded that for compatibility torsion, design should
bution—When comparing torsional ductility and redistribu-
be for a twist and not a torque, and the main function of
tion among the three specimen sets, review the experimental
torsional reinforcement is to distribute the cracks caused
load-torque relationships. These curves are presented in
by twist. The compatibility torsion magnitude is over-
Sets A (Fig. 7.2.5.1a) and B (Fig. 7.2.5.1b). Curves for Spec-
estimated if gross stiffness is used. If zero torsional stiff-
imens A1 and B1 (no torsional redistribution) can be divided
ness is assumed, design procedures become simple, and
into three stages:
only minimum torsional reinforcement is needed to ensure
1. The first stage represents elastic behavior before cracking.
ductility and limit crack width.
2. The second stage is where crack development caused
Hsu and Burton (1974) focused on addressing three ques-
the torsional stiffness to decrease and the torsional moment
tions for spandrel beams subjected to torsion:
remained essentially constant whereas the load increased.
1. Would torsional strength be reached if a spandrel beam
When the load reached a magnitude at which the floor beam
were designed by the ACI philosophy of neglecting torsional
bottom longitudinal reinforcement yielded, as indicated by �
stiffness and assuming 100 percent redistribution?
in the figures, the third stage began.
2. Can other values of torsion redistribution be used
3. In the third stage, a torsional plastic hinge developed
effectively?
under the load and accelerated the twist deformation of the
3. How serious is service load cracking?
spandrel beam. A new load-carrying mechanism evolved in
To address these questions, Hsu and Burton (1974) tested
which the load was primarily sustained by the spandrel beam
two series (A and B) of spandrel beams:
torsional strength. The torsional moment again increased,
1. Series A: Concentrated load at midspan of the floor beam.
primarily resulting in a slight increase in the load-carrying
2. Series B: Uniform loads on the floor beam simulated by
strength of the assembly. Spandrel beam stirrups and longi-
four concentrated loads. Based on elastic stiffness analysis,
tudinal bars then yielded before reaching assembly failure.
the torsional moment distribution to spandrel beam at its joint
Specimens A3 and B2 (52 percent redistribution) exhib-
with the floor beam is calculated according to Eq. (7.2.5.1a)
ited behavior similar to that of Specimens A1 and B1,
3 despite the assumed higher value of torsion redistribution.
Pℓ f In both Specimens A3 and B2, the load-torque curve had the
M = 16 (7.2.5.1a) same three stages exhibited in Specimens A1 and B1. Both
3 Kf
1+ specimens also exhibited the anticipated level of torsion
4 Ku redistribution. Although A3 and B2 failed at almost the same
ultimate failure loads as Specimens A1 and B1, the failure
Assuming that spandrel beam is torsionally fixed at both load corresponded to about 50 percent less torsion at the
ends, the spandrel beam torsional moment magnitude is joint between the floor beam and the spandrel beam. These
results indicate the torsional redistribution assumptions for
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
Fig. 7.2.5.1a—Series A (Hsu and Burton 1974). (Note: 1 in.-kip = 0.113 kNm; 1 kip =
4.45 kN.)
Fig. 7.2.5.1b—Series B (Hsu and Burton 1974). (Note: 1 in.-kip = 0.113 kNm; 1 kip =
4.45 kN.)
these two specimens closely matched the design assump- load increased significantly, almost doubling, at the same
tion of 52 percent torsional redistribution. Specimens A5 torsion value until failure. Failure occurred at a load far
and B3 were designed for 100 percent or complete torsion below design strength, indicating that the design assumption
redistribution, as implied in ACI 318 commentary. As shown for torsion redistribution was invalid. Figures 7.2.5.2a and
in Fig. 7.2.5.1a and 7.2.5.1b, torsion resisted at the joint 7.2.5.2b show the torque-versus-measured twist deformation
stayed constant after cracking occurred. After cracking, the
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- for Series A and B, respectively. Both figures support conclu-
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
Fig. 7.2.5.2a—Series A torque-twist relationship (Hsu and Burton 1974). (Note: 1 in.-kip
= 0.113 kN·m; 1 in. = 0.0254 m.)
Table 7.2.5.3—Maximum crack width at service increase may be within the measurement tolerance. Speci-
load mens B1 and B2 had the same crack widths. These tests indi-
Design torsion Maximum crack cate that significant torsion redistribution can be performed
Specimen redistribution, % width, in. (mm) without affecting serviceability. Nevertheless, the results
A1 0 0.004 (0.10) were not sufficient to support firm conclusions.
A3 52 0.005 (0.13) Following Hsu and Burton’s (1974) approach, Hsu and
A5 100 — Hwang (1977) tested T-shaped specimens with short span-
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
B1 0 0.005 (0.13) drel beams to study the moment distributions between floor
B2 52 0.005 (0.13) beam and spandrel in the case of high shear-to-torsion
B3 100 — ratio. They found that the torsional limit design method
can be applied to spandrel beam end regions, adjacent to
the columns, where high shear stresses are combined with
sions similar to those previously mentioned. Specimens A1 torsional moments. As a result, the torsional limit design
and B1 exhibited high ductility, as indicated by the torque- was added to ACI 318-77 code. Torsional hinge moment was
twist relationship. Specimens A3 and B2 exhibited a twist
calculated based on a torsional shear stress of 0.33 fc′ in
angle 50 percent greater at failure than that of Specimens A1
and B1, which roughly corresponds to the designed torsion MPa (4 fc′ in psi). Conclusions reached by Hsu and Burton
redistribution. Specimens A5 and B3, designed for 100 (1974) were validated by Abul Mansur and Rangan (1978),
percent torsion redistribution, exhibited far lower twisting who conducted experiments on seven beams with configu-
ductility. In fact, both specimens failed at 0.3 × 10–3 degrees/ rations shown in Fig. 7.2.5.3. In a related set of experi-
mm (8 × 10–3 degrees/in.), far less than the angles exhibited ments, Abul Mansur and Rangan (1978) studied the effect of
by Specimens A1 and B1. applying a concentrated load directly on the joint. This work
7.2.5.3 Cracking service load—Hsu and Burton (1974) showed that applying a concentrated load in this fashion did
defined service load as one-half the ultimate design load or not affect torsion redistribution results, which were gener-
actual ultimate test load, whichever was larger. Table 7.2.5.3 ally in agreement with Hsu and Burton’s work (1974).
shows the maximum crack widths measured at the service 7.2.6 Factors affecting torsion redistribution—Section or
load for specimen Series A and B. No crack width readings member ductility is a primary factor affecting permissible
were recorded while testing Specimens A5 and B3 because redistribution. With flexure, ACI 318-95 relates ductility
these two specimens failed prematurely. to the amount of longitudinal reinforcement present in the
A comparison of Specimens A1 and A3 shows that section. A similar torsional ductility reinforcement ratio
maximum crack widths increased only slightly for the 52 would be appropriate, accounting for transverse and longi-
percent torsional redistribution assumption. This slight tudinal reinforcement areas coupled with torsion support
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
Fig. 7.2.5.2b—Series B torque-twist relationship (Hsu and Burton 1974). (Note: 1 in.-kip
= 0.113 kN·m; 1 in. = 0.0254 m.)
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Fig. 7.2.7—Torsion in spandrel beam
Fig. 7.2.6b—Cracking strain and inclination angle q (Thür- due to lateral load (Pantazopoulou and
limann et al. 1983). Moehle 1990). (Note: 1 in.-kip = 0.113
kN·m; 1 in. = 0.0254 m.)
thereby increasing crack widths. Ali and White (1997) showed
that for disturbed (D) regions in general, where the Bernoulli beams, however, is needed to understand the relationship
hypothesis is not applicable, large deviations from the elastic between permissible moment redistribution and q. Under-
stress distribution result in loss of ductility and serviceability standing the direct relationship between q and ductility is
due to increased concrete strains. This deviation corresponds also essential. It is important to include the interaction
to large deviations from the 45-degree angle between diag- among torsion, shear, and flexure and its effect on ductility.
onal compression and longitudinal reinforcement for shallow The beam configuration in Fig. 7.2.1.2 (described in more
beams. The interaction between torsion and flexure has been detail in Hsu and Burton (1974)) is ideally suited for such a
shown to affect flexural ductility of members subjected to study. Curves similar to those in Fig. 7.2.6c, once developed,
both torsion and flexure. An extensive testing program of could be readily used in code provisions. Simple provisions
L-beams conducted by Bishara and Londot (1979) showed for calculating the slab-action torsion developed in a span-
that increased torsional loads resulted in reduced flexural rota- drel beam under lateral loads (Pantazopoulou and Moehle
tions. This reduced flexural rotation is shown in Fig. 7.2.6c, 1990) would be equally beneficial.
where the flexural rotation is plotted with respect to a normal- Tests by Pantazopoulou and Moehle (1990) showed that,
ized torsional stress. due to slab action, torsional moments can develop in the
7.2.7 Needed research—As in the case of flexure, a spandrel beam. Figure 7.2.7 shows flexural and torsional
preferred design procedure would specify the relationship moment distribution and the corresponding deflection and
between permissible moment redistribution and measure of twist along the longitudinal axis of a spandrel beam due to
ductility. To allow for complete yielding of reinforcement, slab action under lateral loads. The left side shows measured
ACI 318 limits the angle q in the range of 30 to 60 degrees. flexure with moment at the top and deflection at the bottom,
The angle q is generally taken as 45 degrees for reinforced and the right side shows torque with torque and twist at
concrete beams and 37.5 degrees for prestressed beams. the bottom. The supported end is to the right of each graph
A comprehensive study of prestressed and nonprestressed whereas the free end is to the left.
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
Fig. 7.3.1a—Typical L-shaped spandrel beam (Lucier et al. 2007). (Note: 1 in. = 0.0254 m.)
rotation. The torsional and shear effects are largest near the nonprestressed concrete flexural members following similar
spandrel end. This complex structural behavior, coupled design procedures. The ACI method was developed with a
with heavy loadings, often results in heavy reinforcement primary focus on compact closed sections generally found
in the end regions. Similar significant torsion effects may in cast-in-place reinforced concrete structures and was based
occur in inverted T-beams with severely unbalanced loads, on a thin-walled tube, space-truss analogy. The Zia-Hsu
as shown in Fig. 7.3.1b. method was developed with a primary focus on noncompact
7.3.2 Torsion design—Design for torsion in precast flanged sections more common in precast structural systems
concrete members received much attention in the late 1950s and the skewed-bending concept. In cast-in-place structures,
and early 1960s when precast prestressed concrete became the torsional effect is often minimized due to stress redis-
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
tribution in an indeterminate system, whereas in precast 4. Reinforcement requirements on the inside face and
structures, the torsional effect is more severe and connec- outside face may be considered separately; shear increases
tion details can significantly affect the torsional behavior the required reinforcement on the inside face and decreases
of structural members (Klein 1986; Raths 1984). The ACI it on the outside face.
torsion design procedure produces design results compa-
rable to those offered by the Zia-Hsu method (Prestressed 7.4—Torsion limit design
Concrete Industry (PCI) 1999), which was updated based 7.4.1 Basic concepts of limit design—There are two
on the Zia-McGee method (PCI 1978) developed from the fundamental limit design theories (Gvozdev 1938, 1960;
tests of small laboratory specimens. The aspect ratio of their Melan 1938; Horne 1949; Lubliner 1990):
component rectangles rarely exceeded 1:3, in contrast to 1. Lower-bound approach
large precast members such as L-shaped spandrel beams. 2. Upper-bound approach
Large spandrel beams may develop plate-bending action in The lower-bound approach requires a stress field that
addition to torsion, and therefore behave differently from the satisfies equilibrium everywhere and that does not violate
small laboratory specimens. The Zia-Hsu method has been appropriate yield conditions or material failure criterion at
calibrated by two tests (Klein 1986) of full-size members any location.
with support conditions similar to those used in practice. The classic example of lower-bound approach is the truss
Torsion behavior of slender spandrel beams in these tests model in which a stress field is assumed and the ultimate
was much different from compact beams. Spandrel beams strength is calculated accordingly. For members made of
showed no signs of cover spalling or stirrup debonding, for plastic materials (those that satisfy the basic theory of plasticity
which closed stirrups are required. End region behavior of assumptions), the resulting ultimate strength is easily proved to
slender precast spandrel beams is dictated by connection provide a conservative, lower-bound solution to the true ulti-
details. Upper horizontal reaction prevents torsional rotation mate strength of the structural member under consideration.
and causes out-of-plane web bending. Vertical shear force In the upper-bound approach, a strain field or failure
from the reaction is carried across the same diagonal crack. mechanism is developed that does not violate strain compat-
Out-of-plane bending caused by horizontal forces is essen- ibility conditions or appropriate yield conditions and that
tially the same as bending produced by a concentrated load does not exceed material failure criterion at any location.
or reaction in the corner of a structural slab. Tests conducted A classic example of the upper-bound approach is the
by Logan (2007) and by researchers at North Carolina State yield line theory of slabs in which a failure mechanism is
University (Lucier et al. 2007; Hassan et al. 2007) confirmed assumed and the ultimate strength is calculated accordingly.
that out-of-plane bending dominates torsional response in For members made of materials satisfying basic theory of
slender spandrel beams. Lucier et al. (2007) evaluated the plasticity assumptions, the resulting ultimate strength can
need for closed ties in slender spandrel beams using full- easily be proved to provide an upper-bound, or unconserva-
scale tests. Twelve precast spandrel beams, each nearly 14 m tive, solution to the true ultimate strength of the structural
(15.3 yd) long, were tested to failure in the laboratory. End member under consideration. Exact solutions are obtained
regions of the beams were designed for plate-bending and if the results of the upper-bound and lower-bound solutions
shear, with and without closed ties. Several beams failed in are identical.
flexure or ledge punching. The ledge punching failures were The advantage of applying either the lower- or upper-
primarily due to interaction with global tension and shear bound approach lies in their simplicity. Relaxation of either
forces in the ledge. Beams with reinforcement to prevent equilibrium or strain compatibility conditions in solving the
such flexure and ledge failures failed due to combined torsion governing equations significantly simplifies the solution
and shear. All torsion/shear failures occurred just inside the procedure. There are, however, disadvantages:
bearing reaction along a failure plane inclined at an angle of 1. The potential exists for large over- or under-estimation
approximately 45 degrees. Although the beams with closed of true ultimate strength; and
ties performed somewhat better, all of the beams sustained 2. No information is provided for important quantities,
test loads well in excess of their calculated nominal strengths. such as deflections and rotations at service or failure load
These test results suggest that slender spandrel beams can be limit states; these are quantities that require classical deflec-
designed based on the following four principles: tion analysis considering all conditions of equilibrium,
1. Torsion acting on the 45-degree failure plane can be compatibility, and constitutive relations governing the mate-
divided into plate-bending and twist components, each equal rial behavior.
to Tu/√2. Research in limit design faces the following challenges:
2. Plate-bending component of torsion requires equal 1. The appropriate stress or strain field needs to be derived
amounts of longitudinal and transverse reinforcement evenly and validated from ultimate strength calculations that are
distributed over the height of the beam. neither too conservative nor too unconservative for the cases
3. The twist component of torsion is resisted by out-of- of lower and upper bounds, respectively.
plane shear stresses, which are greatest near the section’s top 2. Parameters should be developed for the stress or strain
and bottom, as predicted by Saint-Venant’s equations and the field such that optimization techniques can be used to achieve
“soap bubble” analogy. Closed ties are required only where realistic lower and upper ultimate strength estimations.
the concrete section cannot safely resist the twist component. --`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Here, x and y are the shorter and longer overall rectangular For any selection of angle g1 or g2, the resulting ultimate
cross section dimensions, respectively, and fc′ is the charac- load provided a lower-bound solution to the true ultimate
teristic concrete cylinder compressive strength. As an alter- strength of the stair. The most realistic estimate of ultimate
native, the value of To can be set by the designer. This condi- load is obtained when the ultimate load in Eq. (7.4.2.2b) is
tion will result in an equation to solve the redundancies. maximized, or when
3. To obtain the other (nR – 1) equations, introduce (nR
– 1) known quantities in the stress-resultant field. For this ∂w ∂w
= 0 and =0
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
generally reduced to one requiring an optimization assumed that the plastic flow of concrete after yielding is
type procedure, in which the load is maximized associated with this failure surface. They employed a gener-
under the conditions or constraints of equilibrium alized energy dissipation rate formulation along a yield line
and yield criterion.” in accordance with the failure criterion, as well as the upper-
A typical optimization technique normally employed to bound approach, to calculate the ultimate strength of a beam
satisfy those constraints simultaneously, and therefore solve subjected to pure torsion. They compared their approach
for the ultimate carrying strength, is the Lagrange multi- to the results of experiments and found substantial agree-
plier method as described in Badawy and Jordaan (1977). ment with them. Expanding on this work, Wang and Hsu
The curved girder (Fig. 7.4.2.3) and associated torsion solu- (1997) considered a square prismatic reinforced concrete
tion problem represent a condition examined by several beam subjected to pure torsion, as shown in Fig. 7.4.3. By
researchers because of its frequent occurrence in design. introducing a permissible failure mechanism, as illustrated
Separate studies by Boulton and Boonsukha (1959), Jordaan in Fig. 7.4.3, the work equation along the yield surface is
et al. (1974), Yoo and Heins (1972), and Badawy and Jordaan formulated as
(1977) all shared a similar general lower-bound framework
as applied to a curved girder subjected to torsion. v* = F x1 sec(a* − b* ) (7.4.3a)
7.4.3 Upper-bound approach—The use of upper-bound
approaches in the design of reinforced concrete structures
is common, particularly in slab design using the yield line Refer to Fig 7.4.3 for identification of a* – b*.
method. Studies of the general upper-bound approach appli- Therefore, on an infinitesimally small area dA of the yield
surface, Eq. (7.4.3b) applies
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
Ds = 2bc2 F rl fly tan(a* − b* ) + rt fty tan b* (7.4.3c) Where the first two functional terms represent concrete
properties, ws is a reinforcement index, and the last term
The energy dissipated on the discontinuous concrete yield represents geometric properties. Wang and Hsu (1997)
surface can also be found by integration, resulting in the obtained a closed form solution for Eq. (7.4.3j), which they
equation compared with experimental results. Thirty-nine test results
from previous empirical studies conducted at the University
F 3 of Houston were analyzed and compared with the proposed
Dc = b sec(a* − b* ) ft* (sin a* + K cot a* cos a* ) (7.4.3d)
3 theoretical solution. Researchers found that the best fit was
obtained when a uniform plastic effectiveness factor for
concrete under torsion was used, as given by
K is obtained from the Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion and
takes the form
n = 0.75 + 0.125w sℓ (7.4.3k)
1
K= m + 2(1 − m + 1) (7.4.3e)
4 This equation indicates that an increase in reinforcement
ratio provides better confinement to the concrete medium,
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
∞ np ∞ np
F( z ) = Bo + ∑ Bn sin z + ∑ Bn cos z (7.5.2c)
n =1 L n =1 L
where Bo, Bn, and Bn′ are constant in the Fourier series expan-
sion of a beam’s curvature under warping.
Both the Saint-Venant torsion (1856) and warping torsion
Fig. 7.5.2—Typical B-F′′ curve (Hwang and Hsu 1983). expressed the basic governing equation for mixed torsion as
walled open section, warping torsional resistance predomi- T ( z ) = GC( z ) F (′z ) − EJ w F (′′′z ) (7.5.2d)
nates and the Saint-Venant torsional resistance does not
occur. Past research has usually ignored secondary warping
phenomenon (Vlasov 1961; Zbirohowski-Koscia 1968), The solution for Eq. (7.5.2d) was calculated using matrix
mainly due to the mathematical difficulties encountered in notation, which is discussed in Hwang (1978). Before
formulating this type of torsional resistance and the very cracking, the GC and EJw terms are constants for any given
narrow thickness of metal structures. The wall thickness of section and the solution is easily identified. After cracking,
reinforced concrete open sections, however, is often substan- however, both GC and EJw vary as functions of the load
tial compared with overall cross-sectional dimensions. level, making it essential to employ a trial-and-error proce-
Therefore, this secondary warping may play a less signifi- dure to obtain the solution for mixed torsion (Hwang 1978).
cant role in reinforced concrete structures. Krpan and Collins (1981a) also developed an analytical
The torsional behavior of a homogeneous elastic member procedure using Vlasov’s theory and incorporating CFT
with a thin-walled open section is predicted by Vlasov’s to predict the elastic pre- and post-cracking response of
theory. The theory was later generalized by Hwang (1978) to thin-walled reinforced concrete beams. The post-cracking
predict the torsional behavior of inelastic reinforced concrete response was categorized as either a cracked elastic response
members with open sections in the post-cracking stage. The or an inelastic warping torsion response. The authors recom-
mathematical formulation proposed by Hwang (1978) and mended using the post-cracking section properties rather
Hwang and Hsu (1983) is given Eq. (7.5.2a). than the uncracked elastic when analyzing the overall struc-
7.5.2 Consideration of warping torsion-formulation— ture values to achieve a more accurate assessment of the
Applying the concept of sectorial area, Vlasov (1961) actual force distributions in the structure.
derived the basic equation for warping torsion, which relates 7.5.3 Experimental verification—To verify the proposed
the warping torque Tw to the third derivative of the rotation solution, Hwang and Hsu (1983) designed two reinforced
with respect to z, F′′ concrete beam specimens with open sections and tested their
torsional behavior. The results were used to evaluate the
Tw = –EJwF′′ (7.5.2a) Fourier Series method proposed for mixed torsion analysis.
A comparison of experimental and predicted data revealed
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
The quantity EJw is used to characterize rigidity of the that the Saint-Venant torsional resistance had to be modified
beam subjected to warping torsion. The term Jw is called the by certain empirical factors, as addressed in Hwang (1978).
sectional moment of inertia and is calculated by applying Incorporating these modification factors into the Saint-
procedures summarized by the original work of Vlasov. Venant torsional portion, they found that a mixed torsion
Integrating Eq. (7.5.2a) results in the equation analysis using the Fourier Series method predicted with
reasonable accuracy both the pre- and post-cracking stages
B = –EJwF′′ (7.5.2b) of the T-F′ curves of the two tested specimens.
Figure 7.5.3 shows test results and analytical predictions for
where B is the integral of Tw. a thin-walled reinforced concrete specimen tested by Krpan
A typical B-F′′ curve is shown as a solid line in Fig. 7.5.2. and Collins (1981b). That work indicated that to accurately
This B-F′′ curve can be constructed by a method proposed predict the strain in transverse reinforcement, it was necessary
by Hwang (1978) and Hwang and Hsu (1983) based on a to account for the interaction between Saint-Venant’s torsion
bimaterial model. A point on the curve signifies a certain load and warping torsion. Test results obtained by the authors,
level. At the specific load level, the slope of a straight line shown as numbered points in Fig. 7.5.3, were compared with
connecting this point with the origin is defined as the post- analytical predictions made according to the method proposed
cracking warping rigidity. The presence of an end diaphragm by Krpan and Collins (1981a). Figure 7.5.3 shows these
provides a warping restraint, which is considered in their results and confirms the ability of the developed analytical
model by incorporating an applied bidirectional moment. method to predict measured torque and twist. This method
also accurately predicted the elastic pre- and post-cracking
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
beams with little or no shear reinforcement, size effect for longitudinal reinforcement without stirrups.
shear has been observed (Bažant and Yu 2005a,b; Bentz Based on the works of Bažant and Planas (1998) and Bažant
2005). Torsional failure is a similar phenomenon, making (2002), theoretically-justified formulas were developed to
size effect expected in that case as well. There is signifi- account for the size effect in beams subjected to torsion.
cantly less experimental data on size effect in torsion than The equation for reinforced concrete beams, which fail after
for that of shear failure, although some experimental data do significant fracture growth, is given in simplified form as
exist (Humphreys 1957; Hsu 1968a; McMullen and Daniel
1975). These were collected and evaluated by Bažant and sN = s0(1 + D/D0)–1/2 (7.6a)
Sener (1987) and reproduced in Fig. 7.6a (top and middle)
as plots of log sN/s1 versus log D/D1. Term D is the charac- and for plain concrete beams, which fail at fracture initia-
teristic structural dimension, chosen here as the cross section tion, is given in simplified form as
size, whereas s1 and D1 are normalizing constants that are
different for each plot. The term sN is the nominal strength sN = s∞(1 + rDb/D) 1/r (7.6b)
of the structure; for beams it is geometrically similar in three
dimensions. It is defined as sN = Tmax/D3, where Tmax is the where s0 is the nominal torsional strength according to the
maximum torsional moment, and D is the cross section depth current code specifications based on plastic limit analysis;
defined in Bažant et al. (1988). The size range of these data, s∞ is the plain beams strength according to elastic analysis
which does not exceed 1:2.7, is too limited comparing to the with the maximum stress limited by material strength; and
scatter width. If the plastic limit analysis approach to torsion D0, Db, and r are constants. Simple prediction of these three
was valid, the size effect would have to be absent and the constants and their dependence on the longitudinal rein-
trends in Fig. 7.6a would be horizontal. Clearly this is not the forcement ratio, stirrup ratio, stirrup spacing, longitudinal
case. Although these data are too scattered to confirm any and transverse prestress (if any), and some other geometrical
particular formula, they nevertheless indicate the downward ratios is lacking at present. Experiments should be conducted
trend of size effect. Bažant et al. (1988) obtained further test to verify and calibrate the theory to predict these constants.
data, with strict geometrical scaling in three dimensions and For very large beams, the Weibull statistical size effect
a greater size range (1:4). They used square beams made should be supplanted to Eq. (7.6b), as shown in general in
of microconcrete with a maximum aggregate size of 4.8 Bažant (2002).
mm (0.18 in.) and cross-sectional side dimensions of 25.4,
50.8, and 101.6 mm (1, 2, and 4 in.) (Fig. 7.6b). They used CHAPTER 8—DETAILING FOR TORSIONAL
standard reduced-scale deformed reinforcement taken from MEMBERS
PCA tests (Hsu 1968a) and tested both plain concrete beams 8.1—General
and those with longitudinal reinforcement without stirrups Torsional moment in a reinforced concrete member is
(except at beam ends). Results are shown in the bottom of resisted by a circulatory shear flow in a tube along the cross
Fig. 7.6a. There was much less scatter observed in this study section periphery. The tube can be idealized as a space truss
than the data in the top and middle of Fig. 7.6a. Decreasing made up of reinforcement ties and concrete struts, as shown
strength with the increase of size is clearly confirmed due to in Fig. 3.3.5a. The shear flow induces tensile forces in both
size effect. The straight lines of slope (–1/2) in these plots the hoop reinforcement and longitudinal reinforcement.
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
Fig. 7.6a—Nominal torsional failure strengths of beams with rectangular cross section and various sizes. Left: plain
concrete beams. Right: longitudinally reinforced concrete beams without stirrups (Bažant and Sener 1987). Top: test
data of Humphreys (1957). Middle: data of Hsu (1968a) and of McMullen and Daniel (1975). Bottom: Data on micro-
concrete beams tested by Bažant et al. (1988).
Good reinforcement detailing is required to ensure that the a longitudinal bar at the corners. Enclosure of the longitudinal
hoop and longitudinal reinforcement can develop their yield reinforcement by the transverse reinforcement provides the
strength to resist circulatory shear flow. necessary equilibrium at the joint in the three principal direc-
Good detailing demands consideration of the interaction tions, where the three-dimensional force flow is equilibrated.
between the member longitudinal and transverse reinforce-
ment. Although each member type brings about different 8.2—Transverse reinforcement
detailing conditions, the designer should be mindful of this 8.2.1 General—Once proportioned for torsion and shear, the
overall force interaction in the member. Transverse reinforce- transverse reinforcement is laid out at a specific longitudinal
ment, oriented either horizontally or vertically, should contain
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`--- spacing along the member span. The objective of transverse
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
Fig. 7.6b—Plain and longitudinally reinforced microconcrete beams tested by Bažant et al.
(1988) and the typical mode of torsional failure.
reinforcement for torsion and shear is to provide the reinforce- member cross section—stirrups are provided in a closed rect-
ment around the perimeter to enclose the member core. Typi- angular shape to encase the rectangular member core. The
cally, this reinforcement has a smaller diameter than the longi- hooks of the closed stirrup are developed into the core with
tudinal reinforcement due to spacing, placement, bending, 135-degree bends. These bends ensure the hooks are well-
and proportioning needs. The transverse reinforcement should anchored to the member core and prevent hook pullout under
enclose the perimeter as closely as possible while maintaining high torsional loads. Figure 8.2.1a provides an example of a
clear cover requirements. A closed stirrup is imperative for simple rectangular closed stirrup.
torsional detailing. In the simplest case—a basic rectangular
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Other common examples of cast-in-place member types supplemental ties or stirrups developed back into the rectan-
subject to torsional loads are shown in Fig. 8.2.1b. The key gular core of the individual member.
to providing transverse reinforcement in a member subject As shown in Fig. 8.2.1c, good detailing usually dictates that
to torsion is to start with the largest rectangular cross section additional ties or stirrups reinforce any protrusions. These
and provide a rectangular closed stirrup in that section. Alter- ties also have a semi-closed detail with 135-degree or greater
nately, multiple-leg configurations can also be used for this hooks developed into the core, which is the region enclosed
purpose with single or multi-leg pieces or bar layouts to rein- by the closed stirrup shape. In addition to the closed stirrups
force the cross section. Any protrusions, apertures, ledges, and longitudinal bars shown in Fig. 8.2.1b and 8.2.1c, local
corbels, or other geometric outcroppings are provided with reinforcement in the disturbed regions or D-regions should
accommodate specific load concentrations. To be effective in
any size member subjected to torsion, spacing between the
closed ties should not exceed about one-half of the smallest
dimension of the member, except for slender precast span-
drel beams, such as those used in parking structures. In these
members, torsional forces cause out-of-plane bending in the
web. As described in 7.3, limited testing of such members
has not shown signs of spalling or stirrup debonding for
which closed stirrups are required. In load tests, slender
precast spandrel beams have performed exceptionally well
without closed ties. The current state of practice on spandrel
beam behavior is contained in a recent study at North Caro-
lina State University (Lucier et al. 2010).
8.2.2 Hooks and development considerations—Stirrups
or ties are best terminated with 135- or 180-degree bends.
Hooks should be developed into the main core of the
member, where greater confinement is present. This detail
is important in isolated members, where hook confinement
is only provided by the member core, and no other external
geometric conditions provide confinement. Practical consid-
erations might dictate the use of simpler stirrup geometry,
Fig. 8.2.1a—A typical closed stirrup usually employing 90-degree hooks. When 90-degree hooks
used in a simple rectangular cross are used, confinement should be provided at locations where
section. a slab frames into the beam side or elsewhere as needed.
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Fig. 8.2.2a—Recommended two-piece closed single and multiple U-stirrups for members
subjected to torsion (ACI Committee 315 2004).
Fig. 8.2.2b—Ineffective closed stirrup types for members subjected to torsion (ACI
Committee 315 2004).
8.4—Detailing at supports
Precast concrete members require other special detailing
considerations due to their horizontal support conditions.
Torsional forces in precast members are often equilibrated
by out-of-plane, horizontal, or sometimes vertical, reactions
at discrete locations along the member depth. The member
end conditions and subsequent details are highly dependent
on the support configuration.
Figure 8.4 illustrates a common precast spandrel beam
and the horizontal force couple that is typically developed
at the end. Additional reinforcement is thereby required at
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,
Fig. 8.4—Support detailing requirements in a precast the member end near the top to accommodate a potential
spandrel member, dependent on the support connection 45-degree crack that typically develops at the end location
locations (Raths 1984). due to the couple resisting torsion, as shown in Fig. 8.4(a)
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
and 8.4(b). A possible reinforcement scheme to address this analogy provides the basic concept for torsion design assuming
condition is shown in Fig. 8.4(c) and 8.4(d). Similar condi- that the tension contribution in concrete is neglected and the
tions often exist in other precast members due to their specific diagonal compression struts spiraling around the member
support and horizontal restraint conditions. Although these with variable inclined angle that depend on the loading condi-
are D-region locations, they are complicated by the three- tion and reinforcement ratio. The bending moment and longi-
dimensional or out-of-plane nature of the problem. tudinal forces due to torsion and shear are considered resis-
tant to four chords, one in each corner of the space truss and
CHAPTER 9—DESIGN EXAMPLES the shears by the shear flows in the walls. Dimensions of a
9.1—Torsion design philosophy cross section are limited to prevent crushing of the diagonal
Design philosophy for torsion in the ACI 318-11 building compression struts. In addition to this AASHTO LRFD
code is based on a thin-walled tube, space truss analogy in method (general method), CSA-23.3-04 provides a simplified
which compression diagonals wrap around the tube and the method for a restricted group of structural members, which
tensile contribution of concrete is neglected. Both solid and states that the inclined angle of diagonal concrete compres-
hollow members are considered tubes in accordance with sion strut is fixed at 35 degrees.
Saint-Venant’s circulatory shear flow pattern both before and
after cracking. The outer part of the cross section centered 9.2—Torsion design procedures
along the stirrups is assumed to provide torsional resistance. 9.2.1 Torsion design in ACI 318-11—According to Saint-
The contribution of core concrete cross section is neglected. Venant’s circulatory shear flow pattern, the most efficient
Once a reinforced concrete beam has cracked in torsion, the cross section to resist torsion is tube-shaped. Therefore,
torsional resistance is provided primarily by closed stirrups torsion of a reinforced concrete member is a three-dimen-
and longitudinal bars located near the member’s surface and sional (3-D) problem because it involves the shear in a
diagonal compression struts. The inclined angle of the diag- reinforced concrete two-dimensional (2-D) wall element of
onal compression struts is permitted to be taken as 45 degrees a hollow tube and the out-of-wall bending of the concrete
for nonprestressed and lightly prestressed members, and 37.5 struts. In ACI 318-11, two simplifications are made. First, the
degrees for most prestressed members. Accordingly, ACI concrete strut bending is neglected and the amount of hoop
318-11 makes the specific assumptions in torsion design that: steel required in the tube determined from Bredt’s (1896)
a) Concrete tensile strength in torsion is neglected equilibrium equation of a cross section
b) Torsion has no effect on the shear strength of concrete
c) Torsion stress determination is based on the closed thin- qy = Tu/2Ao (9.2.1a)
walled tube with uniform stress distribution and specific
thickness, called shear flow where the symbol qy is the shear flow at yield (N/mm [lb/
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
d) The torsional, flexural, and shear strength are accounted in.]); Tu is the torsional moment (N∙mm [in.-lb]); and Ao
for by adding longitudinal reinforcement calculated for [mm2 (in.2)] is the lever arm area enclosed by the centerline
torsion and flexure of the shear flow.
e) The longitudinal reinforcement are calculated for Second, the hoop and longitudinal steel are assumed to
torsion and shear yield at ultimate strength. To design steel reinforcement in
The design of torsional resistance in Section 6.3 of a 2-D shear element, it is possible to use only three equilib-
EC2-04 is also based on a truss model using the thin-walled rium equations (Hsu 1993). Combining the three equations
closed section theory with an effective wall thickness. creates a simple equation for yield shear flow
The angle between the concrete compression strut and the
member’s longitudinal axis, q, may be taken between 22 q y = ( At f y / st )( Aℓ f y / sℓ ) (9.2.1b)
and 45 degrees. Both the solid and hollow cross section can
be modeled by an equivalent hollow section neglecting the
core concrete contribution to calculate the torsional resis- where fy is yield stress of hoop steel and longitudinal steel
tance, which is limited by the strength of the concrete struts. (MPa [psi]); At, Aℓ are area of hoop steel and longitudinal
The longitudinal and transverse reinforcement contributions steel (mm2 [in.2]), respectively; and st, sℓ are spacing of hoop
to torsional resistance are accounted for after the thin-wall steel and longitudinal steel (mm [in.]), respectively. Substi-
cracks. Effects of combined torsion and shear may be super- tuting the shear flow qy into Bredt’s (1896) equation gives
imposed assuming the same value for the strut inclination
angle. The required longitudinal and transverse reinforce- Tu = 2 A0 ( At f y / st )( Al f y / sl ) (9.2.1c)
ment for torsion should be added to the existing longitudinal
reinforcement for bending and transverse reinforcement for which is the essence of the ACI code provision.
shear, respectively. The lever arm area Ao (mm2 [in.2]) is formed by sweeping
The Canadian code (CSA-A23.3-04) provides a General the lever arm of shear flow one full circle around the axis
Design Method for torsion derived from the modified of twist. The centerline of shear flow was taken by Rausch
compression field theory (CFT) and represents solid cross (1929) to be the centerline of the hoop steel bar, and the
sections by an equivalent thin-walled tube with a wall thick- corresponding lever arm area is denoted as Aoh (mm2 [in.2]).
ness determined by cross section dimensions. The space truss
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
However, this definition of area Aoh was found to overesti- by an equivalent hollow section from which the torsional
mate the torsional strength by as much as 30 percent. There- resistance is calculated. Complex shapes, such as T-sections,
fore, the ACI code provides a simple, approximate formula can be divided into a series of subsections modeled as an
for calculating the lever arm area as equivalent thin-walled section, and the total torsional resis-
tance taken as the sum of the capacities of each individual
Ao = 0.85Aoh (9.2.1d) element. The effects of combined torsion and shear for both
hollow and solid members can be superimposed assuming
To provide a more accurate formula for the ultimate the same value for the strut inclination angle q.
torsional strength, consider the softening of concrete struts A common value for angle q is 45 degrees. Eurocode 8
in the reinforced concrete 2-D wall elements of a tube. Under (EN 1998-1:2004) determines that: “In the critical regions
a biaxial tension-compression stress condition, the compres- of primary seismic beams, the strut inclination q in the
sive stress-strain curve of the 2-D elements should be multi- truss model shall be 45 degrees” (Paragraph 5.5.3.1.2(2)
plied by a softening coefficient. This softening coefficient of EC2-08). However, in members not designated to resist
is a function of the principal tensile strain (Zhang and Hsu seismic actions, a reduced value of angle q could be consid-
1998) and varies from approximately 0.25 to 0.50. Applying ered to decrease the required transverse reinforcement and
this softened stress-strain curve of concrete to the study of required longitudinal reinforcement. This way, fewer stir-
reinforced concrete tubes under torsion (Hsu 1990, 1993), rups and more longitudinal bars could be provided. Required
the thickness td (mm [in.]) of the shear flow zone and lever torsional reinforcement is added to the required stirrups and
arm area can be determined as bars calculated from the shear and flexural design, respec-
tively. Strength of materials used in EC2-04 is based on
t d = 4Tu / Acp fc′
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
- Step 3: Check the maximum resistance of the member - Step 4: Calculation of the required cross-sectional area
subjected to torsion and shear. This is limited by the strength of the longitudinal reinforcement for torsion, SAsℓ:
of the concrete struts. If the following relationship is not
satisfied, the member cross section dimensions, the concrete TEd uk cot q
compressive strength, or both, should be increased ∑ Asℓ = (9.2.2f)
2 Ak f yℓ d
TEd V
+ Ed ≤ 1 (9.2.2a) where fyℓd is the design yield stress of the longitudinal rein-
TRd.max VRd.max
forcement [MPa (psi)].
Notes: The longitudinal reinforcement for torsion should
where be added to the required longitudinal reinforcement for
TEd = design torsional moment [N∙m (in.-lb)] flexure. The longitudinal reinforcement should generally be
TRd.max = design torsional resistance moment according to distributed over the length of side, zi, (zi is the side length of
the following relationship [N∙m (in.-lb)] wall i defined by the distance between intersection points
with the adjacent walls [refer to Fig. 6.11 of EC2-04]), but
TRd,max = 2vacwfcdAktefsinqcosq (9.2.2b) for smaller sections it may be concentrated at the ends of this
length. According to EC2-04 provisions (Section 9.2.3(4)),
VEd = design shear force [N (lb)] longitudinal bars for torsion should be arranged such that
VRd.max = maximum design shear resistance according to the there is at least one bar at each corner, with the others being
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
following relationship [N∙m (in.-lb)] distributed uniformly around the inner periphery of the links,
with a spacing not greater than 350 mm (14 in.).
a c bw zvfcd - Step 5: Calculation of the required cross-sectional area
VRd , max = (9.2.2c)
(cot q + tan q) of the transversal reinforcement for torsion
Asw TEd
bw = width of the web of the cross section [mm (in.)] = (9.2.2g)
z = inner lever arm, for a member with constant depth, s 2 Ak f ywd cot q
corresponding to the bending moment in the element
under consideration. In the shear analysis of rein- where
forced concrete without axial force, the approximate Asw = cross-sectional area of the transversal reinforce-
value z = 0.9d may normally be used (d is the effec- ment (stirrups) [mm2 (in.2)]
tive depth of the cross section) [mm (in.)] s = spacing of the stirrups [mm (in.)]
v = strength reduction factor for concrete cracked in fywd = design yield stress of transversal reinforcement
shear, recommended values (values for use in a [MPa (psi)]
country may be found in its National Annex): Notes: The transversal reinforcement for torsion should
be added to the existing transverse reinforcement for shear.
v = 0.6(1 − fck / 250) [ fck in MPa] The torsion links (stirrups) should be closed and anchored
(9.2.2d)
v = 0.6(1 − fck / 36.26) [ f y in ksi]] by means of laps or hooked ends and form an angle of 90
degrees with the axis of the structural element. Refer to Fig.
9.6 of EC2-04 for recommended shapes. According to provi-
acw = coefficient taking into account the state of compres- sions of EC2-04 (Section 9.2.3(3)), longitudinal spacing of
sive stress the torsion stirrups should not exceed u/8, or the require-
ments about the maximum longitudinal spacing between
1 non-prestressed shear assemblies (Section 9.2.2(6) of EC2-04) or the lesser
1+ s / f 0 < s cp ≤ 0.25 fcd
cp cd dimension of the beam cross section.
a cw = (9.2.2e) - Step 6: Check the value of the angle of compression
1.25 0.25 fcd < s cp ≤ 0.5 fcd
struts, q, based on the calculated and provided longitudinal
2.5(1 − s / f ) 0.5 fcd < s cp ≤ fcd
cp cd and transversal reinforcement from Steps 4 and 5
in design only if the torsion due to factored loads, Tf [N∙m The longitudinal strain ex is affected by the bending
(in.-lb)], exceeds 0.25Tcr. The cracking torque Tcr [N∙m (in.- moment: shear, torsion, and if present, by axial load and
lb)] is assumed to be reached when the principal tensile stress prestressing in the member. In the presence of bending
fl [MPa (psi)] (equivalent to the shear stress v in pure torsion) moment, shear, and torsion, the strain at mid-depth of the
equals the factored tensile strength of the concrete, fcr [MPa section, ex, is computed from the expression
(psi)]. For the calculation of Tcr, the following assumptions
are made: e x = ( M f / d + V f2 + [0.9 ph T f / 2 Ao ]2 ) / (2 Es As ) (9.2.3f)
- Solid cross sections are represented by an equivalent
thin-walled tube with a wall thickness [mm (in.)]
where
tc = 0.75Ac/pc (9.2.3a) Mf = moment due to factored loads [N∙m (in.-lb)]
Vf = shear force due to factored loads [N (lb)]
- Bredt’s classical equation for tubular section applies ph = perimeter of the centerline of the closed transverse
[MPa (psi)] reinforcement [mm (in.)]
Es = modulus of elasticity of the reinforcement [MPa (psi)]
v = Tf/(2Aotc) (9.2.3b) As = area of flexural reinforcement on the flexural
tension side of the member [mm2 (in.2)]
- Area enclosed by shear flow path [mm2 (in.2)] q = 29 + 7000ex (degrees)
For a given angle q, the transverse reinforcement to resist the
Ao = 2/3Ac (9.2.3c) factored torque Tf is derived from equilibrium and given by
Table 9.2.4—Comparison of torsion design procedures for ACI, EC2, and CSA codes
Pure torsion design procedure ACI 318-11 EC2-04 CSA-A23.3-04
Section 6.3.2(1)
Eq. 6-26 and 6-27
Calculate properties of the equivalent
2 A / p c
TEd
thin-walled section t ef = max t r t ef =
2c t
2 Ak VEd = t t t ef z
,
Section 11.5.3.1,
Eq. (11-18) and Section 11.2.1.1, Eq.
(11-3)
Tu ph Vc 2 fc ′
2
≤ f + [ fc ′ in MPa ]
1.7 Aoh bw d 3 Section 6.3.2(4)
Section 11.3.10.4,
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Eq. 6-29 and 6-30
2l fc′ Eq.11-19
Determine if dimensions of the cross pure torsion
Vc TEd VEd
3 = [ fc′ in MPa ] + ≤ 1 → TEd <= TRd,max 2 2
w v oh
TRd , max = 2na c fcd Ak t ef sin q cos q
Tu ph V c
2 c c
≤ f + 8 f ′ [ f ′ in psi ]
1.7 A b d
oh
w
Licensee=University
bw d
Calculate the amount of stirrups Section 11.3.10.3,
required for pure torsion 11.3.8.1, and 11.3.6.4
Eq.11-1, 11-12, 11-13, and 11-17
Material—www.concrete.org
At Tu = 0.72 fc ′ [ fc ′ in psi ]
≥ t yk c
r = 0.08 / f [ f ′ in MPa ]
REPORT ON TORSION IN STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (ACI 445.1R-12)
12 s min
fyv
s f 2 fyt Ao cot q
and Section 11.5.5.2, Eq. (11-23) can be rt = 0.08 fc ′ / fyk [ fc ′ in psi ] q = 29 + 7000 e x
4 ( )
Select and check the stirrups’ details expressed by 2
and Eq. 9.6N Mf 2 0.9 p T h f
for the cross section +
0.7 d v
smax = min
63
Daneshlink.com
64
Section 11.5.3.7,
Calculate the longitudinal bars At fyt 2
daneshlink.com
fctm
and Section 11.5.5.3, Aℓ , min = 0.26 bt d 0.45 ph Tf
Select and check the longitudinal bar = cot q
Eq. (11-24) fyk 2 Ao
details for the cross section and Eq. 9.1N
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Design procedure for prestressed concrete members
under combined loadings
(Bending, shear, and torsion) ACI 318-11 EC2-04 CSA-A23.3-04
Licensee=University
Determine the factored loads and
Section 8.3 and
2 calculate factored shear, torque, and Section 2.4.3 and 5.1.3 Annex C
Material—www.concrete.org
REPORT ON TORSION IN STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (ACI 445.1R-12)
g
f p fcp
< fl (1.5 A )
Determine if torsion effects can be 12 pcp Tcr = 0.38lf c fc ′ 1 + [ fc ′ in MPa ]
3 pc 0.38lf c fc ′
Daneshlink.com
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
daneshlink.com
Section 11.2.1.1,
Eq. (11-3), Section 11.3.2, Eq. (11-9),
and Section 11.5.3.1, Eq. (11-18)
Vc
= 2l fc ′ [ fc ′ in psi ]
Section 6.3.2(4)
Tu ph Vc 2 fc ′
2
≤ f + [ fc ′ in MPa ]
1.7 Aoh b w
d 3
Tu ph V c
2
≤ f +8 fc ′ [ fc ′ in psi ]
1.7 Aoh b d w
Shear resistance of concrete: Section
11.2.1.1, Eq. (11-3) and Section 11.3.2,
Eq. (11-9) The angle of diagonal compression strut:
Vc 2l fc ′ Section 11.3.6.4, Eq. 11-12 and 11-13
Licensee=University
bw d + + 0.5 N − A f
f p po
(Vf − Vp ) +
, dv 2 A o
Vc ex =
= 2l fc ′ [ fc ′ in psi ] 2[ E s As + E p Ap ]
Design shear resistance of a member without shear reinforce-
bw d
ment: Section 6.2.2(1). If not adequate, At Tf
f′ c
V d Required shear reinforcement: Section 6.2.3(4); Eq. 6-13 and ≥
Material—www.concrete.org
Mu Vc = f c lb fc ′bw d v [ fc ′ in MPa ]
for shear force
REPORT ON TORSION IN STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (ACI 445.1R-12)
a c bw zvfcd
Required shear reinforcement: Section 11.4.7 VRd , max =
Av Vu − fVc ( cot q + tan q) Vc = f c lb12 fc ′bw d v [fc ′ in psi]
= Minimum shear reinforcement: Section 9.2.2(5);
s fdfyv 0.40 1300
Maximum effective cross-sectional area of the shear rein- b= ×
f yt
Daneshlink.com
66
Licensee=University
Determine longitudinal reinforcement
Required torsional longitudinal reinforce-
for torsion
ment: Section 11.5.3.7, Eq. (11-22)
Material—www.concrete.org
f yl Required torsional longitudinal reinforcement: Section
and 11-21
REPORT ON TORSION IN STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (ACI 445.1R-12)
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
Fig. 9.3—Design process flow chart for combined shear and torsion effects.
Tu ph 30 × 106 × 1280
= = 2.65 MPa (347.6 psi)
2
1.7 Aoh 1.7 × 92, 400 2
Fig. 9.4.1—Rectangular
reinforced concrete
cross section subjected whereas
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
to pure torsion.
5 fc′ 5 20 2.80 MPa (403 psi)
fc′ Acp2 f = 0.75 =
Tu < fl 6 6
12 pcp
Because the expression in Eq. (11-18) (ACI 318-11) is
valid, the cross section dimensions are adequate.
where
3. Calculate the amount of stirrups required for pure
f = strength reduction factor for torsion and shear = 0.75
torsion (ACI 318-11, Section 11.5.3.3).
l = modification factor of lightweight concrete
To calculate transverse reinforcement for torsion, Eq.
(normalweight concrete, l = 1.0)
(11-20) and (11-21) in ACI 318 can be transformed into
pcp = perimeter of outer concrete cross section, mm (in.)
= 2 × (bw + h) = 1600 mm (64.0 in.)
At Tu
Acp = total area enclosed by the outside perimeter of ≥
concrete cross section, mm (in.) = bw × h = 150,000 s f2 f yt Ao cot q
mm2 (240 in.2)
Therefore, where
f ′ Acp2 20 150, 000 2 At = area of one leg of a closed stirrup resisting torsion
fl c = 0. 75(1. 0 ) 12 1600 N·mm s = spacing of the stirrups
12 pcp
fyt = design strength of torsion transverse reinforcement
= 3.93 kN·m (36.3 in.-kip) = 420 MPa (60,000 psi)
Tu = 30.0 kN·m (266 in.-kip). Ao = gross area enclosed by shear flow path = 0.85Aoh
Torsion effects must be considered. q = angle of compression diagonals in truss analogy for
2. Determine if dimensions of the cross section are torsion = 45 degrees
adequate (ACI 318-11, Section 11.5.3.1). Therefore,
Dimensions of the cross section are adequate if
30 × 10
6
At Tu
≥ =
2
Vu Tu ph
2
V fc′ s f 2 fyt Ao cot q 0.75 × 2 × 420 × 0.85 × 92, 400 × 1
+
b d 1.7 A2 ≤ f b d + 8 12
c
At 0.35 bw 0.175 × 300 A = total area of the outside perimeter of the concrete cross
s = 2 f = 420
section
min yv
= bwh = 300 × 500 = 150,000 mm2 (240 in.2)
= 0.125 mm2/mm (0.005 in.2/in.) pc = outside perimeter of the concrete cross section
= 2(bw + h) = 2(300 + 500) = 1600 mm (64.0 in.)
The maximum spacing of the stirrups is given by (ACI cℓ = distance between edge of member and center of the
318-11, Section 11.5.6.1) longitudinal reinforcement
= 50 mm (2.0 in.)
p /8 The area enclosed by the centerlines of the connecting
smax = min h = 160 mm (6.50 in.) thin-walls is calculated by
300 mm
Ak = (bw – tef)(h – tef) = 200 × 400 = 80,000 mm2 (124.0 in.2)
For stirrups ∅8 (ds = 8.0 mm [0.315 in.]), At = 50.3 mm 2
(0.078 in.2) and s ≤ 81 mm (3.20 in.). Select: s = 80 mm The perimeter of the area enclosed by the centerlines of
(3.15 in.). the connecting thin-walls is determined by
For stirrups No. 3 (ds = 9.5 mm (0.375 in.)), At = 71.0 mm2
(0.11 in.2) and s ≤ 115 mm (4.55 in.). Select: s = 110 mm
(4.50 in.).
( ) (
uk = 2 bw − tef + h − tef = 2(200 + 400) )
4. Calculate the longitudinal bars required for pure torsion = 1200 mm (48.0 in.)
(ACI 318-11, Section 11.5.3.7).
Total longitudinal reinforcement for torsion (Al) (Eq. 2. Determine if dimensions of the cross section are
(11-22) in ACI 318) is calculated by adequate (evaluate the strength of concrete struts) (EC2-04,
Section 6.3.2(4)).
At f yt Dimensions of the cross section are adequate if (Eq. (6-29)
Aℓ = ph cot 2 q = 0.610 × 1280 × 1 × 1
s f yℓ in EC2-04)
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Because the above expression is valid, dimensions of the 4. Calculate the longitudinal bars required for pure torsion
cross section are adequate. (EC2-04, Section 6.3.2(3)).
3. Calculate the amount of stirrups required for pure The total longitudinal reinforcement needed for torsion
torsion (EC2-04, Section 6.3.2 (2)). (SAl) is given as (Eq. (6-28) in EC2-04)
The amount of stirrups required is calculated using the
equation Tu uk cot q 30 × 106 × 1200 × cot 35°
∑ Aℓ ≥ = ⇒ ∑ Aℓ
2 Ak f yd 2 × 80, 000 × 365.2
At Tu
≥ ≥ 880 mm2 (1.37 in.2)
s 2 Ak f ywd cot q
Minimum longitudinal reinforcement is determined by
where (Eq. (9.1N) in EC2-04)
At = area of one leg of a closed stirrup resisting torsion
s = spacing of the stirrups fctm
fywd = design strength of transverse reinforcement Aℓ , min = 0.26 bt d ≥ 0.0013bt d
f yk
= fty/gs = 420/1.15 = 365.2 MPa (52,174 psi)
Therefore,
where
Tu 30 × 10 6 fctm = mean tension strength of concrete
= = 0.30fck2/3 = 0.3(202/3) = 2.21 MPa (319 psi)
2 Ak f ywd cot q 2 × 80, 000 × 365.2 cot 35°
bw = mean width of tension zone = 300 mm (12 in.)
= 0.359 mm2/mm (0.014 in.2/in.) Therefore,
The ratio of the required transverse reinforcement is given = 185 mm2 (0.287 in.2)
by
Longitudinal bars are arranged with at least one bar at each
At A 0.359 corner of the stirrups and the others distributed uniformly
rt = a
= 90
→ rt = t = = 0.0012 around the inner periphery of the torsion links (closed stir-
sbw sin a sbw 300
rups) with a maximum spacing of 350 mm (13.8 in.). There-
fore, the number of longitudinal bars is at least six and each
where a is angle between the stirrups and longitudinal axis. bar requires 880/6 = 147 mm2 (0.23 in.2).
The ratio of the minimum stirrups is (Eq. (9.5N) in EC2-04) For six longitudinal bars ∅14 (ds = 14 mm [0.55 in.]), Aℓ
= 6 × 154 = 924 mm2 (1.43 in.2).
( )
rt = 0.08 fc′ / f yk = 0.08 20 / 420 = 0.00085 For six longitudinal bars No. 5 (ds = 15.8 mm [0.625 in.]),
Aℓ = 6 × 198 = 762 mm2 (1.88 in.2).
9.4.4 Solution according to CSA-A23.3-04 code
The maximum longitudinal spacing of the stirrups is given 1. Determine if torsion effects may be disregarded (CSA-
as (Eq. (9.6N) and Section 9.2.3(3) in EC2-04). A23.3-04, Section 11.2.9.1).
If the magnitude of the torsion, Tf, satisfies the following
u/8 expressions (Eq. (11-2) in CSA-A23.3-04), torsional effects
smax = min 0.75d (1 + cot a ) ⇒ need not be considered
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
min(b , h )
w Tf < 0.25Tcr
1, 600 / 8 = 200
A2 A2
smax = min 0.75 ⋅ 450 = 338 = 200 mm (8.0 in.) Tcr = c 0.38lfc fc′ 1 +
f p fcp
= c 0.38lfc fc′
pc 0.38lfc fc′ pc
300
For stirrups ∅8 (ds = 8.0 mm [0.315 in.]), At = 50.3 mm2 150, 000 2
= 0.38 × 1 × 0.65 20 N·mm
(0.078 in.2) and s ≤ 137 mm (5.40 in.). Select: s = 125 mm 1600
(5.0 in.).
For stirrups No. 3 (ds = 9.5 mm [0.375 in.]), At = 71 mm2 = 15.5 kN·m (144 in.-kip)
(0.110 in.2) and s ≤ 194 mm (7.66 in.). Select: s = 180 mm
(7.1 in.). where
Ac = Acp = 150,000 mm2 (240 in.2)
pc =
pcp = outside perimeter of concrete cross section = where
1600 mm (64.0 in.) At = area of one leg of a closed stirrup resisting torsion
l = factor to account for low-density concrete s = spacing of the stirrups
= 1.0fc = resistance factor for concrete = 0.65 Ao = gross area enclosed by shear flow path = 0.85Aoh
fc′ = specified compressive strength of concrete, which q = angle of inclination of compression stresses to the
is the same as the characteristic concrete cylinder longitudinal member axis
compressive strength in previous definition = 20 4. Calculate angle of inclination of compression strut
MPa (2.9 ksi) (CSA-A23.3-04, Section 11.3.6.4).
Therefore, The angle of inclination of the diagonal compression strut
is given by the expression (Eq. (11-12) in CSA-A23.3-04)
Tf (= 30.0 kN·m) > 0.25Tcr (= 0.25 × 15.5 = 3.9 kN·m)
q = 29 + 7000ex
Torsion effect, therefore, must be considered.
2. Determine if dimensions of the cross section are The longitudinal strain indicator ex is defined by (Eq.
adequate (CSA-A23.3-04, Section 11.3.10.4). (11-13) in CSA-A23.3-04)
Dimensions of the cross section are adequate if the equa-
tion below (Eq. (11-19) in CSA-A23.3-04) is satisfied 2
Mf 0.9 ph T f
+ (V f − Vp )2 + + 0.5 N f − Ap f po
dv 2 Ao
V f − Vp T f ph
2 2
ex =
b d + 1.7 A2 ≤ 0.25fc fc′ 2[ Es As + E p Ap ]
w v oh
T f ph
2
≤ 0.25fc fc ′ 0.9 ph T f
1.7 Aoh 2 Ao 0.9 ph T f
ex = =
2 Es As 4 Es As Ao
With a concrete cover of 40 mm (1-1/2 in.) and 10M (No. 3)
stirrups (diameter 12 mm [1/2 in.]), the following calcula-
with Ao = 0.85Aoh = 0.85 × 84,860 = 72,130 mm2 (120 in.2)
tions/values apply
and the longitudinal reinforcement As = 413 mm2 (0.64 in.2)
(established in Section 6 of this example), the following is
Aoh = (300 – 2 × 46)(500 – 2 × 46) = 84,864 mm2 (141.0 in.2)
obtained
ph = 2[(300 – 2 × 46) + (500 – 2 × 46)] = 1232 mm (50.0 in.2)
0.9 × 1232 × 30 × 106
ex = = 0.00140
Therefore, 4 × 200, 000 × 413 × 72,130
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Tu ph 30 × 106 × 1232 Therefore
= = 3.02 MPa (394 psi)
2
1.7 Aoh 1.7 × 84, 860 2
q = 29 + 7000 × 0.00140 = 38.8 degrees
0.25 f c f c′ = 0.25 × 0.65 × 20 = 3.25 MPa (471 psi)
5. Calculate stirrups required for pure torsion.
The required stirrup area per unit length is calculated
Because 3.02 MPa < 3.25 MPa, dimensions of the cross using the equation (Eq. (11-17) in CSA-A23.3-04)
section are adequate.
3. Calculate the stirrups required for pure torsion (CSA- At Tf 30 × 106
A23.3-04, Section 11.3.10.3); ≥ =
s 2 Ao f s f y cot q 2 × 72,130 × 0.85 × 420 × cot 38.8°
The equation of nominal torsional strength Tn is same in
all codes except for differences in strength reduction factors. = 0.468 mm2/mm (0.0175 in.2/in.)
For design, the equation for Tn is rearranged to express the
required area of transverse reinforcement per unit length The minimum transverse reinforcement is (Eq. (11-1) in
(Eq. (11-7) in CSA-A23.3-04) CSA-A23.3-04)
At Tf Av bw 300
≥ s = 0.06 fc′ f = 0.06 × 20 × 420
s 2 Ao f s f y cot q min yv
The maximum spacing of the stirrups is (CSA-A23.3-04, 1. Determine if torsion effects may be disregarded.
Section 11.3.8.1) The torsion effects can be disregarded if this expression is
valid: Tu ≤ 0.25fTcr
0.7dv
smax = min = 277 mm (11.2 in.)
600 mm Ac2 150, 000 2
Tcr = 0.328 fc′ = 0.328 20 N•mm
pc 1600
where = 20. 6 kN·m (193.87 in.-kip)
dv = effective shear depth = max(0.9d, 0.72h) = max(396
mm, 360 mm) [(16.0 in., 14.4 in.)] The torque is disregarded if Tu = 30 kN·m (266 in.-kip) is
For stirrups 10M (ds = 11.3 mm [0.444 in.]), At = 100 mm2 smaller than 0.25fTcr = 0.25 × 0.75 × 20.6 = 3.9 kN·m (35.8
(0.155 in.2) → s ≤ 210 mm (8.32 in.). Select s = 200 mm in.-kip). Torsion effects, therefore, must be considered.
(8.0 in.). 2. Calculate normalized shear stress and determine if size
For stirrups No. 3 (ds = 9.5 mm [0.375 in.]), 71.0 mm2 (At of cross section is adequate.
= 0.110 in.2) → s ≤ 150 mm (5.89 in.). Select: s = 150 mm Shear stress in the walls of the cross section is calculated by
(5. 9 in.).
6. Calculate the amount of longitudinal bars required for Tu 30 × 106
pc × 1600
pure torsion (CSA-A23.3-04, Section 11.3.9.2 and 11.3.10.6). v f 0.75
Total longitudinal reinforcement is calculated using the = = = 0.212
fc′ 0.67 Ac2 fc′ 0.67(150, 000)2 20
following equation (Eq. (11-21) and (11-14) in CSA-A23.3-04)
Table 9.4.6—Summary of design solution of Example 1 using all five solution methods
Code Transverse reinforcement Longitudinal reinforcement
required: 0.61 mm2/mm (0.0227 in.2/in.) 780.8 mm2 (1.18 in.2)
2 2
minimum: 0.125 mm /mm (0.0042 in. /in.) 0 mm2 (0 in.2)
ACI 318
∅8/80 mm (No. 3 at 4.50 in.) 6∅14 (6 No. 5)
provided:
0.625 mm2/mm (0.0244 in.2/in.) 923 mm2 (1.86 in.2)
required: 0.359 mm2/mm (0.014 in.2/in.) 880 mm2 (1.37 in.2)
2 2
minimum: 0.261 mm /mm (0.0103 in. /in.) 185 mm2 (0.287 in.2)
EC2-04
∅8/125 mm (No. 3 at 7.10 in.) 6∅14 (6 No. 5)
provided:
0.402 mm2/mm (0.0155 in.2/in.) 924 mm2 (1.88 in.2)
required: 0.468 mm2/mm (0.0175 in.2/in.) 402 mm2 (0.61 in.2)
minimum: 0.192 mm2/mm (0.00775 in.2/in.) —
CSA A23.3-04 Four 15M + two 10M
10M/200.0 mm (No. 3 at 5.90 in.)
provided: (6 No. 3 or 6 No. 4)
0.500 mm2/mm (0.0186 in.2/in.)
1000 mm2 (0.66 or 1.18 in.2)
required: 0.40 mm2/mm (0.0160 in.2/in.) 568.1 mm2 (0.92 in.2)
minimum: — —
Rahal (2000b)
∅8/120.0 mm (No. 3 at 6.50 in.) 6∅12 (6 No.4)
provided:
0.417 mm2/mm (0.0183 in.2/in.) 678 mm2 (1.18 in.2)
required: 0.470 mm2/mm (0.019 in.2/in.) 615 mm2 (1.0 in.2)
minimum: — —
Leu and Lee (2000)
∅8/100.0 mm (No. 3 at 5.50 in.) 6∅12 (6 No. 4)
provided:
0.503 mm2/mm (0.0200 in.2/in.) 678 mm2 (1.18 in.2)
Nondimensional balanced torsional strength is calculated Required reinforcement indexes (Fig. 5.7.2): wℓ and wt
using Eq. (5.7.2g) For convenience, assume wℓ = wt.
Referring to (Fig. 5.7.2), ws ≥ 0.73 → wℓ = wt ≥ 0.70.
140 140 Balanced normalized reinforcement ratios hℓb and htb are
Txub = ( f y in MPa ) = = 0.196
300 + f y 300 + 420 calculated by Eq. (5.7.2c) and (5.7.2d)
76
Balanced torsional strength Txub is determined by Eq. hℓb = (f in MPa) = 76
= 0.125
200 + f y y 200 + 420
(5.7.2h)
Tu f y Aℓ Aℓ
w s Txub ≥ → w s × 55.1 ≥ 30 → fs ≥ 0.73w hl ≥ 0.0868 → ≥ 0.0868 → 420 ≥ 0.0861
f 0.75 fc′ Acp 20 150, 000
→ Aℓ ≥ 615 mm2 (1.0 in.2)
where
Tu = applied torsional moment = 30.0 kN·m (266 in.-kip) At least one longitudinal bar is placed at each corner of
f = strength reduction factor for shear and torsion; the stirrups with the others distributed uniformly around
which is assumed to be the same as that in ACI 318 the inner periphery of the closed stirrups with a maximum
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,
= 0.75ws = strength contour value (Fig. 5.7.2) spacing of 300 mm (12 in.), as indicated in ACI 318. There-
2. Calculate the longitudinal bars and stirrups required for fore, the number of longitudinal bars is at least six and each
pure torsion. bar requires 615/6 = 102.5 mm2 (0.17 in.2).
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
For six longitudinal bars ∅12 (ds = 12.0 mm [0.472 in.]), load, which consists of two truckloads located symmetri-
Aℓ = 6 × 113 = 678 mm2 (1.05 in.2). cally at a distance 3200 mm (10 ft 6 in.) from midspan. Each
For six longitudinal bars No. 4 (ds = 12.7 mm [0.500 in.]), axle load is taken as 24 percent of the crush live load (513.8
Aℓ = 6 × 127 = 762 mm2 (1.18 in.2). kN/4) with 100 percent impact and a maximum side shift
Required stirrups are calculated using Eq. (5.7.2b) of 914 mm (36.0 in.). The self-weight of the girder is 34.4
kN/m (2.36 kip/ft). The girder is also subjected to a superim-
f y At pcp posed dead load caused by the track rails’ weight, rail plinth
ht ≥ 0.1036 → ≥ 0.1036 pads, power rail, guard rail, cableway, acoustic barrier, and
fc′ Acp s
other permanent loads. At derailment, this superimposed
420 1600 At dead load is assumed to produce a uniform vertical load of
→ ≥ 0.1036
20 150, 000 s 12.8 kN/m (0.88 kip/ft) and a uniformly distributed torque of
3.16 kN-m/m (0.71 ft-kip/ft). This torque is neglected in the
At
→ ≥ 0.470 mm2/mm (0.019 in.2/in.) calculation because the magnitude of the distributed torque
s is small, and the torque is acting in a direction opposite to
the derailment torque.
Using ACI 318, the maximum stirrups’ spacing is calcu- 9.5.2 Solution according to ACI 318-11
lated to be 160 mm (6.3 in.). 1. Determine the factored forces for (ACI 318-11, Section
For stirrups ∅8 (ds = 8.0 mm [0.315 in.]) → At = 50.3 mm2 9.2.1).
(0.08 in.2) and s ≤ 107 mm (4.2 in.) and it can be used: s = Factored dead and live loads—
100 mm (4.0 in.). The load factor for live loads is taken as 1.6.
For stirrups No. 3 (ds = 9.5 mm [0.375 in.]) → At = 71 The derailment load per axle is calculated by
mm2 (0.11 in.2) and s ≤ 151 mm (5.9 in.) and it can be used:
s = 150 mm (5.5 in.). 513.8
Pu,L = 16 × × 2 = 411 kN/axle (92.4 kip/axle)
4
9.5—Design Example 2: Prestressed concrete box
girder under combined torsion, shear, and flexure
The derailment torque per axle is calculated by
9.5.1 Design problem statement
9.5.1.1 Design problem description—Design the shear and
torsional reinforcement of a box girder. A 3658 mm (12 ft) Tu,L = 16 × 513.8 × 2 × 0.914
wide and 1270 mm (4 ft 2 in.) deep box girder with over- 4
hanging flanges (Fig. 9.5.1.1(a)) was designed as an alterna- = 375.7 kN·m/axle (277 ft-kip/axle)
tive to the double-tee girder in Dade County, FL (Hsu 1997).
The standard prestressed box girder is simply supported, 24.00 The load factor for dead loads is taken as 1.2.
m (79.00 ft) long, and prestressed with 64 strands at 1860 MPa The girder weight is calculated by
(270 ksi), 13.0 mm (1/2 in.), seven-wire strands as shown in
Fig. 9.5.1.1(b). Total prestress force is 6076 kN (1366 kips) wu,g = 1.2(34.4) = 41.3 kN/m (2.83 kip/ft)
after prestress loss. The design of flexural reinforcement is
omitted for simplicity. The concrete cover is 40 mm (1.5 in.), The superimposed dead weight is calculated by
and material strengths are normalweight concrete: fc′ = 48.0
MPa (7000 psi) and fy = 420 MPa (60,000 psi). wu,s = 1.2(12.8) = 15.4 kN/m (1.05 kip/ft)
9.5.1.2 Sectional properties
L = 24.00 m (79.00 ft) Factored shear, torque, and bending moment—
h = 1270 mm (50.00 in.) The Vu, Tu, and Mu at 0.3L from the support are
d = 1016 mm (40.00 in.) at 0.3L from support Vu = (wu,g + wu,s)(0.2L) + 2Pu,L = (41.3 + 15.3) × 0.2 ×
t = 251 mm (9.88 in.) (average of stem width) 24.00 + 2 × 411 = 1094 kN (246 kips)
bw = 502 mm (20 in.) Tu = 2Tu,L = 2 × 375.7 = 752 kN·m (554 ft-kip)
A = 1.523 × 106 mm2 (2361.4 in.2) Mu = 0.5(wu,g + wu,s)(L – 0.3L)(0.3L) + 2Pu,L(0.3L)
I = 319.8 × 109 mm2 (768,336 in.4) = 0.5(41.3 + 15.4)(24.00 – 7.2) × 7.2 + 2 × 411 × 7.2
yt = 516 mm (20.34 in.) = 9347 kN·m (6922 ft-kip)
yb = 753 mm (29.66 in.) 2. Determine if torsion effects may be disregarded.
l = modification factor of lightweight concrete (l = 1.0) Check outstanding flanges—
9.5.1.3 Loading criteria—The standard girders are designed As indicated by Fig. 9.5.1.1(a), the parameter Acp2/pcp is
to carry a train of cars, each 22.86 m (75 ft 0 in.) long. Each determined by (disregard overhanging flanges)
car has two trucks with a center-to-center distance of 16.46 Acp = 1854 × 203 + 0.5(1854 + 1791) × 1067 = 2.32 × 106
m (54 ft 0 in.). Each truck consists of two axles 1981 mm mm2 (3597 in.2)
(6 ft 6 in.) apart. The crush live load of each car is 513.8 kN pcp = 1854 + 1791 + 2 × 1270 = 6185 mm (243.5 in.)
(115.5 kip). The maximum web reinforcement amount was Acp2/pcp =(2.32 × 106)2/6185 = 8.70 × 108 mm3 (53,090 in.3)
obtained at section 0.3L from the support under a derailment Check threshold torque (ACI 318-11, Section 11.5.1)—
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Fig. 9.5.1.1—Cross section and elevation of box girder.
Ag = 2.32 × 106 – (1270 – 419)(1320) = 1.20 × 106 mm2 Assume a clear concrete cover of 40 mm (1.5 in.) and 13
(1855 in.2)(fTcr/4) mm No. 4 bars for web reinforcement
= Aoh = 0.5[(1854 – 93) + (1791 – 93)](1270 – 93)
= 2.04 × 106 mm2 (3177 in.2)
Ag2 f pc Ag2 6076 / A ph = (1854 – 93) + (1791 – 93) + 2(1270 – 93)
f(0.083)l fc′ 1 + = f(0.083)l fc′ 1 + = 5813 mm (229.5 in.)
pcp 0.33 fc′ pcp 0.33 fc′
9754 − 7224
(1.20 × 10 )
6 2
6076 / 1523 −6
e = (753 – 127) –
9754
508
=0.75(0.083)(1.0) 48.0 1 + 10 = 496 mm (19.47 in.) at 0.3L from support
6185 0.33 48.0
d = yt + e = 516 + 496 = 1012 mm (39.81 in.) at 0.3L
= 276 kN·m (202 ft-kip) < 752 kN·m (554 ft-kip) from support
Factored torsional moment should be considered in design. d = 0.8h = 0.8 × 1270 = 1016 mm (40.00 in.) governs
3. Determine if dimensions of the cross section are bw = 2t = 2 × 251 = 502 mm (20.0 in.)
adequate (ACI 318-11, Section 11.5.3.1). bwd = 502 × 1016 = 510 × 103 mm2 (790 in.2)
Check cross section— The interaction equation for hollow box sections is (Eq.
(11-18) in ACI 318-11)
752 (1000)
2
Ats Tu
Vu d = =
Vc = 0.6 × 0.083l fc′ + 700 × 0.0689
M w
b d, s (
f2 Ao f yv cot q 0.75 × 2 2.21 × 106 × 420 × 1.303 )
u
At 1 Av
+ = 0.414 + 0.5 × 2.043
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
At 1 Av fc′ bw
s + 2 s = 0.375 12 f
Vc,min = 2 × 0.083l fc′ bwd min yt
(Eq. (11-3) in ACI 318-11) Select two layers of ∅18 mm bars (No. 6 bars) in each
vertical wall at 305 mm (12 in.) spacing
= 587 kN (132.13 kip) governs
2 ( 254)
= 1.666 mm2/mm (0.0656 in.2/in.)
V 588 × 1000 (305)
f c + 8 × 0.083 fc′ = 0.75 + 8 × 0.083 48.0
bw d 510 × 103 > 1.440 mm2/mm (0.0575 in.2/in.) OK
The transverse reinforcement in the top wall should be fcr′ = 7000 + 1400 = 8400 psi (57.9 MPa)
added to the flexural reinforcement required in the top flange
acting as a transverse continuous slab. - Mean compressive strength (based on fcr′)
5. Calculate number of longitudinal bars required.
Design of torsional longitudinal reinforcement (Eq. fcm = 57.9 MPa (8400 psi)
(11-22) in ACI 318-11)—
- Characteristic compressive strength (MPa) (EC2-04,
A f yv Section 3.1.2(5))
Aℓ = t ph cot 2 q = 0.414 × 5813 × 1 × 1.3032
s f yℓ fc′ = fcm – 8 ⇒ fck = 49.9 MPa (7240 psi)
= 4085.9 mm2 (6.46 in.2)
- Strength class for concrete according to Section 3.1.2
Check minimum limitation for At/s and Aℓ,min (Eq. (11-23) (Table 3.1) in EC2-04 corresponding to mean compressive
in ACI 318-11) strength
=
(
5 × 0.083 48.0 1.2 × 10 6
)
– 0.414 × 5813 × 1 Concrete tensile strength (EC2-04, Section 3.1.6 (2)—
420 - Mean tensile strength
= 8215 – 2407 = 5808 mm2 (9.17 in.2) governs
ft′ = 0.3fc′2/3 = 4.07 MPa (590 psi)
Select 36 ∅16 bars (No. 5 bars) longitudinal bars
- Design tensile strength
Aℓ = 36 × 201 = 7236 mm2 (11.22 in.2) > 5808 mm2 (9.17 in.2)
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
f pk 1860
f p,ud = = = 1617 MPa (234.78 ksi)
gs 1.15
n = 1.4 + 23.4
100
Strain at design yield strength
= 2.00 f pd
e c 2 = (2 + 0.085 ( fc′ − 50) ) / 100
0.53
e p, yd = = 0.0074
Ep
= 0.0020
90 − fc′
4
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
= 2.65 × 106 mm2 (4107 in.2)
fy420
f yd = = = 365 MPa (52 ksi)
g s 1.15 - Area of the gross cross section (disregarding overhanging
flanges)
Modulus of elasticity (EC2-04, Section 3.2.7(4))
= 2.32 × 106 mm2 (3596 in.2)
Es = 200 GPa (29,000 ksi)
- Area of the concrete cross section (disregarding over-
hanging flanges)
Strain at design yield strength
Ac = 1.20 × 106 mm2 (1860 in.2)
f yd
ey = = 0.0018
Es 9.5.3.2.2 Concrete covers (EC2-04, Section 4.4.1.2);
- Minimum cover with regard to bond
Ultimate design strain (EC2-04, Section 3.2.7(2))
cmin,b = diameter of bar = 12 mm (0.47 in.) (reinforcing steel)
eud = 0.9euk = 0.0200 = 13 mm (0.51 in.) (prestressing steel)
- Structural class (XD3) = 4 + 2 (service life of 100 years) – 9.5.3.4 Prestressed tendons requirements
1 (concrete class ≥ C45) = 5 Minimum longitudinal reinforcement (EC2-04, Section
9.2.1.1)
- Minimum cover with regard to durability
ft ′
cmin,dur = 50 mm (1.97 in.) (reinforcing steel) Aℓ = 0.26 bt d ≥ 0.0013bt d
f yk
= 60 mm (2.36 in.) (prestressing steel)
- Minimum cover where bt = 470 mm (18.5 in.) mean width of tension zone,
and d = 1172 mm (46.1 in.) distance from extreme top fiber
cmin = max(cmin,b; cmin,dur; 10 mm [0.39 in.]) to the centroid of the reinforcement.
= 50 mm (1.97 in.) for reinforcing steel Therefore,
= 60 mm (2.36 in.) for prestressing steel
Aℓ,min = 716 mm2 (1.1 in.2)
- Nominal cover
The area of the prestressed tendons is
cnom = cmin + 10 mm (0.39 in.)
= 60 mm (2.36 in.) for reinforcing steel AP = 64 × 99 = 6336 mm2 (9.82 in.2) ≥ Asℓ,min OK
= 70 mm (2.76 in.) for prestressing steel
9.5.3.5 Shear design
- Distance from center of longitudinal reinforcing bars to 9.5.3.5.1 Design shear resistance of a member without
extreme concrete fiber (cover from bars centroid) shear reinforcement (EC2-04, Section 6.2.2(1))
(
= 66 mm (2.56 in.) > cmin + 12 mm/2 (0.47 in./2)
VRd ,c = C Rd ,c k (100rℓ fck )
1/ 3
)
+ k1s cp bw d ≥ vmin + k1s cp bw d
- Distance from center of prestressed tendons to extreme
bottom fiber (cover from tendons centroid) where
d = 517 + 494 = 1011 mm (39.8 in.) at 0.3L = 7.2 m
= 102 mm (3.94 in.) > cmin + 13 mm/2 (0.51 in./2) (23.7 ft) (9.5.1.1(b))
bw = 470 mm (18.50 in.)
9.5.3.3 Factored shear, torque, bending moment, and prestress CRd,c = 0.18/gc = 0.18/1.5 = 0.12
Factored shear force k = 1+ 200 d ≤ 2 ⇒ k = 1.44
Vu = 1.4 × (34.4 + 12.8) × 0.2 × 24.0 + 1.5 × (513.8/2) × 2 Ap
rℓ = ≤ 0.02 ⇒ rℓ = 0.0133
= 1089 kN (245 kip) bw d
N Ed Pt
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Factored torsional moment s cp = = = 5.1 MPa (734.4 psi) (compressive)
Ac Ac
Tu = 1.5 × (513.8/2)2 × 0.914 = 705 kN·m (520 ft-kip) k1 = 0.15
vmin = 0.035k3/2fck1/2 ⇒ vmin = 0.428
Factored bending moment Therefore
Mu = 0.5 × 1.4 × (34.4 + 12.8) × 0.7 × 0.3× (24.00)2 VRd,c = 698 kN (156.2 kip)
+ 1.5(513.8/2)(2 × 7.2) = 9561 kN·m (7074 ft-kip)
Because
Prestress force at time t = ∞
VRd,c < VEd = 1089 kN (245 kip),
Pt = 6076 kN (1366 kip) shear reinforcement must be provided
Total prestress losses 9.5.3.5.2 Minimum shear reinforcement (EC2-04, Section
9.2.2(5))
20 percent or w = Pt/Po = 0.80
The ratio of the minimum stirrups is
( )
Therefore, prestress force at time t = 0
rw,min = 0.08 fck f yk = 0.08 49.9 / (1.2 × 420) = 0.00113
Po = Pt/w = 7595 kN (1708 kip)
Therefore
TRd,max = 2vacfcdAktefsinqcosq
Dimensions of the cross section, therefore, are adequate
for every case (every value of q).
where
9.5.3.6.3 Calculate the required stirrup area for torsion.
v = 0.6(1 – fck/250) = 0.48 and ac = 1 + scp/fcd = 1.154 (EC2-04, Section 6.3.2(2))
The required stirrup area per unit length is calculated by
and for
q = 45 degrees Asw TEd A 705 × 106
≥ ⇒ sw ≥
s 2 Ak f yd cot q s 2 × 1.8 × 106 × 365 × cot q
TRd,max = 5915 kN·m (4356 ft-kip),
For
q = 35 degrees
q = 45 degrees
TRd,max = 5559 kN·m (4093 ft-kip)
Asw
≥ 0.54 mm2/mm (0.021 in.2/in.),
q = 22 degrees s
Asw, S + T q = 45 degrees
≥ 2.18 mm2/mm (0.087 in.2/in.),
s
SAsℓ ≥ 2943 mm (4.62 in.2),
q = 35 degrees q = 35 degrees
For two single-legged ∅10 stirrups, spacing is calculated Final selection of longitudinal bars (q = 35 degrees)
from shear and torsion
For ∅12 (0.47 in.) → Asℓ = 113 mm2 (0.175 in.2).
q = 45 degrees
Due to uniform distribution and symmetry
s ≤ 72 mm (2.8 in.) < smax OK
40∅12 → SAsℓ = 4524 mm2 (7.0 in.2).
q = 35 degrees
The torsional longitudinal reinforcement is in addition
s ≤ 102 mm (4.0 in.) < smax OK to the prestressing tendons. Low values of angle q (q = 22
degrees) lead to a design with lower area requirements of
q = 22 degrees transverse reinforcement (∅10/175 mm) and higher area
requirements of longitudinal reinforcement (40∅16). High
s ≤ 178 mm (7.0 in.) < smax OK values of angle q (q = 45 degrees) lead to higher area require-
ments of stirrups (∅10/70 mm) and lower area requirements
Total selection (q = 35 degrees): two single-legged stir- of longitudinal bars (40∅10).
rups of ∅10/100 mm (diameter 0.39 in. at 4.0 in.). The selection of q = 45 degrees maximizes the concrete
9.5.3.6.5 Longitudinal reinforcement required for torsion strength components, such as VRd,max = 3945 kN and TRd,max
(EC2-04, Section 6.3.2(3)) = 5910 kN·m. This value of angle q could be used when
Total longitudinal reinforcement for torsion (Eq. (6-28) in checking the adequacy of the cross section dimensions.
EC2-04) The following relationship between the strength of
concrete struts under torsion is satisfied
TEd uk cot q 705 × 106 × 5486 × cot q
SAsℓ ≥ ⇒ SAsℓ ≥
2 Ak f yd 2 × 1.8 × 106 × 365 TEd V
+ Ed ≤ 1
TRd , max VRd , max
For --`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
9.5.3.6.6 Arrangement of reinforcing bars—Total rein- The superimposed dead weight (with a load factor of 1.25)
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
forcement of the member with a hollow cross section under is calculated by
combined loading of prestressing, torsion, shear, flexure,
and axial force is depicted in detail in Fig. 9.5.3.6.6. wu,s = 1.25 × 12.8 = 16.0 kN/mm (1.10 kip/ft)
9.5.4 Design solution using CSA-A23.3-04 code—Load
factors of the CSA-A23.3-04 code are used here to establish Factored shear, torque, and bending moment—
the forces due to factored loads. These factors are 1.25 for At distance 0.3L from support, the following values are
dead loads and 1.50 for live loads. The cross-sectional area obtained
of the prestressing strands (fpu = 1860 MPa [270 ksi]) is 6336
mm2 (9.82 in.2), the effective prestressing force is 6076 kN Vu = (43.0 + 16.0)(0.2 × 24.00) + 2 × 385 = 1053 kN (237 kip)
(1366 kip), and the average prestress is 3.99 MPa (589 psi).
The concrete strength is 48.0 MPa (7000 psi), and the yield Tu = 2 × 352.3 = 705 kN·m (520 ft-kip)
strength of the non-prestressed reinforcement is 420 MPa
(60,000 psi). Mu = 0.5(43.0 + 16.0)(24.00 – 7.2)7.2 + 2 × 385 × 7.2
= 9112 kN·m (6759 ft-kip)
1. Determine the factored forces (CSA-A23.3-04, Annex C).
Factored dead and live loads—
2. Determine if torsion effects can be disregarded (CSA-
The derailment load per axle is calculated by
A23.3-04, Section 11.2.9.1).
Threshold torque—
513.8 For a hollow section with a wall thickness of less than
Pu,L = 1.5
4
2 = 385 kN/axle (86.6 ft/axle)
0.75Ac/pc (= 281 mm > 178 mm), torsion must be considered
if the torque due to factored loads, Tf, exceeds 0.25Tcr
The derailment torque per axle is determined by
(1.5 A )
2
g f p fcp
513.8 Tcr = 0.38lfc fc′ 1 +
Tu,L = 1.5 pc 0.38lfc fc′
4
(2 × 0.914) = 352 kN·m (259.8 ft-kip)
fc = resistance factor for concrete = 0.70 for precast The angle of inclination of the diagonal compression strut
concrete is given by the expression (Eq. (11-12) in CSA-A23.3-04)
fp = resistance factor for prestressing reinforcement =
0.90 q = 29 + 7000ex
fc′ = specified compressive strength of concrete = 48.0
MPa (7.0 ksi) In the absence of an axial load normal to the cross section,
fcp = compression stress in concrete due to effective the strain at mid-depth of the section is defined by (Eq.
prestress = 3.99 MPa (0.6 ksi) (11-13) in CSA-A23.3-04)
With this information, the following calculation can be made
2
Mf 0.9 ph T f
(1.5 × 1.20 × 10 ) 0.9 × 3.99 + (V f − Vp )2 + − Ap f po
2 Ao
6 2
Tcr = 0.38 × 0.70 48.0 1 + dv
6185 0.38 × 0.70 48.0 ex =
2[ Es As + E p Ap ]
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
= 1658 kN·m (1216 ft-kip)
Because 0.25Tcr = 415 kN∙m (304 ft-kip) < 705 kN∙m (520 The terms not defined above are
ft-kip), torsion must be considered in the design. Mf = Mu = moment due to factored loads = 9166 kN·m
3. Determine if dimensions of the cross section are adequate. (6761 ft-kip)
Check cross-sectional dimensions (CSA-A23.3-04, Section Ao = 0.85Aoh = 0.85 × 2.04 × 106 mm2 = 1.74 × 106 mm2
11.3.10.4)— (2697 in.2)
For box sections with a wall thickness of less than Aoh/ph, Ap = area of prestressing reinforcement = 6336 mm2
the cross-sectional dimensions must satisfy the following (9.8 in.2)
criterion (Eq. (11-19) in CSA-A23.3-04) fpo = stress in prestressing tendons (may be taken as
0.7fpu = 1302 MPa [189.0 ksi])
V f − Vp Tf Es = 200,000 MPa (29,000 ksi)
+ ≤ 0.25fc fc′ As = area of non-prestressed reinforcement in tension
bw dv 1.7 Aoh t
zone (assume fourteen 15M bars with 2800 mm2
(4.34 in.2)
where Ep = 190,000 MPa (28,000 ksi)
Vf = Vu = shear force due to factored loads = 1054 kN With this information, the following calculation can be
(237.2 kip) made
Vp = shear force due to prestressing factored by fp
= 0.9(6076)508/9754 = 284 kN (64.0 kip) 9112 × 106
2
0.9 × 5801 × 705 × 106
+ [(1054 − 284) × 103 ]2 + − 1302 × 6336
Aoh = [(1854 + 1791)/2 – 2 × 48)](1270 – 2 × 48) = 2.03 914 2 × 1.74 × 106
ex = = 0.00086
2(200, 000 × 2800 + 190, 000 × 6336)
× 106 mm2 (3142 in.2)
ph = (1854 – 96) + (1791 – 96) + 2(1270 – 96) = 5801
mm (228.4 in.) Therefore
Aoh/ph = 350 mm (13.8 in) > 178 mm (7.0 in.) for bottom
flange q = 29 + 7000 × 0.00086 = 35.0°
> 235 mm (9.25 in.) for web
> 203 mm (8 in.) for top flange The shear force resisted by the concrete is (Eq. (11-6) in
dv = larger of 0.9d = 0.9 × 1016 = 914 mm and 0.72h = CSA-A23.3-04)
0.72 × 1270 = 914 mm (36 in.)
t = minimum wall thickness = 178 mm (7.0 in.) Vc = fc lb fc′bw dv
Tu = torque due to factored loads = 705 kN∙m (520 ft-kip)
Therefore,
where (Eq. (11-11) in CSA-A23.3-04)
(1054 − 284) × 103 705 × 106
+ 0.40 1300
235 × 2 × 914 1.7 × 2.03 × 106 × 235 b= ×
1 + 1500 e x 1000 + sze
= 2.66 MPa (386 psi) < 0.25 × 0.70 × 48.0 = 8.40 MPa
(1223 psi) OK
Because minimum transverse reinforcement is provided,
Because the web governs design, the above equation sze = 300 mm (12 in.)
was the web thickness t = 235 mm, not the bottom flange Therefore
thickness.
4. Calculate q and b (CSA-A23.3-04, Section 11.3.6.4). b=
0.40
×
1300
= 0.175
Angle of diagonal compression strut and shear resistance 1 + 1500(0.00086) 1000 + 300
of concrete—
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
dv 2 Ao
Av Vs 405 × 103
= =
s f s f y dv cot q 0.85 × 420 × 914 × cot 35.0° 9112 × 106 405
2
0.45 × 5801 × 705 × 106
2
Design of transverse reinforcement for torsion (CSA- = 9969 + 1108 = 11,077 kN (2503 kip)
A23.3-04, Section 11.3.10.3)—
The required transverse reinforcement for torsion is given Factored tension resistance provided by the prestressing
by (Eq. 11-17 in CSA-A23.3-04) reinforcement with fpr = 0.96fpu = 1786 MPa (259 ksi) (CSA-
A23.3-04, Section 18.6.2)
At Tu 705 × 106
= = Fℓ tr = f p Ap f pr = 0.9 × 6336 × 1786 × 10 −3
s 2 Ao f s f y cot q 2 × 1.74 × 106 × 0.85 × 420 × cot 35.0°
= 10,184 kN (2290 kips)
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Bažant, Z. P., and Yu, Q., 2005a, “Designing Against Size in Structural Concrete, SM Study No. 8, University of
Effect on Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams Waterloo Press, Waterloo, ON, Canada, pp. 211-231.
Without Stirrups: I. Formulations,” Journal of Structural Collins, M. P., and Chockalingam, S., 1979, “Reinforced
Engineering, V. 131, No. 12, pp. 1877-1885. Concrete Beams Under Reversed Cyclic Torsional Loading,”
Bažant, Z. P., and Yu, Q., 2005b, “Designing Against Size Structural Concrete Under Seismic Actions, CEB Bulletin D’
Effect on Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams Information, No. 132, pp. 181-187.
Without Stirrups: II. Verification and Calibration,” Journal Collins, M. P., and Lampert, P., 1973, “Redistribution
of Structural Engineering, V. 131, No. 12, pp. 1886-1897. of Moments at Cracking—The Key to Simpler Torsion
Belarbi, A., and Greene, G. G., 2004, “Reinforced Design?” Analysis of Structural Systems for Torsion, SP-35,
Concrete Box Girders Under Cyclic Torsion,” Proceedings American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, pp.
of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 343-383.
Vancouver, BC, Canada, Aug. 1-6, 2004, 15 pp. Collins, M. P., and Mitchell, D., 1978, “Torsional-Balanced
Belarbi, A., and Hsu, T. T. C., 1994, “Constitutive Laws Steel in Concrete Beams – Discussion by Michael P. Collins
of Concrete in Tension and Reinforcing Bars Stiffened by and Denis Mitchell,” Journal of the Structural Division, V.
Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 91, No. 4, July-Aug., 114, pp. 1684-1687.
pp. 465-474. Collins, M. P., and Mitchell, D., 1980, “Shear and Torsion
Belarbi, A., and Hsu, T. T. C., 1995, “Constitutive Laws Design of Prestressed and Non-Prestressed Concrete
of Softened Concrete in Biaxial Tension-Compression,” ACI Beams,” PCI Journal, V. 25, No. 5, pp. 32-100.
Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 562-573. Collins, M. P., and Mitchell, D., 1991, Prestressed
Bentz, E. C., 2005, “Empirical Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Structures, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
Concrete Shear Strength Size Effect for Members without 766 pp.
Stirrups,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 102, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., Collins, M. P.; Walsh, P. F.; Archer, F. E.; and Hall, A. S.,
pp. 232-241. 1968a, “Ultimate Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams
Birkland, C. J., 1965, “Strength of Rectangular Beams with Subjected to Combined Torsion and Bending,” Torsion of
Longitudinal Reinforcement in Combined Torsion, Bending, Structural Concrete, SP-18, American Concrete Institute,
and Shear,” Master’s thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Farmington Hills, MI, pp. 279-402.
University of Washington at Seattle, Seattle, WA. Collins, M. P.; Walsh, P. F.; Archer, F. E.; and Hall, A. S.,
Bishara, A., and Londot, L., 1979, “Flexural Rotational 1968b, “Reinforced Concrete in Torsion,” UNICIV Report No.
Capacity of Spandrel Beams,” Journal of the Structural R-31, University of New South Wales, NSW, Australia, 338 pp.
Division, V. 105, No. 1, pp. 147-161. Delhumeau, G., 1999, L’Invention du Beton arme:
Bishara, A., and Peir, J. C., 1968, “Reinforced Concrete Hennebique, 1890-1914, Horma, Institut Francais
Rectangular Columns in Torsion,” Journal of the Structural d’Architecture, Paris, France, 344 pp.
Division, V. 94, Dec, pp. 2913-2934. Duleau, A., 1820, Essai Theorique et Experimental sur la
Boulton, N., and Boonsukha, B., 1959, “Plastic Collapse Resistance du Fer Forge, Paris, France (in French).
Loads for Circular Arc Girders,” Proceedings of the Institu- Elfgren, L., 1972a, “Reinforced Concrete Beam Loaded
tion of Civil Engineers, June, London, UK. in Torsion, Bending and Shear,” Publication 71:3, Division
Bredt, R., 1896, Kritische Bemerkungen zur Drehungs- of Concrete Structures, Chalmers University of Technology,
elastizität, Zeitschrift des Vereines Deutscher Ingenieure, Göteborg, Sweden, 249 pp.
Band 40, No. 28, July 11, pp. 785-790; No. 29, July 18, pp. Elfgren, L., 1972b, “Reinforced Concrete Beams Loaded
813-817. (in German) in Combined Torsion, Bending and Shear. A Study of the
Cauchy, A., 1828, “Sur les Equations qui Experimen- Ultimate Load-Carrying Capacity,” PhD thesis, Publication
tent les Conditions d’Equilibre ou les Lois de Mouvement 71:1, Division of Concrete Structures, Chalmers University
Interieur d’un Corps Solide,” Exercices de Mathematique, of Technology, second edition, Göteborg, Sweden, 230 pp.
Paris, France. (in French) Elfgren, L., 1979, “Torsion-Bending-Shear in Concrete
CEB-FIP, 1978, Model Code for Concrete Structures, Beams: A Kinematic Model,” Colloquium Copenhagen
CEB-FIP International Recommendation, third edition, 1979: Plasticity in Reinforced Concrete, IABSE Reports,
Comite Euro-International du Beton (CEB), 348 pp. Zürich, V. 29, pp. 111-118.
Cerioni, R.; Ferreti, D.; and Iori, I., 1998, “Torsional Elfgren, L.; Karlsson, I.; and Losberg, A., 1974a, “Torsion-
Behavior of Prestressed High-Strength Concrete Beams,” Bending-Shear Interaction for Concrete Beams,” Journal of
Computational Modeling of Concrete Structures, pp. the Structural Division, V. 100, No. 8, pp. 1657-1676.
797-806. Elfgren, L.; Karlsson, I.; and Losberg, A., 1974b, “Nodal
Chakraborty, M., 1977, “Torsional-Balanced Steel in Forces in the Analysis of the Ultimate Torsional Moment for
Concrete Beams,” Journal of the Structural Division, V. 103, Rectangular Beams,” Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 26,
pp. 2181-2191. No. 86, pp. 21-28; discussion in V. 27, No. 90, pp. 42-45.
Chen, W., 1982, Plasticity in Reinforced Concrete, Ersoy, U., and Ferguson, P. M., 1968, “Concrete Beams
McGraw-Hill Book, New York, 474 pp. Subjected to Combined Torsion and Shear—Experimental
Collins, M. P., 1973, “Torque-Twist Characteristics of Trends,” Torsion of Structural Concrete, SP-18, American
Reinforced Concrete Beams,” Inelasticity and Non-Linearity
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, pp. 441-460.
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
Ewida, A. A., and McMullen, A. E., 1981, “Torsion-Shear tional Association for Bridges and Structural Engineering,
Interaction in Reinforced Concrete Members,” Magazine of Zurich, Switzerland.
Concrete Research, V. 23, No. 115, pp. 113-122. Horne, M. R., 1949, “Fundamental Propositions in the
Gabrielsson, H., 1999, “Ductility in High Performance Plastic Theory of Structures,” Journal of the Institute of Civil
Concrete Structures: An Experimental Investigation and Engineers (London), V. 34, pp. 174-177.
a Theoretical Study of Prestressed Hollow Core Slabs and Hsu, T. T. C., 1968a, “Torsion of Structural Concrete—
Prestressed Cylindrical Pole Elements,” PhD thesis 1999:15, Plain Concrete Rectangular Sections,” Torsion of Structural
Division of Structural Engineering, Luleå University of Concrete, SP-18, American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Technology, Luleå, 283 pp. Hills, MI, pp. 203-238.
Ghoneim, M. G., and MacGregor, J. G., 1993, “Evalu- Hsu, T. T. C., 1968b, “Torsion of Structural Concrete—
ation of Design Procedure for Torsion in Reinforced and Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Rectangular Members,”
Prestressed Concrete,” Report No. 184, Department of Civil Torsion of Structural Concrete, SP-18, American Concrete
Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada, Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, Jan., pp. 261-306.
301 pp. Hsu, T. T. C., 1968c, “Ultimate Torque of Reinforced
Greene, G., and Belarbi, A., 2009a, “Model for Reinforced Rectangular Beams,” Journal of the Structural Division,
Concrete Members under Torsion, Bending, and Shear. I: V. 94, pp. 485-510.
Theory,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, V. 135, No. 9, Hsu, T. T. C., 1968d, “Torsion of Structural Concrete—
pp. 961-969. Interaction Surface for Combined Torsion, Shear and
Greene, G., and Belarbi, A., 2009b, “Model for Reinforced Bending in Beams without Stirrups,” ACI Journal, V. 65, No.
Concrete Members under Torsion, Bending, and Shear. II: 1, Jan., pp. 51-60.
Model Application and Validation,” Journal of Engineering Hsu, T. T. C., 1968e, “Torsion of Structural Concrete—
Mechanics, V. 135, No. 9, pp. 970-977. Uniformly Prestressed Rectangular Members without Web
Greene, G. G., 2006, “Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Reinforcement,” PCI Journal, V. 13, No. 2, pp. 34-44.
Girders under Cyclic Torsion and Torsion Combined with Hsu, T. T. C., 1984, Torsion of Reinforced Concrete, Van
Shear: Experimental Investigation and Analytical Models,” Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp. 516-523.
PhD thesis, Department of Civil, Architectural, and Environ- Hsu, T. T. C., 1988, “Softening Truss Model Theory for
mental Engineering, University of Missouri at Rolla, Rolla, Shear and Torsion,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 85, No. 6,
MO, 227 pp. Nov.-Dec., pp. 624-635.
Greene, G. G., and Belarbi, A., 2006a, “Softened Truss Hsu, T. T. C., 1990, “Shear Flow Zone in Torsion of Rein-
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Model for RC Torsional Members Under Combined Action,” forced Concrete,” Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 116,
SEI Structures Congress, St. Louis, MO, 8 pp. No. 11, pp. 3206-3226.
Greene, G. G., and Belarbi, A., 2006b, “Tension-Stiffened Hsu, T. T. C., 1993, Unified Theory of Reinforced Concrete,
Softened Truss Model for RC Members under Torsion,” CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 313 pp.
Proceedings of Second FIB Congress, Naples, Italy, June Hsu, T. T. C., 1997, “ACI Shear and Torsion Provisions for
5-8, 12 pp. Prestressed Hollow Girders,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 94,
Greene, G. G., and Belarbi, A., 2008, “Performance of Box No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 787-799.
Bridge Girders under Cyclic Torsion and Shear,” Proceed- Hsu, T. T. C.; Belarbi, A.; and Pang, X. B., 1995a, “A
ings of PCI National Bridge Conference, Orlando, FL, Paper Universal Panel Tester,” Journal of Testing and Evaluation,
No. 73, Oct. 4-7, 25 pp. V. 23, No. 1, pp. 41-49.
Gvozdev, A. A., 1938, “Determination of the Value of Hsu, T. T. C., and Burton, K., 1974, “Design of Reinforced
Failure Load for Statically Indeterminate Systems Subject to Concrete Spandrel Beams,” Journal of the Structural Divi-
Plastic Deformations (in Russian),” Conference on Plastic sion, V. 100, No. 1, pp. 209-229.
Deformations 1936, B. G. Galerkin, ed., Akademia Nauk Hsu, T. T. C., and Hwang, C. S., 1977, “Torsional Limit
SSSR, Moscow and Leningrad, pp. 19-38. Design of Spandrel Beams,” ACI Journal, V. 74, No. 2, Feb.,
Gvozdev, A. A., 1960, “The Determination of the Value pp. 71-79.
of the Collapse Load for Statically Indeterminate Systems Hsu, T. T. C.; Mansour, M. Y.; Mo, Y. L.; and Zhong, J.,
Subject to Plastic Deformations,” International Journal of 2006, “Cyclic Softened Membrane Model for Nonlinear
Mechanical Sciences, V. 1, No. 1, pp. 322-335. Finite Element Analysis of Concrete Structures,” Finite
Hamilton, M. E., 1966, “Strength of T- and L- Section Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures,
Beams with Longitudinal Reinforcement in Combined SP-237, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
Torsion, Bending, and Shear,” Master’s thesis, Department pp. 71-98.
of Civil Engineering, University of Washington at Seattle, Hsu, T. T. C., and Mo, Y. L., 1983, “Softening of Concrete
Seattle, WA. in Torsional Members,” Research Report No. ST-TH-001-83,
Hassan, T.; Lucier, G.; Rizkalla, S.; and Zia, P., 2007, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Houston,
“Modeling of L-Shaped Precast Prestressed Concrete Span- Houston, TX, Mar., 107 pp.
drels,” PCI Journal, V. 52, No. 2, pp. 78-92. Hsu, T. T. C., and Mo, Y. L., 1985a, “Softening of Concrete
Hillerborg, A., 1960, “A Plastic Theory for the Design of in Torsional Members—Theory and Tests,” ACI Journal,
Reinforced Concrete Slabs,” Sixth ABSE Congress Interna- V. 82, No. 3, May-June, pp. 290-303.
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
Hsu, T. T. C., and Mo, Y. L., 1985b, “Softening of Concrete Structures, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg,
in Torsional Members—Prestressed Concrete,” ACI Journal, Sweden, 203 pp.
V. 82, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 603-615. Kemp, E. L.; Sozen, M. A.; and Siess, C. P., 1961, “Torsion
Hsu, T. T. C., and Mo, Y. L., 1985c, “Softening of Concrete of Reinforced Concrete,” Structural Research Series No.
in Torsional Members—Design Recommendations,” ACI 226, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL.
Journal, V. 82, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 443-452. Klein, G. J., 1986, “Design of Spandrel Beams,” PCI
Hsu, T. T. C., and Mo, Y. L., 2010, Unified Theory of Specially Funded R & D Program Research Project No. 5
Concrete Structures, John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, London, (PCISFRAD #5), Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago,
UK, pp. 60-69. IL; summary paper in PCI Journal, V. 31, No. 5, Sept.-Oct.,
Hsu, T. T. C., and Zhang, L. X., 1997, “Nonlinear Anal- pp. 76-124.
ysis of Membrane Elements by Fixed- Angle Softened-Truss Klus, J., 1968, “Ultimate Strength of Reinforced Concrete
Model,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. Beams in Combined Torsion and Shear,” ACI Journal, V. 65,
483-492. No. 3, Mar., pp. 210-216.
Hsu, T. T. C.; Zhang, L. X.; and Gomez, T., 1995b, “A Kordina, K., and Teutsch, M., 1983, “Bemessung von
Servo-Control System for Universal Panel Tester,” Journal Stahlbeton- und Spannbetonbalken unter kombinierter
of Testing and Evaluation, V. 23, No. 6, pp. 424-430. Beanspruchung infolge von Biegung, Querkraft und
Hsu, T. T. C., and Zhu, R. R. H., 2002, “Softened Torsion,” Beton- und Stahlbetonbau, V. 78, Heft 1, pp. 1-6.
Membrane Model for Reinforced Concrete Elements in (in German)
Shear,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. Kordina, K., and Teutsch, M., 1985, “Versuche an
460-469. Konstruktionsleichtbetonbauteilen unter kombinierter
Humphreys, R., 1957, “Torsional Properties of Prestressed Beanspruchung aus Torsion, Biegung und Querkraft,”
Concrete,” The Structural Engineer, V. 35, No. 6, pp. Deutscher Ausschuß für Stahlbeton (DafStb), H. 362, W.
213-224. Ernst u. Sohn, Berlin, 83 pp.
Hwang, C. S., 1978, Warping Torsion of Reinforced Koutchoukali, N. E., and Belarbi, A., 2001, “Torsion of
Concrete Beams with Thin Walled Open Sections, PhD High-Strength Reinforced Concrete Beams and Minimum
dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Reinforcement Requirement,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 98,
Miami, Coral Gables, FL, 286 pp. No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 462-469.
Hwang, C. S., and Hsu, T. T. C., 1983, “Mixed Torsion Krpan, P., and Collins, M. P., 1981a, “Predicting Torsional
Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Channel Beams-A Fourier Response of Thin-Walled Open RC Members,” Journal of
Series Approach,” ACI Journal, V. 80, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. the Structural Division, V. 107, pp. 1107-1127.
377-386. Krpan, P., and Collins, M. P., 1981b, “Testing Thin-Walled
Iravani, S., 1996, “Mechanical Properties of High-Perfor- Open RC Structure in Torsion,” Journal of the Structural
mance Concrete,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 93, No. 5, Division, V. 107, pp. 1129-1140.
Sept.-Oct., pp. 416-426. Lampert, P., and Collins, M. P., 1972, “Torsion, Bending,
Johnston, D. W., 1971, “Hollow Prestressed Concrete and Confusion—An Attempt to Establish the Facts,” ACI
Beams Under Combined Torsion, Bending and Shear,” PhD Journal, V. 69, No. 8, Aug., pp. 500-504.
thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, North Carolina Lampert, P., and Thürlimann, B., 1968, “Torsionsversuch
State University, Raleigh, NC, 177 pp. an Stahlbetonbalken (Torsion Tests of Reinforced Concrete
Johnston, D. W., and Zia, P., 1975, “Prestressed Box Beams),” Bericht Nr. 6506-2, 101 pp. (in German)
Beams Under Combined Loading,” Journal of the Structural Lampert, P., and Thürlimann, B., 1969, “Torsion-Biege-
Division, V. 101, No. 7, pp. 1313-1331. Versuche an Stahlbetonbalken (Torsion-Bending Tests on
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Jordaan, I.; Khalifa, M.; and McMullen, A. E., 1974, Reinforced Concrete Beams),” Bericht Nr. 6506-3, Institute
“Collapse of Curved Reinforced Concrete Beams,” Journal of Baustatik, ETH, Zurich, Switzerland (in German).
of the Structural Division, V. 100, No. 11, pp. 2255-2269. Lampert, P., and Thürlimann, B., 1971, “Ultimate Strength
Karayannis, C. G., 1995, “Torsional Analysis of Flanged and Design of Reinforced Concrete Beams In Torsion and
Concrete Elements with Tension Softening,” Computers & Bending,” Publications, International Association of Bridge
Structures, V. 54, No. 1, pp. 97-110. and Structural Engineering (Zurich), V. 31-I, pp. 107-131.
Karayannis, C. G., 2000, “Smeared Crack Analysis for Leonhardt, F., and Schelling, G., 1974, “Torsionsversuche
Plain Concrete in Torsion,” Journal of Structural Engi- an Stahlbetonbalken,” Deutscher Ausschuß für Stahlbeton
neering, V. 126, No. 6, pp. 638-645. (DAfStb), Heft 239, W. Ernst u. Sohn, Berlin, 122 pp.
Karayannis, C. G., and Chalioris, C. E., 2000, “Experi- Leonhardt, F.; Walther, R.; and Vogler, O., 1968, “Torsions-
mental Validation of Smeared Analysis for Plain Concrete in und Schubversuche an vorgespannten Hohlkastenträgern,”
Torsion,” Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 126, No. 6, Deutscher Ausschuß für Stahlbeton (DAfStb), Heft 202,
pp. 646-653. Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, pp. 1-78.
Karlsson, I., 1973, “Stiffness Properties of Reinforced Lessig, N. N., 1959, “Determination of Load-Carrying
Concrete Beams Loaded in Combined Torsion, Bending and Capacity of Rectangular Reinforced Concrete Elements
Shear,” PhD thesis, Publication 73:1, Division of Concrete Subjected to Flexure and Torsion,” Trudy No. 5, Institut
Betona i Zhelezobetona (Concrete and Reinforced Concrete
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
Institute), Moscow, pp. 5-28 (in Russian). Translated by Mattock, A. H., 1979, “Flexural Strength of Prestressed
Portland Cement Association, Foreign Literature Study No. Concrete Sections by Programmable Calculator,” PCI
371 (Available from S. L. A. Translation Center, John Crerar Journal, V. 24, No. 1, pp. 32-54.
Library Translation Center, Chicago, IL). McGee, W. D., and Zia, P., 1973, “Prestressed Concrete
Leu, L. J., and Lee, Y. S., 2000, “Torsion Design Charts Members Under Torsion, Shear, and Bending,” Research
for Reinforced Concrete Rectangular Members,” Journal of Report, Department of Civil Engineering, North Carolina
Structural Engineering, V. 126, No. 2, pp. 210-218. State University, Raleigh, NC, 212 pp.
Lim, S. N., and Mirza, M. S., 1968, discussion of “Rein- McMullen, A. E., and Daniel, H. R., 1975, “Torsional
forced Concrete T-Beams without Stirrups under Combined Strength of Longitudinally Reinforced Concrete Beams
Moment and Torsion,” by D. J. Victor and P. M. Fergusson, Containing an Openings,” ACI Journal, V. 72, No. 8, Aug.,
ACI Journal, V. 65, No. 7, July, pp. 560-563. pp. 415-420.
Logan, D. R., 2007, “L-Spandrels: Can Torsional Distress McMullen, A. E., and El-Degwy, W. M., 1985, “Prestressed
Be Induced by Eccentric Vertical Loading?” PCI Journal, V. Concrete Tests Compared with Torsion Theories,” PCI
52, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 46-61. Journal, V. 30, No. 5, pp. 96-127. (discussion by Hsu and
Lubliner, J., 1990, Plasticity Theory, Macmillan Publishing Mo, V. 31, No. 5, Oct., pp. 160-164).
Co., New York, 495 pp. McMullen, A. E., and Warwaruk, J., 1967, “The Torsional
Lüchinger, P., 1977, “Bruchwiderstand von Kastenträgern Strength of Rectangular Reinforced Concrete Beams
aus Stahlbeton unter Torsion, Biegung und Querkraft (Ulti- Subjected to Combined Loading,” Report No. 2, Department
mate Strength of Box-Girder Beams in Reinforced Concrete of Civil Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB,
loaded in Torsion, Bending and Shear),” Institut für Baustatik Canada, 162 pp.
und Konstruktion, ETH Zürich, Bericht Nr 69, Birkhäuser McMullen, A. E., and Woodhead, H. R., 1973, “Experi-
Verlag, Basel und Stuttgart, 107 pp. mental Study of Prestressed Concrete Under Combined
Lucier, G.; Rizkalla, S.; Zia, P.; and Klein, G., 2007, Torsion, Bending, and Shear,” PCI Journal, V. 18, No. 5,
“Precast Concrete, L-Shaped Spandrels Revisited: Full- pp. 85-100.
Scale Tests,” PCI Journal, V. 52, No. 2, pp. 62-76. Melan, E., 1938, Der Spannungszustand eines Miese-
Lucier, G.; Walter, C.; Rizkalla, S.; and Zia, P., 2010, schen-Henckyschen Kontinuums bei veränderlicher Belas-
“Development of a Rational Design Methodology for tung. Sitzungsberichte, Akademie der Wissenschaften in
Precast Slender Spandrel Beams,” Research Report No. Wien, Abt. II/a, V. 147, pp. 73-87.
IS-09-10, Construction Facilities Laboratory, Department of Mirza, M. S., and McCutcheon, J. O., 1968, “discussion
Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, North of “Torsion of Structural Concrete—Interaction Surface for
Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. Combined Torsion, Shear and Bending in Beams without
MacGregor, J. G., and Ghoneim, M. G., 1995, “Design for Stirrups,”,” ACI Journal, V. 65, No. 7, July, pp. 567-570.
Torsion,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., Mitchell, D., and Collins, M. P., 1974, “Diagonal
pp. 211-218. Compression Field Theory—A Rational Model for Struc-
Mansour, M., and Hsu, T. T. C., 2005a, “Behavior of tural Concrete in Pure Torsion,” ACI Journal, V. 71, No. 8,
Reinforced Concrete Elements under Cyclic Shear: Part I— Aug., pp. 396-408.
Experiments,” Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 131, Mitchell, D., and Collins, M. P., 1976, “Detailing for
No. 1, pp. 44-53. Torsion,” ACI Journal, V. 73, No. 9, Sept., pp. 506-511.
Mansour, M., and Hsu, T. T. C., 2005b, “Behavior of Mitchell, D., and Collins, M. P., 1978, “Influence of Pre-
Reinforced Concrete Elements under Cyclic Shear: Part II stressing on Torsional Response of Concrete Beams,” PCI
—Theoretical Model,” Journal of Structural Engineering, V. Journal, V. 23, No. 3, pp. 54-73.
131, No. 1, pp. 54-65. Mörsch, E., 1902, Der Eisenbetonbau, seine Anwendung
Mansour, M.; Lee, J. Y.; and Hsu, T. T. C., 2001, “Cyclic und Theorie, Wayss and Freytag, A. G., Im Selbstverlag der
Stress-Strain Curves of Concrete and Steel Bars in Membrane Firma, Neustadt, a. d.; Haardt, 118 pp. (English translation by
Elements,” Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 127, No. E. P. Goodrich, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 368 pp.).
12, pp. 1402-1411. Müller, P., 1976, “Failure Mechanisms for Reinforced
Mardukhi, J., 1974, The Behaviour of Uniformly Concrete Beams in Torsion and Bending,” Publications,
Prestressed Concrete Box Beams in Combined Torsion and International Association for Bridge and Structural Engi-
Bending, Master’s thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, neering (IABSE), V. 36-II, Zürich, pp. 147-163.
ON, Canada, 73 pp. Müller, P., 1978, “Platische Berechnung von Stahlbeton-
Marti, P., and Kong, K., 1987, “Response of Reinforced scheiben und Balken (Plastic Analysis of Walls and Beams of
Concrete Slab Elements to Torsion,” Journal of Structural Reinforced Concrete),” Institut für Baustatik und Konstruk-
Engineering, V. 113, No. 5, pp. 976-993. tion, ETH Zürich, Bericht Nr 83, Birkhauser Verlag, Basel
Marti, P.; Leesti, P.; and Khalifa, W., 1987, “Torsion Tests und Stuttgart, 160 pp.
on Reinforced Concrete Slab Elements,” Journal of Struc- National Association of Cement Users, 1910, “Standard
tural Engineering, V. 113, No. 5, pp. 994-1010. Building Regulations for the Use of Reinforced Concrete,”
NACU Standard No. 4, American Concrete Institute, Farm-
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
ington Hills, MI, pp. 349-361.
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
Navier, C. L., 1826, “Résume des Leçons Données a Rahal, K. N., 2000b, “Torsional Strength of Reinforced
l’Ecole des Ponts et Chaussées sur l’Application de la Méca- Concrete Beams,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering,
nique a l’Etablissement des Constructions et des Machines,” V. 27, No. 3, pp. 445-453.
Première partie, “Continuant les Leçons sur la Résistance Rahal, K. N., and Collins, M. P., 1995a, “Analysis of
des Matériaux et sur l’Etablissement des Constructions en Sections Subjected to Combined Shear and Torsion—A
Terre, en Maçonnerie et en Charpente,” Firmin Didet, Paris Theoretical Investigation,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 92,
(in French). No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 459-469.
Nielsen, M. P., 1967, “Om Forskydningsarmering i Jern- Rahal, K. N., and Collins, M. P., 1995b, “Effect of the
betonbjaelker (On Shear Reinforcement in Reinforced Thickness of Concrete Cover on the Shear-Torsion Inter-
Concrete Beams),” Bygningsstatiske Meddelelser, V. 38, No. action – An Experimental Investigation,” ACI Structural
2, pp. 33-58. Journal, V. 92, No. 3, May-June, pp. 334-342.
Nylander, H., 1945, “Torsion and Torsional Restraint Rahal, K. N., and Collins, M. P., 1996, “Simple Model for
of Concrete Structures (Vrindning och Vridningsinspan- Predicting Torsional Strength of Reinforced and Prestressed
ning vid Betong-Konstruktioner),” Bulletin No. 3, Statens Concrete Sections,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 6,
Kommittee for Byggnadsforskning, Stockholm, Sweden. Nov.-Dec., pp. 658-666.
Onsongo, W. M., 1978, “The Diagonal Compression Rahal, K. N., and Collins, M. P., 2003a, “Combined
Field Theory for Reinforced Concrete Beams Subjected to Torsion and Bending in Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete
Combined Torsion, Flexure, and Axial Load,” PhD thesis, Beams,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 100, No. 2, Mar.-Apr.,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, pp. 157-165.
Toronto, ON, Canada, 246 pp. Rahal, K. N., and Collins, M. P., 2003b, “An Experimental
Palermo, D., and Vecchio, F. J., 2003, “Compression Field Evaluation of the ACI and AASHTO-LRFD Design Provi-
Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Subjected to Reversed sions for Combined Shear and Torsion,” ACI Structural
Loading: Formulation,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 100, No. 5, Journal, V. 100, No. 3, May-June, pp. 277-282.
Sept.-Oct., pp. 616-625. Rangan, B. V.; Natarajan, P. R.; and Parameswaran, V.
Palermo, D., and Vecchio, F. J., 2004, “Compression Field S., 1978, “Lower Bound Limit Design of Concrete Struc-
Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Subjected to Reversed tures,” Journal of the Structural Division, V. 104, No. 12,
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Loading: Verification,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 101, No. pp. 1901-1906.
2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 155-164. Rasmussen, L. J., and Baker, G., 1995, “Torsion in Rein-
Pang, X. B., and Hsu, T. T. C., 1995, “Behavior of Rein- forced Normal and High-Strength Concrete Beams—Part 1:
forced Concrete Membrane Elements in Shear,” ACI Struc- Experimental Test Series,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 92,
tural Journal, V. 92, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 665-679. No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 55-63.
Pantazopoulou, S., and Moehle, S., 1990, “Truss Model Raths, C. H., 1984, “Spandrel Beam Behavior and
for 3-D Behavior of R.C. Exterior Connections,” Journal of Design,” PCI Journal, V. 29, No. 2, pp. 62-131.
Structural Engineering, V. 116, No. 2, pp. 298-315. Rausch, E., 1929, Design of Reinforced Concrete in
PCI, 1978, PCI Design Handbook, second edition, Torsion and Shear, (Berechnung des Eisenbetons gegen
Prestressed Concrete Institute, Chicago, IL. Verdrehung [Torsion] und Abscheren), Technische Hoch-
PCI, 1999, PCI Design Handbook, fifth edition, Prestressed schule, Berlin, Germany, 53 pp. (in German); second edition
Concrete Institute, Chicago, IL, 540 pp. in 1938; third edition in 1953, “Drillung (Torsion) Schub
Petersson, T., 1972, “Shear and Torsion in Reinforced und Scheren in Stahlbelonbau, Deutcher Ingenieur-Verlag
Concrete Beams. A Study of Critical Load and Torsional GmbH,” Dusseldorf, Germany, 168 pp.
Stiffness,” Document D10.1972, National Swedish Building RILEM Committee QFS, 2004, “Quasibrittle Fracture
Research, Stockholm, Sweden, 276 pp. Scaling and Size Effect,” Materials and Structures, V. 37,
Rabbat, B. G., and Collins, M. P., 1977, “The Computer No. 272, pp. 547-586.
Aided Design of Structural Concrete Sections Subjected to Ritter, W., 1899, “Die Bauweise Hennebique,” Schweizeri-
Combined Loading,” Computers & Structures, V. 7, No. 2, sche Bauzeitung, V. 33, No. 7, pp. 59-61.
pp. 229-236. Robinson, J. R., and Demorieux, J. M., 1972, “Essais de
Rabbat, B. G., and Collins, M. P., 1978, “Variable Angle Traction-Compression sur Modèles d’Ame de Poutre en
Space Truss Model for Structural Concrete Members Béton Arme,” IRABA Report, Institut de Recherches Appli-
Subjected to Complex Loading,” Douglas McHenry Sympo- quées du Béton de L’Ame, Part 1, June 1968, 44 pp; “Resis-
sium on Concrete and Concrete Structures, SP-55, American tance Ultime du Béton de L’âme de Poutres en Double Te en
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, pp. 547-587. Béton Arme,” Part 2, May, 53 pp.
Rahal, K. N., 2000a, “Shear Strength of Reinforced Sadowsky, M., 1949, “An Extension of the Sand Heap
Concrete, Part I: Membrane Elements Subjected to Pure Analogy in Plastic Torsion Application to Cross-Section
Shear,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. Having One or More Holes,” Journal of Applied Mechanics,
86-93 (closure to discussion, V. 97, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. V. 62.
910-913.) Saint-Venant, B., 1856, “Mémoire sur la torsion des
prismes (lu à l’Académie le 13 juin 1853). Mémoires Des
Savants Etrangers, Mémoires présentes par divers savants a
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
l’Académie des Sciences, de l’institut Imperial de France et tions, The Institution of Engineers, Australia, V. CE9, No.
imprime par son ordre, V. 14, Imprimerie Impériale, Paris, 2, pp. 313-320.
pp.233-560. Walsh, P. F.; Collins, M. P.; Archer, F. E.; and Hall, A. S.,
Stevens, N. J.; Uzumeri, S. M.; and Collins, M. P., 1991, 1966, “The Ultimate Strength Design of Rectangular Rein-
“Reinforced Concrete Subjected to Reversed Cyclic Shear— forced Concrete Beams Subjected to Combined Torsion,
Experiments and Constitutive Model,” ACI Structural Bending and Shear,” Civil Engineering Transactions, The
Journal, V. 88, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 135-146. Institution of Engineers, Australia, V. CE8, No. 2, pp.
Teutsch, M., 1980, “Trag- und Verformungsverhalten von 143-157.
Stahlbeton- und Spannbetonbalken mit rechteckigem Quer- Wang, W., 1995, “Shear Strength and Fatigue Crack Prop-
schnitt unter kombinierter Beanspruchung aus Biegung, agation in Concrete by Energy Methods,” PhD dissertation,
Querkraft und Torsion,” dissertation, TU Carolo Wilhelmina Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, New
Braunschweig, Fakultät für Bauwesen, 181 pp. Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ.
Thürlimann, B., 1978, “Plastic Analysis of Reinforced Wang, W., and Hsu, T. T. C., 1997, “Limit Analysis of
Concrete Beams,” Introductory Report, IABSE Colloquium, Reinforced Concrete Beams Subjected to Pure Torsion,”
Reports of the Working Commissions, International Asso- Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 123, No. 1, pp. 86-94.
ciation for Bridges and Structural Engineering (IABSE), Wang, W.; Jiang, D.; and Hsu, T. T. C., 1993, “Shear
Zürich, Switzerland, V. 28, Oct., pp. 71-90. Strength of Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams,” Journal of
Thürlimann, B.; Marti, P.; Pralong, J.; Ritz, P.; and Structural Engineering, V. 119, No. 8, pp. 2294-2312.
Zimmerli, B., 1983, Anwendung der Plastizitatstheorie auf Yoo, C., and Heins, C., 1972, “Plastic Collapse of Hori-
Stahlbeton (Plasticity in Concrete Structures), Vorlesung, zontally Curved Girders,” Journal of the Structural Division,
ETH-Zurich. V. 98, No. 4, pp. 899-913.
Vecchio, F. J., 1999, “Towards Cyclic Load Modeling of Yudin, V. K., 1962, “Determination of the Load-Carrying
Reinforced Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 2, Capacity of Rectangular Reinforced Concrete Elements
Mar.-Apr., pp. 193-201. Subjected to Combined Torsion and Bending,” Beton i
Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., 1981, “Stress-Strain Zhelezobeton (Concrete and Reinforced Concrete), Moscow,
Characteristic of Reinforced Concrete in Pure Shear,” IABSE No. 6, pp. 265-269.
Colloquium, Advanced Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete, Zararis, P. D., and Penelis, G. G., 1986, “Reinforced
Delft, Final Report, International Association of Bridge and Concrete T-Beams in Torsion and Bending,” ACI Journal,
Structural Engineering, Zurich, Switzerland, pp. 221-225. V. 83, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 145-155.
Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., 1982, “The Response of Zbirohowski-Koscia, K. F., 1968, “Stress Analysis of
Reinforced Concrete to In-Plane Shear and Normal Stresses,” Cracked Reinforced Concrete Thin Walled Beams and
Publication No. 82-03, Department of Civil Engineering, Shells,” Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 20, No. 65, pp.
University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, pp. 332. 213-220.
Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., 1986, “The Modi- Zhang, L. X., and Hsu, T. T. C., 1998, “Behavior and
fied Compression Field Theory for Reinforced Concrete Analysis of 100 MPa Concrete Membrane Elements,”
Elements Subjected to Shear,” ACI Journal, V. 83, No. 2, Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 124, No. 1, pp. 24-34.
Mar.-Apr., pp. 219-231. Zhu, R. R. H., and Hsu, T. T. C., 2002, “Poisson Effect of
Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., 1993, “Compression Reinforced Concrete Membrane Elements,” ACI Structural
Response of Cracked Reinforced Concrete,” Journal of Journal, V. 99, No. 5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 631-640.
Structural Engineering, V. 119, No. 12, pp. 3590-3610. Zhu, R. R. H.; Hsu, T. T. C.; and Lee, J. Y., 2001, “Rational
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
Victor, D. J., and Ferguson, P. M., 1968, “Reinforced Shear Modulus for Smeared-Crack Analysis of Reinforced
Concrete T-Beams without Stirrups under Combined Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 4, July-Aug.,
Moment and Torsion,” ACI Journal, V. 65, No. 1, Jan., pp. pp. 443-451.
29-36. Zia, P., 1961, “Torsional Strength of Prestressed Concrete
Vlasov, V. Z., 1961, Thin Walled Elastic Beams; second Members,” ACI Journal, V. 57, No. 10, pp. 1337-1359.
revised and augmented edition (1985) (in Russian); English Zia, P., 1970, “What Do We Know About Torsion in
translation, National Technical Information Service, Spring- Concrete Members?” Journal of the Structural Division,
field, VA, 493 pp. V. 96, No. 6, pp. 1185-1199.
Wafa, F. F.; Shihata, S. A.; Akhtaruzzaman, A. A.; and Zia, P., and Hsu, T. T. C., 1978, 2004, “Design for Torsion
Ashour, S. A., 1995, “Prestressed High-Strength Concrete and Shear in Prestressed Concrete,” Preprint No. 3424, a
Beams under Torsion,” Journal of Structural Engineering, paper presented at ASCE Convention, Chicago, IL, 17 pp.;
V. 121, No. 9, pp. 1280-1286. Updated version: PCI Journal, 2004, Precast/Prestressed
Wagner, H., 1929, “Ebene Blechwandträger mit sehr Concrete Institute, V. 49, No. 3, pp. 34-42.
dünnem Stegblech,” Zeitschrift für Flugtechnik und Motor- Zia, P., and McGee, W. D., 1974, “Torsion Design of
luftschiffahrt, V. 20, No. 8 to 12, Berlin, Germany. Prestressed Concrete,” PCI Journal, V. 19, No. 2, pp. 46-65.
Walsh, P. F.; Collins, M. P.; and Archer, F. E., 1967, “The
Flexure-Torsion and Shear-Torsion Interaction Behaviour of
Reinforced Concrete Beams,” Civil Engineering Transac-
Copyright American Concrete Institute
Provided by IHS under license with ACI
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material—www.concrete.org
Licensee=University of Texas Revised Sub Account/5620001114, User=wer, weqwe
Not for Resale, 01/26/2015 02:04:28 MST
Daneshlink.com
daneshlink.com
As ACI begins its second century of advancing concrete knowledge, its original chartered purpose
remains “to provide a comradeship in finding the best ways to do concrete work of all kinds and in
spreading knowledge.” In keeping with this purpose, ACI supports the following activities:
· Technical committees that produce consensus reports, guides, specifications, and codes.
--`,`,,```,,`,```,`,`,```,``,,,,-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
· Spring and fall conventions to facilitate the work of its committees.
· Periodicals: the ACI Structural Journal and the ACI Materials Journal, and Concrete International.
Benefits of membership include a subscription to Concrete International and to an ACI Journal. ACI
members receive discounts of up to 40% on all ACI products and services, including documents, seminars
and convention registration fees.
As a member of ACI, you join thousands of practitioners and professionals worldwide who share a
commitment to maintain the highest industry standards for concrete technology, construction, and
practices. In addition, ACI chapters provide opportunities for interaction of professionals and practitioners
at a local level.
www.concrete.org