Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
This paper presents a simplified model for the design and analysis
of reinforced and partially- and fully-prestressed concrete beams
subjected to combined torsional and bending moments. This model
is an extension of the existing simplified method for combined
stress-resultants (SMCS) model. The interaction between torsion
and flexure is achieved by superposing the steel required for the
two moments. The observed ultimate loads of 111 beams are
compared with the calculations of the proposed model and very
good agreement is obtained. This includes comparing interaction
diagrams and the effects of concrete strength, stirrups spacing, and
T-beam flange width on the ultimate capacity. The calculations by
the ACI code equations are also evaluated and shown to give
satisfactory and, in some cases, overly conservative, results. The
simplicity of the proposed model is illustrated using a design and
an analysis example.
A
t d = 0.5 -----c (11)
pc
A0 = 0.8Ac (12)
Fig. 4—Hollow tube model for torsional strength.
p0 = 0.9pc (13)
Equation (6) is plotted in Fig. 2, and is shown to match with
the results of the MCFT up to Points C and D (that is, for For normal-strength concrete where the concrete strength is
Mode 1, fully under-reinforced elements). It shows that for below 50 MPa (7250 psi), the stress-strain relationship in
these elements, the shear strength comes solely from the compression can be represented by a parabola. If the peak
steel contribution. For partially or fully over-reinforced compressive strain equal to (1.5 × the strain at peak stress),
elements, there is a significant concrete contribution, which the relationship between a0 and td can be taken as
is implicitly included in the total shear strength v.
It is noted that Eq. (6) is similar to the plastic solution for a0 = 0.833td (14)
fully under-reinforced membranes presented by Braestrup.14
However, SMCS and the theory of plasticity are different in Substituting Eq. (10), (11), (12), and (14) into Eq. (9) gives
three of the four regions in Fig. 3, and in the boundaries the following equation for the nominal torsional moment T
between these regions. A detailed comparison between the
results of the plastic theory and the SMCS for membrane 2
elements subjected to in-plane shear stresses is given in Ac
Reference 9 (closure to discussion). T = 0.67 -------
-v (15)
pc
Equal reinforcement in the x and y directions leads to the
following simplifications of Eq. (6)
Equation (15) provides the relationship between the
torsional capacity of the cross section and the shear stress
v = ρx fyx = ρy fyy (8a)
capacity of the thin membrane walls.
The transverse steel ratio (taken as the y direction steel for
v a vertical wall) is calculated as
----- = ω x = ω y (8b)
f c′
A
SMCS FOR TORSION ρ y = -------t- (16)
sa 0
The equations of the SMCS for torsion are based on the
hollow tube analogy, where the cross section subjected to a
torque T is modeled as a hollow tube with constant thickness The total symmetrical longitudinal steel provides reinforcement
td (refer to Fig. 4). The torque causes a field of shearing for a series of membrane elements of length p0 and thickness
stresses (nonuniform over td) that circulate around in the a0. Hence, the longitudinal steel ratio is calculated as follows
walls of the tube. Similar to the use of the equivalent
compressive stress block in the theory of flexure, an equivalent AL
field of constant principal compressive stresses and shear ρx = ----------
- (17)
p0 a0
flow q can be assumed over a thickness a0 of the tube. The
basic relationship between T and q is given by
Combining Eq. (1), (2), (11), (13), (14), (16), and (17) and
T = 2qA0 (9) accounting for the prestressed reinforcement in the element
gives the following equations for the reinforcement indexes
in the walls
where A0 is the area enclosed by the shear flow path shown
in Fig. 4. The shear flow is related to the shear stress v and
the equivalent thickness of the wall as follows A L f yL + A ps f py
ω L = -------------------------------------
- (18)
0.375A c f c′
q = a0v (10)
A t f yt p c
The walls of the twisted beam (Fig. 4) are assumed to be thin ω t = --------------------------
- (19)
membrane elements similar to those shown in Fig. 1. Their 0.42sA c f c′
ultimate shear strength can hence be obtained from Fig. 3.
Consequently, the SMCS model can be applied to the case of Equations (18) and (19) apply to sections symmetrically
torsion if the torque is related to the shear strength v in the reinforced in the longitudinal direction.
Capacity calculation ACI permits the area enclosed by the shear flow A0 to be taken
If the cross section is not symmetrically reinforced or if a as 0.85A0h. A similar equilibrium equation relates the torsional
bending moment is acting, either the top or the bottom flange strength to the amount of longitudinal reinforcement
(whichever is weaker in the longitudinal direction) can be
critical in determining the beam strength. The flexural A L f yL
tension flange typically has larger reinforcement, but is - tan θ
T = 2A 0 ------------ (23)
weakened by the flexural tensile force, while the flexural ph
Table 1—Properties of reinforcement in beams To avoid concrete crushing before yielding of the reinforce-
used in verification ment and to limit the crack width at service load, the ACI
code requires that
Bar size Area, mm2 (in.2) fy , MPa (ksi) Used in
No. 3 71 (0.11) 366 (53.0) Groups 1 to 4
Tp h
No. 3 71 (0.11) 376 (54.5) TB - ≤ 0.83 f c ′
-----------------
2
(25)
No. 3 71 (0.11) 406 (58.9) TBS 1.7A 0h
No. 3 71 (0.11) 552 (80.0) TBU
Longitudinal steel
No. 4 129 (0.20) 433 (62.8) TBS If the cross section is hollow and its wall thickness t is
No. 4 129 (0.20) 393 (57.0) TBU smaller than A0h/ph, then the left-hand side term for torsional
No. 5 200 (0.31) 337 (48.9) Groups 1 to 4 shearing stress is replaced with T/(1.7A0ht).
No. 5 200 (0.31) 363 (52.6) TB The steel required to resist the torsional moment is
No. 6 283 (0.44) 323 (46.8) Groups 1 to 4 superimposed on the steel required to resist the flexural moment.
No. 8 510 (0.79) 436 (63.2) TBU, TBS In the compression zone, the longitudinal steel required for
φ4.2 13.9 (0.022) 640 (92.8) A-2, B11, C17, D15 flanges torsion can be reduced using Eq. (20) (with jd = 0.9d) due to
φ12 113 (0.175) 540 (78.3) A-2, B11, C17, D15 webs
the favorable effect of the flexural compression force.
No. 3 71 (0.11) 376 (54.5) TB
EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION
No. 3 71 (0.11) 379 (55.0) 1-1 to 1-5, Group 3
A total of 111 beam specimens4,17-23 are used to evaluate
No. 3 71 (0.11) 370 (53.6) 1-6, Groups 2, 4 the ability of the proposed model and of the ACI code
Hoops
No. 4 129 (0.20) 379 (55.0) TBU provisions to calculate the strength of reinforced and
No. 4 129 (0.20) 443 (64.2) TBS partially prestressed beams subjected to combined torsion
φ4.2 13.9 (0.022) 640 (92.8) A-2, B11, C17, D15 flanges and bending. The specimens tested in these series include
φ6.5 33.2 (0.051) 330 (47.8) A-2, B11, C17, D15 webs hollow and solid, nonprestressed and partially prestressed,
Note: TB series prestressing steel: effective prestress 1145 MPa (166 ksi), ultimate symmetrically and nonsymmetrically reinforced, and rectan-
strength 1703 MPa (247 ksi). gular and T sections. These test results studied the effects of
T to M ratio, nonsymmetry in longitudinal reinforcement,
amount of transverse reinforcement, concrete compressive
Equating T from Eq. (22) and (23) results in the ACI equation strength, and size of T-beam flanges. Thirty-eight of these
for the required amount of longitudinal reinforcement for beams are selected for detailed comparisons, and the cross
torsional resistance section geometry and reinforcement are given in Fig. 6 and
Table 1. A summary of the results of the 111 test specimens
A f yt 2
is given in Table 2. The results from the ACI equations are
- cot θ
A L = -----t p h ----- (24) also listed. One set of results is based on an angle θ of 45 degrees
s f yL
for reinforced members and 37.5 degrees for partially
prestressed members, and the other set is based on calculating
ACI requires that the angle of inclination θ of the diagonal an angle between 30 and 60 degrees that satisfies the truss
struts of the truss model shall not be smaller than 30 degrees model Eq. (22) to (24) is also shown.
nor larger than 60 degrees. ACI further suggests that the
angle to be taken as 45 degrees for reinforced members and Symmetrically reinforced nonprestressed beams
37.5 degrees for prestressed members. The Commentary, on the Group 2 of the specimens tested by McMullen and
other hand, suggests that the angle can be obtained by analysis. Warwaruk17,18 contained five nonprestressed solid
Symmetrically reinforced-partially
prestressed beams
Mardukhi19 tested five symmetrically reinforced, partially
prestressed hollow members (Series TB) under various
combinations of torsion and bending. Figure 7(b) shows the
comparison between the calculated and observed results and a
good agreement is observed. For the five beams, the average
ratio of experimental to calculated ultimate moment was 1.03
and the COV was 5.5%. These values are relatively similar to
those of Group 2, pointing to consistency in the results of the
method for reinforced and partially prestressed concrete
beams when symmetrically reinforced in the longitudinal
direction. In the zone of predominant bending, both the longi- Fig. 7—T-M interaction diagrams in symmetrically
tudinal and transverse reinforcement were below balanced reinforced and partially prestressed beams.
values, and Eq. (6) was used instead of Fig. 3 to calculate the
torsional shear strength v. reinforcement was critical, and a larger value of the angle
The average and COV values were 1.13 and 10.5% for the 55 degrees provided more favorable results.
ACI variable θ analysis and 1.34 and 22.8%, respectively, for
the ACI 45-degree analysis. In pure torsion and predominant Unsymmetrically reinforced beams
torsion, the amount of transverse reinforcement was critical, The six nonprestressed solid specimens of Group 117,18
and using a small θ of 30 degrees provided more accurate were similar to those in Group 2, except that a smaller
results. In predominant bending, the amount of longitudinal amount of longitudinal reinforcement was provided in the
ACI variable θ analysis, and 1.25 and 8.5% for the ACI
45-degree analysis, respectively.