Behavior of GFRP Wrapped Beam Under Pure Torsion

BEHAVIOUR OF GFRP WRAPPED BEAMS
UNDER PURE TORSION

BY
Jatin M. Paghdar
09MCL020
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
AHMEDABAD-382481
May 2011
BEHAVIOUR OF GFRP WRAPPED BEAMS
UNDER PURE TORSION
Major Project
Submitted in partial fulllment of the requirements
For the degree of
Master of Technology in Civil Engineering
(Computer Aided Structural Analysis and Design)
By
Jatin M. Paghdar
09MCL020
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
AHMEDABAD-382481
May 2011
iii
Declaration
This is to certify that
a. The thesis comprises my original work towards the Degree of Master of Tech-
nology in Civil Engineering (Computer Aided Structural Analysis and Design)
at Nirma University and has not been submitted elsewhere for a degree.
b. Due acknowledgement has been made in the text to all other material used.
Jatin M. Paghdar
iv
Certicate
This is to certify that the Major Project entitled Behaviour of GFRP Wrapped
Beams under Pure Torsion submitted by Mr. Jatin M. Paghdar (09MCL020), To-
wards the partial fulllment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Technology
in civil Engineering (Computer Aided Structural Analysis and Design) of Nirma Uni-
versity, Ahmedabad, is the record of work carried out by him under my supervision
and guidance. In my opinion, the submitted work has reached a level required for
being accepted for examination. The results embodied in this major project, to the
best of my knowledge, havent been submitted to any other university or institution
for award of any degree or diploma.
Dr. P. V. Patel Dr. P. H. Shah
Guide and Professor, Professor and Head,
Department of Civil Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering,
Institute of Technology, Institute of Technology,
Nirma University, Ahmedabad. Nirma University, Ahmedabad.
Dr K Kotecha
Director, Examiner
Institute of Technology,
Nirma University,
Ahmedabad. Date of Examination
v
Abstract
In the design of many concrete structural elements, torsion is signicant and has to be
considered. Structural elements subjected to torsion experience diagonal tension and
compression and fails in a brittle manner. Brittle failure of elements is undesirable and
could lead to an nonductile seismic behaviour of structures during earthquakes.There
are various structural elements like beam supporting cantilever slab, beam curved in
plan, skew bridges, spandrel beam, box girder, inverted T-beam supporting pre-cast
slabs etc. are primarily subjected to torsional moment. For understanding behaviour
of R.C. element under torsion and to nd torsional resistance of R.C. element various
theories like skew bending theory, space truss analogy are developed which consider
the eect of concrete, longitudinal reinforcement and transverse reinforcement and
GFRP wrapping.
Fiber Reinforce Polymer (FRP) composites are emerging as an important construc-
tion material for upgrading capacity of existing structure and for construction of new
structure. The role of FRP in improving torsional strength of concrete is studied
in this project. The objective of present project is to evaluate torsional strength of
GFRP wrapped R.C. specimens. For analytical solution of R.C. beam subjected to
torsion, Space truss analogy is used.
Experimental work comprises of casting and testing of 22 specimen with dierent
conguration of FRP wrapping. The cross sectional dimensions of the specimens
are 150mm150mm and length is 1.3m. Specimens are tested under pure torsion.
The ultimate torque and angle of twist are measured. The torque and angle of twist
behaviour is presented in graphical form. The role of longitudinal, transverse rein-
forcement are evaluated and presented.
vi
Experimental evaluation shows brittle failure in plain concrete beam, while ductile
failure in R.C. beams. In R.C. beams due to reduced spacing of transverse rein-
forcement improves in torsional resistance. The increase of 28% in longitudinal steel
increased torsional strength by 13.8%. The increase of 37.5% in transverse reinforce-
ment increased torsional strength by 8.4% to 13.9%.
GFRP wrapping has increased torsional strength of plain concrete beams by 80% to
104%. Dierent conguration of GFRP wrapping has increased torsional resistance
of reinforced concrete beams by 36% to 70%. Out of dierent types of wrapping
congurations diagonal strip wrapping is more eective in torsional resistance.
Nonlinear nite element analysis of plain concrete beams and reinforced concrete
beams is carried out using ANSYS. Comparison of nite element analysis results and
experimental results shows 4% to 13% variations in ultimate torsional resistance of
R.C. beams.
The content of report is divided in to various chapters. Chapter 1 includes gen-
eral introduction, objectives of study and scope of work. Chapter 2 presents the
brief review of literature for torsion in R.C. beam and torsion in FRP wrapped R.C.
beams. Theories for torsional behaviour like space truss analogy and skew bending
theory are presented in chapter3 to evaluate the torsional resistance of R.C beam.
Chapter 4 includes FE modeling and analysis of plain concrete and R.C. beam using
ANSYS. Chapter 5 presents the experimental programme conducted on plain, R.C.
and GFRP wrapped R.C.beams. The results and discussion are presented in chap-
ter6. Finally summary, conclusions and future scope of work are included in chapter 7.
vii
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank my guide Dr. Paresh V. Patel, whose keen interest and
knowledge base helped me to carry out the major project work. His constant support
and guidance during my project work equipped me with a great understanding of
dierent aspects of the project work. He has shown keen interest in this work right
from beginning and has been a great motivating factor in outlining the ow of my
work.
My sincere thanks and gratitude to Prof. G. N. Patel, former Professor, De-
partment of Civil Engineering, Prof. N. C. Vyas, Professor, Department of Civil
Engineering, Shri Himmat Solanki, Visiting Faculty, Department of Civil Engineer-
ing, Dr.U. V. Dave, Senior Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,
Dr.S. P. Purohit, Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Institute
of Technology, Nirma University, Ahmedabad for their continual kind words of en-
couragement and motivation throughout the major project work.
I would like to thanks Shri P.N. Raval, Laboratory Assistant, Concrete technology
laboratory, Nirma University for his assistance during testing.
I further extend my thanks to Dr. P. H. Shah, Head, Department of Civil En-
gineering and Dr K Kotecha, Director, Institute of Technology, Nirma Univer-
sity,Ahmedabad for providing all kind of required resources during my study.
I am extremely thankful to Gujarat Council of Science and Technology (GUJCOST)
for providing a nancial support of Rs. 25,000/- under student SCITECH project
(Sanction order No.GUJCOST/SSP/201665/2010-11/193 dated 1
st
Feb 2010) for this
major project work.
Finally, I would like to thank The Almighty, my family and all my friends, for sup-
porting and encouraging me in all possible ways throughout the dissertation work.
- Jatin M. Paghdar
09MCL020
viii
Abbreviation Notation and Nomenclature
GFRP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glass Fiber Reinforce Polymer
A
0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Area enclosed by the path of shear ow
A
l
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total area of longitudinal steel
a
s
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Area of one leg of stirrup
a
l
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Area of one longitudinal bar
F
l
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resultant longitudinal force in reinforcing bars
F
s
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resultant transverse force in reinforcing bars
f
l
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stresses in longitudinal steel
f
s
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stresses in transverse steel
f
ly
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yield stress of longitudinal steel
f
sy
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yield stress of stirrup steel
l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spacing of longitudinal bars
Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diagonal compression
q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shear ow
s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spacing of stirrups
T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resisting Torque
t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thickness of box section
T
cr
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cracking Torque
u
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ultimate torque
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shear stress
max
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maximum shear stress
u
0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perimeter of shear ow
x
0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Length of shear ow path on horizontal face
y
0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Length of shear ow path on vertical face
Contents
Declaration iii
Certicate iv
Abstract v
Acknowledgement vii
Abbreviation Notation and Nomenclature viii
List of Tables xii
List of Figures xiii
1 Introduction 1
1.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Historical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Types of Torsion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3.1 Primary or Equilibrium Torsion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3.2 Secondary or Compatibility Torsion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4 Torsional Stresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.5 Crack Pattern under Pure Torsion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.6 Modes of Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.7 Objective of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.8 Scope of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.9 Organization of Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2 Literature Review 12
2.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2 Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.1 Torsion in R.C beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.2 Torsion in FRP wrapped R.C beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
ix
CONTENTS x
3 Torsional behaviour of concrete beam 18
3.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.2 Torsion in Plain Concrete Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.3 Torsion in Reinforced Concrete Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.4 Space truss analogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.4.1 Assumptions in the space truss theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.4.2 Rectangular section with Distributed Longitudinal Reinforcement 23
3.4.3 Rectangular section with Unsymmetrical Longitudinal Steel . 27
3.5 Skew bending theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4 FE Modeling of Plain and R.C. Beam using ANSYS 30
4.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.2 Element Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.2.1 Solid65 Element Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.2.2 Link 8 Element Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.2.3 Solid45 Element Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.3 Material properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.4 Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.5 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.5.1 Plain concrete beam (PC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.5.2 R.C. Beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5 Experimental Programme 60
5.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.2 Preparation of specimen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.2.1 Specimen details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.3 Wrapping with GFRP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5.4 Test setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
5.4.1 Test Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5.4.2 Measurement of Angle of Twist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
6 Results and Discussion 70
6.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
6.2 Details of Beam Specimens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
6.3 Results of Individual Specimens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
6.4 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
6.4.1 Eect of Longitudinal and Transverse Reinforcement . . . . . 91
6.4.1.1 Comparison of Finite Element and Experimental Results 92
6.4.2 Eect of GFRP wrapping on Torsional Resistance of Plain con-
crete beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
6.4.3 Eect of GFRP wrapping On Torsional Resistance of R.C.
beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
CONTENTS xi
6.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
7 Summary and Conclusions 98
7.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
7.2 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
7.3 Future scope of work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
A List of Useful Websites 102
References 103
List of Tables
4.1 Stress strain curve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.2 Torsion moment and Angle of twist for PCC beam . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.3 Torsion moment and Angle of twist for R.C. beam specimen-1 . . . . 51
4.7 Ultimate torque for R.C. specimens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5.1 Concrete mix proportioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.2 Details of specimens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.3 Properties of GFRP sheet(As per D -BASF data sheet) . . . . . . . . 65
6.1 Designation of beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
6.2 Torque and Twist for specimen PCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
6.3 Torque and Twist for specimen RO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
6.4 Torque and Twist for specimen RH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
6.5 Torque and Twist for specimen SO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
6.6 Torque and Twist for specimen SH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
6.7 Torque and Twist for specimen PFTW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
6.8 Torque and Twist for specimen PSW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
6.9 Torque and Twist for specimen RFLW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
6.10 Torque and Twist for specimen RFTW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
6.11 Torque and Twist for specimen RSW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
6.12 Torque and Twist for specimen RDW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
xii
List of Figures
1.1 Curved beam subjected to torsion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 a) inverted T beam, b)deep spandrel, c)box girder . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 O center load causing torsion in the spandrel beam . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.4 (a),(b) Equilibrium Torsion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.5 Compatibility Torsion: beam supporting slab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.6 Compatibility Torsion: Ribbed slab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.7 Compatibility Torsion: Grid oor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.8 (a),(b) Addition of torsional stresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.9 Space truss analogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.10 Formation of cracks in a beam subjected to torsion . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.11 Failure of a piece of chalk under torque . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1 stresses caused by torsion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.2 Thin- walled tube under torsion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.3 (a) Reinforced concrete beam with torsion reinforcement (b)Reinforced
concrete beam in cracks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.4 Torque-twist curve in reinforced concrete member . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.5 Space truss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.6 Side face of rectangular section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.7 Failure surface of plain concrete beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.1 Solid65 Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.2 Link8 Element Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.3 Solid45 Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.4 Stress strain curve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.5 denation of link 8 element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.6 denation of Real constant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.7 Area of link 8 element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.8 Material properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.9 Node denation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.10 Model of Reinforcement cage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.11 Element type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.12 Real constant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.13 concrete beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.14 concrete beam with steel plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES xiv
4.15 Material properties of concrete beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.16 Dene mesh size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.17 Node merging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.18 Meshed beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.19 denation of analysis type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.20 Solution control window . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.21 Solution control for nonlinear analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.22 Constraints denation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.23 Load denation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.24 Solution control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.25 Deformed shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.26 Deformed shape of cross section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.27 Nodal displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.28 Shear stress in YZ plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.29 cross section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.30 Torque Vs Twist for PCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.31 R.C. beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.32 Displacement contour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.33 Shear Stresses in XY plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.34 Shear Stresses in YZ plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.35 Shear Stresses in XZ plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.36 Torque Vs Twist for specimen-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.39 Intensity of stresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.46 Torque Vs Twist for various R.C. beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.1 a) Formwork for casting of specimens (b) Poured concrete beam . . . 61
5.2 Specimens in curing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.3 Application of Primer coat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5.4 Application of Putty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
5.5 Application of saturant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
5.6 Wrapping with dierent pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
5.7 Test setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
5.8 Components of test setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
5.9 Arrangement of beam on test setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5.10 Arrangement of dial gauges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
5.11 Measurement of Angle of Twist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
LIST OF FIGURES xv
6.1 Torque Vs Twist for Specimen PCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
6.2 Failure mode of specimen PCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
6.3 Torque Vs Twist for Specimen RO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
6.4 Failure mode of specimen RO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
6.5 Torque Vs Twist for Specimen RH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
6.6 Failure mode of specimen RH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
6.7 Torque Vs Twist for Specimen SO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
6.8 Failure mode of specimen SO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
6.9 Torque Vs Twist for Specimen SH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
6.10 Failure mode of specimen SH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
6.11 Torque Vs Twist for Specimen PFTW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
6.12 Failure mode of PFTW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
6.13 Torque Vs Twist for Specimen PSW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
6.14 Failure mode of specimen PSW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
6.15 Torque Vs Twist for Specimen RFLW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
6.16 Failure mode of of specimen RFLW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
6.17 Torque Vs Twist for Specimen RFTW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
6.18 Failure mode of specimen RFTW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
6.19 Torque Vs Twist for Specimen RSW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
6.20 Failure mode of specimen RSW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
6.21 Torque Vs Twist for Specimen RDW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
6.22 Failure mode of specimen RDW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
6.23 Torque Vs Twist curve for PCC and R.C. beam . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
6.24 Ultimate torque for PCC and R.C. beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
6.25 Comparison of FEM and Experimental results . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
6.26 Torque Vs Twist curve for PCC and FRP wrapped PCC beam . . . . 94
6.27 Ultimate torque for PCC and FRP wrapped PCC beam . . . . . . . . 94
6.28 Torque Vs Twist curve for R.C. and GFRP wrapped R.C. beam . . . 95
6.29 Ultimate torque for R.C. and GFRP wrapped R.C. beam . . . . . . . 96
6.30 % increase in Torsion resistance of GFRP wrapped PC beam . . . . 97
6.31 % increase in Torsion resistance of GFRP wrapped R.C. beam . . . . 97
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 General
Generally reinforced concrete (RC) members are designed for axial force, shear force,
bending moment and their combinations. Usually the analysis of structure is carried
out considering torsional release at the intersection of members to avoid torsional
moment on the RC element. But due to continuity of members secondary torsional
moment transfers to RC members unintentionally. The value of this torsional mo-
ment may be so large that it may increase the principal tensile stress in the beam
and develops a crack that may cause an unexpected failure of the member. There
are various structural elements like beam supporting cantilever slab, beam curved in
plan shown in Fig.1.1, skew bridges, spandrel beam shown in Fig.1.2b, box girder
Fig.1.2c, inverted T-beam supporting pre-cast slabs shown in Fig.1.2a, are primarily
subjected to torsional moment[1].
For understanding behaviour of RC element under torsion and to nd torsional resis-
tance of RC element various theories like skew bending theory, space truss analogy,
and compression eld theory are available which consider the eect of concrete, lon-
gitudinal reinforcement and transverse reinforcement.
1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 2
Figure 1.1: Curved beam subjected to torsion
Figure 1.2: a) inverted T beam, b)deep spandrel, c)box girder
Figure 1.3: O center load causing torsion in the spandrel beam
The torsional behavior of a reinforced concrete member can be divided into three
main stages. The rst is the pre-cracking stage where it is possible to assume a
homogenous concrete cross section. The second is the post cracking stage where a
method based on Rauschs space truss analogy is normally used[2]. The third stage
is the stage where the crack occurs. This stage has more importance in the case of
complex loading when it is necessary determine an interaction surface.
1.2 Historical Background
The rst analysis for stress distribution in a prismatic bar of circular cross-section
was given by Coulomb on the basis of theory of elasticity. It was based on the as-
sumption that the material of the bar is homogeneous, isotropic and linearly elastic.
Navier tried to extend it to bars of non-circular cross section using his hypothesis
that plane sections remain plane during torsion. In 1853 Saint-Venant showed that in
the torsion of non-circular bars, plane section warp during torsion, stresses is not pro-
portional to the distance from centroid and that the torsional rigidity is proportional
to the torsion constant and not polar moment of inertia. In 1903 Prandtl gave the
membrane analogy for visualizing the stress distribution of irregular cross-sections.
In 1905 Timoshenko gave theory for warping torsion and in 1926 Wagner gave theory
for torsional buckling.[3]
Major contribution in the eld of torsion of reinforced concrete members came
from Rausch in 1929 in the form of the space truss analogy for torsion. Torsion
research in the recent years has been directed mostly towards special topics such as
beams with openings, sustained torsion and cyclic torsion.[2]
1.3 Types of Torsion
Depending on action of torsional moment on beam it can be classied Primary torsion
and Secondary torsion.
1.3.1 Primary or Equilibrium Torsion
Primary torsion is sometimes called equilibrium torsion or statically determinate tor-
sion, It exists when the external load has no alternative load path but must be
supported by torsion. For such cases, the torsion required to maintain static equilib-
rium can be uniquely determined. An example is the cantilevered slab as shown in
Fig.1.4a,b.
Figure 1.4: (a),(b) Equilibrium Torsion
Loads applied on the slab surface cause twisting moments m
1
to act along the
length of the supporting beam. These are equilibrated by the resisting torque T
provided at the columns. Without the torsional moments, the structure will collapse.
Equilibrium torsion is generated due to loading eccentric to the centroidal axis. For
various examples are a beam supporting cantilever slab or precast slab or oor joists
on one side,a (curved) bridge deck subjected to eccentric live load and an electric pole
subjected to loads from wires on one side.
1.3.2 Secondary or Compatibility Torsion
Secondary torsion, also called compatibility torsion or statically indeterminate tor-
sion, arises from the requirements of continuity, means compatibility of deformation
between adjacent parts of a structure. For this case, the torsional moments cannot
be found based on static equilibrium alone. Disregard of continuity in the design will
often lead to extensive cracking, but generally will not cause collapse. An internal
redistribution of forces is usually possible and an alternative equilibrium of forces is
achieved. An example of secondary torsion is found in the spandrel or edge beam
supporting a monolithic concrete slab, shown in Fig.1.5a, If the spandrel beam is
torsionally sti and suitably reinforced, and if the columns can provide the necessary
resisting torque T, then the slab moments at a rigid exterior support cause torsion
in beam as shown in Fig.1.5b. However, if the beam has little torsional stiness and
inadequate torsional reinforcement, cracking will occur to further reduce its torsional
stiness, and the slab moments will approximate, those for a hinged edge, as shown
in Fig.1.5c.
Figure 1.5: Compatibility Torsion: beam supporting slab
If the slab is designed to resist the altered moment diagram, collapse will not
occur. This type of torsion is generated in a primary beam supporting secondary
beams shown in g.1.6.
Figure 1.6: Compatibility Torsion: Ribbed slab
Figure 1.7: Compatibility Torsion: Grid oor
1.4 Torsional Stresses
The torsional stress adds to the shear stress on one side of a member and subtract
from them on the other. This situation is illustrated in the Fig.1.8.Torsional stresses
are quite low near the center of a solid beam. Because of this, hollow beams are
assumed to have almost exactly the same torsional strengths as solid beams with the
same outside dimensions[4].
In solid sections the shear stresses due to torsion T
u
are concentrated in an outside
tube of the member as shown in Fig.1.8b, while the shear stresses due to V
u
are spread
across the width of the solid section.
Figure 1.8: (a),(b) Addition of torsional stresses
After cracking, the resistance of concrete to torsion is assumed to be negligible.
The torsion cracks tend to spiral around members located at approximately 45
angles
with the longitudinal edges of those members. Torsion is assumed to be resisted by
an imaginary space truss located in the outer tube of concrete of the member. Such a
truss is shown in Figure.1.9. The longitudinal steel in the corners of the member and
the closed transverse stirrups act as tension members in the truss, while the diagonal
concrete between the stirrups acts as struts of compression members. The cracked
concrete is still capable of taking compression stresses.
Figure 1.9: Space truss analogy
1.5 Crack Pattern under Pure Torsion
The cracks generated due to pure torsion follow the principal stress trajectories. The
rst cracks are observed at the middle of the longer side. Next. cracks are observed
at the middle of the shorter side. After the cracks connect, they circulate along the
periphery of the beam as shown in Fig.1.10.
Figure 1.10: Formation of cracks in a beam subjected to torsion
In structures, a beam is not subjected to pure torsion. Along with torsion it is
also subjected to exure and shear. Hence, the stress condition and the crack pattern
are more complicated than as shown in Fig.1.10.
1.6 Modes of Failure
For a homogenous beam made of brittle material, subjected to pure torsion, the
observed plane of failure is not perpendicular to the beam axis, but inclined at an
angle. This can be explained by theory of elasticity. A simple example is illustrated
by applying torque to a piece of chalk shown in Fig.1.11.
For a beam of rectangular section, the plane of failure is further inuenced by
warping. Torsional warping is dened as the dierential axial displacement of the
Figure 1.11: Failure of a piece of chalk under torque
points in a section perpendicular to the axis, due to torque.
For a reinforced concrete beam, the length increases alter cracking and after yield-
ing of the bars. For a beam subjected to exure and torsion simultaneously, the modes
of failure are explained by the skew Bending theory the observed plane of failure is
not perpendicular to the beam axis, but inclined at an angle. The curved plane of
failure is idealized as a planar surface inclined to the axis of the beam.
1.7 Objective of Study
The main objective of this study is to understand the behaviour of plain concrete,
reinforced concrete beam under pure torsion. The objectives of present project are:
To understand torsional resistance of concrete beam considering various param-
eters like use of Reinforcement, FRP wrapping etc.
To study various theories for torsional resistance of Reinforced concrete like
Skew bending theory and space truss analogy.
To carry out experiments on plain concrete, R.C. and FRP warped R.C beam
and nd out their torsional resistance, angle of twist and crack pattern.
1.8 Scope of Work
To achieve above objectives the scope of work is decided as follows:
Study of various theories for torsional resistance of Reinforced concrete beam
eg. Skew bending theory and space truss analogy.
Study of eect of various parameter on torsional resistance like
Longitudinal reinforcement.
transverse reinforcement.
FRP wrapping of dierent conguration.
Development of experimental setup to apply pure torsion / torsion and bending.
Experimental evaluation of torsional resistance of FRP wrapped specimen.
1.9 Organization of Report
The content of major project is divided into dierent chapters as follows:
Chapter 1, presents the introduction and overview of the major project work. His-
torical back ground and types of torsion are discussed. It also includes objectives of
study and scope of work.
Chapter 2, Brief literature review on torsion is presented in chapter 2. Pertaining
to torsion in R.C beam with FRP warpping and experimental work are reviewed in
this chapter.
In Chapter 3, space truss analogy and skew bending theory are discussed. These
theories useful to nd out torsion resistance of R.C. and Plain concrete beam.
Chapter 4, covers nite element modeling and analysis of Plain and R.C beam under
torsion using ANSYS.
Chapter 5, describes details of experimental program. Test set-setup for application
of torsion is presented. It also include measurement of angle of twist and torsion.
Chapter 6, present comparison of results of plain concrete, R.C. and FRP wrapped
R.C. beams. It also represents the photographs of tested specimens to show failure
patterns.
Finally in Chapter 7, summary, conclusions and possibility for future scope of work
are presented.
Chapter 2
Literature Review
2.1 General
For the objectives of major project discussed in chapter 1, an extensive Literature
review relevant to behaviour of R.C beam in torsion is carried out. This chapter
explores various theories for nding torsion resistance of R.C beam, relevant experi-
mental studies and behaviour of FRP wrapped R.C. beams.
2.2 Literature Review
Various literatures related to torsion of R.C beam are studied and brief review is
presented below
2.2.1 Torsion in R.C beam
Bernardo and Lopes[5] developed procedure to predict the general behaviour of
reinforced concrete beams under torsion. Both plain and hollow normal strength con-
crete beams were considered. Dierent theoretical models were used to reect the
actual behaviour of the beams in the various phases of loading. The theoretical pre-
dictions were compared with result from reported tests. Calculations were compared
with the actual behaviour of the plain and hollow beams.
12
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 13
Csikos and Hegedns[2] presented pre-cracking and post cracking behaviour of re-
inforced concrete beam using space truss analogy and skew bending theory. Also
experiment was carried out on 15 un-reinforced and reinforced concrete beams with
dierent spacing of stirrups. Cracking moment, ultimate moment and angle of cracks
were measured. The methods for calculating the torsion resistance of reinforced con-
crete were presented. Later the results of the proposed analytical methods for cracking
and ultimate moment were compared with the tests carried out at the Technical Uni-
versity of Budapest.
Hossain and Mendis [6] explored theoretical models for evaluating the torsional
behaviour of reinforced concrete beams. Also the applicability and extension of ex-
isting analytical models and constitutive relationships developed for normal strength
concrete to high-strength concrete were investigated.The verication models included
the space truss model,skew-bending theory and softened truss model theory.The pa-
per presented an assessment of the Australian Standard AS3600 for the torsional
capacity of high-strength reinforced concrete beams in order to make suggestions for
extension of the code to cover the HSC range. Recommendations for the torsional
design of HSC beams based on lattice model were also presented.
Solanki[7] developed simplied method to determine the equilibrium depth of the
compression zone.To achieve rational limits, Mitchell and Collins had used the space
truss model and Rangan had suggested the skew bending model to develop a theory
for the reinforced concrete beam in pure torsion. Space truss analogy gave good re-
sults against experimental values.The proposed theory agreed well with test results
of over-reinforced beams tested in pure torsion.
Chiu et al.[8] presented experimental investigation on the behavior of thirteen
high-(HSC) and normal-strength concrete (NSC) full-size beams with relatively low
amounts of torsional reinforcement. The crack patterns, the maximum crack widths
at service load level, torsional strength, torsional ductility, and post-cracking reserve
strength results of the specimen were discussed. The main parameters included the
volumetric ratio of torsional reinforcements, the compressive strength of the con-
crete, and the aspect ratio of the cross section. It was found that the adequacy of the
post-cracking reserve strength for specimens with relatively low amounts of torsional
reinforcement primarily related to the ratio of the transverse to the longitudinal re-
inforcement factors in addition to the total amounts of torsional reinforcement. The
minimum requirements of torsional reinforcement for NSC beams proposed by other
researchers were also discussed on the basis of test results of both the HSC and NSC
beams.
Mansur et al.[9] carried out torsion test of six reinforced brous concrete beams.The
major parameters of the study were volume fraction of bers and percentage of re-
inforcement.The cracking behaviour of beams and their complete torsional response
were investigated.The softened truss model for conventional reinforced concrete beam
had been modied,and torque-twist curves were derived and compared with test re-
sults.
Greene and Belarbi[10] proposed a model for predicting the load-deformation re-
sponse of a reinforced concrete member under torsion combined with bending and
shear. The model was validated by comparing the predicted and experimental be-
havior of 28 members.The torque-twist behavior and reinforcement stress predicted
by the model were in close agreement with the experiments.
Lee and Kim[11] gave Stress-strain relationship for a steel bar embedded in con-
crete.which diered somewhat to that of a bare steel bar because of bond of the
surrounding concrete to the bar. This behavior was known as tension stiening. This
paper presented the results or an analytical and experimental study on the perfor-
mance or reinforced concrete beams subjected to pure torsion.In particular, the eect
of the tension stiening was discussed and included in the analytical study.Nine RC
beams having dierent torsional reinforcements were tested.
Hsu[12] presented behaviour of plain concrete members of rectangular cross-section
subjected to pure torsion. Such members were found to fail by bending about an axis
parallel to the wider face and inclined at 45
to the longitudinal axis of the mem-

ber. Based on this failure mechanism, new equations were proposed for the ultimate
torque.
Gunneswara Rao and Seshu[13] developed an analytical model for predicting the
torque twist response of SFRC members subjected to pure torsional loads considering
the softening eect of concrete. Experimental validation was also presented in this
paper.
Mahmood[14] conducted nonlinear nite element analysis using ANSYS-V10. Anal-
ysis was carried out for six reinforced concrete cantilever beams having dierent length
varying from 0.5 to 3 in with 0.5 m increments and subjected to a concentrated torque
at the free end. The beams were designed to carry the same torque. The study em-
phasized on the eect of beam length (span to depth ratio) on the torsional strength
and behavior of reinforced concrete rectangular beams and the eectiveness of the
torsional reinforcement in the pre and post cracking stages of loading. It was found
that beams with span/depth ratio equal to or more than 4 had the same reserved
torsional strength and was less than those with smaller ratio, keeping the cross section
and torsional reinforcements constant for all the beams. Before cracking the stresses
in transverse and longitudinal reinforcement were almost negligible and it was far be-
low the yield stress even at the post cracking stages. Reinforcement attained yielding
only at ultimate torque and after the wide spread of cracks in the shorter beam.
Mmahmood and Mahmood[15] presented a nonlinear nite element analysis of
twenty prestressed concrete cantilever beams having dierent lengths vary from 1.0m
to 3.0m with 0.5m increments and subjected to a concentrated torque at the free end
using ANSYS nite element package. They also studied the eect of beam length to
depth ratio on the strength, behavior of prestressed concrete beams and eectiveness
of prestressing strands in the pre and post cracking stages of loading.
2.2.2 Torsion in FRP wrapped R.C beam
Deifalla and Ghobarah[16] developed analytical model for the case of the RC
beams strengthened in torsion. The model was based on the basis of the modied
compression eld theory, the hollow tube analogy, and the compatibility at the cor-
ner of the cross section. Several modications were implemented to be able to take
into account the eect of various parameters including various strengthening schemes
FRP contribution, and dierent failure modes. The model predicted the FRP strain
and the failure mode.
Mohammadizadeh and Fadaee[17] carried out experimental investigation of the
torsional strengthening of the High- Strength Concrete (HSC) beams using Carbon-
Fiber-Reinforced-Polymers (CFRP). A total of seven beams were tested. Three beams
were designated as reference specimens and four beams were strengthened using
CFRP wrapping of dierent conguration and then tested. The variables considered
in the experimental study included dierent wrap congurations such as: U-wrapping,
full and strip wrapping, the eect of the number of CFRP layers and the inuence of
anchors in U-wrapped test beams. The reference and the strengthened beams were
subjected to pure torsional moment. The load, the twist angle of the beams and the
strains at longitudinal, transverse re-bars and CFRP were recorded up to failure. In
the current study, the ductility ratios and their increased percentage were investi-
gated using two dierent methods. In further study, increasing the cracking, yield
and ultimate torsional capacity of the strengthened beams was evaluated. Finally,
experimental results were compared with several analytical results.
Panchacharaml and Belarbil[1] presented behavior and performance of reinforced
concrete members strengthened with externally bonded Glass FRP (GFRP) sheets
subjected to pure torsion.The variables considered in the experimental study included
the ber orientation, the number of beam faces strengthened (three or four), number
of FRP layers used, and the inuence of anchors in U-wrapped test beams. Experi-
mental results revealed that externally bonded GFRP sheets can signicantly increase
both the cracking and the ultimate torsional capacity. Predicted strengths of the test
beams using the proposed theoretical models were found to be in good agreement
with the experimental results.
Ameli and Ronagh[18] introduced an analytical method for evaluation of the tor-
sional capacity of FRP strengthened RC beams.In this method, the interaction of
diiferent components was allowed by fullling equilibrium and compatibility condi-
tions throughout the loading regime, while the ultimate torque of the beam was
calculated similarly to the well-known compression eld theory.
Hii and Muhaidi[19] briey discussed the experimental work in an overall investi-
gation of torsional strengthening of solid and box-section reinforced concrete beams
with externally bonded carbon ber-reinforced polymer (CFRP).Six carbon ber-
reinforced polymer (CFRP) strengthened medium-scale thin-walled box section and
solid RC beams were tested. Among the main parameters investigated were dierent
CFRP strip spacings and layers. One of the more sophisticated design methods for
torsional strengthening could be found in b Bulletin 14 (2001). The design method
was evaluated against a database of existing experimental data.
2.3 Summary
In this chapter, review of relevant literature is carried out. The review of literature
includes research on various parameters related to torsion in R.C. and FRP wrapped
R.C. beams. Various theories to predict angle of twist, torsion resistance of con-
crete beam and cracking pattern are reviewed. This review helps to develop basic
understanding of behaviour of R.C. beam subjected to torsion.
Chapter 3
Torsional behaviour of concrete
beam
3.1 General
Torsional moment acts on the member according to the members arrangement in
the structure, shape of the cross section and loading condition. Generally in torsion,
there is a little margin of strength from initial cracking to failure, and drop of torsional
stiness just after cracking is remarkable. If the member is not suitably reinforced, it
fails sometimes at the rst crack. Torsion acting on the reinforced concrete member
changes greatly the equilibrium mechanism especially after cracking, and it is harmful
to safety of the member from the aspects of strength and deformation.
The study of behaviour of the reinforced concrete members under torsion is broadly
divided into three categories. They are Space truss analogy method, skew bending
theory and the method based on the experimental results.
3.2 Torsion in Plain Concrete Members
Consider a prismatic member subjected to equal and opposite torques T at the ends.
If the material is elastic according to, St. Venants torsion theory torsional shear
18
CHAPTER 3. TORSIONAL BEHAVIOUR OF CONCRETE BEAM 19
stresses are distributed over the cross section, as shown in Fig.3.1b. The largest shear
stresses occur at the middle of the wide faces. If the material deforms inelastically,
as expected for concrete, the stress distribution is closer to that shown by the dashed
line[20].
Figure 3.1: stresses caused by torsion
Shear stresses act on an element in pairs at or near the wide surface, as shown in
Fig.3.1a. This state of stress corresponds to equal tension and compression stresses
on the faces of an element at 45
to the direction of shear. These inclined tension

stresses are of the same kind as those caused by transverse shear. However, in the
case of torsion, since the torsional shear stresses are of opposite sign on opposing
sides of the member (Fig.3.1b), the corresponding diagonal tension stresses are at
right angles to each other (Fig.3.1a).
When the diagonal tension stresses exceed the tensile resistance of the concrete, a
crack forms at some weaker location and spreads immediately across the beam. The
value of torque corresponding to the formation of this diagonal crack is known as the
cracking torque T
cr
.
There are several ways for analyzing members subjected to torsion. The nonlinear
stress distribution shown by the dotted lines in Fig.3.1b, lends itself to the use of thin-
walled tube, space truss analogy. Using this analogy, the shear stresses are treated
as constant over a nite thickness t around the periphery of the member, allowing
the beam to be represented by an equivalent tube, as shown in Fig.3.2. Within the
walls of the tube, torque is resisted by the shear ow q, which has units of force per
unit length. In the analogy, q is treated as a constant around the perimeter of the
tube. As shown in Fig.3.2, the resultants of the individual components of shear ow
are located within the walls of the tube and act along lengths y
o
in the vertical walls
and along lengths x
0
in the horizontal walls, with y
0
and x
0
measured at the center
of the walls.
Figure 3.2: Thin- walled tube under torsion
The relationship between the applied torque and the shear ow can be obtained
by summing the moments about the axial centerline of the tube[20],
T =
2qx
0
y
0
2
(3.1)
Where, the two terms on the right-hand side represent the contributions of the hori-
zontal and vertical walls to the resting torque, respectively. Thus,
T = 2qx
0
y
0
(3.2)
The product x
0
y
0
represents the area enclosed by the shear ow path A
0
, giving
T = 2qx
0
A
0
(3.3)
For a tube wall thickness t, the unit shear stress acting within the walls of the
tube is,
=
T
2A
0
t
(3.4)
Where,
= shear stress
3.3 Torsion in Reinforced Concrete Members
When members are adequately reinforced, as shown in Fig.3.3a, the concrete cracks
at a torque equal to or only somewhat larger than in an un-reinforced member. The
cracks form a spiral pattern, as shown in Fig.3.3b. So the torsional resistance of the
concrete drops to about half of that of the un-cracked member, the remainder being
now resisted by reinforcement.
Figure 3.3: (a) Reinforced concrete beam with torsion reinforcement (b)Reinforced
concrete beam in cracks
Figure 3.4: Torque-twist curve in reinforced concrete member
This redistribution of internal resistance is reected in the torque-twist curve
(Fig.3.4), which at the cracking torque shows continued twist at constant torque
until the internal forces have been redistributed from the concrete to the steel. As
the section approaches ultimate strength, the concrete outside the reinforcing cage
cracks and begins to spall o, contributing progressively less to the torsional capacity
of the member[20].
Torsion in reinforced concrete member can be found out by methods like Space
truss analogy and Skew- bending theory.
3.4 Space truss analogy
The space truss theory for torsion constitutes a landmark in the research on torsion
in concrete structures. The truss theory for torsion, similar to that for shear, was
rst enunciated by Rausch in 1929. In this theory, the inclination of the concrete
diagonals was assumed to be 45
similar to that assumed by Ritter and Morsch in

the truss analogy for shear.
The space truss theory of torsion visualizes a reinforced concrete member as a
space truss formed by the concrete shell and the reinforcing cage. The concrete core
is assumed to be ineective in resisting torsion. The concrete shell on each face
together with the reinforcement on that face constitutes a plane frame. At each joint
of the space frame there are six member forces as shown in Fig.3.5 which keep the
joint in equilibrium.
Figure 3.5: Space truss
3.4.1 Assumptions in the space truss theory
The twisting moment is assumed to be constant over the entire length of the
member. The cross-sections of the member are assumed to be free to warp so
that the warping torsion is absent.
The magnitude of the applied torque is assumed to be greater than the cracking
torque but smaller than the torque causing yielding of the reinforcement.
In the post cracking range the tensile strength of concrete is ignored.
The concrete diagonals are assumed to be adequately supported on the longi-
tudinal bars at the corners of the cross-section. The problem of corner spalling
is neglected.
The shear resisted by concrete in the compression zone and that by the dowel
action of the reinforcement are ignored.
The steel and the concrete assumed to obey Hookes law.
3.4.2 Rectangular section with Distributed Longitudinal Re-
inforcement
Consider rectangular section in which the longitudinal reinforcement is distributed all
over the length of any particular side of the section. Fig.3.6(a) shows the wall of the
section in which the longitudinal and the transverse (stirrup) reinforcements form a
rectangular mesh. Consider a unit length PQ of a diagonal crack inclined at an angle
with the longitudinal axis of the member as shown in Fig.3.6(a).
Figure 3.6: Side face of rectangular section
As torsion produces a state of pure shear, the principal tensile and compressive
stresses inclined at an angle 45
with the longitudinal axis are of the same magnitude

as the intensity of torsional shear. Hence the intensity of tension across the diago-
nal crack and the compression along the diagonal crack may be taken equal to the
intensity of torsional shear. Fig.3.6(b) shows the compression diagonal supplied by
concrete between the cracks PQ and RS, each of unit length. As the diagonal tension
across these cracks is Q, the diagonal compression carried by the concrete diagonal
is also equal to Q. The resultant longitudinal and transverse forces F
l
and F
s
in the
reinforcing bars intersected by the concrete diagonal are in equilibrium with the di-
agonal compression Q carried by the concrete diagonal. Hence for the equilibrium of
horizontal forces[3],
Qcos = F
l
=
sin
l
a
l
f
l
(3.5)
Qsin = F
s
=
cos
s
a
s
f
s
(3.6)
Where,
l = spacing of longitudinal bars
a
l
= area of one longitudinal bar
f
l
= stress in longitudinal bar
s= spacing of stirrups
a
s
= area of one leg of stirrups
f
s
= stress in stirrups steel
from Eqn.3.1
Q =
T
2A
0
=
a
l
f
l
l
tan (3.7)
From Eqn.3.2
Q =
T
2A
0
=
a
s
f
s
s
cot (3.8)
As the area of cross-section of the concrete compression diagonal is (t
d
cos sin ),
the compressive stress in the diagonal fd is given by the equation,
f
d
=
Q
t
d
cos sin
(3.9)
if the cross sectional area of the longitudinal bars and their spacing are the same in
all the walls of the box section,
a
l
l
=
A
l
uo
(3.10)
where,
A
l
= area of longitudinal steel.
u
0
= perimeter of the shear ow
From eqn. 3.3
Q =
T
2A
0
=
A
l
f
l
u
0
tan (3.11)
Combining Eqn.3.4 and Eqn.3.7, the applied torque T may be expressed as
T
2A
0
T
2A
0
=
a
s
f
s
cot
s
a
l
f
l
tan
u
0
T
2
4A
2
0
=
a
s
f
s
s
a
l
f
l
u
0
T = 2A
0
a
s
f
s
s
a
l
f
l
u
0
[3] (3.12)
Combining Eqn.3.4 and Eqn.3.7
a
s
f
s
s
cot =
a
l
f
l
u
0
tan
cot
1
tan
=
a
s
f
s
s
a
l
f
l
u
0
cot
2
=
a
s
f
s
s
a
l
f
l
u
0
(3.13)
If all reinforcement crossing the crack yields, Eqn.3.4, Eqn.3.7 and Eqn.3.8 can be
written as
Q =
T
2A
0
=
a
s
f
sy
s
cot (3.14)
Q =
T
2A
0
=
a
l
f
ly
l
tan (3.15)
T
u
= 2A
0
a
l
f
ly
u
0
a
s
f
sy
s
(3.16)
Where,
f
ly
= yield stress of longitudinal steel
f
sy
= yield stress of stirrups steel
T
u
= ultimate torque
Combining Eq.(3.14) and (3.15).the inclination of the diagonal crack may be deter-
mined from the equation,
cot
2
=
a
s
f
sy
s
a
l
f
ly
u
0
(3.17)
3.4.3 Rectangular section with Unsymmetrical Longitudinal
Steel
As torsion is usually associated with exure, the longitudinal reinforcement near the
top and bottom faces is generally unequal. In the case of sagging bending moment
coexisting with torsion, the longitudinal steel near the bottom face is larger than that
near the top face.
Let a
lt
,a
lb
and a
lv
be the areas of cross section and l
t
,l
b
and l
v
be the spacings of
the longitudinal bars near the top. bottom and vertical faces respectively. The cross
sectional area a
s
and the spacing s of the stirrups is of course the same on all faces.
in this case the torsional strengths of the plane trusses near the top, bottom and
vertical faces are not the same.The Eqn.3.7 is applied to each one of the three plane
trusses provided the appropriate values of (
a
l
l
) are substituted into the equations. In
particular, using Eqn.3.16 the ultimate torques based on the torsional strengths of
the top, bottom and vertical plane trusses are given by the equations,
T
ut
= 2A
0
a
lt
f
lty
l
t
a
s
f
sy
s
(3.18)
T
ub
= 2A
0
a
lb
f
lby
l
b
a
s
f
sy
s
(3.19)
T
uv
= 2A
0
a
lv
f
lvy
l
v
a
s
f
sy
s
(3.20)
where, f
lty
, f
lby
, f
lvy
yield stresses of longitudinal bars near the top, bottom and
vertical faces respectively.
As the inclination of the concrete diagonals depend upon the eective volume ratio
of the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement in accordance with Eqn.3.17, the
inclination may be expected to be dierent on the top, bottom and vertical faces
if the terms
a
lt
f
lty
l
t
,
a
lb
f
lby
l
b
and
a
lv
f
lvy
l
v
are unequal.
3.5 Skew bending theory
The skew-bending theory was initially proposed by Lessig in 1958 (1959). Hsu (1968)
made a major contribution to the development of this theory as it presently stands.
He presented the expressions for evaluating the torsional strength of rectangular sec-
tions.
Figure 3.7: Failure surface of plain concrete beam
The basic approach of the skew-bending theory is that the failure of a rectangular sec-
tion in torsion occurs by bending about an axis as shown in Fig.3.7, which is parallel
to the wider face of the section and inclined at about 45
to the longitudinal axis of

the beam. The torsional strength of reinforced concrete members is contributed to by
both concrete T
c
and torsional reinforcement T
s
. But from the tests by Hsu (1968) on
hollow and solid rectangular beams. it was observed that the concrete core does not
contribute to the ultimate torsional strength. Later he concluded that the concrete
contribution T
c
was mainly due to the shear resistance of the diagonal concrete struts.
Based on this approach the torsional resistance is given by following Equations[6].
T
n
= T
c
+
t
x
1
y
1
A
0
f
sy
S
(3.21)
where,
T
c
=
x
2
y
3
(0.2
c
)
t
=
m
f
ly
f
sy
(1 + 0.2
y
1
x
1
) 1.6
x
1
= shorter centre to centre dimension of closed stirrups
y
1
= longer centre to centre dimension of closed stirrup
A
t
= area of one leg of a torsional closed stirrup
s = spacing of stirrups
f
ly
= yield strength of longitudinal bars
f
sy
= yield strength of closed stirrups
m = ratio of volume of longitudinal bars to volume of stirrups
m =
A
l
S
2A
t
(x
1
+ y
1
)
A
l
= cross-sectional area of longitudinal bars within the shear compression zone
3.6 Summary
Torsion in plain concrete member is discussed in this chapter. Space truss analogy
and skew bending theory are discussed in this chapter which is used to evaluate the
torsion resistance of Plain and R.C. beam. Also torsion resistance of rectangular
section with symmetrical and unsymmetrical reinforcement is discussed.
Chapter 4
FE Modeling of Plain and R.C.
Beam using ANSYS
4.1 General
ANSYS is a general purpose nite element modeling package for solving a wide variety
of problems numerically . These problems include: static/dynamic structural analysis
(both linear and non-linear), heat transfer and uid problems, as well as acoustic
and electro-magnetic problems. ANSYS able to nd out nodal displacements, stress
variation, cracking and crushing of concrete, reactions etc, In general, a nite element
solution may be divided into the following three stages.
1. Preprocessing: Dening the problem
2. Solution: Assigning loads, constraints and solving
3. Post processing: Further processing and interpretation of the results
30
CHAPTER 4. FE MODELING OF PLAIN AND R.C. BEAM USING ANSYS 31
4.2 Element Types
Usually solid element is used to model concrete and link element is used to model
reinforcement.
4.2.1 Solid65 Element Description
Generally the Solid65 concrete brick element which is used for 3D modeling of con-
crete with or without reinforcing bars (rebar). This element has eight nodes with
three degrees of freedom per node i.e.translations in the global x, y and z directions.
The element is capable of handling plastic deform action, cracking in three orthogonal
directions and crushing. It has also the ability to model the reinforcement as equiv-
alent smeared within the element with the proper orientation. The size of element
adopted for this study is 252525 mm. The element is shown in Fig.4.1.
Figure 4.1: Solid65 Geometry
4.2.2 Link 8 Element Description
LINK8 is a spar element which may be used in a variety of engineering applications.
This element can be used to model trusses, sagging cables, links, springs, reinforce-
ment etc. The 3-D spar element is a uniaxial tension-compression element with three
degrees of freedom at each node i.e. translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions.
As in a pin-jointed structure, no bending of the element is considered. Plasticity,
creep, swelling, stress stiening, and large deection capabilities can be considered
with this element. The element is shown in Fig.4.2.
Figure 4.2: Link8 Element Geometry
4.2.3 Solid45 Element Description
SOLID45 is used for the 3-D modeling of solid structures. The element is dened by
eight nodes having three degrees of freedom at each node: translations in the nodal
x, y, and z directions. The element has plasticity, creep, swelling, stress stiening,
large deection, and large strain capabilities. The geometry, node locations, and the
Figure 4.3: Solid45 Geometry
coordinate system for this element are shown in Fig.4.3. The element is dened by
eight nodes and the orthotropic material properties. Orthotropic material directions
correspond to the element coordinate directions.
4.3 Material properties
For modeling concrete element parameters shown in Table.4.1 are dened.
Modulus of Elasticity = 5000
f
ck
= 25000 N/mm
2
Poisons Ratio = 0.3
compressive uniaxial stress-strain relationship for the concrete model is obtained using
the following equations to compute the multilinear isotropic stress-strain curve for the
concrete shown in Fig.4.4. (MacGregor 1992)[4]
f =
E
c
1 + (

0
)
2
(4.1)
0
=
2f
c
E
c
(4.2)
E
c
=
f
(4.3)
Where,
f = stress at any strain , MPa
= strain at any stress
0
= strain at ultimate compressive strength f
c
Table 4.1: Stress strain curve
Strain Stress (MPa)
0.00025 6.15
0.0005 11.76
0.00075 16.44
0.001 20
0.00125 22.47
0.0015 24
0.00175 24.78
0.002 25
Figure 4.4: Stress strain curve
4.4 Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Beam
The step by step procedure to model R.C. beam subjected to torsion using ANSYS
is as follows:
1) Open the ANSYS Program
2) Give example a Title
Utility Menu > File > Change Title ... /title, R.C beam
3) Dene Element Type.
Preprocessor > Element Type > Add/Edit/Delete...
Figure 4.5: denation of link 8 element
For this problem the LINK8 (3D spar) element is used as shown in Fig.4.5. This
element has 3 degrees of freedom (translation along the X ,Y and Z axis).
4) Dene Real Constants as shown in Fig.4.6
Preprocessor > Real Constants... > Add...
In the Real Constants for LINK8 window, enter the following geometric properties
Figure 4.6: denation of Real constant
Figure 4.7: Area of link 8 element
as shown in Fig.4.7:
a) Cross-sectional area : 52.27mm
2
b) Initial Strain: 0
This denes an element with a solid circular bar.
5) Dene Element Material Properties
Preprocessor > Material Props > Material Models > Structural > Linear > Elastic
> Isotropic
Figure 4.8: Material properties
Window that appears, enter the following geometric properties for steel as shown
in Fig.4.8
Youngs modulus EX: 2E5N/mm
2
Poissons Ratio PRXY: 0.3
6) Create Nodes as shown in Fig.4.9
Preprocessor > Modeling > Create > Nodes > In Active CS
Figure 4.9: Node denation
7) Create Elements
Preprocessor > Modeling > Create > Auto Numbered > Thru Nodes
Join all nodes one by one and generate elements as shown in Fig.4.10
Figure 4.10: Model of Reinforcement cage
8) Dene Element Type for concrete section as shown in Fig.4.11.
Figure 4.11: Element type
9) Dene Real Constants as shown in Fig.4.12
Preprocessor > Real Constants... > Add.
Figure 4.12: Real constant
10) Create volume of concrete section as shown in Fig.4.13
Preprocessor > Modeling > create > volume > by block > by two corner..
Figure 4.13: concrete beam
11) Dene Element Material Properties for concrete
> Isotropic
E= 25000 N/mm
2
12) Dene Element Type. ( For steel plate )
13) Modeling of steel plate as shown in Fig.4.14
Preprocessor > Modeling > create > volume > by block > by dimensions.
Figure 4.14: concrete beam with steel plate
14) Dene Element Material Properties for steel
> Isotropic
Add new material
15) Glue volumes
Glue command is use to join two dierent volumes.
Preprocessor > Modeling > operate > Boolean > Glue > volumes
16) Assign material properties to concrete section as shown in Fig.4.15
Preprocessor > Meshing > Mesh Attributes > picked volumes
Select concrete beam.
Figure 4.15: Material properties of concrete beam
17) Meshing of concrete section as shown in Fig.4.16
Preprocessor > Meshing > Mesh tool
Figure 4.16: Dene mesh size
18) Merging Nodes to get connectivity between concrete and steel bar as shown in
Fig.4.17
Preprocessor > Numbering controls > Merge items
Figure 4.17: Node merging
19) Meshing of steel plates
Apply material properties to steel plates
Preprocessor > Meshing > Mesh Attributes > picked volumes
Select steel plates.
Finally concrete beam with meshing is shown in Fig.4.18
Figure 4.18: Meshed beam
Solution Phase: Assigning Loads and Solving
Open up the Solution menu (from the same ANSYS Main Menu).
20) Dene Analysis Type as shown in Fig.4.19
From the Solution Menu, select Analysis Type > New Analysis.
Figure 4.19: denation of analysis type
21) Set Solution Controls as shown in Fig.4.20
Select Solution > Analysis Type > Soln Control..
Select Solution > Analysis Type > Soln Control > Nonlinear. as Shown in Fig.4.21
Figure 4.20: Solution control window
Figure 4.21: Solution control for nonlinear analysis
22) Apply Constraints as shown in Fig.4.22
Solution > Dene Loads > Apply > Structural > Displacement > on areas
Figure 4.22: Constraints denation
23) Dene load as shown in Fig.4.23
Solution > Dene Loads > Apply > Structural > force > on node
Figure 4.23: Load denation
24) Solution (Refer Fig.4.24
Solution > solve > current LS
Figure 4.24: Solution control
25) Post processing, Viewing the Results
Deformation
In the General Post processing menu > select Plot Results > Deformed Shape.
The window will appear as shown in Fig.4.25
Figure 4.25: Deformed shape
4.5 Analysis
Static analysis is selected as analysis option and the analysis is carried out for the
applied load system. From result le, torsion, Displacement in X direction and Y di-
rection are found out. From ANSYS results displacement contour and stress contour
are obtained as shown in Fig.
4.5.1 Plain concrete beam (PC)
Length of beam = 1.3m
Cross-section = 150mm 150mm
Grade of concrete = M25
Modulus of elasticity for concrete = 5000
f
ck
= 25000 N/mm
2
Modulus of elasticity for steel = 200000 N/mm
2
Figure 4.26: Deformed shape of cross section
Figure 4.27: Nodal displacement
Displacement contour is shown in Fig.4.27
Figure 4.28: Shear stress in YZ plane
Fig.4.28 show the maxim shear stress is developed on the wider face of the beam.
Angle of twist is evaluated from the displacement in X and Y direction as shown
in Fig.4.29
Figure 4.29: cross section
Angle of twist from geometry can be evaluated from ,
= tan
l
(75 + Y )
(75 X)
From the two equal and opposite load appied at the corners, torsion moment is
calculated. From the displacements of cross section in X and Y directions twist of
the section is obtained.
Table 4.2 shows torsional moment and twist for plain concrete beam.
Torsional moment versus angle of twist is shown in Fig.4.30.
Table 4.2: Torsion moment and Angle of twist for PCC beam
Time sec T (kNm) Disp-x (mm) Disp-y(mm) Twist(Rad/m)
0.05 0.12 0.0017 0.00161 0.00017
0.1 0.24 0.034 0.0323 0.00034
0.175 0.42 0.0597 0.0565 0.000596
0.287 0.69 0.0982 0.0929 0.00098
0.363 0.872 0.124 0.117 0.00124
0.397 0.954 0.136 0.128 0.00136
0.412 0.991 0.142 0.134 0.00141
0.419 1.007 0.144 0.136 0.00144
0.423 1.015 0.1453 0.13719 0.001448
0.424 1.017 0.145 0.137 0.00145
Figure 4.30: Torque Vs Twist for PCC
4.5.2 R.C. Beam
Specimen-1(RO):
Longitudinal Reinforcement = 4-10mm#
Transverse Reinforcement= 8mm# @ 150mm c/c
The R.C. beam with meshing is shown in Fig.4.31. Displacement contours and shear
stresses in various planes are shown in Fig.4.32 to 4.35
Figure 4.31: R.C. beam
Figure 4.32: Displacement contour
Figure 4.33: Shear Stresses in XY plane
Figure 4.34: Shear Stresses in YZ plane
Figure 4.35: Shear Stresses in XZ plane
Table 4.3 shows torsional moment and angle of twist per meter length for R.C.
beam. Fig.4.36 represents graph of torsion versus angle of twist per meter length.
Table 4.3: Torsion moment and Angle of twist for R.C. beam specimen-1
Time sec T(kNm) Disp-x (mm) Disp-y (mm) Twist (Rad/m)
0.05 0.12 0.01491 0.014126 0.00015
0.1 0.24 0.029833 0.02826 0.0003
0.175 0.42 0.052242 0.049474 0.00053
0.288 0.692 0.08591 0.081326 0.00086
0.456 1.095 0.13653 0.12918 0.00137
0.709 1.702 0.21275 0.20111 0.00213
0.84 2.016 0.25335 0.239 0.00253
0.856 2.055 0.25827 0.24363 0.00258
0.86 2.064 0.25926 0.24456 0.00259
0.861 2.067 0.25956 0.24485 0.00259
0.862 2.069 0.25987 0.24514 0.00259
0.899 2.158 0.9266 0.89345 0.00934
Figure 4.36: Torque Vs Twist for specimen-1
Specimen-2(RH):
Displacement contours and shear stresses are shown in Fig.4.37 to 4.39
Figure 4.39: Intensity of stresses
beam.
0.05 0.225 0.0128 0.0121 0.000128
0.1 0.45 0.0256 0.0242 0.000255
0.175 0.788 0.0448 0.0424 0.000447
0.288 1.294 0.0736 0.0697 0.000735
0.456 2.053 0.116937 0.1106 0.00117
0.57 2.566 0.1469 0.1387 0.00146
0.571 2.57 0.15 0.1409 0.00149
0.572 2.575 0.150232 0.146 0.00152
0.574 2.581 0.153 0.158 0.00159
0.576 2.586 0.63892 0.622 0.00646
Specimen-3(SO):
beam.
0.05 0.18 0.015 0.0142 0.00015
0.1 0.36 0.03 0.0284 0.0003
0.175 0.63 0.0526 0.05 0.000525
0.288 1.0368 0.0865 0.0818 0.000863
0.456 1.6416 0.137 0.13 0.00137
0.709 2.5524 0.215 0.202 0.002138
0.736 2.6496 0.223 0.21 0.00222
0.748 2.6928 0.227 0.214 0.00226
0.753 2.7108 0.229 0.215 0.00228
0.756 2.7216 0.229 0.216 0.002282
0.757 2.7252 0.23 0.216 0.00229
0.759 2.7324 1.285 1.245 0.01297
Specimen-4(SH):
beam.
0.05 0.27 0.0193 0.0182 0.00019
0.1 0.54 0.0386 0.0365 0.00038
0.175 0.945 0.0676 0.0639 0.00067
0.283 1.5282 0.111 0.105 0.00111
0.456 2.4624 0.177 0.167 0.00176
0.508 2.7432 0.197 0.186 0.00196
0.518 2.7972 0.202 0.19 0.00201
0.5189 2.80206 0.206 0.193 0.00205
0.5198 2.80692 0.2061 0.1934 0.00205
0.5214 2.81556 0.207 0.1939 0.00206
0.5236 2.82744 0.208 0.1948 0.00206
0.525 2.835 0.2082 0.1953 0.00207
1 5.4 0.926 0.9 0.00936
Figure 4.46: Torque Vs Twist for various R.C. beams
Fig.4.46 shows torsion versus angle of twist per meter length for various R.C.
beams.
Table 4.7 shows ultimate torque per meter length for R.C. beams.
Table 4.7: Ultimate torque for R.C. specimens
Specimen Ultimate Torque (kNm)
1 2.158
2 2.586
3 2.732
4 2.835
4.6 Summary
In this chapter FE modeling of plain concrete and R.C. beam is discussed. From
analysis torsional moment and angle of twist is evaluated. Also displacement and
shear stresses are presented in this chapter.
Chapter 5
Experimental Programme
5.1 General
The experimental work carried out in this project comprises Torsion test on plain,
R.C. and GFRP wrapped R.C. beams. The objective of experimental work is to
study torsional resistance, angle of twist and crack pattern of beams. This chapter
presents the torsion tests, including details of test specimens, experimental parame-
ters, preparation of specimens, instrumentation, test setup, and testing procedure.
5.2 Preparation of specimen
RC beams are cast with M25 grade of concrete. Steel reinforcement of grade Fe 415
is used. For casting the beam specimen formwork of steel plates is prepared as shown
in Fig.5.1a. Oil is applied inside the formwork before casting of each beam specimen
to avoid sticking of concrete on formwork. After oil application, concrete of selected
proportion is prepared and poured inside the formwork as shown in Fig.5.1b. The
proportion of various ingredients of concrete is shown in Table.5.1. After 24 hours of
casting, formwork is removed and the specimens are kept for the curing for 28 days
as shown in Fig.5.2.
60
CHAPTER 5. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME 61
Table 5.1: Concrete mix proportioning
Concrete grade Cement Sand Grit Kapchi W/c ratio
M25 1 1.80 1.96 0.84 0.5
Figure 5.1: a) Formwork for casting of specimens (b) Poured concrete beam
Figure 5.2: Specimens in curing
5.2.1 Specimen details
Total 22 numbers of specimen are casted with dimension 150mm150mm1300mm
as shown in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2: Details of specimens
5.3 Wrapping with GFRP
There are various strengthening systems available for R.C. beams. However due to
well known advantages of GFRP wrapping, it is considered for the strengthening of
R.C. beams in the present investigation.
Procedure of wrapping the beams after the competition of curing is
1) Surface preparation
2) Application of Primer coat
3) Application of Putty
4) Application of Saturant
5) Wrapping of GFRP sheet
Surface preparation
Concrete surface is properly grounded to provide smooth and even surface for GFRP
sheet during wrapping. Corners are rounded with a surface smoothing grinder. After
that the beam is cleaned from dirt.
Application of Primer coat
Primer coat gives good and smooth nishing over the surface. Primer coat is made
from the base and hardener. The base and hardener are mixed together in 100 (Base):
50 (Hardener) parts. Primer is applied on the beam using hand brush. After appli-
cation of primer beam surface is allowed to harden for 6 hours as shown in Fig.5.3
Figure 5.3: Application of Primer coat
Application of Putty
Putty is applied over the concrete surface to make whole surface leveled. Putty is
made from two dierent materials. Putty contains Part- A and Part-B which are
mixed together in 100(B):75(H) proportions as shown in Fig.5.4a. Part-A is base
and Part-B is hardener. Putty is applied over rough surface of specimen as shown in
Fig.5.4b.
Figure 5.4: Application of Putty
Application of Saturant
Saturant is made from two dierent parts, like base and hardener. The base and
hardener are mixed together in 100 (Base): 40 (Hardener) parts as shown in Fig.5.5.
Figure 5.5: Application of saturant
Wrapping of GFRP sheet
The GFRP sheet is cut before application of saturant into required sizes using cut-
ters. After application of the saturant GFRP sheet is wrapped around the beams as
shown in Fig.5.6. Care is taken during wrapping to keep bers in proper direction so
that they can give proper connement eects at the time of loading. The property of
GFRP is shown in Table.5.3.
Table 5.3: Properties of GFRP sheet(As per D -BASF data sheet)
Properties E-Glass,900 gsm
Modulus of elasticity 73 kN/mm
2
Tensile strength 3400 kN/mm
2
Total weight of sheet 900 g/m
2
Density 2.6 g/cm
2
Thickness 0.342 mm
Figure 5.6: Wrapping with dierent pattern
5.4 Test setup
Test setup is fabricated to apply torsion moment on plain and R.C. beam. Test setup
consist of box section prepared from angles, ISMB 150mm beam and curvature sup-
ports shown in Fig.5.7.
Figure 5.7: Test setup
Various components of test setup are shown in Fig.5.8.
Figure 5.8: Components of test setup
5.4.1 Test Procedure
Total 22 beams are tested on Universal testing machine (UTM) in concrete technol-
ogy laboratory. Arrangement of beam on test setup is shown in Fig.5.9.
Figure 5.9: Arrangement of beam on test setup
In the test setup two box sections are used which is act as a lever arm. This box
sections are prepared from steel angle section. On UTM two curvature support are
placed and on which concrete beam is placed. Lever arm is put on the concrete beam
and is bolted with bottom curvature plate so that beam can rotate. On both lever
arm ISMB150 steel beam is placed. From UTM central point load is applied. So load
will be transfer to both the lever arm and beam will subjected to pure torsion moment.
5.4.2 Measurement of Angle of Twist
Deection dial gauge are used to measure the angle of twist. Dial gauges are placed
in such a way that it touched point at bottom end of lever arm as shown in Fig.5.10.
From displacement of lever arm and simple geometry angle of twist is found out as
shown in Fig.5.11.
Figure 5.10: Arrangement of dial gauges
Figure 5.11: Measurement of Angle of Twist
As shown in Fig.5.11 torque and angle of twist can be evaluated from geometry.
Torque = (
P
2
a) 2(kNm)
Angle of twist() = [tan
l
(
a
y
)] 2(Degree)
5.5 Summary
The details about the casting, curing and procedure of GFRP wrapping are covered in
this chapter. Testing procedure and measurement also covered in this chapter. After
conducting Torsion test the results for dierent beams are presented in chapter6.
Chapter 6
Results and Discussion
6.1 General
The results of pure torsion test on plain concrete (PC) beams, reinforced concrete
(R.C.) beams and GFRP wrapped R.C. beams are presented in this chapter. The
Chapter deals with comparison of results in terms of torsional moment and angle of
twist evaluated for various specimens. Ultimate torque, angle of twist, failure shape
and crack pattern are compared for plain, R.C. and GFRP wrapped beams.
6.2 Details of Beam Specimens
Details of 22 specimens are presented in chapter5. The designation of various speci-
mens are shown in Table.6.1.
Table 6.1: Designation of beams
70
CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 71
There are two specimens in each category. The results of torque and twist are
averaged from both the specimens and are presented in following sections.
6.3 Results of Individual Specimens
Experimental results in terms of torsional moment (kNm) and angle of twist (Rad/m)
for all specimens are presented in tabular form. The graph of average torsion versus
average angle of twist is ploted for each category of specimen.
Specimen PCC1 and PCC2
Table 6.2: Torque and Twist for specimen PCC
Specimen1 (PCC1) Specimen1 (PCC2) Average results
Torque Twist Torque Twist Torque Twist
(kNm) (Rad/m) (kNm) (Rad/m) (kNm) (Rad/m)
0.35 0.00043 0.24 0.00066 0.295 0.000545
0.47 0.00062 0.47 0.001 0.47 0.00081
0.71 0.00081 0.71 0.0016 0.71 0.001205
0.94 0.0014 0.94 0.0022 0.94 0.0018
1.18 0.0018 1.18 0.0029 1.18 0.00235
1.41 0.0021 1.33 0.0038 1.37 0.00295
1.62 0.0029
Figure 6.1: Torque Vs Twist for Specimen PCC
Figure 6.2: Failure mode of specimen PCC
Observations: Crack formation in plain concrete beam is approximate at 45
to
the longitudinal axis. The sudden failure is occurs at ultimate torque as shown in
Fig.6.2. This indicates brittle failure.
Specimen RO1 and RO2
Table 6.3: Torque and Twist for specimen RO
Specimen1 (RO1) Specimen2 (RO2) Average results
0.24 0.0088 0.234 0.00164 0.237 0.00522
0.47 0.0094 0.47 0.00237 0.47 0.005885
0.71 0.0103 0.7 0.0035 0.705 0.0069
0.94 0.0111 0.94 0.00432 0.94 0.00771
1.18 0.0119 1.18 0.00543 1.18 0.008665
1.41 0.0129 1.41 0.0069 1.41 0.0099
1.65 0.0135 1.65 0.00785 1.65 0.010675
1.88 0.0141 1.88 0.00821 1.88 0.011155
2.12 0.0147 2.12 0.0089 2.12 0.0118
2.35 0.0153 2.35 0.0096 2.35 0.01245
2.42 0.0167 2.59 0.0103 2.505 0.0135
2.28 0.018 2.12 0.0112 2.2 0.0146
1.88 0.0193 1.88 0.0121 1.88 0.0157
1.48 0.022 1.55 0.0133 1.515 0.01765
Figure 6.3: Torque Vs Twist for Specimen RO
Figure 6.4: Failure mode of specimen RO
Observations: After reaching maximum torque the specimen fails at some lower
torque. The observed crack patterns of test specimen are shown in Fig.6.4. One
major crack initiated on the top and front side of the specimen.
Specimen RH1 and RH2
Table 6.4: Torque and Twist for specimen RH
Specimen1 (RH1) Specimen2 (RH2) Average Results
0.24 0.0039 0.24 0.0043 0.24 0.0041
0.47 0.0047 0.47 0.0057 0.47 0.0052
0.71 0.0068 0.71 0.0061 0.71 0.00645
0.94 0.008 0.94 0.0071 0.94 0.00755
1.18 0.0088 1.18 0.0077 1.18 0.00825
1.41 0.0097 1.41 0.0083 1.41 0.009
1.65 0.0103 1.65 0.0092 1.65 0.00975
1.88 0.0107 1.88 0.0098 1.88 0.01025
2.12 0.0112 2.12 0.0106 2.12 0.0109
2.35 0.0115 2.35 0.0113 2.35 0.0114
2.59 0.0122 2.59 0.0118 2.59 0.012
2.82 0.013 2.73 0.0126 2.775 0.0128
2.7 0.0216 2.35 0.0136 2.525 0.0176
2.19 0.0333
Figure 6.5: Torque Vs Twist for Specimen RH
Figure 6.6: Failure mode of specimen RH
Observations: The failure pattern is same as specimen RO. The torsion resistance
is increased due to increase in transverse reinforcement. The failure patterns of spec-
imens are shown in Fig.6.6.
Specimen SO1 and SO2
Table 6.5: Torque and Twist for specimen SO
Specimen1 (SO1) Specimen2 (SO2) Average Results
0.21 0.0009 0.240 0.0011 0.225 0.001
0.47 0.0021 0.47 0.0019 0.47 0.002
0.71 0.0037 0.71 0.0026 0.71 0.00315
0.94 0.0047 0.94 0.0031 0.94 0.0039
1.18 0.0052 1.18 0.00404 1.18 0.00462
1.41 0.0058 1.41 0.0049 1.41 0.00535
1.65 0.0063 1.65 0.0059 1.65 0.0061
1.88 0.007 1.88 0.0068 1.88 0.0069
2.12 0.0074 2.12 0.0077 2.12 0.00755
2.35 0.0077 2.35 0.0082 2.35 0.00795
2.54 0.0081 2.59 0.0087 2.565 0.0084
2.75 0.0087 2.82 0.0094 2.785 0.00905
2.59 0.0093 2.95 0.0098 2.77 0.00955
2.23 0.0101 2.35 0.0109 2.29 0.0105
Figure 6.7: Torque Vs Twist for Specimen SO
Figure 6.8: Failure mode of specimen SO
Observation: The inclined cracks are developed on all the four sides of the speci-
men as shown in Fig.6.8. Also corner spalling is observed in one specimens.
Specimen SH1 and SH2
Table 6.6: Torque and Twist for specimen SH
Specimen1 (SH1) Specimen2 (SH2) Average Results
0.47 0.0014 0.24 0.0014 0.355 0.0014
0.71 0.0019 0.47 0.0021 0.59 0.002
0.94 0.0032 0.71 0.0035 0.825 0.00335
1.18 0.0038 0.94 0.0047 1.06 0.00425
1.41 0.0043 1.18 0.0069 1.295 0.0056
1.65 0.0047 1.41 0.0082 1.53 0.00645
1.88 0.0051 1.65 0.0088 1.765 0.00695
2.12 0.0058 1.88 0.0097 2 0.00775
2.35 0.0061 2.12 0.0106 2.235 0.00835
2.59 0.0065 2.35 0.0115 2.47 0.009
2.82 0.0082 2.59 0.0123 2.705 0.01025
3.06 0.0101 2.82 0.0129 2.94 0.0115
3.13 0.0125 3.36 0.0142 3.245 0.01335
2.73 0.0133 2.59 0.015 2.66 0.01415
2.35 0.0142 2.35 0.0165 2.35 0.01535
2 0.0151
Figure 6.9: Torque Vs Twist for Specimen SH
Figure 6.10: Failure mode of specimen SH
Observations: Due to increase the area of longitudinal steel and reduced the spac-
ing of stirrups torsion resistance is increased as shown in Fig.6.9. Failure pattern of
the specimen are shown in Fig.6.10.
Specimen PFTW1 and PFTW2
Table 6.7: Torque and Twist for specimen PFTW
Specimen1 (PFTW1) Specimen2 (PFTW2) Average Results
0.24 0.0025 0.21 0.0016 0.225 0.00205
0.47 0.0028 0.47 0.0031 0.47 0.00295
0.71 0.0031 0.71 0.0037 0.71 0.0034
0.94 0.0036 0.94 0.0044 0.94 0.004
1.18 0.004 1.18 0.0049 1.18 0.00445
1.41 0.0044 1.41 0.0054 1.41 0.0049
1.65 0.0045 1.65 0.0058 1.65 0.00515
1.88 0.0048 1.88 0.0062 1.88 0.0055
2.12 0.0054 2.12 0.007 2.12 0.0062
2.35 0.0062 2.35 0.0079 2.35 0.00705
2.59 0.0068 2.56 0.0085 2.575 0.00765
2.82 0.0073 2.82 0.0093 2.82 0.0083
3.06 0.0079 2.93 0.0105 2.995 0.0092
3.11 0.0088
2.82 0.0105
Figure 6.11: Torque Vs Twist for Specimen PFTW
Figure 6.12: Failure mode of PFTW
Observations: The plain concrete beams with full transverse FRP wrapping are
not failed suddenly FRP rupture is occur at ultimate torque as shown in Fig.6.12.
Specimen PSW1 and PSW2
Table 6.8: Torque and Twist for specimen PSW
Specimen1 (PSW1) Specimen2 (PSW2) Average Results
0.24 0.0012 0.24 0.0016 0.24 0.0014
0.47 0.0021 0.47 0.0021 0.47 0.0021
0.71 0.0026 0.71 0.0024 0.71 0.0025
0.94 0.003 0.94 0.0033 0.94 0.00315
1.18 0.0035 1.18 0.004 1.18 0.00375
1.41 0.0039 1.41 0.0046 1.41 0.00425
1.65 0.0043 1.65 0.0051 1.65 0.0047
1.88 0.0048 1.88 0.0055 1.88 0.00515
2.12 0.0054 2.12 0.0058 2.12 0.0056
2.35 0.0058 2.35 0.0066 2.35 0.0062
2.59 0.0061 2.59 0.0077 2.59 0.0069
2.74 0.0067 1.88 0.0091 2.31 0.0079
2.35 0.0082
Figure 6.13: Torque Vs Twist for Specimen PSW
Figure 6.14: Failure mode of specimen PSW
Observation: Failure is occurred between two strips shown in Fig.6.14 instead of
FRP rupture or debonding of FRP.
Specimen RFLW1 and RFLW2
Table 6.9: Torque and Twist for specimen RFLW
Specimen1 (RFLW1) Specimen2 (RFLW2) Average Results
0.21 0.0011 0.24 0.0024 0.225 0.00175
0.47 0.0024 0.47 0.003 0.47 0.0027
0.71 0.0032 0.71 0.0038 0.71 0.0035
0.94 0.0041 0.94 0.0041 0.94 0.0041
1.18 0.0045 1.18 0.0054 1.18 0.00495
1.41 0.0051 1.41 0.006 1.41 0.00555
1.65 0.006 1.65 0.0069 1.65 0.00645
1.88 0.0083 1.88 0.0076 1.88 0.00795
2.12 0.0088 2.12 0.0086 2.12 0.0087
2.35 0.0096 2.35 0.0093 2.35 0.00945
2.59 0.0099 2.59 0.0101 2.59 0.01
2.82 0.0106 2.82 0.0109 2.82 0.01075
3.06 0.011 3.06 0.0114 3.06 0.0112
3.31 0.0118 3.29 0.0126 3.3 0.0122
3.06 0.0139 3.53 0.0133 3.295 0.0136
2.3 0.0155 3.06 0.0141 2.68 0.0148
1.76 0.0164 2.82 0.0147 2.29 0.01555
Figure 6.15: Torque Vs Twist for Specimen RFLW
Figure 6.16: Failure mode of of specimen RFLW
Observations: FRP rupture is occurred near the corners in full longitudinal wrap-
ping shown in Fig.6.16. Inside wrapping inclined crack is observed.
Specimen RFTW1 and RFTW2
Table 6.10: Torque and Twist for specimen RFTW
Specimen1 (RFTW1) Specimen2 (RFTW2) Average Results
0.47 0.0018 0.24 0.0011 0.355 0.00145
0.71 0.0021 0.47 0.0022 0.59 0.00215
0.94 0.0023 0.71 0.0028 0.825 0.00255
1.18 0.0026 0.94 0.0053 1.06 0.00395
1.41 0.003 1.18 0.0058 1.295 0.0044
1.65 0.0032 1.41 0.0065 1.53 0.00485
1.88 0.0035 1.65 0.0071 1.765 0.0053
2.12 0.0046 1.88 0.0077 2 0.00615
2.35 0.0052 2.12 0.0083 2.235 0.00675
2.59 0.0062 2.35 0.0088 2.47 0.0075
2.82 0.0067 2.59 0.0094 2.705 0.00805
3.06 0.0071 2.82 0.0097 2.94 0.0084
3.29 0.0082 3.06 0.0104 3.175 0.0093
3.53 0.0093 3.29 0.0108 3.41 0.01005
3.76 0.0102 3.53 0.0116 3.645 0.0109
4 0.0112 3.76 0.0124 3.88 0.0118
4.23 0.0121 4 0.0129 4.115 0.0125
4.41 0.013 4.12 0.0136 4.265 0.0133
4 0.0139 3.76 0.0168 3.88 0.01535
3.64 0.0149 3.29 0.0192 3.465 0.01705
3.06 0.0173
Figure 6.17: Torque Vs Twist for Specimen RFTW
Figure 6.18: Failure mode of specimen RFTW
Observations: Due to full transverse FRP wrapping torque and twist are in-
creased. At ultimate torque debonding of FRP is occurred as shown in Fig.6.18.
When debonded portion of GFRP is removed inclined cracks are observed.
Specimen RSW1 and RSW2
Table 6.11: Torque and Twist for specimen RSW
Specimen1 (RSW1) Specimen2 (RSW2) Average Results
0.24 0.0014 0.24 0.0014 0.24 0.0014
0.47 0.0027 0.47 0.0028 0.47 0.00275
0.71 0.0038 0.71 0.0035 0.71 0.00365
0.94 0.0044 0.94 0.0046 0.94 0.0045
1.18 0.0051 1.18 0.0052 1.18 0.00515
1.41 0.0056 1.41 0.0059 1.41 0.00575
1.65 0.0061 1.65 0.0064 1.65 0.00625
1.88 0.0067 1.88 0.0073 1.88 0.007
2.12 0.007 2.12 0.0078 2.12 0.0074
2.35 0.0073 2.35 0.0086 2.35 0.00795
2.59 0.0076 2.59 0.0089 2.59 0.00825
2.82 0.0079 2.82 0.0092 2.82 0.00855
3.06 0.0082 3.06 0.0098 3.06 0.009
3.29 0.0086 3.29 0.0104 3.29 0.0095
3.53 0.0096 3.53 0.011 3.53 0.0103
3.76 0.0114 3.76 0.0121 3.76 0.01175
4.11 0.0128 3.06 0.0133 3.585 0.01305
3.88 0.0161
3.29 0.017
Figure 6.19: Torque Vs Twist for Specimen RSW
Figure 6.20: Failure mode of specimen RSW
Observations: The inclined crack between the vertical strips are observed as shown
in Fig.6.20. At same places debonding of GFRP sheet are also observed.
Specimen RDW1 and RDW2
Table 6.12: Torque and Twist for specimen RDW
Specimen1 (RDW1) Specimen2 (RDW2) Average Results
0.24 0.00087 0.24 0.0022 0.24 0.001535
0.47 0.0015 0.47 0.003 0.47 0.00225
0.71 0.0024 0.71 0.004 0.71 0.0032
0.94 0.0037 0.94 0.005 0.94 0.00435
1.18 0.0044 1.18 0.0058 1.18 0.0051
1.41 0.0053 1.41 0.0069 1.41 0.0061
1.65 0.0062 1.65 0.0078 1.65 0.007
1.88 0.0071 1.88 0.0088 1.88 0.00795
2.12 0.0078 2.12 0.0095 2.12 0.00865
2.35 0.0084 2.35 0.0101 2.35 0.00925
2.59 0.0089 2.59 0.012 2.59 0.01045
2.82 0.0093 2.82 0.0128 2.82 0.01105
3.06 0.0097 3.06 0.0131 3.06 0.0114
3.29 0.0103 3.29 0.0137 3.29 0.012
3.53 0.011 3.53 0.0149 3.53 0.01295
3.76 0.0117 3.76 0.0156 3.76 0.01365
4 0.0148 4 0.0163 4 0.01555
4.43 0.0153 4.12 0.017 4.275 0.01615
4 0.0164 3.76 0.0176 3.88 0.017
3.53 0.0168
Figure 6.21: Torque Vs Twist for Specimen RDW
Figure 6.22: Failure mode of specimen RDW
Observations: The cracks are formed normal to GFRP wrapping as shown in
Fig.6.22. Also debonding of GFRP sheet in both the specimens are observed.
6.4 Discussion
From the experimental investigation of 22 specimens following three comparisons are
discussed.
a) Eect of longitudinal and transverse reinforcement in R.C. beams.
b) Eect of GFRP wrapping on plain concrete beam.
c) Eect of GFRP wrapping on R.C. beams.
6.4.1 Eect of Longitudinal and Transverse Reinforcement
Figure 6.23: Torque Vs Twist curve for PCC and R.C. beam
Fig.6.23 shows Torque versus Angle of twist for plain and R.C. beams with dier-
ent longitudinal and transverse reinforcement. The plain concrete beams show brittle
failure. Longitudinal and transverse reinforcement improved torsional resistance and
concrete beam shows ductile behaviour.
Due to increase in longitudinal and transverse reinforcement torsion resistance is in-
creased. Also angle of twist is increased as shown in Fig6.23. The Torsion Vs Twist
graph becomes nonlinear due to cracking which reduces the torsional stiness.
Ultimate torque resisted by plain concrete and Reinforced concrete beams are
shown in Fig.6.24.
Figure 6.24: Ultimate torque for PCC and R.C. beam
When longitudinal steel is increased from 4-10mm dia. to 4-12mm dia. ultimate
torque is increased by 13.77%. When stirrups spacing is reduced from 150mm c/c to
100mm c/c, torsional resistance is increased by 8.38% (10mm dia. longitudinal steel)
and 13.86% (12mm dia. longitudinal steel). This indicates that increase in transverse
reinforcement is more eective in increasing torsional resistance of beam.
6.4.1.1 Comparison of Finite Element and Experimental Results
Nonlinear nite element analysis of plain concrete beam and R.C. beams with dier-
ent longitudinal and transverse reinforcement using ANSYS is presented in chapter 4.
The comparison of experimental results and nonlinear nite element analysis results
is shown in Fig.6.25. From comparison the variation of order 4% to 13% is observed.
In plain concrete the variation is 31%. Experimental results shows higher values com-
pared to nite element analysis results. The main reasons for dierence can be the
modelings of nonlinear material properties in ANSYS.
Figure 6.25: Comparison of FEM and Experimental results
6.4.2 Eect of GFRP wrapping on Torsional Resistance of
Plain concrete beams
Torque versus angle of twist behaviour for plain concrete beam and plain concrete
beam with GFRP wrapping is shown in Fig.6.26. It clearly indicates improvement in
torsional resistance of plain concrete beam.
The comparison of ultimate torsional moment for all the three plain concrete speci-
men is shown in Fig.6.27.
Full transverse wrapping of GFRP increases torsional resistance by 104%, while strip
wrapping increases torsional resistance by 80% in comparison with plain concrete
beam without wrapping. This indicates more eectiveness of full transverse wrap-
ping of GFRP. The angle of twist at failure also increased due to GFRP wrapping.
Figure 6.26: Torque Vs Twist curve for PCC and FRP wrapped PCC beam
Figure 6.27: Ultimate torque for PCC and FRP wrapped PCC beam
6.4.3 Eect of GFRP wrapping On Torsional Resistance of
R.C. beam
Figure 6.28: Torque Vs Twist curve for R.C. and GFRP wrapped R.C. beam
The angle of twist at various torque for R.C. beam and GFRP wrapped R.C.
beams is presented in Fig.6.28. All R.C. beams are having 4-10mm dia. longitudinal
reinforcement and 2legged- 8mm dia stirrups at 150mm c/c.
Dierent congurations of GFRP wrapping considered are Full longitudinal, full
transverse, vertical strip and diagonal strip. GFRP wrapping has increased torsional
resistance of R.C. beams.
The ultimate torsional moment resisted by all R.C. specimen are shown in Fig.6.29.
Figure 6.29: Ultimate torque for R.C. and GFRP wrapped R.C. beam
Full transverse GFRP wrapping has increased torsional resistance of R.C. beam
by 70.26%. The increase in torsional resistance of order 36.53%, 57.09% and 70.66%
is observed when longitudinal, vertical strip and diagonal strip GFRP wrapping is
applied on R.C. beams respectively.
This indicates more eectiveness of diagonal strip wrapping compared to other cong-
urations. Full longitudinal wrapping is the least eective. In other word when GFRP
wrapping is provided perpendicular to torsional cracking, maximum eectiveness can
be achieved.
The % increase in torsional resistance of plain concrete beam and R.C. beam us-
ing GFRP wrapping are shown in Fig.6.30 to 6.31 respectively.
Figure 6.30: % increase in Torsion resistance of GFRP wrapped PC beam
Figure 6.31: % increase in Torsion resistance of GFRP wrapped R.C. beam
6.5 Summary
Experimental investigation of GFRP wrapped plain concrete beams and reinforced
concrete beam under pure torsion is presented in this chapter. Eectiveness of dif-
ferent pattern of GFRP wrapping is also evaluated. It is observed that transverse
reinforcement improves torsional resistance. Transverse wrapping and diagonal strip
wrapping ( perpendicular to crack ) are more eective in torsion resistance.
Chapter 7
Summary and Conclusions
7.1 Summary
Torsion can be a signicant action in many structural members. In structural analysis
the eects of torsion are usually neglected and only bending, shear, and axial forces
are taken into account. Small torsional moments can raise considerable stresses and
so it can change the response of the whole structure. In some cases value of torsional
moment may be so large that it may elevates the principal tensile stress in the beam
and develops a crack that may cause an unexpected failure of the member.
In present study, space truss theory and skew-bending theory are discussed. Eect of
longitudinal and transverse reinforcement are considered and torsional resistance of
plain and R.C. beams are found out. Plain and R.C. beam are modeled using ANSYS
and nonlinear FE analysis is carried out. In ANSYS nonlinear properties of concrete
are applied and torque and twist are found. From FE analysis Torque versus twist
curve is obtained, for plain and R.C. beams.
In experimental work, an attempt is made to study the eect of GFRP wrapping
on torsional behavior of PCC and R.C. beams.
98
CHAPTER 7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 99
Total 22 beams are cast and tested under pure torsion. Out of 22 beams 10 beams are
cast with dierent category like PCC and R.C. In R.C. beams dierent longitudinal
reinforcement and transverse reinforcement are considered. Remaining 12 specimens
are wrapped with GFRP with dierent congurations. Two PCC beams are wrapped
with full transverse and strip GFRP wrapping. Another 8 R.C. beams are wrapped
with GFRP having dierent congurations like full longitudinal wrapping, full trans-
verse wrapping, strip wrapping and diagonal strip wrapping.
Testing of beams are carried out using UTM machine and specially fabricated at-
tachments for application of pure torsion. From load torsional moment is evaluated
and from displacement of lever arm angle of twist is evaluated. Crack pattern and
types of failure are observed. From the experimental work eect of GFRP on torsion
resistance is presented in this report.
7.2 Conclusions
Based on the study carried out in this project the following conclusions can be drawn.
Plain concrete beam:
From FE analysis it is observed that torque versus twist curve for plain concrete
beam is linear due to brittle failure is occurs.
From experiment also brittle failure is observed and crack at about 45
to the
longitudinal axis of beam is formed. This indicates principal tensile stress occurs
at 45
.
Reinforced concrete beam:
The initial cracks are developed on the top and front side of the specimen.
Torsion versus twist curve become nonlinear due to cracking which reduces the
torsional stiness.
When dia. of longitudinal reinforcement is increased from 10mm to 12mm
and spacing of transverse reinforcement keep constant, the torsion resistance is
increased by 13.77%.
When spacing of stirrups is reduced from 150mm c/c to 100mm c/c with longi-
tudinal reinforcement 4-10mm dia. bars, the torsion resistance is increased by
8.38%.
When spacing of stirrups is reduced from 150mm c/c to 100mm c/c with longi-
tudinal reinforcement 4-12mm dia. bars, the torsion resistance is increased by
13.86%.
To increase the torsion resistance of R.C. beam, transverse reinforcement is
more eective than longitudinal reinforcement.
Nonlinear nite element analysis shows 4% to 13% variation in ultimate torque
in comparison to experimental results.
GFRP wrapped plain concrete beam:
FRP rupture is occurred in full transverse wrapped PCC specimen. Due to
GFRP wrapping specimen is not failed suddenly and Strip wrapped specimens
failure is occurred between two strips.
Full transverse wrapping increases torsion resistance up to 104%. While Strip
wrapping increase torsion resistance up to 80%.
GFRP wrapped R.C. beam:
In full transverse wrapped R.C. beam, failure is occurred due to debonding of
FRP. Full transverse wrapped R.C. specimen shows increase in torsion resistance
up to 70%.
In Full longitudinal wrapped R.C. specimen failure is occurred due to FRP
rupture at corners and it increases torsion resistance up to 36%.
In vertical strip wrapped specimen inclined crack is occur between two strips.
Also Vertical strip wrapping increase torsion resistance up to 57%.
Debonding of FRP is occured in diagonal strip wrapped specimen. Diagonal
strip wrapping increase torsion resistance up to 70%. Diagonal strip wrapping
is more eective in torsion resistance.
7.3 Future scope of work
The present study is limited to eect of FRP wrapping on R.C. element under pure
torsion. The study can be extended to include following aspects.
Study can be carried out to study the eect of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer
(CFRP) wrapping on torsion resistance.
Experimental work can be carried out for beam subjected to combined torsion
and bending.
Similar study can be carried out on beam having hollow rectangular section.
Eect of various bers on torsion resistance can be studied.
Eect of bond properties between concrete and FRP sheet on torsional resis-
tance can be studied.
The compression and tension reinforcement are kept same in this study. So
more work can be extended to study the eect of varying tension and compres-
sion reinforcement.
Appendix A
List of Useful Websites
www.sciencedirect.com
www.asce.com
www.pdf-search-engine.com
www.albertaansys.com
www.elsevier.com
102
References
[1] Saravanan Panchacharam and Abdeldjelil Belarbi1. Torsional behavior of rein-
forced concrete beams strengthened with frp composites. First FIB Congress,
October 2002.
[2] Adam Csikos and Istvan Hegedns. Torsion in reinforced concrete beams. Techni-
cal report, Technical University of Budapest, Department of Reinforced Concrete
Struictures, H-1521Budapest, 1998.
[3] Dr.G.S Pandit. Torsion in Concrete Structures. CBS publishers and Distributors,
1991.
[4] J.G. MacGregor and M.G. Ghoneim. Design for torsion. ACI Structural journal,
No.92-S20, pages 2111218, 1995.
[5] Luis F. A. Bernardo and sergio M. R. Lopes. Behaviour of concrete beams under
torsion: Nsc plain and hollow beams. Journal of Materials and Structures, No.41,
pages 11431167, 2007.
[6] T. Hossain and P. Mendis. Torsional resistance of high-strength concrete beams.
Technical report, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
[7] H. T. SOLANKI. Reinforced concrete beams in pure torsion. M.ASCE, October
2002.
[8] Wen-Tang Young Hao-Jan Chiu, I-Kuang Fang and Jyh-Kun Shiau. Behavior of
reinforced concrete beams with minimum torsional reinforcement. Engineering
Structures, No.29, pages 21932205, 2007.
[9] S.H.Leeand Y.Oosumimoto M.A Mansur, S.Nagataki. Torsional response of re-
inforced berous concrete beams. ACI Structural Journal, No.86-S5, 1989.
[10] Gary Greene and Abdeldjelil Belarbi. Model for reinforced concrete members
under torsion,bending, and shear.i:theory. Journal of Engineering Mechanics @
ASCE, pages 961969, 2009.
[11] Jung-Yoon Lee and Sang woo Kim. Torsional strength of rc beams considering
tension stiening eect. Journal of Structural Engineering @ ASCE, pages 1367
1378, 2010.
103
REFERENCES 104
[12] Thomas T. C. Hsu. Torsion of structural concrete- plain concrete rectangular
sections. American Concrete Institute, No.SP-18, pages 203238, 1968.
[13] T.D. Gunneswara Rao and D. Rama Seshu. Analytical model for the torsional
response of steel ber reinforced concrete members under pure torsion. Cement
and concrete composites, No.27, pages 493501, 2004.
[14] Kinhammad Najim Mahmood. Nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete beams
under pure torsion. Journal of applied sciences, No.7, pages 35243529, 2007.
[15] Mohamad N.Mmahmood and Akram S.Mahmood. Nonlinear nite element anal-
ysis of prestressed concrete beams subjected to pure torsion. World Engineering
Congress, Conference on Buildings and Infrastructure Technology, No.92-S20,
2010.
[16] A. Deifalla and A. Ghobarah. Full torsional behavior of reinforced concrete beams
wrapped with frp analytical model. Journal Of Composites for Construction
,ASCE, May-June 2010.
[17] M.R. Mohammadizadeh and M.J. Fadaee. Torsional behaviour of high-strength
concrete beams strengthened using cfrp sheets, an experimental and analytical
study. Scientia Iranica, No.4, pages 321330, 2009.
[18] Mehran Ameli and Hamid R. Ronagh. Analytical method for evaluating ultimate
torque of frp strengthened reinforced concrete beams. Journal of Composites for
Construction @ ASCE, No.SP-18, pages 384390, 2007.
[19] Adrian K. Y. Hii and Riadh Muhaidi. Torsional capacity of cfrp strengthened
reinforced concrete beams. Journal of Composites for Construction @ ASCE,
pages 7180, 2007.
[20] Mongkol Jiravacharadet. Reinforced concrete design. Technical report, Suranaree
University of Technology, 1999.

Behavior of GFRP Wrapped Beam Under Pure Torsion

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Behavior of GFRP Wrapped Beam Under Pure Torsion

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

BEHAVIOUR OF GFRP WRAPPED BEAMS

UNDER PURE TORSION

to the longitudinal axis of the mem-

to the direction of shear. These inclined tension

similar to that assumed by Ritter and Morsch in

with the longitudinal axis are of the same magnitude

to the longitudinal axis of

Potrebbero piacerti anche