00 mi piace00 non mi piace

186 visualizzazioni14 pagineMar 12, 2015

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT o leggi online da Scribd

© All Rights Reserved

186 visualizzazioni

00 mi piace00 non mi piace

© All Rights Reserved

Sei sulla pagina 1di 14

Engineering Structures

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

and torsion

A. Deifalla a,, A. Ghobarah b

a

b

McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4L7

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:

Received 23 July 2013

Revised 19 February 2014

Accepted 20 February 2014

Available online 27 March 2014

Keywords:

T-beams

Combined loading

Torsion

Shear

Global behavior

Flange stirrup

a b s t r a c t

The 1998 ASCE-ACI Committee 445 on shear and torsion identied researching combined shear and

torsion as well as giving physical signicance for torsion design as an upcoming challenge (ASCE-ACI

Committee 445 on shear and torsion, 1998). Most of the previous experimental studies were focused

on reinforced (RC) beams under exure, shear or torsion. The behavior of inverted T-shaped beams with

both web and ange closed stirrups are not fully explored. In this research paper, an innovative test setup

capable of simulating the behavior of inverted T-shaped beams under combined shear and torsion was

developed and implemented. The behavior of three inverted T-shaped beams tested under different

values for the ratios of the applied torque to the applied shear force is discussed. The value of the torque

to shear ratio signicantly affects the behavior of the inverted T-shaped beams in terms of cracking pattern; failure mode; strut angle of inclination; cracking and ultimate torque; post-cracking torsional rigidity; cracking and ultimate shear; ange and web stirrup strain. The ange stirrup is more efcient in

resisting torsion moment over shear forces. A model capable of predicting the behavior of anged beams

under combined actions was developed and implemented. The model showed good agreement with the

experimental results from three different experimental studies.

2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Reinforced concrete (RC) inverted T-shaped beams are being

used as the main girders that support the lateral secondary precast

beams or slabs which is one of the popular structural systems for

many existing bridges and parking garages as shown in Fig. 1.

The behavior of inverted T-shaped beams is more complicated than

that of conventional either rectangular or T-shaped RC beams.

Conventional rectangular and T-shaped RC beams fail in exure,

shear, torsion, or a combination of these failure modes. In addition

to the conventional modes of failure, inverted T-shaped beams

could fail due to other local causes such as hanger failure in the

web, cantilever action, or punching shear in the ange, which

was studied by others [2,3]. Moreover, inverted T-shaped beams

are subjected to signicant torsional moments. Thus, these beams

must be designed to resist signicant torsional moment combined

with shear forces. In 1998, the ASCE-ACI Committee 445 on shear

and torsion identied integrating and designating a physical significance for the torsion design provisions, as well as reviewing combined shear and torsion, as an upcoming challenge [1]. Modeling of

Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: diffalaf@mcmaster.ca, ahmed.deifalla@bue.edu.eg (A. Deifalla).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.02.011

0141-0296/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

un-cracked anged beams is more complex than that of rectangular beams as shown in Fig. 2. Conventional Design Codes approach

the design of RC beams subjected to combined shear and torsion

differently, especially for cases that involve signicant torsion,

which was indicated by many researchers [46]. Thus, a unied

practical solution is required for the analysis of these inverted

T-shaped beams. Fig. 3 shows a typical inverted T-shaped beam

loading and forces. The test setup simulates the behavior at the

inection point with zero bending moment highlighted in Fig. 3.

This segment is subjected to signicant torsion and shear force,

while the values of bending moments are relatively insignicant.

In addition, it is far from the local effect of the load application

mechanism.

Although diagonal tension cracks occur in RC beams due to

torsion or shear, the behavior of RC beams due to torsion is different from that under shear. In the case of shear forces, the cracks

propagate in the same direction on both sides of the beam parallel

to the applied shear plane. In case of torsion, the cracks follow a

spiral pattern, propagating in opposite directions on the opposite

sides of the beam. In addition, the assumptions used in modeling

RC beams under shear are different from that used for modeling

those under torsion. In the case of shear forces, stresses are assumed to be in the plane of the applied shear and uniform across

58

Nomenclature

Ac

Ao

As

Ec

fc0

fy

i

k

l

m

Mx

N

Nvk

Pc

Po

q

qs

qt

T

V

Ti

t

ts

tt

Vi

yci

the area enclosed inside the center of the shear ow

loop

area of each bar (j)

Youngs modulus of the concrete

the compressive strength of concrete

the yield stress of the steel

panel number

number of concrete strips for moment calculations

the length of the panel (i) parallel to the shear plane

number of steel bars

moment around the x-axis

the applied axial force on the cross section

the shear contribution from each panel (i)

the perimeter of the concrete cross section

the perimeter of the centerline of the equivalent thin

tube

the average shear ow of the panel (i)

the shear ow due to the shear force (V)

the uniform shear ow on the panel due to the torsion

the applied torsion moment on the whole cross section

the applied shear force on the whole cross section

the applied torsion moment on the rectangular subdivision

the effective thickness of each element resisting both

shear and torsion

the thickness of the element resisting the shear force (Vi)

the thickness of the element resisting the torsional moment (Ti)

the applied shear force of each rectangular sub-division

(i)

distance between the elastic centroid and the centroid

of each concrete panel (i)

ysj

ysk

t

/d

/L

/t

b1

b2

c

DAci

e0c

e1

e2

e2s

ex

ey

h

qh

r0ci

r0sj

r1

r2

rst

rx

ry

ui

W

each bar (j)

distance between the elastic centroid and the panel (i)

centroid

the shear stress

the curvature in the direction of angle h

the longitudinal curvature

the transversal curvature

softening coefcient of the concrete stress

strain softening coefcient

the shear strain of each panel (i)

the area of the strip

concrete strain at the peak stress

the principal average tension concrete strain

the average principal compression strain

the maximum compression principal strain at the surface of the concrete

the average longitudinal strain

the average transverse strain

the inclination angle of the principal strains

the ratio of the transverse steel per unit length of the

span to the gross area of the concrete cross section

the concrete stress at the centroid of the strip

stress in the steel longitudinal reinforcement for each

bar (j)

the principal average tension stresses

the principal average compression stresses

the steel reinforcement stress

the average longitudinal stress

the average transverse stresses

the curvature for each panel

the twist rate

(a)

(b)

(c)

59

(b)

(a)

(c)

Fig. 2. R and T-shaped beams under torsion (a) isometric; (b) uncracked and (c) cracked.

the test setup is capable of applying different shear to torsion ratios by varying the ratio between the applied loads. Three inverted

T-shaped beams were designed, constructed, and tested while subjected to various torque to shear ratios. The tested beams represented a scaled concrete inverted T-shaped beam model. The

inverted T-shaped beams were tested under torque to shear ratios

of 0.5 m, 1.0 m and 0.1 m while being referred to as TB1, TB2, and

TB3, respectively. The parameters investigated by the test program

were the effect of the torque to shear ratio on the behavior of the

RC inverted T-shaped beams subjected to shear, torsion, and an

unavoidably small bending moment. In addition, a previous analytical model developed by the authors was extended to predict the

full shear and torsional behavior of the inverted T-shaped beams.

2. Research signicance and previous work

concrete compression strain is assumed to vary linearly across

the assumed effective thickness of the walls of the cross-section

due to lateral curvature that eventually causes the variation of

the stress across the section, both vertically and horizontally

[35]. In addition, according to the theory of hollow-tube spacetruss analogy, the effective thickness of the tube varies based on

the applied torque, similar to the variation of the effective depth

of the beam with the bending moment [35]. In theory, the concrete

web and the steel web stirrup carry most of the shear. However,

the torsional moment must be distributed between the web and

the ange, which can vary based on the dimensions and reinforcements of the section.

In this research study, an experimental program was conducted.

An innovative test set-up that allows the beams to fail due to combined shear and torsion accompanied by relatively low levels of

bending moments, was developed and constructed. In addition,

torsion outlined the challenges of reviewing RC beams under combined shear and torsion and integrating and designating a physical

signicance for current torsion design provisions [1].

Behavior of RC inverted T-shaped beams, despite its frequent

use since the 1950s, remained as one of the least investigated until

mid-1980s [2,3]. Until that time, no guidance for handling design

issues specically those associated with the inverted-T section

was available in design standards. Therefore, engineers have

tended to rely on personal judgment and discretion for design of

these beams.

A careful examination of existing literature has shown the following: (1) very valuable contributions concerning the behavior

of RC beams under combined shear and torsion were made by

several researchers [29,11,24,17]. However, these studies focused

on rectangular beams rather than T-shaped beams with ange

stirrups; (2) pioneering works on the behavior of T-shaped beams

were conducted by several researchers [3639,2,34,40,41,3,26,27];

however, they all focused on T-shaped beams under pure shear,

pure bending, pure torsion, combined shear and moment, or combined moment and torsion. In addition, many recent investigations

were concerned with spandrel L-shaped beams [12,28,4245].

Kaminski and Pawlak indicated that, despite all the extensive research conducted in the area of beams under combined torsion,

not all the questions were answered. In addition, it was pointed

out that the behavior of RC beams with a cross section other than

rectangular or circular is yet to be explored [45].

Experimental testing remains the most reliable research approach compared to the use of numerical models. The tests provide

60

physical knowledge and information about the behavior of the system studied [53,54]. Moreover, test results are essential in verifying analytical models such as (1) the skew bending theory

models based on an inclined plane failure [713]; (2) the space hollow tube truss models [1418,6,1925]; (3) the nite element and

the nite difference numerical models [2628]; and (4) the empirical models developed by tting experimental data [2933].

A milestone point in the analysis of RC beams under combined

shear and torsion was the work presented by both Hsu, and Rahal

and Collins [34,17]. Hsu presented a unied theory for combined

shear and torsion Softened Truss Model that was based on: (1)

equilibrium equations; (2) compatibility equations; (3) the softened constitutive laws of concrete [34]. Rahal and Collins [17] updated the existing space truss model to include; (1) concrete

softening; (2) tension stiffening; (3) improved modeling for the

cover spalling; and (4) an equivalent uniform stress distribution

block for the concrete strut. Another key point in the history of

RC beams under combined actions was the work by Greene and

Belarbi [21]. They presented a Combined-Action Softened Truss

Model, which was based on the Softened Truss Model by Hsu

and Mo for pure torsion with improvements over existing models

[17,16]. More recently, Bernardo and co-workers studied the modeling of RC beams under torsion [19,24,25]. Their work focused on

comprehensively examining previous experimental and analytical

models to verify and improve existing analytical models. Ultimately, a modied version of the Variable Angle Truss-Model

by Hsu and co-workers [34,16,22] that is capable of predicting

the behavior of the beams for all loading stages was presented.

Moreover, they indicated that the next step would be dealing with

special beams under combined straining actions.

The behavior of RC inverted T-shaped beams is different from

RC rectangular beams. The cross-section shape can have a signicant effect on the behavior and design, as shown by several

researchers [26,27,5,31,46]. In addition, the inverted T-shaped

beams with ange stirrups are an asymmetricaly-reinforced section. Moreover, there is no unied approach for the design of RC inverted T-shaped beams under combined loading. The rst step in

reaching a unied approach is to conduct an experimental program

in order to identify the signicance of the contribution of various

parameters to the behavior.

3. Testing inverted T-shaped beams

3.1. Scale model for the inverted T-beam

The concrete dimensions of the tested beams were chosen as

half-scaled model for a commonly used precast inverted T-shaped

beam [47] or a typical 700 mm girder monolithically cast with a

200 mm slab. Since the study focused on the effect of the torque

to shear ratio on the behavior, beams were heavily reinforced in

the longitudinal direction to minimize the effect of exure on the

behavior of the tested beams. The stirrups were designed according to the CSA [48]. The concrete dimension and steel reinforcements were kept the same for all tested beams.

3.2. Specimen details

All of the test beams had a total depth of 350 mm, a ange

thickness of 100 mm, a ange width of 450 mm, and a web width

of 150 mm. Fig. 4b shows a typical cross-section of the beam within the test region. The concrete cover was 25 mm for the web and

15 mm for the ange. Fig. 4d shows a typical longitudinal section

of the beams and the reinforcements. All transversal and longitudinal reinforcements were ribbed steel bars. The longitudinal reinforcement is 420 M (i.e. 4 bars 20 mm diameter) at the bottom

10 mm diameter) in the ange. The transverse reinforcement was

determined to be 10 M @ 170 mm (i.e. 10 mm stirrup every

170 mm). The clear length of the central region was 1400 mm, as

shown in Fig. 4, to ensure that at least one complete spiral crack

would occur within the central region. At the two ends of the test

region, an end block was created with a rectangular section having

a total depth of 350 mm, a width of 450 mm, and a length of

250 mm. These two end blocks were used to apply torsion at one

end (active frame) and to restrain the torsion at the other end

(reactive frame). To apply the required load and the proper boundary condition far from the test region, the beam was extended at

both ends. The extensions were either for applying load (loading

arm) or for applying the end restraints (roller arm). The loading

arm was 900 mm long while the roller arm was 750 mm as shown

in Fig. 6. To ensure that failure would occur within the test region,

both arms had additional longitudinal and transverse reinforcement. The shear reinforcement was 10-M @ 70 mm, the bottom

reinforcement was 620 M, and the top longitudinal reinforcement

was 410 M + 215 M.

The concrete mix was designed using Type 10 cement, sand, and

10 mm aggregate. The results from the compression testing of

standard concrete cylinders are shown in Table 1. The 28-day concrete compressive strength was 25.6 MPa. Compression tests conducted on the same day of the beam testing showed a

compressive strength of 35.9 MPa for beams TB3 and TB1, and

33.6 MPa for beam TB2. The longitudinal and transversal steel bars

were ribbed high strength steel. The tensile testing of coupons

made from the reinforcement bars showed that 10 M bars yielded

at 465 MPa, while the 15 M and 20 M bars yielded at 450 MPa.

Linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs) were used to

measure displacements at different locations of the beam. Ten

LVDTs measured the vertical displacements at ve sections of the

beamtwo at each section. The two LVDTs at the tip of the ange

of each section were used to calculate the rotation and the average

vertical displacement. Strain gauges were used to measure the

strain in the longitudinal and transversal reinforcement at different locations, as shown in Fig. 5. Strain in the longitudinal reinforcement was measured at the maximum and at the zero

moment section. Strain in the transverse reinforcement was measured at the beginning, middle, and the end of the test region area.

Strain gauges were installed at the same location in all the tested

beams.

3.3. Test set-up

Recently, Talaeitaba and Mostonejad proposed a test setup

using a simple beam with a cantilever in the middle for applying

combined shear and torsion [49]. In their test setup, the combined

shear and torsion are accompanied by relatively large bending moments. The test setup used in the present research was designed in

2005 with the objective of minimizing the bending moments in the

torsion and shear interaction test region. The combined shear and

torsion is signicant at low bending moment values, including, but

not limited to, the following cases: (1) the case of inection point

for a continuous beam; or (2) the case of a section at the support

of a simple beam. Fig. 6 shows a schematic of the structural system

for the test set-up where three different actuators are used to apply

loads to the beam (denoted as L1, L2, and L3), simulating a simple

beam with a cantilever at both ends. The middle section of the test

region is subjected to combined shear and torsion with zero or

near zero bending moment. The two hydraulic actuators L2 and

L3 apply the load to the beam through 0.5 m long steel arms to apply the required torque. The hydraulic actuator L1 acts at the center of the cross-section of the beam. The top end condition for

actuator L1 is a pin support. The middle region (test region) was

61

ratio was kept xed throughout the test by controlling the three

different applied loads. After installing the T-beams in the test setup and attaching the instruments to the data acquisition system,

the beam was loaded with low-level load combinations within

the elastic range of concrete. Measurements from this test were

veried to ensure that all the instruments were correctly installed

and functioning properly. The load values L1, L2, and L3 that give

the desired shear and torsion combination were calculated from

simple structural analysis. The loads were applied in small steps

of 2 kN in order to exercise better control over the loading values

and achieve the required torque to shear force ratio. After each

load step, the beam was inspected for cracks and any possible signs

of failure. During the tests, it was possible to maintain good control

over the torque to shear ratio all the way to near failure of the

beam. Fig. 7 shows a photo for the test setup with a specimen in

place. Four load cells (L1, L2, L3, and L4) were used in the test

set-up. Three of the load cells (L1, L2 and L3) were used to measure

the actual applied loads at Points A, D and E on the beam. The

fourth load cell (L4) was used at point F to measure the reaction

at the support of the beam. Fig. 8 shows the boundary conditions

at points F, D, E and A. Due to the complexity of the test set-up,

the assumptions made concerning the beam boundary conditions

were veried. This was done by comparing the measured values

62

TB3) were tested under torque to shear ratios of 0.5 m, 1.0 m and

0.1 m, respectively. The torque to shear ratio was chosen to cover

a wide range of practical shear torsion interactions. In addition, Table 2 shows the ratio of the applied torque to shear ratio to the ultimate torque to shear ratio, which was chosen to vary from 1 to 10.

Based on this range, the applied torque to shear ratios were chosen

to be either 0.1 m, 0.5 m, or 1.0 m.

4. Experimental results

4.1. Cracking pattern and failure mode

Fig. 6. Schematic structural system and interal forces for the tested beams.

Table 1

Concrete strength at different dates.

Batch I

Batch II

Date

fc0 (Mpa)

Date

fc0 (Mpa)

7 days

28 days

TB1

17.7

25.6

35.9

28 days

TB3

TB2

25.6

35.9

33.6

The concrete cracking pattern for beams TB1, TB2, and TB3 are

shown is Figs. 1113, respectively. In addition, the failure modes

are listed in Table 3. For beam TB1 (T/V = 0.5 m), the onset of cracking was observed at the bottom of the web at a total load value of

56 kN. Afterwards, more diagonal cracks were initiated within both

the web and the ange, which were spiral and uniformly distributed, as shown in Fig. 11(ad). Before failure, signicant concrete

cover spalling from the ange (as shown in Fig. 11b and c) and

additional longitudinal cracks in the exure compression zone side

were observed, as shown in Fig. 11a and b. These additional longitudinal cracks are due to the diagonal compression stress from the

shear and torsion, and that from the exure. The major diagonal

cracks were formed at an average angle of inclination with the longitudinal axis of the beam (h) value of 51. Beam TB1 failed due to

stirrup yielding before concrete compression at a load value of

162 kN.

For beam TB2 (T/V = 1.0 m), the onset of cracking occurred at an

applied load of 33 kN. The cracks propagated in a helical form

around the beam in a similar manner to those of beam TB1 (as

shown in Fig. 12ad), where concrete cover spalling from both

the ange and the web was observed. However, on average, the

major cracks formed at an average (h) value of 55, which is steeper

than beam TB1. Beam TB2 failed due to stirrup yielding before concrete compression at a load value of 75 kN. In comparing Fig. 11b

and Fig. 12b, it is clear that beam TB2 exhibited signicant web

spalling with respect to beam TB1.

For beam TB3 (T/V = 0.1 m), the onset of cracking was observed

at a load value of 130 kN. Signicant diagonal cracks were observed in the web compared to that in the ange, as shown in

Fig. 13ad. The cracking pattern varied along the test region and

between both sides of beam TB3. For the web side, where the shear

stresses due to the torsion and shear were added together, the

average (h) for the cracks was 30, which is lower than that of

the other web side, where shear stresses due to the torsion and

shear will subtract. Beam TB3 failed due to diagonal concrete compression before stirrup yielding at a load value of 342 kN. Comparing Fig. 13(ad) with Fig. 11(ad) and Fig. 12(ad), the angle of

inclination of the cracks of beam TB3 was lower than those of

either beam TB1 or TB2. The spacing between the cracks of beam

TB3 was smaller than that of either beam TB1 or TB2. The cracking

patterns of beams TB1, TB2, and TB3 were signicantly inuenced

by the torque to shear ratio.

of the reaction at point F (L4) to the theoretically predicted reaction at the same location (R1) using a linear structural analysis,

assuming actual hinges at R2 and R3, and an actual roller at R1,

as shown in Fig. 9.

3.4. Torque to shear ratio

Fig. 10 shows the applied torque versus the applied shear for

the tested inverted T-shaped beams. The beams (TB1, TB2, and

Fig. 14 shows the relationship between the applied torque and

the angle of twist for the tested beams. Before cracking, the behavior was similar for all of the tested inverted T-shaped beams, with a

pre-cracking torsional rigidity value of approximately 2110 kN m2.

The value of the cracking strength was taken as the minimum of

either the strength at which the torsion behavior deviated from

the initial linear behavior or the strength at which cracks were

observed during the testing of the beam. The recorded values of

63

Fig. 8. Details of the test setup; (a) roller support at point F, (b) actuator used to apply load at points D and E and c) actuator used to apply load at point A.

120

TB1

140

TB2

TB3 (0.1 m)

100

TB3

160

120

100

80

60

80

60

40

TB1 (0.5 m)

40

TB2 (1.0 m)

20

20

0

0

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Fig. 9. Physical verication of the test setup.

140

160

10

15

Torque, T (kN. m)

Fig. 10. The applied shear and torsion.

20

25

64

Table 2

Selected torque to shear ratios.

(V - T)

(T/Tult)/(V/Vult)

(T/V) (m)

1

5

10

0.1

0.5

1.0

(V - T)

(a)

(V - T)

(V - T)

(V + T)

(V + T)

(b)

(a)

(V + T)

(V + T)

(c)

(b)

B

(c)

(d)

Fig. 12. Cracking pattern for TB2 (1.0); (a) south, (b) north, (c) bottom and (d) top.

C

B

(V - T)

(d)

(V - T)

Fig. 11. Crack pattern for TB1 (0.5); (a) south, (b) north, (c) bottom and (d) top.

the cracking torque and corresponding twist for all the tested

beams are shown in Table 3. After cracking, the behavior of beams

TB1 and TB2 was similar because they were subjected to high torque to shear ratios. However, the behavior of beam TB3 was different compared to beams TB1 and TB2. In examining Fig. 15, it can be

seen that the average post-cracking torsional rigidity of beam TB3

was higher than that of either beam TB1 or TB2 that is due to wider

cracks associated with the high torsion to shear ratio for beams

TB1 and TB2. This is commonly observed after steel yielding, which

is the case for both TB1 and TB2. The value of the ultimate strength

was taken as the maximum strength observed during the testing of

the beam. Table 3 shows the ultimate torque and the corresponding twist for all the tested beams. As shown in Table 3, the shear

torsion interaction affected the value of the ultimate torque.

The shear behavior of the tested beams was affected by the

torque to shear ratio. Fig. 13 shows the relationship between the

applied shear force and the maximum strain in the transverse steel

reinforcement. The stirrup strain increased substantially with the

increase in the torque to shear ratio. The applied shear force at

(a)

C

(V + T)

(V + T)

B

(b)

C

(c)

B

(d)

Fig. 13. Crack pattern for TB3 (0.1); (a) south, (b) north, (c) bottom and (d) top.

65

Table 3

Summary of the experimental results.

Beam

T/V

(m)

Cracking torque

(kN m)

Twist at cracking

(deg/m)

Cracking shear

force (kN)

Ultimate torque

(kN m)

Twist at ultimate

(deg/m)

Ultimate

shear (kN)

TB1

0.5

11.6

0.25

17

23

2.82

46

TB2

1.00

11

0.33

11

22.7

3.16

21.4

TB3

0.1

0.13

42

10.8

0.5

105

concrete crushing

Stirrup yield before

concrete crushing

Concrete diagonal crushing

the onset of cracking for all tested beams is shown in Table 3. The

value of the ultimate shear strength for all tested beams is also

shown in Table 3. It is clear in the table that the sheartorsion

interaction affected the ultimate and cracking shear force.

25

TB1 (0.5 m)

TB2 (1.0 m)

Torque, T (kN. m)

20

15

10

TB3 (0.1 m)

0

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

Fig. 14. Torsional behavior.

Fig. 16a shows a plot for the observed absolute values of the

cracking and the ultimate shear forces versus the torsion moment.

We can see that the relationship is not linear and there is a clear

curvature in the interaction. Huang et al. proposed a circular

dimensionless relationship for the torqueshear interaction based

on the theory of plasticity [30]. In an attempt to quantify the

sheartorsion interaction, the shear forces and torsion moments

were normalized and compared with the interaction relationship

proposed by Huang et al. and are shown in Fig. 16b [30]. We can

see that the experimentally observed values agreed fairly well with

the relationship, with an error less than 10%.

4.5. Transverse steel strain

TB3 (0.1 m)

100

120

80

60

TB1 (0.5 m)

40

TB2 (1.0 m)

20

0

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

Fig. 15. Shear behavior.

(a)

3.00

Fig. 17 shows the transverse steel strain for the ange and web

stirrups versus the total load. In case of beam TB2 (high torque to

shear ratio), the strain measured in the ange was similar to the

strain measured in the web. However, in the case of beam TB3

(low torque to shear ratio), the strain in the web was larger than

the strain in the ange. The ange was more effective in cases of

higher torque to shear ratios.

Fig. 18 shows the relationship between the ange stirrup strain

at both the top and bottom branch versus the total load. The strain

gauges were installed as shown in Fig. 5, with the exception of

beam TB1, where the bottom strain gauge was installed in the middle of the bottom branch within the overlapping zone of the ange

stirrup. The strain of beam TB1 (under low torque to shear ratio)

was signicantly lower than that of TB3, which agrees well with

the assumption that the ange stirrup primarily carries forces from

torsion.

(b)

Fig. 16. Ultimat and cracking experimentaly observed sheartorsion interaction (a) absolute and (b) normalized.

66

solution scheme rather than a force control solution scheme; (2) include the FRP material modeling; (3) model external bonded reinforcements with different arrangements; and (4) improved the

concrete constitutive modeling [17,23]. All of these models focused

on rectangular beams under combined torsion, although structural

members subjected to torsion may be of different congurations,

such as rectangular beams, T-shaped beams, L-shaped beams, and

box beams.

In this study, the model by Deifalla and Ghobarah was adapted

and further extended to predict the behavior of cross-sections with

different shapes subjected to torsion, shear, and bending moments

[23]. In the development of the proposed model, the following

assumptions were made:

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

0

0.5

1.5

2.5

Fig. 17. Stirrup strain versus total applied load (L1 + L2 + L3).

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

-1

-0.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

Fig. 18. Flange stirrup strain versus total applied load (L1 + L2 + L3).

5. Analytical model

Several models were developed for predicting the behavior of RC

beams subjected to combined straining actions. Numerous

contributions by many researchers attempting to improve the space

truss model by Rausch were found in existing literature [50,15

18,51,6,19,21,20,2225]. Deifalla and Ghobarah [23] adapted the

model by Rahal and Collins [17] to: (1) predict the behavior of

(a)

(1) The longitudinal strain follows the BernoulliNavier hypothesis, which indicates that plane section before bending will

remain plane after bending.

(2) Mohr Circle can be used to evaluate the strain, curvature,

and stress status at any point in the plane.

(3) The direction of the principal stresses at any point in the

plane is coincident with the direction of the principal strain

evaluated at the same point in the plane [35].

(4) The torsional behavior is dominated by SaintVenants torsion, which indicates that the torsion will be resisted by

shear ow in the perimeter of the cross section [34,17,23].

(5) The effective thickness of the diagonal concrete struts is

function of the external loading [33,35] which is similar to

beams subjected to bending where the effective depth is

function of the bending moment.

(6) The equivalent hollow tube is being divided into four panels;

each panel is subjected to uniform bi-axial stresses

[33,17,18,23,21].

(7) The diagonal compressive strain distribution within the concrete diagonal struts is assumed to be linear and consequently the diagonal compressive stress is assumed to be

non-uniform [33,35,20,23].

(8) The torsion stresses and the uniform shear stresses are being

replaced by one equivalent uniform stress block as shown in

Fig. 19 [17].

5.1. Modeling T-shaped beams

This section describes the capability of predicting the behavior

of the anged beams. The anged cross-section is divided into

several rectangular sub-divisions. Each rectangular sub-division

(b)

(c)

Fig. 19. Compression Stress distribution within the concrete strut (a) actual stress distribution, (b) equivalent stress distribution, and (c) equivalent uniform stress

distribution.

67

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 20. Rectangular divisions (a) Solution I, (b) Solution II, (c) Solution III.

the same angle of twist and n is the total number of rectangular

subdivisions. The applied shear force (V) is calculated as follows:

Input section details and applied

internal actions.

n

X

Vi

i1

internal actions.

the same angle of twist. The stirrup strain e is calculated such that:

Arbitrary assume tt

n

X

ei

i1

the same angle of twist.

Calculate average stresses and strains

for each panel, Eqs. (8-14 and 23-29)

For predicting the full behavior of each rectangular sub-division, the model proposed by Deifalla and Ghobarah is implemented

[23]. The model is briey listed in Eqs. (4)(29); however, details

regarding the development of the adapted model is to be found

in both Deifalla [6] and Deifalla and Ghobarah [6,23].

(20) to calculate longitudinal stresses and

strain for the whole section, Eqs. (21-22).

qt

No

Check tt , Eqs. (15-17)

yes

Calculate

Check T and V

applied actions

Ti

2Ao

longitudinal strain

No

Increase the T and V by

0.1 applied actions.

yes

End

NO

Check the angle

is analyzed independently while subjected to the applied combined shear and torsion. For example, the T-shaped beam is divided into rectangular sub-divisions as shown in Fig. 20. After

modeling each rectangular section, the principle of superposition

is applied to obtain the strength and the deformations of the complete T-shaped beam, while assuming that the angle of twist for

the T-shaped beam and the sub-divisions are the same. The applied

torque (T) on the whole cross section is calculated such that:

n

X

Ti

Yes

NO

Check the diagonal stress

Yes

Return to main program

i1

68

Vi

l

qt t t qs t s

t

q

m

t

r2 b1 fc0 if

0:9

b1 p

1:0 400e1

25

1:0

b2 p

1:0 500e1

26

r1 Ec e1

27

5.3. Mohr circle for the average concrete strains of each panel

2e2 ex

tanh

ey

c

2 tanh

e2

e1 e2 ex ey

r1

rs Es es 6 fy

tan2 h

r2

r2 rx

r2 r1

s tanh

P1

24

28

29

and 22. A force driven solution technique is being used limiting the

model predictions to the ultimate strength.

5.7. Model validation

11

the literature. The beams were tested under combined signicant

12

15

1

r1

tanh

Experimental [52]

13

ry qh rst r1 s tan h

14

ui w sin 2hi

15

e2s

ui

16

t ti

b2 e0c

0:33fc0

p

1 500e1

10

rx r2 ry r1

e2

Anaylitical

Torque, T (kN. m)

qs

10

17

0

0

10

P4

w

i1 li ci

2Ao

Ao Ac

150

10

150

10

15

18

4

X

tt

li i

2

i1

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 23. Torque versus angle of twist for (a) N1; (b) N2 and (c) N3.

19

25

4

X

Po Pc

t ti

20

k

X

m

X

4

X

Nv k

i1

j1

k1

r0ci DAci

r0sj Asj N

21

k

m

4

X

X

X

r0ci DAci yci

r0sj Asj ysj M x

Nv k ysk

i1

j1

22

k1

Torque, T (kN. m)

20

i1

15

10

Experimental

Solution I

Solution II

Solution III

0.25

0.50

"

r2 b1 fc0 2

2 #

e2

e2

0

e0c

ec

if

e2

b2 e0c

61

23

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 24. Torque versus angle of twist for (a) TB1; (b) TB2 and (c) TB3.

69

up to the ultimate strength as the model employs a force driven

solution technique. From the current study, three T-shaped

beams (TB1, TB2, and TB3) tested under torque to shear ratio

values of 0.5, 1.0, and 0.1 m. Each T-shaped beam was divided

into two rectangular sub-divisions using each of the three proposed solutions, as shown in Fig. 20(ac). The comparison between the behavior (i.e., torque versus twist and shear force

versus stirrup strain) predicted by the model and the experimentally observed behavior is shown in Fig. 24(ac) and Fig. 25(ac).

The gures show that the model prediction agrees well with the

experimental results. Two L-shaped beams were found in the literature tested under combined torsion [45]. Each L-shaped beam

was divided into two rectangular sub-divisions using each of the

three proposed solutions, as shown in Fig. 20(ac). The comparison between the torsional behavior predicted by the model and

the experimentally observed behavior is shown in Fig. 26. The

gure shows that the model predictions agree well with the

experimental results.

Table 4 shows the experimentally observed ultimate torque

and the corresponding angle of twist versus the analytically calculated ones using the three solutions shown in Fig. 20. From

the table, we can see that any of the three solutions showed

good compliance with the experimentally observed results for

anged beams. However, solution II predictions were more consistent compared with those of solutions I and III for beams under combined torsion. This might be because solution II follows

the stirrups conguration.

120

Experimental

100

Solution I

Solution II

Solution III

80

60

40

20

0

0.00

0.60

1.20 0.00

1.00

0.50

1.00

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 25. Shear force versus transversal steel strain for (a) TB1; (b) TB2 and (c) TB3.

6. Conclusions

1. An innovative test setup capable of simulating the behavior of

T-shaped beams under combined shear and torsion was

designed and implemented.

2. The behavior of the tested inverted T-shaped beams was

affected by the value of the torque to shear ratio. Decreasing

the applied torque to the applied shear force ratio resulted in

the following: (1) a signicant reduction for the spacing

between diagonal cracks, the strut angle of inclination, cracking

and ultimate torque, ange and web stirrup strain; (2) a significant increase for the failure and cracking load, post-cracking

torsional rigidity, cracking and ultimate shear; and (3) the stirrups efciency was reduced, thus, beams failed due to concrete

diagonal failure rather than stirrups yield.

3. The proposed analytical model showed remarkable agreement

with the experimental results for the behavior of anged beams

under combined actions.

Fig. 26. Torque versus angle of twist for L-shaped beams [45].

the stirrups spacing were different. The model was used to predict the torsional behavior of three rectangular RC beams up to

ultimate torsion. The comparison between the model predictions

and the experimental results for the tested RC beams are shown

in Fig. 23(ac). The predicted behaviors were found to be in

Table 4

Strength and deformation predicted using the proposed model with solutions I, II, and III versus measured.

Beam

TB1

TB2

TB3

BK-Ta

BK-TVM-1a

Torque

Angle of twist

Torque

(kN m)

(/m)

II

III

II

III

II

III

II

III

23

22.7

10.8

16.8

18.6

2.82

3.16

0.5

1.9

2.5

25.4

21.5

9.3

16.2

16.2

23

21.3

11.8

16.8

16.8

20.3

21.2

8.6

17.3

17.3

2.8

3.2

0.49

1.91

1.91

2.6

3.2

0.49

1.9

1.9

2.82

3.16

0.49

1.9

1.9

0.91

1.06

1.17

1.04

1.15

1.00

1.07

0.98

1.00

1.10

1.14

1.07

1.26

0.97

1.08

1.00

1.00

1.01

0.99

1.31

1.07

1.00

1.01

0.98

1.29

1.00

1.00

1.01

0.98

1.29

1.07

10%

0.1

1.03

5.0%

0.05

1.10

10%

0.1

1.06

13%

0.14

1.07

12%

0.13

1.06

12%

0.13

Average

Coefcient of variation

95% Condence interval

a

Ref. [45].

Experimental/predicted

Angle of twist

Torque

Angle of twist

70

References

[1] ASCE-ACI Committee 445 on shear and torsion. Recent approaches to shear

design of structural concrete. J Struct Eng ASCE 1998;124(12):1375417.

[2] Mirza SA, Furlong RW. Serviceability behavior and failure mechanisms of

concrete inverted T-shaped beam bridge bentcaps. ACI J 1983:294304 [July

August].

[3] Mirza SA, Furlong RW, Ma JS. Flexural shear and ledge reinforcement in

reinforced concrete inverted T-girders. ACI J 1988:50920 [September

October].

[4] Rahal KN, Collins MP. Effect of the thickness of concrete cover on the shear

torsion interaction an experimental investigation. ACI Struct J

1995;92(3):33442 [MayJune].

[5] Deifalla A, Ghobarah A. Assessing the North American bridge codes for the

design of T-girders under torsion and shear. In: Proceeding of the 7th

international conference on short & medium span bridges, Montreal, August

2325, Paper No. 717; 2006a. 8pp.

[6] Deifalla AF. Behaviour and strengthening of RC T-girders in torsion and shear.

PhD thesis, McMaster University, Canada; 2007. p. 280.

[7] Lessig NN. Theoretical and experimental investigation of reinforced concrete

elements subjected to combined bending and torsion. In: Theory of design and

construction of reinforced concrete structures, Moscow; 1958 [in Russian].

[8] Hsu TC. Torsion of structural concrete-interaction surface for combined

torsion, shear, and bending in beams without stirrups. Portland Cement

Association, Research and Development Laboratories, Bulletin D319; 1968.

[9] Elfgren L, Karlsson I, Losberg A. Torsionbending-shear interaction for concrete

beams. J Struct Div 1974;100(8):165776.

[10] Badawy HEI. Experimental investigation of the collapse of reinforced concrete

curved beams. Magaz Concr Res 1977;29(99):5969.

[11] Ewida AA, McMullan AE. Torsionshear interaction in reinforced concrete

members. Magaz Concr Res 1981;23(115):11322.

[12] Zia P, Hsu T. Design for torsion and shear in prestressed concrete exural

members. PCI J 2004:3441 [MayJune].

[13] Klein G, Lucier G, Walter C, Rizkalla S, Zia P, Gleich H. Torsion simplied: a

failure plane model for design of spandrel beams; 2013. 19pp.

[14] Rabat B, Collins MP. A variable space truss model for structural concrete

members subjected to complex loading. SP-55. Detroit: ACI; 1978. p. 54787.

[15] Collins MP, Mitchell D. Shear and torsion design of prestressed and nonprestressed concrete beams. J Prestress Concr Inst, Proc 1980;25(5):32100.

[16] Hsu TTC, Mo YL. Softening of concrete in torsional memberstheory and tests.

ACI J 1985;82(3):290303.

[17] Rahal KN, Collins MP. Analysis of sections subjected to combined shear and

torsion a theoretical model. ACI Struct J 1995;92(4):45969.

[18] Cocchi GM, Volpi M. Inelastic analysis of reinforced concrete beams subjected

to combined torsion, exural and axial loads. Comput Struct

1996;61(3):47994.

[19] Chalioris CE. Analytical model for the torsional behavior of reinforced concrete

beams retrotted with FRP materials. Eng Struct 2007;29(12):326376.

[20] Bernardo LFA, Lopes SMR. Behavior of concrete beams under torsion NSC

plain and hollow beams. Mater Struct 2008;41(6):114367.

[21] Greene Jr G, Belarbi A. Model for reinforced concrete members under torsion,

bending, and shear I: theory. J Eng Mech ASCE 2009;135(9):9619 [September

1].

[22] Jeng CH, Hsu TC. A softened membrane model for torsion in reinforced

concrete members. Eng Struct 2009;31(9):194454.

[23] Deifalla A, Ghobarah A. Full torsional behavior of RC beams wrapped with FRP:

analytical model. ACSE, Compos Construct 2010;14(3):289300.

[24] Bernardo LFA, Andrade JMA, Lopes SMR. Softened truss model for reinforced

NSC and HSC beams under torsion: a comparative study. Eng Struct

2012;42:27896.

[25] Bernardo LFA, Andrade JMA, Lopes SMR. Modied variable angle truss-model

for torsion in reinforced concrete beams. Mater Struct 2012;45:1877902.

[26] Karayannis CG. Torsional analysis of anged concrete elements with tension

softening. J Comput Struct 1995;54(1):97110.

[27] Karayannis CG, Chalioris CE. Experimental validation of smeared analysis for

plain concrete in torsion. J Struct Eng ASCE 2000;126(6):64653.

[28] Hassan T, Lucier G, Rizkalla S, Zia P. Modeling of L-shaped, precast, prestressed

concrete spandrels. PCI J. 2007:7892 [MarchApril].

[29] Klus JP. Ultimate strength of reinforced concrete beams in combined torsion

and shear. ACI Struct J 1968;65(3):2106.

[30] Deifalla A, Ghobarah A. Simplied analysis of RC beams torsionaly

strengthened using FRP. In: Chen, Teng (Eds.), Proceedings of international

symposium on bond behavior of FRP in structures (BBFS 2005), Hong Kong,

China; 79 December 2005. p. 3816.

[31] Deifalla A, Ghobarah A. Calculating the thickness of FRP jacket for shear and

torsion strengthening of RC T-girders. In: Third international conference on

FRP composites in civil engineering (CICE 2006), December 1315, Miami,

Florida, USA; 2006. Paper No. 203.

[32] Huang LH, Lu Y, Shi C. Unied calculations method for symmetrically

reinforced concrete section subjected to combined loading. ACI Struct J

2013;2013:12736 [JanuaryFebruary].

[33] Hsu TTC. Unied theory of reinforced concrete. Boca Raton: CRC Press Inc., Fla;

1993.

[34] Hsu TC. Torsion of reinforced concrete. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold

Company; 1984. 516p.

[35] Collins MP, Mitchell D. Prestressed concrete structures. Canada: Response

Publication; 1997.

[36] Erosy U, Ferguson PM. Behavior and strength of concrete L-beams under

combined torsion and shear. ACI Struct J, Proc 1967;64(12):76776.

[37] Farmer LE, Ferguson PM. T-shaped beams under combined bending, shear and

torsion. ACI Struct J, Proc 1967;64(11):75766 [November].

[38] Lash SD, Kirk DW. Concrete tee-beams subjected to torsion and combined

bending and torsion. Report RR160. Department of Highways Ontario Canada;

1970. 19p.

[39] Victor DJ, Aravindan PK. Prestressed and reinforced concrete T-shaped beams

under combined bending and torsion. ACI J 1978:52632 [October].

[40] Razaqpur AG, Ghali A. Design of transverse reinforcement in ange of Tshaped beams. ACI J 1986;1986:6809 [JulyAugust].

[41] Zararis PD, Penelis gGr. Reinforced concrete T-shaped beams in torsion and

bending. ACI J 1986:52632 [JanuaryFebruary].

[42] Logan Donald R. L-spandrels: can torsional distress be induced by eccentric

vertical loading? PCI J 2007 [MarchApril].

[43] Lucier G, Walter C, Rizkalla S, Zia P, Klein G. Development of a rational design

methodology for precast concrete slender spandrel beams: part 1

experimental program. PCI J 2011;56(2).

[44] Lucier G, Walter C, Rizkalla S, Zia P, Klein G. Development of a rational design

methodology for precast concrete slender spandrel beams: part 2 analysis and

design guidelines. PCI J 2011;56(4):10633.

[45] Kaminski M, Pawlak W. Load capacity and stiffness of angular cross section

reinforced concrete beams under torsion. Arch Civ Mech Eng

2011;XI(4):885903.

[46] Chalioris CE, Karayannis CG. Effectiveness of the use of steel bres on the

torsional behavior of anged concrete beams. Cem Concr Compos

2009;31:33141.

[47] PCI. PCI design handbook precast and pre-stressed concrete. Chicago, Illinois

60606; 2006. 736pp.

[48] CSA-A23.3-04. Design of concrete structures for buildings. CSA-A23.3-04

standard. Rexdale, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Standards Association; 2005.

240pp.

[49] Talaeitaba SB, Mostonejad D. Fixed supports in assessment of RC beams

behavior under combined shear and torsion. Int J Appl Sci Technol

2011;1(5):11926.

[50] Rausch E. Berechnung des Eisenbetons gegen Verdrehung (design of reinforced

concrete in torsion). Ph.D. thesis, Berlin; 1929. 53pp [in German].

[51] Pang X-BD, Hsu TTC. Fixed angle softened truss model for reinforced concrete.

ACI Struct J 1996;93(2):197207 [MarchApril].

[52] Ghobarah A, Ghorbel M, Chidiac S. Upgrading torsional resistance of RC beams

using FRP. J Compos Construct ASCE 2002;6(4):25763.

[53] Deifalla A, Hamed M, Saleh A, Ali T. Exploring GFRP bars as reinforcement for

rectangular and L-shaped beams subjected to signicant torsion: an

experimental study. Eng Struct 2014;59:77686.

[54] Deifalla A, Awad A, El-Garhy M. Effectiveness of externally bonded CFRP strips

for strengthening anged beams under torsion: an experimental study. Eng

Struct 2013;56:206575.

## Molto più che documenti.

Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.

Annulla in qualsiasi momento.