Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 193 (2017) 152 – 159

International Conference on Analytical Models and New Concepts in Concrete and Masonry
Structures AMCM’2017

Assessment of stiffness beams subjected to combined shear and

torsion designed using STM
Lidia Buda-OĪóga*
a
Rzeszow University of Technology, 2 PoznaĔska, Rzeszów 35-084, Poland

Abstract

The paper presents research of reinforced concrete beams loaded with a torsional moment, a bending moment and a shear force.
Cantilever C35/45 concrete beams, made in a real scale with cross section 30x30 cm were analyzed. Reinforcement in the beams
was formed on the basis of three-dimensional STMs (Strut and Tie Models). The first model was a spatial truss similar to the
Leonhardt truss, in which the concrete compression diagonal struts, separated by cracks on each side of the vertical and
horizontal element were inclined to the axis of the chords at the angle of 45°. The vertical elements of truss represent
reinforcement in the shape of stirrups. The top and bottom chords of the truss represent tension reinforcement and compressed
accordingly. In the second STM, the concrete compression diagonal strut were inclined to the axis of the chord at the angle of 37°
but in the third STM the diagonal struts were inclined at the angle of 26.6o.
Experimental tests of 6 reinforced concrete beams were performed in the laboratory of The Faculty of Civil Engineering and
Architecture Environment in Rzeszow University of Technology. The beams were being loaded gradually and for each stage of
the load, cracks, the angle of rotation of the cross and displacement were measured. The experimentally determined beam load-
bearing capacities TR and stiffness under torsion were compared with the ones calculated from equations based on the well-
known theories.

Published
© 2017 The by Elsevier
Authors.Ltd. This is anby
Published open access Ltd.
Elsevier article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Analytical Models and New
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Analytical Models and New Concepts in
Conceptsand
Concrete in Masonry
ConcreteStructures
and Masonry Structures.

Keywords: concrete; torsion; shear; stiffness under torsion; STM; spatial truss;

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +48-17-7432402; fax: +48-17-854 29 74.

E-mail address: lida@prz.edu.pl

1877-7058 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Analytical Models and New Concepts in Concrete and
Masonry Structures
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.06.198
 Lidia Buda-Ożóg / Procedia Engineering 193 (2017) 152 – 159 153

1. Introduction

Many reinforced concrete elements under torsion are subjected to load combinations that include a torsion
moment, a bending moment and a shear force. The loading of an element with torsional moment alone does not
occur in building engineering; it is a wholly theoretical case. Examples of reinforced concrete elements loaded with
a torsional moment are: spatial frame structures, stairs, spiral ramps, balcony slab ring beams, extreme beams and
arches beam loaded perpendicularly to their plane.
Structural components have been the subject of research for over a hundred years of the history of reinforced
concrete. Despite this, the torsional load is less recognized phenomenon occurring in elements of reinforced concrete
compared to bending, shear and compression. Experimental and theoretical research of RC elements under torsional
loads was started at the beginning of 20th century. A theoretical model describing the behavior of RC elements
under the torsional moment i.e the space truss model by Rausch was created in 1929 [1]. Since then the models have
been modified and refined in order to bring them closer to reality. The most comprehensive monograph on torsion
was written by Hsu (1968) [2], [3]. In the Polish literature, a comprehensive overview of this issue can be found in
the work of Godycki - ûwirko [4], CiĊĪak [5], Kaminski, Pawlak [6] the report of experimental studies [7] and [8].
However, the research and analyses do not allow for a full description of this phenomenon in reinforced concrete,
and proposed EC2 [9] rules for the calculation of the ULS and SLS seem to be incomplete. The reason for this is the
complicated nature of the phenomenon and difficulties associated with the implementation of experimental studies.
Structural elements subjected to torsional load work in the spatial state of stress and strain. Experimental research is
mostly conducted on elements in the natural scale and requires dedicated positions and test equipment.
The use of truss models for the analysis of internal forces in reinforced concrete structures has a very long history
and has been known since the end of the nineteenth century. Strut and tie modeling STM is a versatile, lower-bound
(i.e., conservative) design method for reinforced concrete structural components. STM is most commonly used to
design regions of structural components disturbed by a load and/ or geometric discontinuity. Since the method is
based on lower bound theorem of plasticity, it can be assured to deliver a safe designed structure. Using of strut-and-
tie modeling requires clear understanding of load paths and skillful in visualization of stress field.
In STM, a ties represent reinforcement within a structure. Each tie must therefore be positioned to correspond
with the centroid of bars that carry force in a tie. Struts are compression elements used to transfer loads from nodes
to nodes. In STM, the struts represent the concrete within the structure
As proposed by EN-1992-1-1 [9], Strut-and-Tie modeling (STM) can be used as an alternative approach for
analysis and design of reinforcement concrete structures.
Torsional stiffness of reinforced concrete cross-section is calculated with acceptable accuracy by Saint-Venan
using the elastic theory [10,11]. But despite thorough research on torsion or a combination of torsion, bending and
shear, knowledge of torsional stiffness after cracking is still limited. Therefore the author undertook research on
reinforced concrete beams loaded with a torsional moment as well as a shear force and a bending moment, designed
on the basic of STM. This paper deals in detail the load capacity and stiffness of such elements.

2. Stiffness of elements under torsion

The stiffness of an uncracked reinforced concrete element (in stage 1) can be expressed by the formula (1):

்
‫ ்ܭ‬ൌ ‫ ܩ‬ή ‫ ்ܬ‬ൌ  ሾ݇ܰ݉ଶ ሿ (1)
ఏ

where:
‫ܩ‬- shear modulus (a material constant for concrete) by the formula (2),

ா
‫ܩ‬ൌ (2)
ଶሺଵାఔሻ

‫ – ்ܬ‬a torsional moment of inertia,

ș– rotation per length unit,
154 Lidia Buda-Ożóg / Procedia Engineering 193 (2017) 152 – 159

E – a tangent Modulus [N/mm2],

ȣ – a Poisson ratio,
T – a torsional moment.
Stiffness of elements under torsion in stage 2, after cracking is usually expressed by the formula (3):

‫்ܭ‬ூூ ൌ ‫ ܥ‬ή ሺ‫ ܩ‬ή ‫ ்ܬ‬ሻூ (3)

in whichሺ‫ ܩ‬ή ‫ ܶܬ‬ሻ‫ ܫ‬is related to the quality of the concrete and cross-sectional shape,
C- derating coefficient depends on many factors such as reinforcement, cracking .
An example of this approach can be a formula for stiffness under torsion by Hsu [2] in equation (4):

‫்ܭ‬ூூ ൌ ͲǡͲʹͳ ή ሺߩ்௅ ൅ ߩ்௦ ሻ ή ሺ‫ ܩ‬ή ‫ ்ܬ‬ሻூ (4)

where: ߩ்௅ ൅ ߩ்௦ the total degree of reinforcement in [%], respectively (5,6):

஺ೞಽ ஺ೞ ή௨ೕ
ߩ்௅ ൌ  , ߩ்௦ ൌ  , (5,6)
஺೎ ௖ೞ ή஺೎

‫ܣ‬௦௅ - the area of longitudinal bars,

‫ܣ‬௦ – the area of stirrups,
‫ܣ‬௖ – the area of concrete,
ܿୱ - the distance between stirrups,
‫ݑ‬௝ – the circuit of stirrups.
The Hsu formula for breaking the torsional load- bearing capacity can be calculated from the following equation:

ଵǤ଴ଵହ ௙೤ ௛ೕ ஺ೞ ή௙೤ೢ ή௛ೕ ή௕ೕ

ܶோ ൌ  ܾ ଶ ή ݄ ή ඥ݂௖ ൅ ൬ͲǤ͸͸ ή ݊ ή ൅ ͲǤ͵͵ ή ൰ ή (7)
ξ௕ ௙೤ೢ ௕ೕ ௖ೞ

where: ܾ௝ ǡ ݄௝ െ the dimension in the axis of stirrups,

஺ೞಽ ή௖ೞ
݊ൌ (8)
ଶήሺ௕ೕ ା௛ೕ ሻή஺ೞ

The first theoretical formula for stiffness of elements under torsion in stage 2 for the square cross- section was
gave by Lampert and Thurlimann in [12]. Subsequently, Lampert [13] generalized this formula for the rectangular
cross-section (9):

ாೞ ήሺ௕ೕ ή௛ೕ ሻమ ή஺ೞ

‫்ܭ‬ூூ ൌ ή ሺͳ ൅ ݉ሻ (9)
ଶήሺ௕ೕ ା௛ೕ ሻή௖ೞ

where:

஺ೞಽ ή௖ೞ
݉ൌ , ‫ݑ‬௞ ൌ ʹ ή ሺܾ௞ ൅ ݄௞ ሻ (10,11)
஺ೞ ή௨ೖ

ܾ௞ ǡ ݄௞ െ the dimension in the axis of longitudinal bars,

On the basis of the Lampert and Thurlimann spatial truss theory, the torsional load- bearing capacity can be
calculated:

ଶή஺ೖ ή஺ೞಽ ή௙೤

for longitudinal reinforcement ܶோ௅ ൌ  ή ‫ߠ݃ݐ‬ (12)
௨ೖ
 Lidia Buda-Ożóg / Procedia Engineering 193 (2017) 152 – 159 155

ଶή஺ೖ ή஺ೞ ή௙೤ೢ

for stirrups ܶோ௦ ൌ  ή ܿ‫ߠ݃ݐ‬ (13)
௖ೞ

where: Ak – the area bounded by the center line of the thin-walled element cross-section

More comprehensive information about stiffness under the torsion can be found in Godyckiego - ûwirko [4].

3. ST model of beams

In this article, three Strut and Tie Models (STMs) depending on the angle of diagonal strut were compared. The
first model (B1) was a spatial truss similar to the Leonhardt truss, in which the concrete compression diagonal struts,
separated by cracks on each side of the vertical and horizontal element were inclined to the axis of the chords at the
angle of 45°. The vertical elements of truss represent reinforcement in the shape of stirrups. The top and bottom
chords of the truss represent tension reinforcement and compressed accordingly. In the second STM, the concrete
compression diagonal strut were inclined to the axis of the chord at the angle of 37 ° (B2) but in the third STM the
diagonal struts were inclined at the angle of 26.6o (B3). For all analyzed beams (STM), the designed reinforcement
was performed for the external load of 60 kN. The analyzed cantilever beams with applied load and reinforcement
obtained on the basis of the adopted STM are shown in Fig.1.

Fig. 1. Geometry and reinforcement of tested beams

Total weight of reinforcement (stirrups and longitudinal bars) for the beams were: beam B1 – 24.2 kg, beam B2 –
23.4 kg and beam B3 – 21.8 kg.

4. Experimental research

4.1. Description of tests

The program included three series of beams. In the first test series, two beams with reinforcement obtained on the
basis of the first STM - B1 under a combined load of a torsional moment –T, a bending moment –M and a shear
force – F were tested. In the second series two beams B2 with the reinforcement obtained on the basis of the second
156 Lidia Buda-Ożóg / Procedia Engineering 193 (2017) 152 – 159

STM were tested and third series, included also two beams B3 with reinforcement obtained on the basis of the third
STM.
The aim of the test was experimental verification of influence of reinforcement type on deformability, cracking,
stiffness and load carrying capacity of beams. The beams to be tested were made in the prefabrication plant
“SOLBET” in Gáogow. The beams were reinforced with ࢥ 16 mm and ࢥ 10 mm bars of B500SP steel - longitudinal
reinforcement and ࢥ 6mm or ࢥ8 mm stirrups at different spacing. The geometry of the tested beams and the span
reinforcement are shown in the Fig.1 .
All the beams were made of concrete C35/45. Compressive strength of concrete and modulus of elasticity were
measured on cubic samples of 150 mm side but tension strength of concrete was measured on rectangular sample of
100x100x500 mm sides. The results of strength property tests on concrete are as follows: the mean compressive
strength fcm = 64,4 MPa, the mean tensile strength fctm = 5,46 MPa and the mean module of elasticity Ec = 35,03
GPa.
The beams were tested in Civil Engineering, Environmental Engineering and Architecture Laboratory, Rzeszow
University of Technology. The view of the test stand is shown in Fig.2.

Fig. 2. The view of the test stand

The beams were subjected to static loading. The force was increased in steps of 5.0 kN up to about 60% of failure
load – Fmax and after the loading to level Fi = 0.6 Fmax the beam was loaded at a step of 2.0 kN until it failed. At each
load level, the following were measured: concrete strains on the side faces of beams in longitudinal and transverse
direction, concrete strains on the upper surface of beams in longitudinal and transverse direction, angles of rotation,
vertical displacement of the lower surface of beams, the crack opening width and the propagation of cracks. All the
measurements (except for crack propagation) were read off and recorded by Hottinger Baldwin Messtechnik system
and 3D Digital Image Correlation System Q-450. The Digital Image Correlation is full-field image analysis method,
based on grey value digital images that can determine the contour and the displacement on an object under load in
three dimensions.
 Lidia Buda-Ożóg / Procedia Engineering 193 (2017) 152 – 159 157

4.2. Results of experimental test

The load capacities of all the tested beams are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. The load capacities of all the tested beams

Beams Failure load Torsional moment Bending moment
Fmax [kN] Tmax [kNm] Mmax [kNm]
B1.1 126.9 38.1 107.9
B1.2 120.4 36.1 102.3
B2.1 100.1 30.0 85.1
B2.2 110.1 33.0 93.6
B3.1 87.4 26.2 74.3
B3.2 82.7 24.8 70.3

As the table shows that, beams B1 failed under load Fmax = 127.7 kN and Fmax = 120.4 kN, while beams B3
failed under load Fmax = 87.4 kN and Fmax = 82.7 kN. The results shows, that the degree inclination of compression
diagonal strut in STM has an impact on limit load capacities of beams.
The figures below show the dependence between load and measured deflection in the point situated at the end of
the cantilever beam.

Fig. 3. The dependence between load and measured deflection

The graph show that for forces 60 – 70 kN, the dependence between load and measured deflection are similar for
all STMs of beams. Significant differences in behavior of beams can be observed for larger loads.
The torsion stiffness of beams depends of unit angle of rotation ș, calculated for the cross-sections placed at the
end of each cantilever beams. Results obtained for all the beams are presented in Fig 4.
158 Lidia Buda-Ożóg / Procedia Engineering 193 (2017) 152 – 159

first cracks

Fig. 4. Comparison of torsional stiffness T-ș

In Fig. 4, it can be observed that until the appearance of the first cracks, the dependence between the torsion
moment and unit angle of rotation ș is nearly linear. After cracking, the angle of rotation significantly increases. The
graphs are similar for all the analyzed beams if the load does not exceed 60 kN (T = 20 kNm). For the adopted STM
of beams and larger loads, significant changes on the angle of rotation and torsional moment can be observed

5. Comparison of empirical and theoretical results

The experimentally determined beam load-bearing capacities TR and stiffness under torsion were compared with
the ones calculated from equations based on the well-known theories. The torsion moment and stiffness under
torsion are shown in Table 2. The theoretical results of load-bearing capacities TR were calculated using equations
(7), (12), (13) but theoretical results of stiffness KT were calculated using equations (4) and (9).

Table 2. The load capacities of the tested beams

Torsional load -bearing capacities TR [kNm] and Stiffness KT [kNm2]
Hsu [3] Lampert and Thurliman [12,13] empiria - element 1 empiria - element 2
TR KT TRL TRs KT TR KT TR KT
(Eq.7) (Eq.4) (Eq.12) (Eq.13) (Eq.9)
beam 1 30.9 2723 31.9 37.3 1988 36.1 2950 38.1 2346
beam 2 30.8 2520 27.4 36.9 1853 30.0 2983 33.0 2492
beam 3 32.7 2543 22.9 39.3 1916 26.2 2844 24.8 2959

It is apparent that the theoretical stiffness calculated from Lampert and Thurliman theories were lower than the
experimentally determined for beams. Whereas theoretical stiffness calculated from Hsu theories is close to obtain
from the empirical.

6. Conclusion

Summing up, on the basis of the performed experimental tests and theoretical results, the following observations
and conclusions can be formulated:
 Lidia Buda-Ożóg / Procedia Engineering 193 (2017) 152 – 159 159

Obtained from STMs, load-bearing capacities for beams loaded with a torsional moment, bending moment as
well as a shear force are significantly lower than calculated from equations based on the well-known theories and
experimental tests. In case of beams B1, obtained from experimental tests, load-bearing capacities were about 100%
more than from STM.
The experimental stiffness under torsion were mostly bigger than the ones calculated from the standard formulas.
The differences between the experimental results and the results obtained from equation (9) are about 30 percent
Load-bearing capacities and stiffness of beams B1.1 and B1.2 with the reinforcement shaped on the basis of STM
which diagonal strut inclined at the angle of 45o were mostly higher than other beams. This means that the stirrups
are more relevant in the transmission of torsion moment than the longitudinal bars.
STMs give an estimate safer, and they are easy to use. The obtained differences in capacity, can mean that the
adopted STMs are not too close to the real path of the transmission of forces in a structure.
Due to the robustness of beams, STM with diagonal strut inclined at the angle of 45o (B1) are more effective and
safer because the difference in weight of reinforcements between the beams B1 and B3 is only 10%, while the load–
bearing capacity is ever 30%.

References

[1] E. Rausch, Drillung ( Torsion), Shub and Scheren im Stahlbetonbau, VDI Verlag, Dusseldorf, 1953.
[2] T.T.C. Hsu, Torsion of Structural Concrete, ACI SP-18, 1968.
[3] K.N. Rahal, M.P. Collins, Analysis of Sections Subjected to Combined Shear and Torsion- A Teoretical Model, ACI Structural Journal. 92
(1995) 459-469.
[4] T. Godycki-ûwirko ,Mechanika betonu, Arkady, Warszawa 1982,
[5] T. CiĊĪak, Rozwarcie rys w skrĊcanych elementach Īelbetowych, Prace Naukowe Politechniki Lubelskiej 218. Budownictwo 40. Lublin
1990,
[6] M. KamiĔski, W. Pawlak, Load capacity and stiffness of angular cross section reinforced concrete beams under torsion, Archives of civil
and Mechanical Engineering, XI(4) (2011) 885-903.
[7] A. KosiĔska, A.B. Nowakowski, DoĞwiadczalne badania Īelbetowych elementów poddanych skrĊcaniu, Wydawnictwo Politechnik àódzkiej,
zeszyt nr 10, àódĨ 2001.
[8] L. Buda-OĪóg, Ocena noĞnoĞci skrĊcanych i Ğcinanych belek projektowanych z wykorzystaniem modeli ST, Materiaáy Budowlane nr 8,
2016.
[9] EN-1992-1-1:1991: Eurocode 2: “Design of Concrete Structures. Part 1-1”.
[10] C. Williams, D. Deschenes, O. Bayrak, Strut-and-Tie Model Design Examples for Bridges: Final Report, CTR Technical Report: 5-5253-01-
1, October 2011, Rev. June 2012.
[11] L. Bing, T.N.T. Cao, Reinforced concrete beam analysis supplementing concrete contribution in truss models, Engineering Structures. 30
(2008) 3285-3294.
[12] P. Lampert, B. Thurlimann, Torsionsversuche an Stalbetonbalken, Inst. für Baustatik ETH, Zurych, 1968.
[13] P. Lampert, Postcracking Stiffness of Reinforced Concrete Beams on Torsion and Bending, Univ. of Toronto, 1971.