Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TECHNICAL PAPER
INTRODUCTION
The torsion provisions in ACI 318-95 were substantially
improved compared with ACI 318-89. The 1995 provision is
based on a rational thin-walled tube, space truss analogy,
which is currently adopted in the CEB Model Code1 and the
Canadian Code.2 The method adopted in ACI 318-95 was
reported to correlate well with experimental results of both
high-strength and normal strength concrete specimens.3,4
Nevertheless, the minimum torsional reinforcement provision
(11.6.5) in ACI 318-95 is still empirical, which contradicts the
general rationality of other torsion design provisions.
The method presented herein for computing minimum
torsional reinforcement capitalizes on results and equations
already adopted in ACI 318-95 to prevent brittle failure of a
member in torsion. Therefore, the method will be both
rational and consistent with the existing design approach.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
This paper describes the derivation of a design procedure
for minimum torsional reinforcement in beams so as to
preclude brittle failure in torsion. This is ensured by specifying that the beams ultimate torsion capacity should be
greater than its cracking torsion. The method is compared
with available test data.
Torsion design in ACI 318-95
Section 11.6, Design for Torsion, was subject to major
changes3 in ACI 318-95. The new torsion provisions are based
on a thin-walled tube, space truss analogy in which the beam
cross section is idealized as a tube (Fig. 1). After cracking, the
tube is idealized as a space truss consisting of closed stirrups,
longitudinal bars in the corners, and concrete compression
diagonals approximately centered on the stirrups. The diagonals are at angle to the member longitudinal axis [Fig. 1(b)].
The angle is generally taken as 45 deg for reinforced
concrete beams and 37.5 deg for prestressed beams.
Tests by Rasmussen and Baker4 showed that the new provisions
give good estimates of capacity of both high-strength concrete
(HSC) specimens (10 specimens 50 MPa < f'c < 110 MPa) and
normal strength concrete (NSC) specimens. Table 1 shows
the results of test/predicted compared with CEB Model
Code1 (which is also based on a space truss approach) for the
eight HSC specimens and 160 NSC specimens. Obviously,
40
Code
HSC specimens
(10 specimens)
Coefficient of
Mean test/
variation,
predicted
percent
ACI 318-95
0.935
21
0.81
CEB Model
Code 90
1.045
21
1.5
15
ACI 318-95 provides superior estimates in the case of HSC specimens and reasonably accurate estimates for NSC specimens.
Empiricism in existing minimum torsion
reinforcement design
Minimum areas of transverse closed stirrups and longitudinal torsional reinforcement are specified by Eq. (11-23)
and (11-24), and Sections 11.6.5.2 and 11.6.5.3 of ACI 318-95.
These equations are given by Eq. (1), (2), and (3) below
50b w s
A v + 2A t, min = ------------f yv
(1)
where
At,min = minimum cross-sectional area of one leg of closed
stirrup, in.2
Av
= area of shear reinforcement within a distance s,
in.2
ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 1, January-February 1999.
Received October 16, 1996, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 1999, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies
unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including
authors closure, if any, will be published in the November-December 1999 ACI Structural
Journal if the discussion is received by July 1, 1999.
bw
s
(2)
(3)
where
Al,min = minimum area of total longitudinal reinforcement
required for torsion, in.2
Acp
= area enclosed by outside perimeter of concrete
cross section, in.2 (refer to Section 11.6.1 in ACI
318-95)
f c
= concrete compressive strength, psi
fyl
= yield strength of longitudinal torsional reinforcement, psi
ph
= perimeter of centerline of outermost closed transverse torsional reinforcement (stirrups), in.
Eq. (3) has an interesting historical development. Based on
tests of rectangular reinforced concrete members subjected to
pure torsion, Hsu5 noted that beams with volumetric torsional
reinforcement ratio slightly less than 1 percent failed in pure
torsion failure at the cracking load, while those specimens
with reinforcement ratio slightly greater than 1.07 percent
failed at torques in excess of 1.2 times the cracking load.
Therefore, Hsu5 suggested that 1 percent reinforcement ratio
should be the threshold minimum volumetric torsional reinforcement. Thus
A l, min s
At ph
(4)
or
At ph
A l, min = 0.01A cp ----------s
(5)
At ph
7.5 f c
A l, min = ------------------ A cp ----------f yl
s
(6)
(7)
A cp
T cr = 4 f c --------p cp
(ACI R11.6.1)
(8)
where
Tcr
= torsional cracking moment, in.-lb
= area enclosed by outside perimeter of concrete
Acp
cross section, in.2 (refer to Section 11.6.1 in ACI
318-95)
fc
= concrete compressive strength, psi
pcp
= outside perimeter of the concrete cross section, in.
(refer to Section 11.6.1 in ACI 318-95)
and
41
2A o f yl A l
T n = ---------------------p h cot
(9)
where
Tn
Al
(10)
Fig. 2Measured versus computed Tn/Tcr .
(11)
(12)
4 f yl A o pcp
2 f c Acp ph
------------- -------- ------- cot A cp
f yl A o pcp
f yv 5 3000 360
5 f c A cp A t
- = --------------------------------A l, min = ---------------------- ---- p h ----f yl
60,000
s
f yl
0.2
,000- = 1.64 2.095 = 0.45 in. 2
- 72 60
---------------------------6.875 60,000
2
3000- --------------------------360 - 72
2----------------------- cot 45 360 = 0.985 in.
60,000 9 27 0.85 84
44
CONCLUSIONS
The minimum torsional reinforcement provision in ACI 31895 is not only empirical, but also may cause unnecessary
confusion to the designer. Moreover, the provision is not
consistent with recent changes in torsion design adopted in
ACI 318-95. In this paper, a minimum reinforcement provision is introduced which is believed to eliminate the disadvantages discussed above. Moreover, the suggested
approach correlates well with available experimental results.
Design examples show that, even for extreme cases, the
suggested method provides reasonable results.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by the National Institute of Standard and
Technology (Grant No. 60NANB5D0073) and Cornell University.
CONVERSION FACTORS
1 in.
1000 psi
1 kip
1 lb
1 lb-in.
2 f c A cp p h
sA l
s ( 6.22 )
A t = -----------------------= ----------------------------------------f yv 2
60, 000 2
160 ------------------ cot 45
p h ----- cot
60, 000
f yl
(14)
ph
Tcr
Tn
=
=
=
=
REFERENCES
1. CEB-FIB, Model Code 1990, Code European du Bton, Comit
Euro-International du Bton, 437 pp.
2. CSA, Design of Concrete Structures for Buildings, CAN3-A23.3-A94,
Concrete Standards Association, Rexdale, Ontario, Canada, 1994, 199 pp.
3. MacGregor, J., and Ghoneim, M., Design for Torsion, ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., 1995, pp. 211-218.
4. Rasmussen, L., and Baker, G., Torsion in Reinforced Normal and
High-Strength Concrete BeamsPart 2: Theory and Design, ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 2, Mar.- Apr., 1995, pp. 149-156.
5. Hsu, T. C., Torsion of Structural ConcreteBehavior of Reinforced
Concrete Rectangular Members, Torsion of Structural Concrete, SP-18,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1968, pp. 261-306.
Al
=
Al,min =
Ao =
At,min =
Av
=
f c
=
fyl
=
fyv =
pcp =
s Al
A t = -----------------------f yv 2
ph ----- cot
f yl
25.4 mm
1 ksi = 6.895 MPa
4.448 kN
4.44 N
0.113 N.m
NOTATIONS
Acp
2 f c A cp ph
A l, min = ------------- -------- ------- cot A cp
f yl A o pcp
=
=
=
=
=
(15)
6. Baant, Z., and Oh, B., Crack Band Theory for Fracture of Concrete,
RILEM, 1983, pp. 155-176.
7. Nawy, E. G., Reinforced Concrete, third edition, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1996.
45