ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 106-S05

Torsion in High-Strength Concrete Hollow Beams:

Strength and Ductility Analysis
by Luis F. A. Bernardo and Srgio M. R. Lopes
The ultimate behavior of high-strength concrete hollow beams is
studied with respect to their strength and ductility. Sixteen beams
were tested and the results are presented herein. The hollow beams
had a constant square cross section and were symmetrically
reinforced. The variable parameters were the concretes compressive
strength, from 46.2 to 96.7 MPa (from 6699 to 14,022 psi), and the
total amount of torsional reinforcement, from 0.30 to 2.68%. The
study presented in this paper shows that the torsional ductility is
low and that the range of reinforcement ratio where ductility still
occurs is very narrow. Different codes of practice were compared
in the light of the experimental results. As a consequence, the
authors found that ACI Code is the most appropriate for predicting
torsional strength and limiting torsion reinforcement, thereby
leading to ductile behavior.
Keywords: ductility; high-strength concrete; hollow beams; torsion;
ultimate strength.

INTRODUCTION
The use of high-strength concrete (HSC) in many special
structures (such as long bridges) is nowadays a rational
option to fulfil many requirements, such as strength,
durability, and economy. Even for normal structures (such
as buildings), the use of HSC can lead to competitive
economical solutions because the structural members are
smaller than normal-strength concrete (NSC) members. This
is mainly true for members with a high level of compression
(such as columns). In consequence, HSC reduces self-weight
and inertia. Those reductions constitute an important advantage
when structures are located in seismic regions.
Because of their economic advantages, HSC structures
were initially used without being sufficiently studied. Some
aspects of its mechanical behavior were assumed to be an
extension of NSC. Some of the code rules developed for
NSC must be fully studied to check their applicability to
HSC. Some of this work has already been carried out. As a
result, some codes already incorporate design rules for
concrete strengths higher than 50 MPa (7250 psi). The
Norwegian,1 the Canadian,2 the New Zealand,3 the European,4,5
and ACI6 codes are examples. Nevertheless, some codes4
still suggest that for concrete strengths above 50 MPa (7250 psi),
the rules have to be used with caution. In fact, some aspects
of the structural behavior of HSC members are either not
fully known or even completely unknown. This is the case of
beams under torsion. The new design rules for torsion may
need a large number of tests to confirm some theories.
Therefore, the ongoing research efforts need to be continued
to be able to correct future version of the codes.
In actual structures, torsion forces are usually combined
with moments, shear, and axial forces, but in some structures,
such as bridges, the torsion can become very important for
the design. Furthermore, the design procedures based on
force interactions need to know the behavior under pure
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2009

torsion. Because HSC and hollow beams are frequently

being used in bridges, a research program on the behavior of
HSC hollow beams under torsion is very important.
The validity of plastic analysis requires that the structure
undergoes a ductile behavior to allow the internal forces to
be redistributed to meet the theoretical forces obtained by
computation. This should take place with no risk of a brittle
premature failure. In the last couple of decades, some
experimental programs have shown that concrete structures,
if correctly reinforced, exhibit high values of plastic
deformations after yielding of the reinforcement. These
values are often sufficient to allow the theory of plasticity to
be used. Ductility behavior is widely accepted for members
under flexure. For shear and torsion, the assumption of
ductile behavior is often questioned.
The failure by shear in shear elements would not be as
brittle as expected if the structures have adequate transversal
and longitudinal reinforcement ratios. Beyond the maximum
load, the structure behavior gradually develops the so-called
softening effect (influence of diagonal cracking on the
concrete struts) that leads to a relatively high value of
internal energy dissipation through a sufficient level of
deformation. In these cases, plastic behavior may be
assumed. Conversely, if the reinforcement ratio is too high
or too low, there is a risk of brittle failure. In this case, a
plastic behavior cannot be assumed. A top and a bottom
limiting value for the reinforcing ratio is a normal procedure
to lead to ductile behavior. This is true for shear as well as
for flexure.
The considerations indicated in the previous paragraph for
shear are also valid for torsion. The shear stresses are as
important for members under torsion as for those under
shear. It is important to have sufficient ductility in the
sections with the maximum torque. The risk of failures of
beams with high torsion forces is real, and reports of failure
of bridges can be found in some publications such as that by
Priestley et al.7 The use of HSC makes this issue even more
important because this concrete is more brittle than NSC.
Several codes of practice were analyzed and the only one that
has explicit clauses to ensure a minimum degree of ductility
is the ACI Code.6,14 Basically, the clauses impose a
maximum and a minimum value for the amount of the torque
reinforcement (for both transverse and longitudinal bars).
The equations for the minimum amount of reinforcement,
however, are mainly empirical and sometimes lead to
questionable solutions,8 namely, negative minimum longitudinal
ACI Structural Journal, V. 106, No. 1, January-February 2009.
MS No. S-2007-147.R2 received December 2, 2007, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright 2009, 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 NovemberDecember 2009 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by July 1, 2009.

39

Luis F. A. Bernardo is an Assistant Professor at the University of Beira Interior,

Covilh, Portugal. He received a degree in civil engineering from the Technical
University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal, and his PhD from the University of Coimbra,
Coimbra, Portugal. His research interests include flexural and torsional behavior of
reinforced concrete structures.
Srgio M. R. Lopes is an Associate Professor at the University of Coimbra. He
received a degree in civil engineering from the University of Coimbra; his Msc from
the Technical University of Lisbon; and his PhD from the University of Leeds,
Leeds, UK. His research interests include flexural and torsional behavior of reinforced
concrete structures.

reinforcement requirement or disproportional longitudinal and

stirrup reinforcement.
The lack of specific rules for torsion in some codes
(MC 904 and EC 25 from Europe and CAN3-A23.3-042
from Canada) is compensated for by requiring that the
minimum transversal and longitudinal reinforcement for
torsion be considered to be the corresponding values of the
minimum amount of transversal reinforcement for shear and
the minimum amount of longitudinal reinforcement for
bending moments.
As far as the maximum amount of torsion reinforcement is
concerned, the codes of practice do not generally offer any
rule for its explicit quantification. They normally indicate a
maximum value for the compressive stress in the concrete
struts to prevent the concrete from crushing before the
torsion reinforcement yields. Obviously, this limitation can
be used indirectly to compute the maximum amount of the
transversal reinforcement. Before 1995, the ACI Code
proposed an explicit rule for the maximum transversal
reinforcement. As far as the torsion is concerned, after the
1995 edition, this Code became very different from previous
editions and this explicit rule was replaced by the indirect
checking of the maximum stress in concrete struts.
For HSC beams, the rules of codes need firm confirmation
and there have not been enough studies on torsion ductility
to permit unquestionable conclusions.
This paper presents the study of the ultimate strength and
ductility of HSC hollow beams under pure torsion. For this
purpose, 16 hollow beams were tested to failure.

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
So far, only a very limited number of studies on HSC
beams under pure torsion have been carried out, among
which the publications by Rasmussen and Baker9,10 and
Wafa et al.11 are examples. These initial studies comprise
laboratory programs testing only small rectangular plain
beams. The authors did not find any study focused on HSC
hollow beams. As far as torsional ductility is concerned,
HSC beams are more problematic than NSC beams, and
hollow beams are more problematic than plain beams. The
authors are presenting a study on HSC hollow beams that
provides much needed information.
TEST PROGRAM
Test specimens
Sixteen rectangular hollow beams 5.90 m (232.28 in.) long
were tested on a ring that fixed one end and applied a torsion
force on the other end. The beams had a hollow square cross
section 0.60 m (23.62 in.) wide with walls 0.10 m (3.94 in.)
thick (Fig. 1). These dimensions were selected so that there
would be some similarity with the beams tested by Lampert
and Thurlimann.13 The ends of the test beams were designed
to be fixed to the heads of the testing equipment. The variables
of the experimental program were the compressive strength
of the concrete and the amount of steel reinforcement. The
concrete strength of cylinder specimens varied from 46.2 to
96.7 MPa (6699 to 14,022 psi). Three beam series were cast
and testedSeries A, B and Cclassified according to
concrete strength. Within each series, the limit percentages
of torsion steel reinforcement were the recommended
maximum and minimum values given by the Code (among
the investigated codes) that allowed the largest range for the
percentage of steel reinforcement.14 The purpose was to
use the largest range of reinforcement ratio allowed by all
the analyzed codes.
Table 1 presents a summary of the properties of the test
beams, including the average thickness of the walls of the
cross section (t), the identification of the torsion reinforcement,
the distances between centerlines of legs of the stirrups (x1
and y1), the area of longitudinal reinforcement (Asl) and of

Fig. 1Geometry and examples of test beams details. (Note: 1 in. = 2.54 cm; 1 m =
38.37 in.).
40

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2009

Table 1Properties of test beams

Beam

t,
cm

Longitudinal
reinforcement

Transversal
reinforcement, @s, cm

x1,
cm

y1,
cm

Asl,
cm2

Ast,
cm2

fc,
MPa

l,
%

t,
%

tot,
%

mb

A-48.4-0.37

9.8

48 + 166

6@9

53.7

54.7

6.53

0.28

48.4

0.18

0.19

0.37

0.96

A-47.3-0.76

10.7

412 + 1210

8@8

53.8

53.1

13.95

0.50

47.3

0.39

0.37

0.76

1.04

A-46.2-1.00

10.9

1612

10@9.5

54.0

53.5

18.10

0.79

46.2

0.50

0.49

1.00

1.02

A-54.8-1.31

10.4

416 + 2010

10@7

52.0

52.5

23.75

0.79

54.8

0.66

0.65

1.31

1.01

A-53.1-1.68

10.4

416 + 2012

12@8

52.8

52.8

30.66

1.13

53.1

0.85

0.83

1.68

1.03

B-75.6-0.30

10.1

206

6@11

53.9

54.4

5.65

0.28

75.6

0.16

0.14

0.30

1.11

B-69.8-0.80

10.8

412 + 208

8@7.5

53.3

53.4

14.58

0.50

69.8

0.41

0.40

0.80

1.02

B-77.8-1.33

10.9

416 + 2010

10@7

53.5

53.7

23.75

0.79

77.8

0.66

0.67

1.33

0.99

B-79.8-1.78

11.2

1616

12@7.5

52.3

53.6

32.17

1.13

79.8

0.89

0.89

1.78

1.01

B-76.4-2.20

11.6

2016

12@6

51.8

51.8

40.21

1.13

76.4

1.12

1.09

2.20

1.03

C-91.7-0.37

9.7

48 + 166

6@9

54.0

54.9

6.53

0.28

91.7

0.18

0.19

0.37

0.96

C-94.8-0.76

10.0

412 + 1210

8@8

53.2

53.3

13.95

0.50

94.8

0.39

0.37

0.76

1.04

C-91.6-1.29

10.3

416 + 2010

10@7

54.5

54.0

23.75

0.79

91.6

0.66

0.63

1.29

1.05

C-91.4-1.71

10.3

416 + 2012

12@8

54.6

54.5

30.66

1.13

91.4

0.85

0.86

1.71

0.99

C-96.7-2.07

10.4

420 + 1216

12@6.5

54.0

54.3

36.69

1.13

96.7

1.02

1.05

2.07

0.97

C-87.5-2.68

10.4

2416

12@5

53.3

52.9

48.25

1.13

87.5

1.34

1.34

2.68

1.00

Note: 1 in. = 2.54 cm; 1 in.2 = 6.45 cm2; and 1 MPa = 145 psi.

one branch of the transversal reinforcement (Ast), the

average concrete compressive strength fc, the longitudinal
reinforcement ratio (t = Asl /Ac with Ac = x y and x = y =
600 mm [24 in.]) and the transversal reinforcement ratio (l =
Ast u/Ac s with u = 2(x1 + y1)), the total reinforcement ratio
(tot), and the longitudinal versus transversal reinforcement ratio
mb = Asl s/(Ast u). All the beams were designed to have
a balanced volume of longitudinal versus transversal
reinforcement (l = t).
The beams are identified by the series to which they belong:
the average concrete compressive strength fc (first number) and
the ratio of total reinforcement tot (second number).
Material properties
The average value of the concretes compressive strength
for each test beam was obtained from five specimens cast at
the same time as the corresponding beam, cured in the same
humid environment as the test beams, and tested on the same
day the corresponding beams were tested. Concrete mixtures
are given in Table 2.
The ordinary steel bars were hot-laminated ribbed bars
commercially identified as Class S500 (500 MPa [72,500 psi])
with diameters varying from 6 to 20 mm (0.24 to 0.79 in.).
To obtain the actual values of the yield stresses and strains
(fy and y, respectively), six specimens of each diameter were
tested. The average values were fy = 686 MPa (99,470 psi)
and y = 3430 106.
Testing procedure
The testing rig consisted of three main parts: 1) the test
frame where the jack was fixed; 2) the torsion apparatus that
transformed the load applied by the jack to the torsion
moment transmitted to the end of the test beams; and 3) the
reaction wall, placed at the other end of the beam, keeping
that end fixed, with no transversal rotation.
Figure 2 shows how the parts were placed during a test.
The reaction wall and the torsion apparatus were fixed to
the solid floor. This testing rig allowed the longitudinal
deformation of the beams and warping in the ends of the beams.
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2009

Table 2Mixture design of concretes

Mixture design, content per m3
Components

Series A

Series B

Thin aggregate, kg

205

164

Series C
83

Coarse aggregate, kg

914

908

766

Crushed granite 5/11, kg

718

734

780

Normal portland cement

C Type I/42.5R, kg

360

375

530

Admixture, L

4.1

4.8

15

Silica fume, kg

41

60

Water, L

145

145

146

W/(C + SF)

0.40

0.35

0.25

Note: 1 lb = 0.454 kg; 1 L = 61.02 in.3

Fig. 2Test setup. (Note: 1 m = 38.27 in.)

The load was applied in imposed deformation steps by the
jack. This procedure was useful for the study of beams after
the maximum peak load.
Loading was controlled by several load cells placed at key
points on the testing rig (under the point of applied load and
between torsion apparatus/reaction wall and solid floor).
Transversal rotations were measured at 10 different cross
sections located along the beam (Sections A-A to J-J) at
regular intervals, as illustrated in Fig. 2.
The steel reinforcement bars were instrumented at three
cross sections of the beams (midspan and quarter spans). At
41

Table 3T-m curves: key points and ductility indexes

Beam

Tcr ,
kNm

cr ,
degree/m

(GC)I,
kNm2

(GC)II,
kNm2

Tty,
kNm

A-48.4-0.37

104.08

0.071

84,070

3807

128.37

A-47.3-0.76

109.50

0.064

97,950

7559

239.36

1.08

247.06

1.17

254.77

1.66

1.13

2.40

2.12

A-46.2-1.00

113.27

0.057

113,315

8337

272.65

1.16

259.17

1.07

299.91

1.54

1.11

1.57

1.41

A-54.8-1.31

120.87

0.063

109,485

11,100

360.87

1.56

368.22

1.66

368.22

1.66

1.61

1.76

1.09

A-53.1-1.68

120.93

0.044

159,702

14,398

412.24

1.53

B-75.6-0.30

111.50

0.060

107,198

612

115.40

0.21

115.95

0.23

0.21

0.48

2.29
1.67

ly ,
Tr ,
ty,
y,
u,
degree/m Tly , kNm degree/m Tr , kNm degree/m degree/m degree/m
0.44
131.84
0.57
150.78
1.18
0.50
1.50

mq
2.99

B-69.8-0.80

116.72

0.044

151,621

6715

265.83

1.33

273.28

1.42

273.28

1.42

1.37

2.30

B-77.8-1.33

130.45

0.043

172,940

9790

355.85

1.45

B-79.8-1.78

142.93

0.061

134,251

16,590

437.85

1.24

B-76.4-2.20

146.26

0.066

126,968

15,698

456.19

1.24

C-91.7-0.37

117.31

0.038

177,073

4523

149.96

0.46

151.76

0.72

0.46

0.83

1.80

C-94.8-0.76

124.46

0.049

146,640

6924

244.78

1.07

246.55

1.10

266.14

1.44

1.09

1.66

1.54

C-91.6-1.29

131.93

0.064

118,473

9209

347.65

1.46

351.16

1.53

1.46

1.52

1.04

C-91.4-1.71

132.60

0.051

148,258

12,989

450.31

1.50

C-96.7-2.07

138.34

0.051

156,268

16,371

467.26

1.34

C-87.5-2.68

139.09

0.054

146,963

19,294

521.33

1.27

Note: = beams with brittle failure; 1 in.-kips = 0.113 kNm; 1 degree/in. = 39.37 degrees/m; 1 kNm2 = 348.42 in.2-kips.

Fig. 3Beam specimen in test position.

Fig. 5T-m curves. (Note: 1 in.-kips = 0.113 kNm; 1 degree/

in. = 39.37 degrees/m.)
cells, and strain gauges. Figure 3 shows a general view of the
beam with all the reading devices in place. A more detailed
explanation of the instrumentation of the beams is presented
in Bernardos PhD thesis.12 Figure 4 shows some examples
of the typical failure zone of the tested beams.

Fig. 4Failure zone.

each section, eight strain gauges were attached to the
reinforcement steelfour on each longitudinal bar located
at the corners of the section and four on the transversal bars
(one per branch of the stirrup).
A data logger was used to read and record the values given
by linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs), load
42

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Torque-versus-twist curves
Figure 5 shows the curves with torsion moment (torque) T
versus average angular deformation per unit length (twist)
m for all the series of tested beams. The average angular
deformation m was obtained by dividing the transversal
angles measured at Sections A-A by the distance between
Sections A-A and J-J sections (5.35 m [210.6 in.], as
shown in Fig. 2). Each individual T-m curve presents
some important points: cracking (), yielding of transversal
reinforcement (), and yielding of longitudinal reinforcement (). The yielding points were identified from the recorded
experimental data obtained through the strain gauges
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2009

attached to the bars. The failure zone of the beams generally

occurred in the middle span, located in the same section
where strain gauges were fixed in the bars. Experimental strain
values used to define yielding points are the average values of the
measured strains in the longitudinal or transversal reinforcement
located in the section where strain gauges were fixed in the bars.
From a global analysis of T-m curves, some conclusions
can be drawn about the influence of the concrete strength on
the behavior of the tested beams under torsion.
Figure 5 indicates that the final part of the ascending
branch of the T-m curves are almost linear until maximum
load for Series B and C beams, compared with Series A
beams. This is more noticeable for higher values of the torque
and torsion reinforcement. This may be due to the behavior of
the compressed concrete struts. In fact, it is known that HSC
exhibits a more linear stress-strain relationship when compared
with NSC, and also a higher modulus of elasticity.
Table 3 summarizes relevant points from the T-m curves,
namely: cracking torque and corresponding twist angle (Tcr
and cr); torsional stiffness for noncracked stage, Stage I,
((GC)I); torsional stiffness for cracked stage, Stage II, ((GC)II);
torque levels of yield of longitudinal steel and yield of
transversal steel; and corresponding twist angles (Tty, Tly,
ty, and ly). The values of (GC)I and (GC)II were calculated
by linear regression with the range of experimental T-m
points of the corresponding stage: Stage I (between zero load
and cracking point) and Stage II (between cracking point and
yield point for ductile beams or between cracking point and
maximum torque for brittle beams). The values of (GC)I and
(GC)II were related to the inclination of the line calculated by
linear regression in each stage.
For beams with similar reinforcement ratio, it should be
expected that the ultimate torque would be generally higher
for higher values of the concrete compressive strength. From
Table 3, this conclusion it is not clear (the influence of concrete
strength is probably too small to be noticed). Finally,
Table 3 also shows that, for a series of beams with similar
reinforcement ratios, the use of higher concrete strength
leads to less ductile beams.
Torsion strength and ductility
From the T-m curves presented in the previous section, it
is possible to obtain the maximum experimental values of Tr
and Tr (resistant torque and corresponding transversal
rotation). These values are also presented in Table 3 for the
beams tested in this research program.
For flexural ductility, usually the best parameter to use is
deformation.15 Generally, a ductility index can be defined by
= u/y, where u represents the deformation corresponding
to the ultimate load, and y represents the deformation
corresponding to the yielding of the steel bars.
A torsional ductility index () was defined for the beams
in this research program. To characterize the global
deformation of the test beams, the torsional rotation (per unit
length) was computed. The equation is = u/y, where u
represents the ultimate torsional rotation and y represents
the torsional rotation corresponding to the yielding of the
steel bars. The values of for the test beams were obtained
directly from the T-m curves from the tests.
Because the transversal and the longitudinal bars did not
yield simultaneously in the failure zone, the yielding point
was considered as the average value of both yielding points
(the two yielding points in each beam were generally very
close together). There were some exceptions for the first
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2009

beams of each series, with low reinforcement ratio values

(only the yielding of transversal reinforcement or longitudinal
reinforcement was recorded). For those exceptions, the
yielding point was considered as the only value recorded.
For brittle beams (beams with high reinforcement ratios
values), the ductility index was not computed.
The ultimate load corresponds to the point at which the
beam no longer resists high loads. To fix this point, a criterion
must be assumed. The subjectivity of this parameter was
previously discussed by the authors16 for the case of beams
under flexure. For this case, many authors use the same criterion
to define the ultimate point when the load (P)-displacement
() curves have a descending branch. In these cases, it is
usually considered that the ultimate point corresponds to a
load of 80% of the maximum load. For the case of torsion
and for this research, the authors have considered the same
procedure. For the beams with no descending branch
(sudden failure), the authors considered the ultimate load
equal to the maximum load.
Table 3 presents the experimental parameters used to
compute the torsional ductility index, namely, the average
yield rotation y, the ultimate rotation u, and the torsional
ductility index . A visual and qualitative value analysis of
the torsional ductility index is explained in the following.
TORSION DESIGN
This section presents a comparative analysis of the predictions
for the maximum torque given in some codes of practice.
The codes predictions are compared with the results for the
test beams. The following codes of practice were considered:
ACI 318-89,14 ACI 318-05,6 CAN3-A23.3-04,2 MC 90,4
and EC 2.5 The superseded ACI 318-8914 was analyzed
because torsion procedures were based on the skew-bending
theory. The skew-bending theory was used by the ACI Code
up to 1995; in that year, the design rules were changed. Then,
from 1995, they were based on the plasticity compression
field theory (PCFT) as the European codes. PCFT is the
result of the development of the well-known variable angle
truss-model. This theory is now the basis of the majority of
the most important codes. The variable angle truss-model
was also developed in a different way in 1973. It used the
compatibility of deformations instead of the theory of plasticity.
The following developments of this theory led to the modified
compression field theory (MCFT). The MCFT is the base of
the Canadian code CSA A23.3-04.2
For the comparative analysis presented herein, the beams
with brittle failures were also considered. The experimental
program showed that the range of beams with ductility ( > 1)
was very small. Therefore, all the beams had to be included
in this analysis, even those with a high reinforcement ratio,
as Rasmussen and Baker did.9,10
If a given code anticipates brittle failure due to crushing of
the concrete struts of a beam under analysis, then the
corresponding theoretical strength is computed by adopting
the top limit of the compression stress in concrete struts.
Table 4 presents the equations given in the studied codes
and used in this study to compute torsion strength of reinforced
concrete beams and the limits for the transversal reinforcement.
Table 5 presents the theoretical values of the maximum
torque, Tr,calc, calculated through the codes procedures. The
corresponding experimental values, Tr,exp = Tr, are also
given. The experimental to theoretical torque ratios are also
presented. A visual and qualitative analysis is given in the
following. The beams with predicted brittle failure are highlighted.
43

Table 4Equations to compute torsion strength and limits ratios of transversal reinforcement
ACI 318-8914

ACI 318-056

Tn = Tc + Ts
2

4h x y
T c = ------ ------- ( 2.4 f c )
x 3
At t x1 y1 fy
T s = -----------------------s

MC 904
2F Rtwi A ef
T n = T Rtwi = --------------------zi
z
F Rtwi = A Swi f yd cot g i ---i
s
Brittle failure:
2F Rcwi sin i A ef
T Rcwi = ---------------------------------zi
F Rcwi = f cd2 t i z i cos i

2A o A t f yv
- cot g
T n = ------------------s
Brittle failure:
2
8 f c 1.7A oh
T n = -----------------------------ph

Brittle failure:
T n = 5T c

bw s
A t, min = 0.375 f c ------f yv
25b w s
-------------f yv

bw s
A t, min = 25 ------fy
4T c s
A t, max = -----------------t x1 y1 fy

EC 25

At
T n = 2A o ----f
y cot g
s

T n = T Rd2 =
= 2A k ( f ywd A sw s )cot g
T Rd1

A swi, min = w, min sb w sen

Brittle failure:
2
0.25f c 1.7A oh
T f = ---------------------------------ph

Brittle failure:
= 2vfcd tA k sincos

bw s
A t, min = 0.06 f c ------fy

A st, min = w, min sb w sen

f cd tssincos
A st, max = -----------------------------------f ywd cotg

f cd2 t i sen i s
A swi, max = ---------------------------f yd

8 f c A oh s
A t, max = -------------------------p h f yv cot g

CAN3-A23.3-042

0.25f c 1.7A oh s
A t, max = -----------------------------------2p h A o f y cotg

Table 5Torsion strengths of test beams

ACI 318-8914

ACI 318-056

MC 904

CAN3-A23.3-042

Beam

Tr,exp,
kNm

Tr,calc,
kNm

T r, exp
-------------T r, calc

Tr,calc,
kNm

T r, exp
-------------T r, calc

A-48.4-0.37

150.78

123.18

1.224

101.62

1.484

91.52

1.648

106.68

1.414

109.65

1.375

A-47.3-0.76

254.77

192.74

1.318

212.18

1.197

191.00

1.330

221.30

1.148

234.59

1.083

A-46.2-1.00

299.91

240.36

1.248

284.94

1.053

245.36

1.222

292.64

1.025

324.24

0.925

A-54.8-1.31

368.22

292.63

1.258

298.13

1.235

356.66

1.032

411.02

0.896

415.82

0.886

0.825

Tr,calc,
kNm

T r, exp
-------------T r, calc

EC 25
Tr,calc,
kNm

T r, exp
-------------T r, calc

Tr,calc,
kNm

T r, exp
-------------T r, calc

A-53.1-1.68

412.24

334.76

1.231

302.90

1.361

427.25

0.965

507.02

0.813

499.93

B-75.6-0.30

115.95

127.53

0.909

78.30

1.481

66.91

1.733

81.41

1.424

82.24

1.410

B-69.8-0.80

273.28

217.06

1.259

223.26

1.224

199.79

1.368

232.74

1.174

249.07

1.097

B-77.8-1.33

355.85

321.77

1.106

383.61*

0.928

351.60

1.012

405.19

0.878

437.59

0.813

B-79.8-1.78

437.85

378.99

1.155

373.33*

1.173

438.67

0.998

523.14

0.837

535.20

0.818

B-76.4-2.20

456.19

434.04

1.051

343.05*

1.330

530.00

0.861

645.08

0.707

641.56

0.711

C-91.7-0.37

151.76

147.27

1.031

102.47

1.481

91.85

1.652

107.06

1.418

110.87

1.369

C-94.8-0.76

266.14

215.73

1.234

211.00

1.261

194.67

1.367

225.56

1.180

232.85

1.143

C-91.6-1.29

351.16

312.59

1.123

386.48

0.909

346.45

1.014

399.25

0.880

418.38

0.839

C-91.4-1.71

450.31

373.79

1.205

438.19*

1.028

428.80

1.050

508.86

0.885

533.62

0.844

1.060

515.84

0.906

593.58

0.787

647.16

0.722

1.318

676.89

0.770

835.53

0.624

870.91

0.599

C-96.7-2.07

467.26

437.67

1.068

440.87

C-87.5-2.68

521.33

464.46*

1.122

395.44*

Brittle failure due to insufficient concrete compressive strength expected in these beams.
Note: 1 in.-kips = 0.113 kNm.

Table 5 shows that ACI 318-8914 slightly underestimated

the strength of the test beams, presenting values on the safe
side with small deviations from the actual behavior of the
beams. The deviations become smaller as the concrete
strength of the beams increases. Comparison of values
shows that Beam B-75.6-0.30 exhibited a different ultimate
behavior when compared with the ultimate behavior exhibited
by the other beams. The steel bars of this beam yielded
exactly when the first cracks appeared (Fig. 5). The ultimate
torsional moment was equal to the cracking torsional
moment. This was due to a failure by insufficient reinforcement
(behavior typical of under-reinforced beams).
As far as the ultimate torque is concerned, Table 5 shows
that, with the exception of Beam B-75.6-0.30, ACI 318-056
predictions are similar to those of ACI 318-89.14 ACI 318-056
also slightly underestimates the strength of the test beams.
The evolution of the deviations from the actual values for
44

each beam series, however, is somewhat different when the

two codes are compared. The deviations of the beams with a
high and low reinforcement level (outer beams series) are larger.
When compared with the previous codes, the other
investigated codes have very different Tr,exp/Tr,calc values
for the beams with the highest reinforcement ratios. For the
beams with small reinforcement ratios, the Tr,exp/Tr,calc
values are larger than the unity, whereas for the beams with
high reinforcement ratios, such values are smaller than the
unity. Therefore, for beams with high reinforcement ratios,
the codes of practice are generally unsafe. The predicted
values are sometimes very different than the actual ones.
As far as the reinforcement ratio is concerned, the middle
beams present Tr,exp/Tr,calc values close to unity. Therefore, the
codes give good predictions for middle-range reinforcement
ratios, but the same is not true for the entire range of
reinforcement ratios.
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2009

Fig. 6Torsion strengths: experimental versus expected values. (Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.)
Some of these conclusions can be easily observed in
Fig. 6, which give the Tr,exp /Tr,calc ratio as a function of
concrete strength fc. These figures also present the points for
a group of nine rectangular over-reinforced HSC plain
beams tested by Rasmussen and Baker9,10 (all the beams had
brittle failure by concrete crushing) with 3.0 m (118.11 in.)
between supports. The cross-sectional dimensions (0.16 x
0.275 m [6.30 x 10.83 in.]) and the reinforcement (l =
3.47% and t = 1.41% in the effective span) were constant
for all beams. Concrete strength was the only parameter that
varied (from 57.1 to 109.9 MPa [8280 to 15,936 psi]).
Figure 6 confirms the general conclusions drawn from
Table 5, corresponding to the hollow beams tested by the
authors. Such conclusions are also confirmed by the overreinforced plain beams tested by Rasmussen and Baker.9,10
As noted by Hsu,17 the skew-bending theory14 seems to be
better suited to predicting the ultimate torque, especially for
small plain beams. For this theory, Fig. 6 also shows that
the deviations from the predicted values decrease as the
concrete strength increases.
Figure 6 shows that the dispersion of the values for ACI
318-056 is slightly higher than for ACI 318-8914 and does
not depend on the concrete strength. Nevertheless, both
codes give safe predictions. For ACI 318-05,6 the higher
dispersion of values, in each beams series, occurs for the
beams that have the smallest and the highest reinforcement
ratios. Except for these beams, the predictions of this code
are comparable with those of ACI 318-89.14 The maximum
torque predicted for the over-reinforced beams tested by
Rasmussen and Baker9,10 is notably underestimated, with
values close to 1.9.
For MC 90,4 EC 2,5 and CAN-A23.3-04,2 Fig. 6 confirms
that, for beams with the highest reinforcement ratios and for
the highest concrete strengths, these codes are not safe and
the deviations from the actual maximum torque can be
considerable. For the beams with average-to-low reinforcement
ratios, these codes underestimate the maximum torque. For
CAN-A23.3-04,2 Fig. 6 shows that the deviations are similar
to those of EC 2.5 The deviations from the test values are
particularly apparent when applying MC 904 to beams with
low reinforcement ratios. The graphic representation of the
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2009

over-reinforced beams tested by Rasmussen and Baker9,10

confirms the tendency observed for the beams with high
reinforcement ratios tested by the authors.
In brief, the best code for the ultimate torque prediction
is ACI 318-89,14 which is no longer in use. It was replaced by
ACI 318-05,6 which is the best code of all those that are currently
in use. The other codes that were studied were not always safe
with respect to the prediction of the maximum torque.
DUCTILITY DESIGN
The maximum and minimum values of the reinforcement
ratio that are proposed by different codes are analyzed herein
with respect to the ductility behavior of the test beams. This
point will be studied herein. The over-reinforced beams
tested by Rasmussen and Baker9 are not included in this
ductility study because all of them had brittle failure.
Before examining the ductility study, the following should
be noted. Even though the ductility indexes of the first beams
of Series A, B, and C (Beams A-48.4-0.37, B-75.5-0.30, and
C-91.7-0.37) were the highest (refer to Table 3), these beams
had a brittle failure due to insufficient reinforcement (the
steel bars reached failure shortly after cracking). This brittle
behavior indicates that these beams should not be accepted
by codes of practice, by imposing a minimum percentage
limit for the reinforcement. From the studied codes, only the
ACI Codes explicitly recommend a minimum amount of
reinforcement for torsion loads. In this study, the limit will
be applied only for transversal reinforcement because the
transversal and longitudinal reinforcement of the tested
beams are balanced.
Beams A-53.1-1.68, B-79.8-1.78, B-76.4-2.20, C-96.7-2.07,
and C-87.5-2.68 had brittle failure by crushing of the concrete
struts. These beams had the highest reinforcement ratio values
within their series. Beams B-77.8-1.33 and C-91.4-1.71 had a
premature and brittle failure by corners breaking off, following
by crushing of the concrete struts. All these beams, with brittle
failures, should be considered inadmissible by codes of practice.
This is achieved by fixing a top limit on the reinforcement ratio.
For each code used in this study, Table 6 presents the top
and bottom limits of transverse reinforcement (At,min/s and
45

Fig. 7Transversal reinforcement ratios versus ductility indexes.

At,max/s), relative to the effective transverse reinforcement
for the test beams (At,ef/s).
With ACI 318-89,14 only Beam C-87.5-2.68 is outside the
interval of admissible transverse reinforcement ratios.
However, many of the test beams accepted by ACI 318-8914
did have brittle failure. The value that ACI 318-8914 adopts for
the allowable compressive strength in the concrete struts is
probably too high when at 40 MPa (5800 psi). Therefore, the
46

top limit of the reinforcement ratio, which depends on this

strength, is also too high. As far as the bottom limit is
concerned, Table 6 shows that all the test beams are in
accordance with this limitation. Their behavior at failure
means that the test beams with low reinforcement ratios
should not be allowed by the codes. Therefore, the ACI
minimum limit should also be more restrictive.

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2009

Table 6Transversal reinforcements of test beams

ACI 318-8914

ACI 318-056

MC 904

EC 25

CAN3-A23.3-042

Beam

A t, ef
--------- ,
s
cm2/m

A s, min
------------,
s
2
cm /m

A s, max
-------------- ,
s
cm2/m

A s, min
------------,
s
2
cm /m

A s, max
-------------- ,
s
cm2/m

A s, min
------------,
s
2
cm /m

A s, max
-------------- ,
s
cm2/m

A s, min
------------,
s
2
cm /m

A s, max
-------------- ,
s
cm2/m

A s, min
------------,
s
2
cm /m

A s, max
-------------- ,
s
cm2/m

A-48.4-0.37

3.11

1.62

14.02

2.04

9.53

1.37

15.04

0.86

17.52

0.75

16.80

A-47.3-0.76

6.25

1.48

14.31

1.84

8.72

1.49

14.99

0.84

17.53

0.80

16.34

A-46.2-1.00

8.32

1.44

13.87

1.77

8.68

1.53

15.54

0.83

17.52

0.81

15.84

A-54.8-1.31

11.29

1.44

15.21

1.93

8.88

1.56

15.98

0.86

18.79

0.86

17.99

A-53.1-1.68

14.13

1.54

15.61

2.02

9.02*

1.56

16.25

0.90

18.56

0.84

18.50

B-75.6-0.30

2.33

1.62

18.14

2.55

11.59

2.03

21.42

1.11

23.78

1.00

27.07

B-69.8-0.80

6.67

1.48

17.57

2.24

10.66

1.94

20.33

1.04

23.59

1.02

24.38

B-77.8-1.33

11.29

1.44

18.04

2.30

11.00*

2.18

20.92

1.08

24.61

1.09

26.71

B-79.8-1.78

15.07

1.54

20.40

2.48

11.18*

2.25

23.05

1.19

26.17

1.14

30.00

B-76.4-2.20

18.83

1.54

21.81

2.42

10.60*

2.33

23.81

1.21

26.40

1.16

29.84

C-91.7-0.37

3.11

1.62

18.86

2.81

13.23

2.23

22.36

1.17

26.03

1.06

31.43

C-94.8-0.76

6.25

1.48

19.10

2.61

12.27

2.31

22.05

1.12

25.77

1.12

30.79

C-91.6-1.29

10.53

1.44

18.04

2.50

11.74

2.36

20.68

1.10

24.42

1.12

29.56

C-91.4-1.71

14.13

1.54

18.98

2.65

12.42

2.37

22.52

1.17

25.71

1.13

31.48

13.30

2.49

23.80

1.21

28.00

1.17

33.59

11.34

2.28

22.76

1.07

24.73

1.11

28.24

C-96.7-2.07
C-87.5-2.68

17.38
22.60

1.54

19.93

1.43

18.40

2.73
2.41

*Brittle

failure due to insufficient concrete compressive strength expected in these beams.

Brittle failure due to insufficient reinforcement expected in this beam.
Note: 1 in.-kips = 0.113 kNm; and 1 in.2/in. = 2.54 cm2/m.

With ACI 318-05,6 Beam B-75.6-0.30 would not be

allowed because it has a reinforcement ratio below the
bottom limit. Therefore, this code has detected that this beam
would have brittle failure due to insufficient reinforcement.
Although ACI 318-056 proved to be more restrictive than
ACI 318-89,14 it is still not restrictive enough because it did
not detect two other test beams (Beam A-48.4-0.37 and
Beam C-91.7-0.37), which failed closely due to insufficient
reinforcement. As far as the top limit of the transversal
reinforcement is concerned, Table 6 shows that the two last
beams of Series A and the three last beams of the Series
B and C do not pass the restrictions of ACI 318-05.6
Therefore, on this point, ACI 318-056 is more restrictive
than ACI 318-89.14 For the beams specified, ACI 318-056
anticipates brittle failure. The limitation seems to be a little
excessive because Beam A-54.8-1.31 is one that would be
excluded and, in fact, this beam did not have brittle failure.
The ductility index for this beam, however, is very low (refer
to Table 3), and the exclusion of this beam can be considered
acceptable. When compared with its predecessor, ACI 318-056
is better for fixing a maximum value for the transversal
reinforcement.
As far as the bottom limit of the transversal reinforcement
is concerned, the remaining codes indicate limit values that
do not ban any of the test beams that are shown to have
insufficient reinforcement (refer to Table 6). It should be noted
that these codes give limitation rules based on minimum shear
reinforcement. This procedure does not seem to be adequate.
As far as the top limit for the transversal reinforcement is
concerned, Table 6 shows that MC 90,4 EC 2,5 and CAN3A23.3-042 consider that all the beams have acceptable values.
Therefore, these three codes do not have good top limits of
the maximum transversal reinforcement. Some of the beams
allowed by the codes did have brittle failure due to excessive
compressive stresses in concrete struts.
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2009

The conclusions derived from the tables are highlighted in

Fig. 7. These figure present, for all the analyzed codes and
independently of the concrete strength of the test beams, the
evolution of the torsional ductility index , with the
transversal torsion reinforcement ratio t. Figure 7 also
shows the maximum and minimum boundaries of the
transversal reinforcement ratios (dotted lines) computed
from the codes rules. These values are computed from the
maximum and minimum reinforcement areas (At,min/s and
At,max/s, respectively). The beams that, despite having high
ductility indexes, did have brittle failure due to insufficient
reinforcement are identified by the symbol . The beams that
had brittle failure due to crushing of concrete struts (with
= 1) are also shown in Fig. 7, located on the t axis.
Despite = 1 having no rational explanation, this value was
conventionally adopted for all brittle beams to allow for their
inclusion in Fig. 7.
Figure 7 shows that the interval defined by the maximum
and the minimum values of transversal torsion reinforcement
found by ACI 318-8914 is too large. In fact, not only the
acceptable beams, but most of the undesirable beams, are
also within this interval.
Figure 7 confirms that, compared with ACI 318-8914 and
the other codes, ACI 318-056 indicates an interval much
closer to the real behavior of the test beams. The authors
argue that only the lower limit needs a minor correction to
ensure that all the beams with brittle failure due to insufficient
reinforcement are excluded.
Figure 7 also confirms that the other studied codes define
intervals of reinforcement that are too wide. The lower limits
are not specific for torsion (they are adopted from shear
provisions) and the experimental results clearly show that a
specific rule for torsion would be very desirable. The top
limits should be corrected to avoid cases of brittle failure by
excessive compression in concrete struts.
47

CONCLUSIONS
The study reported herein is based on the results of 16 test
beams. Although this kind of experimental work is rather
expensive, it would be better to have more tests. Nevertheless,
the number of tests is sufficient to draw some conclusions.
The results clearly show that some codes are excessively
permissive and could lead to the acceptance of brittle beams
or unsafe values of the predicted maximum torque. Of all the
studied codes in use, ACI 318-056 is the only one that has
acceptable rules with respect to minimum and maximum
reinforcement of members under torsion. The other codes
need to be corrected, especially for the type of beams tested
in this research (HSC hollow beams under pure torsion). The
authors suggest that two main actions need to be taken, as
explained in the following.
First, all the undesirable beams that are at risk of brittle
failure should be banned. This is ensured by means of an
adequate limit value for both the maximum and the
minimum amount of torsion reinforcement, that is, for fc
40 MPa (5800 psi).
Second, the codes need to be more reliable in predicting
the maximum torque, and the deviations should diminish.
This is done by using a criterion better suited to predicting
the compressive failure of the concrete struts. This objective
is related to the limitation of the maximum amount of
transversal reinforcement. It should be noted that the need to
reduce the maximum value of the transversal reinforcement
has already been stated by Rasmussen and Baker10 for a
previous version of the European and Canadian codes.
Due to the limited number of available experimental
results of HSC beams, the authors find it a little premature to
propose new design rules. At this stage, they are only
indicating the direction that those new rules should take.
The experimental work on this subject must continue
with more tests to obtain the correct rules for both NSC
and HSC.
NOTATION
Ac
Asl
Ast
At,ef
At,max
At,min
fc
fy
(GC)I
(GC)II
s
T
Tcr
Tly
Tr,calc
Tr; Tr,exp
Tty
t
u
x; y
x1 ; y 1
y

48

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

area of cross section (including hollows)

area of longitudinal reinforcement
area of one leg of transversal reinforcement
effective area of transversal reinforcement
maximum area of transversal reinforcement
minimum area of transversal reinforcement
uniaxial compressive strength of concrete
yield strength of reinforcement
torsional stiffness (noncracking stage)
torsional stiffness (cracking stage)
longitudinal spacing of transversal reinforcement
applied torque
cracking torque
yield torque of longitudinal reinforcement
expected torsion strength
experimental torsion strength
yield torque of transversal reinforcement
wall thickness of hollow section
perimeter of stirrups
external dimensions of cross section
distance between axis of stirrups legs
yield strain of reinforcement

cr
ly
m
Tr
ty
u
y
l
t
t,max
t,min
tot

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

torsional ductility index

cracking angle of twist correspondent to Tcr
angle of twist correspondent to Tly
average angle of twist
angle of twist corresponding to Tr
angle of twist correspondent to Tty
angle of twist corresponding to ultimate point of T- curve
angle of twist corresponding to yielding point of T- curve
longitudinal reinforcement ratio
transversal reinforcement ratio
maximum ratio of transversal reinforcement
minimum ratio of transversal reinforcement
total reinforcement ratio

REFERENCES
1. Norwegian Standards, Concrete Structures, Design Rules, NS3473,
Stockholm, Sweden, 1989, 78 pp.
2. Standards Council of Canada, Design of Concrete Structure for
Buildings (CAN3-A23.3-04), Canadian Standards Association, Mississanga,
Canada, Dec. 2004, 240 pp.
3. Standards Association of New Zealand, Concrete Structures NZS
3101Part 1: Design, 1995, 256 pp.
4. CEB-FIP, Model Code 1990, Comit Euro-International du Bton,
Lausanne, Switzerland, 1990, 461 pp.
5. CEN prEN 1992-1-1, Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures
Part 1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings, Brussels, Belgium, Apr.
2002, 225 pp.
6. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005, 443 pp.
7. Priestley, M. J. N.; Seible, F.; and Wang, C. M., The Northridge
Earthquake of January 17, 1994Damage Analysis of Selected Freeway
Bridges, Report No. SSRP94/06, University of California, San Diego,
CA, Feb. 1994, 266 pp.
8. Ali, M. A., and White, R. N., Toward a Rational Approach for
Design of Minimum Torsion Reinforcement, ACI Structural Journal,
V. 96, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1999, pp. 40-45.
9. Rasmussen, L. J., and Baker, G., Torsion in Reinforced Normal- and
High-Strength Concrete BeamsPart 1: Experimental Test Series, ACI
Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1995, pp. 56-62.
10. Rasmussen, L. J., 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. 146-156.
11. Wafa, F. F.; Shihata, S. A.; Ashour, S. A.; and Akhtaruzzaman, A. A.,
Prestressed High-Strength Concrete Beams under Torsion, Journal of the
Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 121, No. 9, Sept. 1995, pp. 1280-1286.
12. Bernardo, L. F. A., Toro em Vigas em Caixo de Beto de Alta
Resistncia (Torsion in Reinforced High-Strength Concrete Hollow
Beams), PhD thesis, University of Coimbra, Portugal, 692 pp. (in Portuguese).
13. CEB, Torsion, Bulletin dInformation, No. 71, Lausanne, Switzerland,
Mar. 1969, 207 pp.
14. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete (ACI 318-89) and Commentary (318R-89), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1989, 369 pp.
15. Shin, S.-W.; Kamara, M.; and Ghosh, S. K., Flexural Ductility,
Strength Prediction, and Hysteretic Behavior of Ultra-High-Strength
Concrete Members, High Strength Concrete, Second International
Symposium, SP-121, W. T. Hester, ed., American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 1990, pp. 239-264.
16. Bernardo, L. F. A., and Lopes, S. M. R, Flexural Ductility of HighStrength Concrete Beams, Structural Concrete, V. 4, No. 3, 2003,
pp. 135-154.
17. Hsu, T. T. C., Torsion of Reinforced Concrete, Van Nostrand
Reinhold Co., 1984, 516 pp.
18. Mitchell, D., and Collins, M. P., Diagonal Compression Field
TheoryA Rational Model for Structural Concrete in Pure Torsion, ACI
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 71, No. 8, Aug. 1974, pp. 396-408.

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2009