Engineering Structures 68 (2014) 57–70

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Behavior and analysis of inverted T-shaped RC beams under shear

and torsion
A. Deifalla a,⇑, A. Ghobarah b
a
BUE, EL-Shourouk City, Postal No.11837, P.O. Box 43, Egypt
b
McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4L7

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The 1998 ASCE-ACI Committee 445 on shear and torsion identified researching combined shear and
Received 23 July 2013 torsion as well as giving physical significance for torsion design as an upcoming challenge (ASCE-ACI
Revised 19 February 2014 Committee 445 on shear and torsion, 1998). Most of the previous experimental studies were focused
Accepted 20 February 2014
on reinforced (RC) beams under flexure, shear or torsion. The behavior of inverted T-shaped beams with
Available online 27 March 2014
both web and flange 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
Keywords:
developed and implemented. The behavior of three inverted T-shaped beams tested under different
T-beams
Combined loading
values for the ratios of the applied torque to the applied shear force is discussed. The value of the torque
Torsion to shear ratio significantly affects the behavior of the inverted T-shaped beams in terms of cracking pat-
Shear tern; failure mode; strut angle of inclination; cracking and ultimate torque; post-cracking torsional rigid-
Global behavior ity; cracking and ultimate shear; flange and web stirrup strain. The flange stirrup is more efficient in
Flange stirrup resisting torsion moment over shear forces. A model capable of predicting the behavior of flanged beams
under combined actions was developed and implemented. The model showed good agreement with the
experimental results from three different experimental studies.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction un-cracked flanged beams is more complex than that of rectangu-

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 flexure,
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 flange, which
was studied by others [2,3]. Moreover, inverted T-shaped beams
are subjected to significant torsional moments. Thus, these beams
must be designed to resist significant torsional moment combined
with shear forces. In 1998, the ASCE-ACI Committee 445 on shear
and torsion identified integrating and designating a physical signif-
icance for the torsion design provisions, as well as reviewing com-
bined 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).
lar 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 significant torsion,
which was indicated by many researchers [4–6]. Thus, a unified
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
inflection point with zero bending moment highlighted in Fig. 3.
This segment is subjected to significant torsion and shear force,
while the values of bending moments are relatively insignificant.
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 differ-
ent 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 as-
sumed to be in the plane of the applied shear and uniform across

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.02.011
0141-0296/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
58 A. Deifalla, A. Ghobarah / Engineering Structures 68 (2014) 57–70

Nomenclature

Ac the gross concrete cross section area ysj distance between the elastic centroid and the center of
Ao the area enclosed inside the center of the shear flow each bar (j)
loop ysk distance between the elastic centroid and the panel (i)
As area of each bar (j) centroid
Ec Young’s modulus of the concrete t the shear stress
fc0 the compressive strength of concrete /d the curvature in the direction of angle h
fy the yield stress of the steel /L the longitudinal curvature
i panel number /t the transversal curvature
k number of concrete strips for moment calculations b1 softening coefficient of the concrete stress
l the length of the panel (i) parallel to the shear plane b2 strain softening coefficient
m number of steel bars c the shear strain of each panel (i)
Mx moment around the x-axis DAci the area of the strip
N the applied axial force on the cross section e0c concrete strain at the peak stress
Nvk the shear contribution from each panel (i) e1 the principal average tension concrete strain
Pc the perimeter of the concrete cross section e2 the average principal compression strain
Po the perimeter of the centerline of the equivalent thin e2s the maximum compression principal strain at the sur-
tube face of the concrete
q the average shear flow of the panel (i) ex the average longitudinal strain
qs the shear flow due to the shear force (V) ey the average transverse strain
qt the uniform shear flow on the panel due to the torsion h the inclination angle of the principal strains
T the applied torsion moment on the whole cross section qh the ratio of the transverse steel per unit length of the
V the applied shear force on the whole cross section span to the gross area of the concrete cross section
Ti the applied torsion moment on the rectangular sub- r0ci the concrete stress at the centroid of the strip
division r0sj stress in the steel longitudinal reinforcement for each
t the effective thickness of each element resisting both bar (j)
shear and torsion r1 the principal average tension stresses
ts the thickness of the element resisting the shear force (Vi) r2 the principal average compression stresses
tt the thickness of the element resisting the torsional mo- rst the steel reinforcement stress
ment (Ti) rx the average longitudinal stress
Vi the applied shear force of each rectangular sub-division ry the average transverse stresses
(i) ui the curvature for each panel
yci distance between the elastic centroid and the centroid W the twist rate
of each concrete panel (i)

(a)

(b) (c)
Fig. 1. Examples of inverted T-shaped beams under significant torsion.
 A. Deifalla, A. Ghobarah / Engineering Structures 68 (2014) 57–70
(b)
(c)
Fig. 2. R and T-shaped beams under torsion (a) isometric; (b) uncracked and (c) cracked.
Fig. 3. Typical inverted T-beam loading and internal forces.
the perpendicular plane to it. In the case of torsion, the diagonal
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 space-
truss 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 flange, which can vary based on the dimensions and reinforce-
ments 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 com-
bined shear and torsion accompanied by relatively low levels of
bending moments, was developed and constructed. In addition,
59
(a)
the test setup is capable of applying different shear to torsion ra-
tios by varying the ratio between the applied loads. Three inverted
T-shaped beams were designed, constructed, and tested while sub-
jected to various torque to shear ratios. The tested beams repre-
sented 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 analyt-
ical model developed by the authors was extended to predict the
full shear and torsional behavior of the inverted T-shaped beams.
2. Research significance and previous work
The 1998 report by the ASCE-ACI Committee 445 on shear and
torsion outlined the challenges of reviewing RC beams under com-
bined shear and torsion and integrating and designating a physical
significance 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 specifically 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 fol-
lowing: (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 flange
stirrups; (2) pioneering works on the behavior of T-shaped beams
were conducted by several researchers [36–39,2,34,40,41,3,26,27];
however, they all focused on T-shaped beams under pure shear,
pure bending, pure torsion, combined shear and moment, or com-
bined moment and torsion. In addition, many recent investigations
were concerned with spandrel L-shaped beams [12,28,42–45].
Kaminski and Pawlak indicated that, despite all the extensive re-
search 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 ap-
proach compared to the use of numerical models. The tests provide
60 A. Deifalla, A. Ghobarah / Engineering Structures 68 (2014) 57–70
physical knowledge and information about the behavior of the sys-
tem studied [53,54]. Moreover, test results are essential in verify-
ing analytical models such as (1) the skew bending theory
models based on an inclined plane failure [7–13]; (2) the space hol-
low tube truss models [14–18,6,19–25]; (3) the finite element and
the finite difference numerical models [26–28]; and (4) the empir-
ical models developed by fitting experimental data [29–33].
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 unified theory for combined
shear and torsion ‘‘Softened Truss Model’’ that was based on: (1)
equilibrium equations; (2) compatibility equations; (3) the soft-
ened constitutive laws of concrete [34]. Rahal and Collins [17] up-
dated 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 mod-
eling 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. Ulti-
mately, a modified 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 signifi-
cant effect on the behavior and design, as shown by several
researchers [26,27,5,31,46]. In addition, the inverted T-shaped
beams with flange stirrups are an asymmetricaly-reinforced sec-
tion. Moreover, there is no unified approach for the design of RC in-
verted T-shaped beams under combined loading. The first step in
reaching a unified approach is to conduct an experimental program
in order to identify the significance 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 flexure on the
behavior of the tested beams. The stirrups were designed accord-
ing to the CSA [48]. The concrete dimension and steel reinforce-
ments 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 flange
thickness of 100 mm, a flange width of 450 mm, and a web width
of 150 mm. Fig. 4b shows a typical cross-section of the beam with-
in the test region. The concrete cover was 25 mm for the web and
15 mm for the flange. Fig. 4d shows a typical longitudinal section
of the beams and the reinforcements. All transversal and longitudi-
nal reinforcements were ribbed steel bars. The longitudinal rein-
forcement is 4–20 M (i.e. 4 bars 20 mm diameter) at the bottom
of the web and 2–15 M + 4–10 M (i.e. 2 bars 15 mm and 4 bars
10 mm diameter) in the flange. 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 bound-
ary 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 reinforce-
ment. The shear reinforcement was 10-M @ 70 mm, the bottom
reinforcement was 6–20 M, and the top longitudinal reinforcement
was 4–10 M + 2–15 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 con-
crete compressive strength was 25.6 MPa. Compression tests con-
ducted 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 five sections of the
beam—two at each section. The two LVDTs at the tip of the flange
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 differ-
ent locations, as shown in Fig. 5. Strain in the longitudinal rein-
forcement was measured at the maximum and at the zero
moment section. Strain in the transverse reinforcement was mea-
sured 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 Mostofinejad 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 mo-
ments. 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 significant at low bending moment values, including, but
not limited to, the following cases: (1) the case of inflection 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 ap-
ply the required torque. The hydraulic actuator L1 acts at the cen-
ter of the cross-section of the beam. The top end condition for
actuator L1 is a pin support. The middle region (test region) was
 A. Deifalla, A. Ghobarah / Engineering Structures 68 (2014) 57–70 61

Fig. 4. Dimensions and reinforcement details of tested beams.

Fig. 5. Strain gauge location on longitudinal and transversal reinforcement.

subjected to combined shear and torsion while the torque to shear
ratio was kept fixed throughout the test by controlling the three
different applied loads. After installing the T-beams in the test set-
up 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
verified 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 verified. This was done by comparing the measured values
62 A. Deifalla, A. Ghobarah / Engineering Structures 68 (2014) 57–70

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, Ta-
ble 2 shows the ratio of the applied torque to shear ratio to the ulti-
mate 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

The concrete cracking pattern for beams TB1, TB2, and TB3 are
shown is Figs. 11–13, respectively. In addition, the failure modes
are listed in Table 3. For beam TB1 (T/V = 0.5 m), the onset of crack-
ing 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 flange, which were spiral and uniformly distrib-
uted, as shown in Fig. 11(a–d). Before failure, significant concrete
cover spalling from the flange (as shown in Fig. 11b and c) and
additional longitudinal cracks in the flexure compression zone side
were observed, as shown in Fig. 11a and b. These additional longi-
tudinal cracks are due to the diagonal compression stress from the
shear and torsion, and that from the flexure. The major diagonal
cracks were formed at an average angle of inclination with the lon-
gitudinal 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
Fig. 6. Schematic structural system and interal forces for the tested beams. 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. 12a–d), where concrete cover spalling from both
Table 1
the flange and the web was observed. However, on average, the
Concrete strength at different dates.
major cracks formed at an average (h) value of 55°, which is steeper
Batch I Batch II than beam TB1. Beam TB2 failed due to stirrup yielding before con-
Date fc0 (Mpa) Date fc0 (Mpa) crete compression at a load value of 75 kN. In comparing Fig. 11b
7 days 17.7 28 days 25.6 and Fig. 12b, it is clear that beam TB2 exhibited significant web
28 days 25.6 TB3 35.9 spalling with respect to beam TB1.
TB1 35.9 TB2 33.6 For beam TB3 (T/V = 0.1 m), the onset of cracking was observed
at a load value of 130 kN. Significant diagonal cracks were ob-
served in the web compared to that in the flange, as shown in
Fig. 13a–d. The cracking pattern varied along the test region and
F
E H 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
B
C G
A the other web side, where shear stresses due to the torsion and
D shear will subtract. Beam TB3 failed due to diagonal concrete com-
pression before stirrup yielding at a load value of 342 kN. Compar-
ing Fig. 13(a–d) with Fig. 11(a–d) and Fig. 12(a–d), 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 significantly influenced
by the torque to shear ratio.
Fig. 7. The test setup with a specimen in place.

4.2. Torsional behavior

of the reaction at point F (L4) to the theoretically predicted reac-
tion 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 behav-
ior 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
 A. Deifalla, A. Ghobarah / Engineering Structures 68 (2014) 57–70 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
160
Calculated reaction force, R1(kN )

TB1 TB2 TB3 100 TB3 (0.1 m)

140
Shear force, Q2 (kN)

120 80
100
60
80

60 40 TB1 (0.5 m)

40
TB2 (1.0 m)
20
20

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 5 10 15 20 25
Measured reaction force, R1 (kN) Torque, T (kN. m)

Fig. 9. Physical verification of the test setup. Fig. 10. The applied shear and torsion.
64 A. Deifalla, A. Ghobarah / Engineering Structures 68 (2014) 57–70

Table 2
Selected torque to shear ratios. C B
(V - T)
(T/Tult)/(V/Vult) (T/V) (m)
(V - T)
1 0.1
5 0.5
10 1.0

(a)
(V - T)
(V - T) (V + T)
(V + T)
C
B B C

(b)
(a)

(V + T) (V + T)
B
C

B C

(c)
(b)

B
C
C B

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

B C

B
C (V - T)

(d) (V - T)

Fig. 11. Crack pattern for TB1 (0.5); (a) south, (b) north, (c) bottom and (d) top.
(a)
the cracking torque and corresponding twist for all the tested (V + T) C
beams are shown in Table 3. After cracking, the behavior of beams
(V + T)
TB1 and TB2 was similar because they were subjected to high tor-
B
que to shear ratios. However, the behavior of beam TB3 was differ-
ent 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 (b)
cracks associated with the high torsion to shear ratio for beams
TB1 and TB2. This is commonly observed after steel yielding, which
C
is the case for both TB1 and TB2. The value of the ultimate strength B
was taken as the maximum strength observed during the testing of
the beam. Table 3 shows the ultimate torque and the correspond-
ing twist for all the tested beams. As shown in Table 3, the shear– (c)
torsion interaction affected the value of the ultimate torque.

B
4.3. Shear behavior C

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 (d)
reinforcement. The stirrup strain increased substantially with the
increase in the torque to shear ratio. The applied shear force at Fig. 13. Crack pattern for TB3 (0.1); (a) south, (b) north, (c) bottom and (d) top.
 A. Deifalla, A. Ghobarah / Engineering Structures 68 (2014) 57–70 65

Table 3
Summary of the experimental results.

Beam T/V Cracking torque Twist at cracking Cracking shear Ultimate torque Twist at ultimate Ultimate Observed failure mode
(m) (kN m) (deg/m) force (kN) (kN m) (deg/m) shear (kN)
TB1 0.5 11.6 0.25 17 23 2.82 46 Stirrup yield before
concrete crushing
TB2 1.00 11 0.33 11 22.7 3.16 21.4 Stirrup yield before
concrete crushing
TB3 0.1 4 0.13 42 10.8 0.5 105 Concrete diagonal crushing

the onset of cracking for all tested beams is shown in Table 3. The
25 value of the ultimate shear strength for all tested beams is also
TB1 (0.5 m)
shown in Table 3. It is clear in the table that the shear–torsion
20 TB2 (1.0 m) interaction affected the ultimate and cracking shear force.
Torque, T (kN. m)

4.4. The shear–torsion interaction

15

Fig. 16a shows a plot for the observed absolute values of the
10 cracking and the ultimate shear forces versus the torsion moment.
TB3 (0.1 m)
We can see that the relationship is not linear and there is a clear
5 curvature in the interaction. Huang et al. proposed a circular
dimensionless relationship for the torque–shear interaction based
on the theory of plasticity [30]. In an attempt to quantify the
0 shear–torsion interaction, the shear forces and torsion moments
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50
were normalized and compared with the interaction relationship
Angle of twist (deg/m) proposed by Huang et al. and are shown in Fig. 16b [30]. We can
Fig. 14. Torsional behavior. see that the experimentally observed values agreed fairly well with
the relationship, with an error less than ±10%.

4.5. Transverse steel strain

120
Transverse steel yield

TB3 (0.1 m) Fig. 17 shows the transverse steel strain for the flange and web
100
stirrups versus the total load. In case of beam TB2 (high torque to
Shear force, Q2 (kN)

shear ratio), the strain measured in the flange was similar to the
80
strain measured in the web. However, in the case of beam TB3
60 (low torque to shear ratio), the strain in the web was larger than
the strain in the flange. The flange was more effective in cases of
40 TB1 (0.5 m) higher torque to shear ratios.
TB2 (1.0 m)
Fig. 18 shows the relationship between the flange stirrup strain
20 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
0 beam TB1, where the bottom strain gauge was installed in the mid-
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 dle of the bottom branch within the overlapping zone of the flange
Stirrup strain at the mid of the test zone (1000 microstrain) stirrup. The strain of beam TB1 (under low torque to shear ratio)
was significantly lower than that of TB3, which agrees well with
Fig. 15. Shear behavior.
the assumption that the flange stirrup primarily carries forces from
torsion.

(a) (b)
Fig. 16. Ultimat and cracking experimentaly observed shear–torsion interaction (a) absolute and (b) normalized.
66 A. Deifalla, A. Ghobarah / Engineering Structures 68 (2014) 57–70

450 rectangular RC beams up to failure using a displacement control

solution scheme rather than a force control solution scheme; (2) in-
400
clude the FRP material modeling; (3) model external bonded rein-
Total load (L1+L2+L3), kN

350 forcements with different arrangements; and (4) improved the

concrete constitutive modeling [17,23]. All of these models focused
300
on rectangular beams under combined torsion, although structural
250 members subjected to torsion may be of different configurations,
such as rectangular beams, T-shaped beams, L-shaped beams, and
200
box beams.
150 In this study, the model by Deifalla and Ghobarah was adapted
and further extended to predict the behavior of cross-sections with
100
different shapes subjected to torsion, shear, and bending moments
50 [23]. In the development of the proposed model, the following
assumptions were made:
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
(1) The longitudinal strain follows the Bernoulli–Navier hypoth-
Strain (1000 microstrain)
esis, which indicates that plane section before bending will
Fig. 17. Stirrup strain versus total applied load (L1 + L2 + L3). remain plane after bending.
(2) Mohr Circle can be used to evaluate the strain, curvature,
and stress status at any point in the plane.
Total load (L1+L2+L3), kN

400 (3) The direction of the principal stresses at any point in the
plane is coincident with the direction of the principal strain
350
evaluated at the same point in the plane [35].
300 (4) The torsional behavior is dominated by Saint–Venant’s tor-
sion, which indicates that the torsion will be resisted by
250 shear flow in the perimeter of the cross section [34,17,23].
(5) The effective thickness of the diagonal concrete struts is
200
function of the external loading [33,35] which is similar to
150 beams subjected to bending where the effective depth is
function of the bending moment.
100
(6) The equivalent hollow tube is being divided into four panels;
50 each panel is subjected to uniform bi-axial stresses
[33,17,18,23,21].
0 (7) The diagonal compressive strain distribution within the con-
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 crete diagonal struts is assumed to be linear and conse-
Strain (1000 microstrain) quently the diagonal compressive stress is assumed to be
non-uniform [33,35,20,23].
Fig. 18. Flange stirrup strain versus total applied load (L1 + L2 + L3).
(8) The torsion stresses and the uniform shear stresses are being
replaced by one equivalent uniform stress block as shown in
5. Analytical model
Fig. 19 [17].

Several models were developed for predicting the behavior of RC

beams subjected to combined straining actions. Numerous 5.1. Modeling T-shaped beams
contributions by many researchers attempting to improve the space
truss model by Rausch were found in existing literature [50,15– This section describes the capability of predicting the behavior
18,51,6,19,21,20,22–25]. Deifalla and Ghobarah [23] adapted the of the flanged beams. The flanged cross-section is divided into
model by Rahal and Collins [17] to: (1) predict the behavior of several rectangular sub-divisions. Each rectangular sub-division

(a) (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.
 A. Deifalla, A. Ghobarah / Engineering Structures 68 (2014) 57–70 67

(a) (b) (c)

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

where Ti is the torsion carried by each rectangular sub-division (i) at

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
X
n
internal actions. V¼ Vi ð2Þ
i¼1
Set T and V as 0.1 of the applied
internal actions. where Vi is the shear carried by each rectangular sub-division (i) at
the same angle of twist. The stirrup strain e is calculated such that:
Arbitrary assume tt X
n
e¼ ei ð3Þ
i¼1
Calculate Ao and po, Eqs. (19-20)
where ei is the stirrup strain for each rectangular sub-division (i) at
the same angle of twist.
Calculate average shear stress, Eqs. (4-7)
5.2. Modeling rectangular sub-divisions
Calculate average stresses and strains
for each panel, Eqs. (8-14 and 23-29) For predicting the full behavior of each rectangular sub-divi-
sion, the model proposed by Deifalla and Ghobarah is implemented
Use the “Panel “subroutine shown in fig [23]. The model is briefly listed in Eqs. (4)–(29); however, details
(20) to calculate longitudinal stresses and regarding the development of the adapted model is to be found
strain for the whole section, Eqs. (21-22).
in both Deifalla [6] and Deifalla and Ghobarah [6,23].
Ti
No qt ¼ ð4Þ
2Ao
Check tt , Eqs. (15-17)

yes
Input average shear stress and
Calculate using Eq. (18-20) longitudinal strain

No Assume the diagonal strain

Check T and V
applied actions Increase the T and V by
0.1 applied actions.
Assume the angle of inclination
yes

End Solve the wall element

Fig. 21. Flow chart for the main program.

NO
Check the angle

is analyzed independently while subjected to the applied com-

Yes
bined shear and torsion. For example, the T-shaped beam is di-
vided into rectangular sub-divisions as shown in Fig. 20. After
NO
modeling each rectangular section, the principle of superposition
Check the diagonal stress
is applied to obtain the strength and the deformations of the com-
plete T-shaped beam, while assuming that the angle of twist for
the T-shaped beam and the sub-divisions are the same. The applied
Yes
torque (T) on the whole cross section is calculated such that:
X
n
T¼ Ti ð1Þ Return to main program
i¼1
Fig. 22. Flow chart for the ‘‘Panel’’ subroutine [23].
68 A. Deifalla, A. Ghobarah / Engineering Structures 68 (2014) 57–70

Vi e2
qs ¼ ð5Þ r2 ¼ b1 fc0 if P1 ð24Þ
l b2 e0c
qt  t t þ qs  t s
q¼ ð6Þ 0:9
t b1 ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð25Þ
1:0 þ 400e1
q
m¼ ð7Þ
t 1:0
b2 ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð26Þ
1:0 þ 500e1
5.3. Mohr circle for the average concrete strains of each panel
r1 ¼ Ec e1 ð27Þ

2ðe2 þ ex Þ 0:33fc0
c¼ ð8Þ r1 ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð28Þ
tanðhÞ 1 þ 500e1
c rs ¼ Es es 6 fy ð29Þ
ey ¼  e2 ð9Þ
2 tanðhÞ
A flow chart for the solution technique is being shown in Figs. 21
e1 ¼ e2 þ ex þ ey ð10Þ and 22. A force driven solution technique is being used limiting the
model predictions to the ultimate strength.

5.4. Equilibrium and compatibility conditions for each panel

5.7. Model validation

rx ¼ r2  ry  r1 ð11Þ Three rectangular RC beams (N1, N2, and N3) were found in
the literature. The beams were tested under combined significant
 
r2  rx
tan2 ðhÞ ¼ ð12Þ
r2  r1
15
  Experimental [52]
1
r2 ¼ s tanðhÞ þ  r1 ð13Þ Anaylitical
tanðhÞ

ry ¼ qh rst þ r1  s tan h ð14Þ

Torque, T (kN. m)

10

ui ¼ w sin 2hi ð15Þ

e2s
t ti ¼ ð16Þ
ui 5

2
/d ¼ /t sin ðhÞ þ /L cos2 ðhÞ þ w sinð2hÞ ð17Þ

5.5. Panel assemblage

0
0 5 10 150 5 10 150 5 10 15
P4 Angle of twist (deg/m)
i¼1 li ci
w¼ ð18Þ
2Ao (a) (b) (c)
X4
tt Fig. 23. Torque versus angle of twist for (a) N1; (b) N2 and (c) N3.
Ao ¼ Ac  li i ð19Þ
i¼1
2
25
X
4
Po ¼ Pc  t ti ð20Þ
i¼1 20
Torque, T (kN. m)

X
k X
m X
4
15
r0ci DAci þ r0sj Asj ¼ N þ Nv k ð21Þ
i¼1 j¼1 k¼1
10
Experimental
X
k X
m X
4
Solution I
ðr0ci DAci Þyci þ ðr0sj Asj Þysj ¼ M x þ Nv k ysk ð22Þ 5 Solution II
i¼1 j¼1 k¼1
Solution III

0
5.6. Material modeling 0 1 2 3 0.0 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 0.00 0.25 0.50
Angle of twist (deg/m)
"  2 #
r2 ¼ b1 fc0 2
e2 e2
 0 if
e2
61 ð23Þ
(a) (b) (c)
e0c ec b2 e0c
Fig. 24. Torque versus angle of twist for (a) TB1; (b) TB2 and (c) TB3.
 A. Deifalla, A. Ghobarah / Engineering Structures 68 (2014) 57–70 69

120 close agreement with the experimental results. However, only

Experimental up to the ultimate strength as the model employs a force driven
Solution I solution technique. From the current study, three T-shaped
100
Solution II beams (TB1, TB2, and TB3) tested under torque to shear ratio
Solution III values of 0.5, 1.0, and 0.1 m. Each T-shaped beam was divided
Shear force, Q2 (kN)

80 into two rectangular sub-divisions using each of the three pro-

posed solutions, as shown in Fig. 20(a–c). The comparison be-
60 tween the behavior (i.e., torque versus twist and shear force
versus stirrup strain) predicted by the model and the experimen-
tally observed behavior is shown in Fig. 24(a–c) and Fig. 25(a–c).
40 The figures show that the model prediction agrees well with the
experimental results. Two L-shaped beams were found in the lit-
20 erature 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(a–c). The compar-
0
ison between the torsional behavior predicted by the model and
0.00 0.60 1.20 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.50 1.00
the experimentally observed behavior is shown in Fig. 26. The
Transversal steel strain (1000 micro-strain)
figure shows that the model predictions agree well with the
(a) (b) (c) experimental results.
Table 4 shows the experimentally observed ultimate torque
Fig. 25. Shear force versus transversal steel strain for (a) TB1; (b) TB2 and (c) TB3. and the corresponding angle of twist versus the analytically cal-
culated 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
flanged beams. However, solution II predictions were more con-
sistent compared with those of solutions I and III for beams un-
der combined torsion. This might be because solution II follows
the stirrups configuration.

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 significant reduction for the spacing
between diagonal cracks, the strut angle of inclination, cracking
and ultimate torque, flange and web stirrup strain; (2) a signif-
Fig. 26. Torque versus angle of twist for L-shaped beams [45].
icant increase for the failure and cracking load, post-cracking
torsional rigidity, cracking and ultimate shear; and (3) the stir-
torsion [52]. Beams had the same cross-section dimensions, but
rups efficiency was reduced, thus, beams failed due to concrete
the stirrups spacing were different. The model was used to pre-
diagonal failure rather than stirrups yield.
dict the torsional behavior of three rectangular RC beams up to
3. The proposed analytical model showed remarkable agreement
ultimate torsion. The comparison between the model predictions
with the experimental results for the behavior of flanged beams
and the experimental results for the tested RC beams are shown
under combined actions.
in Fig. 23(a–c). 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 Experimentally observed ultimate Predicted by the model Experimental/predicted

Torque Angle of twist Torque Angle of twist Torque Angle of twist
(kN m) (°/m) I II III I II III I II III I II III
TB1 23 2.82 25.4 23 20.3 2.8 2.6 2.82 0.91 1.00 1.14 1.00 1.07 1.00
TB2 22.7 3.16 21.5 21.3 21.2 3.2 3.2 3.16 1.06 1.07 1.07 1.00 1.00 1.00
TB3 10.8 0.5 9.3 11.8 8.6 0.49 0.49 0.49 1.17 0.98 1.26 1.01 1.01 1.01
BK-Ta 16.8 1.9 16.2 16.8 17.3 1.91 1.9 1.9 1.04 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.98 0.98
BK-TVM-1a 18.6 2.5 16.2 16.8 17.3 1.91 1.9 1.9 1.15 1.10 1.08 1.31 1.29 1.29
Average 1.07 1.03 1.10 1.06 1.07 1.06
Coefficient of variation 10% 5.0% 10% 13% 12% 12%
95% Confidence interval ±0.1 ±0.05 ±0.1 ±0.14 ±0.13 ±0.13
a
Ref. [45].
70 A. Deifalla, A. Ghobarah / Engineering Structures 68 (2014) 57–70

References [29] Klus JP. Ultimate strength of reinforced concrete beams in combined torsion
and shear. ACI Struct J 1968;65(3):210–6.
[30] Deifalla A, Ghobarah A. Simplified analysis of RC beams torsionaly
[1] ASCE-ACI Committee 445 on shear and torsion. Recent approaches to shear
strengthened using FRP. In: Chen, Teng (Eds.), Proceedings of international
design of structural concrete. J Struct Eng ASCE 1998;124(12):1375–417.
symposium on bond behavior of FRP in structures (BBFS 2005), Hong Kong,
[2] Mirza SA, Furlong RW. Serviceability behavior and failure mechanisms of
China; 7–9 December 2005. p. 381–6.
concrete inverted T-shaped beam bridge bentcaps. ACI J 1983:294–304 [July–
[31] Deifalla A, Ghobarah A. Calculating the thickness of FRP jacket for shear and
August].
torsion strengthening of RC T-girders. In: Third international conference on
[3] Mirza SA, Furlong RW, Ma JS. Flexural shear and ledge reinforcement in
FRP composites in civil engineering (CICE 2006), December 13–15, Miami,
reinforced concrete inverted T-girders. ACI J 1988:509–20 [September–
Florida, USA; 2006. Paper No. 203.
October].
[32] Huang LH, Lu Y, Shi C. Unified calculations method for symmetrically
[4] Rahal KN, Collins MP. Effect of the thickness of concrete cover on the shear–
reinforced concrete section subjected to combined loading. ACI Struct J
torsion interaction – an experimental investigation. ACI Struct J
2013;2013:127–36 [January–February].
1995;92(3):334–42 [May–June].
[33] Hsu TTC. Unified theory of reinforced concrete. Boca Raton: CRC Press Inc., Fla;
[5] Deifalla A, Ghobarah A. Assessing the North American bridge codes for the
1993.
design of T-girders under torsion and shear. In: Proceeding of the 7th
[34] Hsu TC. Torsion of reinforced concrete. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold
international conference on short & medium span bridges, Montreal, August
Company; 1984. 516p.
23–25, Paper No. 717; 2006a. 8pp.
[35] Collins MP, Mitchell D. Prestressed concrete structures. Canada: Response
[6] Deifalla AF. Behaviour and strengthening of RC T-girders in torsion and shear.
Publication; 1997.
PhD thesis, McMaster University, Canada; 2007. p. 280.
[36] Erosy U, Ferguson PM. Behavior and strength of concrete L-beams under
[7] Lessig NN. Theoretical and experimental investigation of reinforced concrete
combined torsion and shear. ACI Struct J, Proc 1967;64(12):767–76.
elements subjected to combined bending and torsion. In: Theory of design and
[37] Farmer LE, Ferguson PM. T-shaped beams under combined bending, shear and
construction of reinforced concrete structures, Moscow; 1958 [in Russian].
torsion. ACI Struct J, Proc 1967;64(11):757–66 [November].
[8] Hsu TC. Torsion of structural concrete-interaction surface for combined
[38] Lash SD, Kirk DW. Concrete tee-beams subjected to torsion and combined
torsion, shear, and bending in beams without stirrups. Portland Cement
bending and torsion. Report RR160. Department of Highways Ontario Canada;
Association, Research and Development Laboratories, Bulletin D319; 1968.
1970. 19p.
[9] Elfgren L, Karlsson I, Losberg A. Torsion–bending-shear interaction for concrete
[39] Victor DJ, Aravindan PK. Prestressed and reinforced concrete T-shaped beams
beams. J Struct Div 1974;100(8):1657–76.
under combined bending and torsion. ACI J 1978:526–32 [October].
[10] Badawy HEI. Experimental investigation of the collapse of reinforced concrete
[40] Razaqpur AG, Ghali A. Design of transverse reinforcement in flange of T-
curved beams. Magaz Concr Res 1977;29(99):59–69.
shaped beams. ACI J 1986;1986:680–9 [July–August].
[11] Ewida AA, McMullan AE. Torsion–shear interaction in reinforced concrete
[41] Zararis PD, Penelis gGr. Reinforced concrete T-shaped beams in torsion and
members. Magaz Concr Res 1981;23(115):113–22.
bending. ACI J 1986:526–32 [January–February].
[12] Zia P, Hsu T. Design for torsion and shear in prestressed concrete flexural
[42] Logan Donald R. L-spandrels: can torsional distress be induced by eccentric
members. PCI J 2004:34–41 [May–June].
vertical loading? PCI J 2007 [March–April].
[13] Klein G, Lucier G, Walter C, Rizkalla S, Zia P, Gleich H. Torsion simplified: a
[43] Lucier G, Walter C, Rizkalla S, Zia P, Klein G. Development of a rational design
failure plane model for design of spandrel beams; 2013. 19pp.
methodology for precast concrete slender spandrel beams: part 1
[14] Rabat B, Collins MP. A variable space truss model for structural concrete
experimental program. PCI J 2011;56(2).
members subjected to complex loading. SP-55. Detroit: ACI; 1978. p. 547–87.
[44] Lucier G, Walter C, Rizkalla S, Zia P, Klein G. Development of a rational design
[15] Collins MP, Mitchell D. Shear and torsion design of prestressed and non-
methodology for precast concrete slender spandrel beams: part 2 analysis and
prestressed concrete beams. J Prestress Concr Inst, Proc 1980;25(5):32–100.
design guidelines. PCI J 2011;56(4):106–33.
[16] Hsu TTC, Mo YL. Softening of concrete in torsional members—theory and tests.
[45] Kaminski M, Pawlak W. Load capacity and stiffness of angular cross section
ACI J 1985;82(3):290–303.
reinforced concrete beams under torsion. Arch Civ Mech Eng
[17] Rahal KN, Collins MP. Analysis of sections subjected to combined shear and
2011;XI(4):885–903.
torsion – a theoretical model. ACI Struct J 1995;92(4):459–69.
[46] Chalioris CE, Karayannis CG. Effectiveness of the use of steel fibres on the
[18] Cocchi GM, Volpi M. Inelastic analysis of reinforced concrete beams subjected
torsional behavior of flanged concrete beams. Cem Concr Compos
to combined torsion, flexural and axial loads. Comput Struct
2009;31:331–41.
1996;61(3):479–94.
[47] PCI. PCI design handbook precast and pre-stressed concrete. Chicago, Illinois
[19] Chalioris CE. Analytical model for the torsional behavior of reinforced concrete
60606; 2006. 736pp.
beams retrofitted with FRP materials. Eng Struct 2007;29(12):3263–76.
[48] CSA-A23.3-04. Design of concrete structures for buildings. CSA-A23.3-04
[20] Bernardo LFA, Lopes SMR. Behavior of concrete beams under torsion – NSC
standard. Rexdale, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Standards Association; 2005.
plain and hollow beams. Mater Struct 2008;41(6):1143–67.
240pp.
[21] Greene Jr G, Belarbi A. Model for reinforced concrete members under torsion,
[49] Talaeitaba SB, Mostofinejad D. Fixed supports in assessment of RC beams’
bending, and shear I: theory. J Eng Mech ASCE 2009;135(9):961–9 [September
behavior under combined shear and torsion. Int J Appl Sci Technol
1].
2011;1(5):119–26.
[22] Jeng CH, Hsu TC. A softened membrane model for torsion in reinforced
[50] Rausch E. Berechnung des Eisenbetons gegen Verdrehung (design of reinforced
concrete members. Eng Struct 2009;31(9):1944–54.
concrete in torsion). Ph.D. thesis, Berlin; 1929. 53pp [in German].
[23] Deifalla A, Ghobarah A. Full torsional behavior of RC beams wrapped with FRP:
[51] Pang X-BD, Hsu TTC. Fixed angle softened truss model for reinforced concrete.
analytical model. ACSE, Compos Construct 2010;14(3):289–300.
ACI Struct J 1996;93(2):197–207 [March–April].
[24] Bernardo LFA, Andrade JMA, Lopes SMR. Softened truss model for reinforced
[52] Ghobarah A, Ghorbel M, Chidiac S. Upgrading torsional resistance of RC beams
NSC and HSC beams under torsion: a comparative study. Eng Struct
using FRP. J Compos Construct ASCE 2002;6(4):257–63.
2012;42:278–96.
[53] Deifalla A, Hamed M, Saleh A, Ali T. Exploring GFRP bars as reinforcement for
[25] Bernardo LFA, Andrade JMA, Lopes SMR. Modified variable angle truss-model
rectangular and L-shaped beams subjected to significant torsion: an
for torsion in reinforced concrete beams. Mater Struct 2012;45:1877–902.
experimental study. Eng Struct 2014;59:776–86.
[26] Karayannis CG. Torsional analysis of flanged concrete elements with tension
[54] Deifalla A, Awad A, El-Garhy M. Effectiveness of externally bonded CFRP strips
softening. J Comput Struct 1995;54(1):97–110.
for strengthening flanged beams under torsion: an experimental study. Eng
[27] Karayannis CG, Chalioris CE. Experimental validation of smeared analysis for
Struct 2013;56:2065–75.
plain concrete in torsion. J Struct Eng ASCE 2000;126(6):646–53.
[28] Hassan T, Lucier G, Rizkalla S, Zia P. Modeling of L-shaped, precast, prestressed
concrete spandrels. PCI J. 2007:78–92 [March–April].