TORSION IN MAIN GIRDER

Referring the discussions on the compatibility torsion my point of views are: Er. Raghul has posted the content of page 245 of the book Reinforced Concrete Design by S.Unnikrishna Pillai & Devadas Menon. Clear and good explanation with reference to IS code Provision of the clause Cl.40.1 is given. As a structural engineer we should be aware that the code provisions are only a guide and need to exercise our engineering knowledge and experience. It is to be understood that in any software structures are formed as mathematical model which should resemble at least 99% true to the site condition and as furnished by the architect or engineer. We all agree to this and no one can deny this important aspect while modeling in any software. Going back to the compatibility torsion I would like to draw the attention that practically the main girder and secondary girders with the slab will be cast monolithically by in situ concrete. How many of us can offer the guarantee that: there will be a hinge formed as we do not provide any hinge as modeled in the software and this is similar to the modeling of a footing as either fixed or hinged and the real condition at site is different. ( It is best to use spring support to footings) 2. there will not be any torsion developed since it is a monolithically cast. Under the above situation it is better to do as do analysis with no release of moment for torsion. We do not blindly follow that code says we can model with a release since there is a provision in the software. 1.

Find out the torsional moment value and check whether this is below or equal to the value prescribed in ACI-318 code clause 11. 5.1as there is no such provision given in IS code 456:2000. It shall be permitted to neglect torsion effects if the factored torsional moment Tu is less than: (a) For nonprestressed members

(c) For nonprestressed members subjected to an axial tensile or compressive force

Minimum torsion reinforcement: In the pages as attached by Er. Raghul the authors explained as: In order to control the subsequent cracking and to impact ductility to the member, it is desirable to provide a minimum torsion reinforcement, equal to that required to resist the cracking torque. In fact, one of intention of the minimum stirrups reinforcement specified by the code (cl.25.5.1.6) is to ensure some degree of control of torsional cracking of bems due to COMPATIBILITY TORSION. Please note that the minimum specified in the code does ot spell whether it is for shear due to gravity load or inclusive for COMPATIBILITY torsion. Also in ACI code specifies a minimum area of steel for the torsion is as 11.5.5 Minimum torsion reinforcement 11.5.5.1 A minimum area of torsional reinforcement shall be provided in all regions where Tu exceeds the threshold torsion given in 11.5.1. 11.5.5.2 Where torsional reinforcement is required by 11.5.5.1, the minimum area of transverse closed stirrups shall be computed by

This is in addition to the minimum area for the regular shear provisions. Vide Clause 11.4.6 (ACI 318). Also more guidance is given in IS 456 as well as CI-318 on detailing of reinforcement i.e. stiruups for the shear as well as for torsion. The above are pointed out as we structural engineers are responsible for safety and not on modeling a secondary beam with hinged condition for easiness in analyzing the structures. For argument sake and as furnished in code and explained in a good reference does not relive our responsibility. Hope that the above makes it clear how to deal with the torsional moment in main girder due to the interception of secondary beams. For equilibrium torsion which is a clear one and no ambiguity to model with release ends. Comments and views from experts and seniors are welcome. T.RangaRajan.