27 vues

Transféré par fefahim

Torsion and Bending

- Appendix-D-Review-of-Mechanics-of-Materials_2009_Elasticity-Second-Edition-.pdf
- Strength of Materials Lesson Plan
- cap2 RM
- te
- cel332 m2
- b. BEAM Gaya Internal, Dia
- Me2254-Strength of Materials-r8 April.may 2010.Bak
- Lecture Plan 2252
- 5.BEAM Gaya Internal, Dia
- Mechanics of Solids
- Project Report
- SFD and BMD
- apr 2010
- 28TOCIEJ
- 3d Beam Element Including Warping and Shear Effects
- Steel Structure I Sesi 10
- IJCIET_09_10_153
- Elasticity and strength of materials used in engineering construction .. (1922)
- A1200 Red Thread II Piping
- beams with openings

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 10

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285739286

prestressed concrete beams

Article in Aci Structural Journal March 2003

CITATIONS

READS

19

31

2 authors, including:

Khaldoun Rahal

Kuwait University

50 PUBLICATIONS 550 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

letting you access and read them immediately.

Retrieved on: 03 September 2016

TECHNICAL PAPER

Prestressed Concrete Beams

by Khaldoun N. Rahal and Michael P. Collins

This study presents an evaluation of the Modified Compression

Field Theory (MCFT) for combined bending and torsion. A

recently developed theoretical model for combined shear, torsion,

and other stress resultants based on this theory is modified to

better capture the effects of the varying longitudinal strains in

members subjected to bending. The calculated response and ultimate

capacities are compared with the experimental data obtained from

two available comprehensive test programs that cover under- and

over-reinforced hollow and solid prestressed and nonprestressed

beams subjected to combined torsion and bending. The calculated

deformations and ultimate capacities are shown to be in very good

agreement with the experimental results.

Keywords: beam; bending moment; load; prestressed concrete; reinforced

concrete; shear; strength; torsion.

INTRODUCTION

In the general case of loading, a beam cross section can

be subjected to a maximum of six stress resultants (in the

orthogonal system of coordinates) as shown in Fig. 1.

Three forces and three moments are possible: two shearing

forces Vy and Vz (along the minor and major axes), two bending

moments My and Mz (along the minor and major axes), an axial

force N (tension or compression), and a torsional moment T.

Amongst these stress resultants, the combination of the torsional

and the bending moments may be critical in the design.

In the current ACI Code,1 the interaction between torsion

and bending is implied in clause 11.6.3.7, which requires

increasing the amount of longitudinal steel to accommodate

torsion along with the other stress resultants. On the other

hand, Clause 11.6.3.1 limits the torsional shear stress level to

avoid concrete crushing before reinforcement yielding. ACI

Eq. (11-18) and (11-19) of this clause do not account for the

additional compression component caused by the bending

moment. The combination of the compression caused by

torsion, bending, and shear can be critical, especially in thinwalled sections.

The current AASHTO2 and Canadian3 (CSA-A23.3)

codes include an alternative shear and torsion design method

based on the equations of the Modified Compression Field

Theory (MCFT). 4,5 This method, named the General

Method,6,7 accounts in a rational way for how shear and

torsion affect the stresses in the longitudinal steel in the cross

section. Similar to ACI, however, it does not account for how

the compression due to the combination of bending, torsion,

and shear affects concrete crushing.

In all three Code methods,1-3 the equations are suitable for

designing sections subjected to shear, bending moment, axial

load, and torsional moment. They are not suitable, however,

for analysis of unsymmetrically reinforced sections if both

flexural and torsional moments are acting. Moreover, the

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2003

equations are not readily suitable for design and analysis of

sections subjected to all the six stress resultants shown in Fig. 1.

The MCFT is a behavioral model capable of predicting

the response of sections subjected to shear and other stressresultants. This theory is based on the Compression Field

Theory for members in pure torsion published by Mitchell

and Collins8 in 1974. The theory, which neglects tensile

stresses in the cracked concrete, was further developed in

1978 by Onsongo9 to cover the case of beams subjected to

combined torsion, bending, and axial load. Vecchio and

Collins applied the method to panels4 subjected to in-plane

shearing and axial stresses in 1986 and then to beams 5

subjected to shearing forces, bending moment, and axial load

in 1988. They quantified and introduced the effects of concrete

softening and tension stiffening and named the resulting

method the Modified Compression Field Theory. In 1995,

Rahal and Collins10 extended the MCFT to the case of

combined shear and torsion and developed a computational

tool named COMBINED for the analysis of sections subjected to

all the six possible stress-resultants. Details of the computational

model and the experimental verification for the case of

combined shear and torsion can be found in Reference 10.

This paper briefly discusses the features and the modifications

implemented into the model COMBINED to better capture the

effect of the varying longitudinal strains caused by the bending

ACI Structural Journal, V. 100, No. 2, March-April 2003.

MS No. 01-240 received August 2, 2001, and reviewed under Institute publication

policies. Copyright 2003, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.

Pertinent discussion will be published in the January-February 2004 ACI Structural

Journal if received by September 1, 2003.

157

Engineering at Kuwait University. Rahal is a member of the torsion subcommittee of

Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445, Shear and Torsion, and Vice President of the ACI

Kuwait Chapter.

Michael P. Collins, FACI, is University Professor and Bahen-Tanenbaum Professor of

Civil Engineering at the University of Toronto. He is a member of ACI Committee

318, Structural Concrete Building Code; the TAC High-Performance Concrete

Committee; and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445, Shear and Torsion.

model to capture the interaction between bending and torsional

moments. This is achieved by comparing the results of the model

with the experimental data obtained from two comprehensive

test programs by Onsongo9 and Mardukhi.11 These beams cover

the cases of under- and over-reinforced, hollow and solid,

prestressed and nonprestressed beams subjected to combined

torsion and bending.

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

Reinforced and prestressed concrete beams can be subjected

to a maximum of six stress resultants. Current building codes

do not give specific guidelines for the design of these elements,

and a superposition approach to the effect of stress resultants is

generally used. Analysis of existing beams for these stress

resultants is even more complicated, especially if the section is

unsymmetrically reinforced. The MCFT is a rational and

powerful model capable of predicting the full response of

these elements. This study presents an evaluation of the

MCFT, implemented in a computer software program named

COMBINED, for the case of combined flexure and torsion.

MCFT FOR COMBINED LOADING

Figure 2(a) shows the cross section of a beam reinforced

in the transverse and longitudinal directions. The six stress

resultants that could be acting on the cross section cause

three-dimensional shearing and normal stresses on the small

elements within the section. These stresses are complex, and

their effects cannot be easily analyzed using current

knowledge of cracked concrete behavior. To simplify the

analysis, the authors10 have proposed to idealize the section

as two systems in such a way as to consider one- and twodimensional stresses on the elements separately while

maintaining an interaction between these two systems.

Figure 2(b) and (c) show the two idealized systems. The

first system consists of a cross section similar to the original one,

excluding the stirrups. This system resists the longitudinal

stresses caused by the stress resultants. These longitudinal

stresses are caused not only by the axial force and the bending

moments, but also by the shearing stresses from the shear forces

and torsional moment. Plane sections before loading are

assumed to remain plane after loading. The longitudinal

deformation can be described by three independent values, such

as the longitudinal strain at the centroid of the section cen, and

the curvatures y and z about the y and z axes, respectively.

In the original formulation of the model,10 the second

system consists of four walls located near the periphery of

the cross section as shown in Fig. 2(c). These walls are

reinforced in the transverse direction by the stirrups and

resist the shear forces and the torsional moment by in-plane

shearing stresses. The thickness of the walls is calculated

from the curvature of the walls in the diagonal direction,

which is calculated from the curvature in the longitudinal

and transverse directions of the walls. The shear stresses act

simultaneously with specified longitudinal strains L computed

158

from the first system. For each wall, an average strain computed

at the center of the wall is used.

The analysis procedure of the model was implemented

into a computational tool named COMBINED. The results

of the model were compared10 with the experimental results

of beams subjected to combined shear and torsion, and very

good agreement was obtained.

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2003

may cause a sharp variation in the longitudinal strains L

across two or four of the walls. Figure 2(d) shows a variable

longitudinal strain across the right wall. The effect of the

variation in the longitudinal strain might not be accurately

modeled if only an average value of L at the center of the

wall is considered for the analysis of the second system. To

better capture the effects of the vertical and horizontal

curvatures, the software COMBINED was modified to allow

the use of a specified finite number of wall elements around

the periphery. Figure 2(d) shows a modified second system

with three elements used to better approximate the effect of

the variation of longitudinal strain. The wall elements are

subjected to the same shear stress but to different longitudinal

strains, and consequently they will behave differently.

For example, the average strain in the top wall element in

Fig. 2(d) is compressive, while the strain is tensile in the

other two parts of the wall. This is reflected in the crack

direction, which is flatter in the compressive area. It is to

be noted that a curvature can be caused not only by bending

moment but also by a nonsymmetrical distribution of longitudinal reinforcement in those cases where the section is

subjected to torsional moment, shearing force, or axial load.

The number of wall elements on the right and left sides of

the section is automatically increased when a curvature

about the z-axis is detected by COMBINED. Similarly,

the number of wall elements on the top and bottom sides

of the section is automatically increased when a curvature

about the y-axis is detected. The different longitudinal

strains L in the walls cause different stresses, strains,

crack orientation, and effective wall thicknesses. If the

longitudinal strains are constant across a certain direction,

only one wall element is used per side as shown in Fig. 2(c).

Figure 3 shows a flow chart of computer program COMBINED.

EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION

Experimental data

The results of the model are compared with the experimental data from 14 nonprestressed beams tested by

Onsongo9 and five prestressed beams tested by Mardukhi.11

The details of the cross sections of these beams and the

properties of the reinforcing steel are shown in Fig. 4.

Onsongo tested three series of beams. The first series

(TBU) included five hollow beams designed to fail in an

under-reinforced mode and were tested under a wide range

of M/T ratios. The second series (TBO) included five hollow

beams designed to fail in an over-reinforced mode and

were tested under a wide range of M/T ratios. The reinforcement cages used for all beams in the TBU and TBO series

were the same, but the concrete strength was significantly

smaller in series TBO to ensure that concrete crushing occurred

before steel yielding. The third series (TBS) included four

solid beams tested under the same M/T ratio but had concrete

compressive strengths ranging from 15.5 to 45.8 MPa. The

cross section of TBS was similar to that of TBU and TBO

except that it was solid instead of hollow. All beams tested

by Onsongo were unsymmetrically reinforced, with significantly larger steel ratios in the flexural tension zone as

shown in Fig. 4.

Mardukhi11 tested five prestressed hollow beams under a

wide range of T/M ratios ranging from pure torsion to pure

bending. The beams were symmetrically reinforced with

both prestressed and nonprestressed longitudinal steel as

shown in Fig. 4(b).

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2003

159

of model.

The comparison between the experimental and calculated

results is divided into two parts: the first is calculating deformations and mode of failure, and the second is calculating ultimate

loads and interaction diagrams. It is to be noted that even though

both the experimental and the theoretical work were carried out

at the University of Toronto, the theory does not include

any empirical parameters fitted to these experimental results.

Comparison with SPARCS

To show the accuracy of the proposed model, the comparison

includes, where available, the calculations of a powerful threedimensional nonlinear finite element program named

SPARCS.12-14 The calculations shown are adopted from Selby

and Vecchio12,14 who tested their program on series TBU and

160

TB04, TB05, and TBU3.

TBO. Similar to the proposed model, SPARCS is based on the

equations of the MCFT and it has been shown12-14 to be a very

powerful tool for studying the behavior of reinforced and

prestressed concrete structures. In the finite element (FE) analysis, portions of the specimens of TBU and TBO were modeled

using a mesh of 1200 reinforced concrete solid elements, 1760

nodes, and 5280 degrees of freedom. Analyzing the five beams

of each series required12 about 400 minutes of CPU time on a

Cray X-MPI24 supercomputer. In comparison, the sectional

analysis using COMBINED required 10 min on a 200 MHz,

32 MB RAM personal computer.

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2003

across depth.

Specimen TB03.

Transverse strains

An advantage of the MCFT is its ability to calculate the

full load-deformation response of sections under combined

loading. This includes calculating steel and concrete strains

as well as overall sectional deformations such as curvature,

elongation, and twist. Based on the aforementioned information,

the mode of failure of the beam can also be obtained.

In Onsongos experiments, the strains were measured

using mechanical targets attached to the hoop reinforcement

with a base length of 76 mm. In this section, the calculated

strains in the hoops are compared with the observed strains.

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2003

strain near mid-depth of Specimens TBO4, TBO5, and

TBU3. The measured average hoop strains from 18 readings

on the north face and the average from 18 readings on the

south face of the specimens are shown in the figure. The grid

of strain targets used in this evaluation covered 610 mm

along the length (nine readings) of the member and 152 mm

(two readings) near mid-depth of each face of the member.

Good agreement between the calculated and observed hoop

strains is observed. Figure 5 also shows the results of the

SPARCS analyses. In spite of its relative simplicity and low

computational demand, the results of the proposed model are

comparable to those from the three-dimensional nonlinear

finite element analysis.

Figure 6 shows the experimental and calculated torquehoop strain diagrams on the different faces of Specimen

TBO3. Figure 6(a) to 6(c), respectively, show the comparison

for the top, side, and bottom faces. For the top and bottom

sides, the measured values used are the averages of 16 strain

readings from the top and 16 from the bottom. For the side

faces, the measured strains are the average from 18 strain

readings on the north face and 18 on the south face. Figure 6

shows good agreement between the observed and the calculated

response. Figure 6(b) also shows the strains calculated from

SPARCS, which, in this case, were not as accurate as those

calculated from COMBINED.

As indicated in Fig. 2, the curvature about the z-axis causes

variable longitudinal strains over the depth of the section.

161

Because of this, the behavior of the wall elements differs

significantly over the depth. Figure 7(a) compares the calculated

and the measured transverse strains over the depth of

Specimen TBO3 at load Stages 2, 4, and 6. These load stages

correspond to 37, 70, and 93% of the observed ultimate

capacity of the beam. Each value of the observed strains is

an average of 18 readings on the vertical sides of the specimen,

shown at the center of the grids. The calculated strength

(Tcalc = 124.2 kN.m) was slightly less than the load at Stage 6

(T = 132.8 kN.m), but it is shown for comparison. The predicted

magnitudes and variations in transverse strains over the

depth are in reasonable agreement with the experimental results.

Figure 7(b) shows the variation of the angle of principal

compressive strains across the depth and in the top and bottom

faces of Specimen TBO3 at load Stage 4 (70% of capacity)

and a similar plot for Specimen TBO2 at load Stage 8 (98.6%

of capacity). The bending-to-torque (M/T) ratio was 1.62 for

TBO3 and 4.28 for TBO2. The higher M/T ratio for TBO2

caused a greater variation in the principal strain direction. In

both specimens, the model accurately calculated the variation.

Figure 7 shows the advantage of using multiple wall elements to

account for the effect of curvature.

Overall deformations

Figure 8 shows comparisons between the calculated and

observed torque-twist diagrams of two specimens from each

series of beams. In the nonprestressed series TBU, TBO, and

TBS, the twist in the specimens was measured by two indepen162

central 1.75 m of the specimens, and three inclinometers

covering the central 0.915 m of the specimens. Figure 8(a)

shows the torque-twist diagrams of under-reinforced

Specimens TBU3 and TBU4 tested under M/T ratios of

about 1.58 and 0.75, respectively. The figure shows that

COMBINED slightly underestimated the twist of the TBU4,

but it very accurately matched the inclinometer readings for

Specimen TBU3 for all levels of loading. The calculations of

SPARCS for TBU3 adopted from Vecchio and Selby12 are

also shown, and they somewhat underestimated the twist.

Figure 8(b) shows a similar comparison for over-reinforced

Specimens TBO4 and TBO5 tested under M/T ratios of

approximately 0.79 and 0.24, respectively. The figure shows

that COMBINED accurately matched the inclinometer readings

for both specimens for all levels of loading. The calculations

of SPARCS are also shown to be similarly accurate. Figure 8(c)

shows a similar comparison for solid Specimens TBS1 and

TBS3 tested under an M/T ratio of about 0.78 and which

had concrete compressive strengths of 28 and 45.8 MPa,

respectively. The figure shows that even though COMBINED

underestimated the cracking load, there is good agreement

between the calculated and the observed response. It also shows

that COMBINED accurately calculated the increase in strength

and stiffness associated with higher concrete strength.

Figure 8(d) shows the torque-twist diagrams of prestressed

Specimens TB2 and TB3 tested by Mardukhi11 under M/T

ratios of about 2.96 and 6.95, respectively. The figure shows

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2003

that COMBINED accurately matched the readings for

both specimens for all levels of loading.

Figure 9 shows similar comparisons between the observed

and calculated moment-curvature relationships for four

specimens of series TBU and TBO. The curvatures were

measured using two independent methods, a transducer

covering the central 1.75 m of the specimens, and the average

longitudinal strains measured over the central 0.61 m of the

specimens. Results from SPARCS were available for one

specimen of each series. Figure 9(a) shows the momentcurvature diagrams of under-reinforced specimens TBU2

and TBU3 tested under M/T ratios of about 4.22 and 1.58,

respectively. This figure shows that COMBINED accurately

calculated the response of TBU3 at various levels of loading,

with a slight overestimation in the stiffness. The results of

SPARCS were accurate up to about 80% of the capacity,

after which the deformations were overestimated. Figure 9(a)

also shows that COMBINED overestimated the stiffness and

the ultimate strength of TBU2. Figure 9(b) shows the momentcurvature diagrams of over-reinforced Specimens TBO3

and TBO5 tested under M/T ratios of about 1.62 and 0.24,

respectively. Both the proposed model and SPARCS accurately

matched the transducer readings for Specimen TBO3 for all

levels of loading. Specimen TBO5, which was subjected to a

relatively small bending moment, experienced negative

curvature. The tensile longitudinal stresses due to torsion

that are relatively uniform across all walls of the section

caused larger strains in the weaker top reinforcement relative

to the stronger bottom reinforcement. This differential tensile

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2003

TBO, and TBS series.

strain caused negative curvature that is larger than the positive

curvature caused by the bending moment. The model

COMBINED was able to capture this effect in Specimen

TBO5. Selby and Vecchio12,13 reported very good accuracy

in the SPARCS analysis for this specimen, which was also

able to capture the negative curvature.

Mode of failure

Table 1 shows a comparison between the observed and

theoretical mode of failure for all 19 beams. Four main

modes are identified. The first is when concrete crushes (CC)

before any of the longitudinal and transverse steel yields.

163

Failure mode*

Ultimate capacity

Experimental

Calculated

Ratio,

exp/calc

Experiment

Model

367

1.09

CC

CC

86

367

0.91

CC

CC

124

206

1.14

CC

CC

Beam

fc , MPa

TBO1

19.5

401

TBO2

19.7

78

334

TBO3

19.1

143

232

TBO4

20.4

149

117

136

109

1.08

CC

CC

TBO5

20.6

143

35

125

31

1.12

LY

CC

TBU1

34.8

551

543

1.02

LY

LY

TBU2

34.8

104

439

127

536

0.82

CC

LY

TBU3

34.8

207

327

204

322

1.01

CC

CC

TBU4

34.8

195

147

209

158

0.93

TY

CC

TBU5

34.8

175

41

169

44

0.93

TY, LY

CC

TBS4

15.5

125

108

108

100

1.12

TY, LY

CC

TBS1

28.0

209

164

179

144

1.15

TY

CC

TBS2

32.9

216

169

197

161

1.07

TY, LY

CC

TBS3

45.8

245

186

244

186

1.00

TY, LY

CC

TB5

37.6

236.7

231

1.03

LY

LY

TB3

33.7

28.1

195.4

32

220

0.89

LY, TY

LY, TY

TB2

45.0

53.2

157.3

58

172

0.92

LY, TY

LY, TY

TB1

40.3

62.4

72.8

72

84

0.87

TY

TY

TB4

35.6

64.9

75

0.86

TY

TY

Average

1.00

COV

10.6%

TY = transverse steel yielding before concrete crushing; LY = longitudinal steel yielding before concrete crushing; and CC =

concrete crushing before yielding of reinforcement.

between COMBINED and SPARCS, Fig. 5 to 9 clearly

show the merits of COMBINED as a tool to model behavior

under combined torsion and bending interaction.

moment and concrete strength.

The second is when only the transverse steel yields (TY)

before the concrete crushes. The third is when only the

longitudinal steel yields (LY) before the concrete crushes.

The fourth is when both the longitudinal and the transverse

steel yields (LY, TY) before the concrete crushes.

The model accurately identified the mode of failure of

specimens in over-reinforced Series TBO and prestressed

Series TB. In a significant number of specimens of the other

two series, the model predicted concrete crushing before

yielding of the steel, while the test results showed strain

readings larger than yield strains. In comparison, Vecchio and

Selby12 reported excellent agreement between the predicted

and observed modes of failure for specimens of both Series TBU

and TBO. Thus, SPARCS was more accurate than COMBINED

in the determination of the mode of failure.

164

Specimens of series TBU,9 TBO,9 and TB11 were tested

under a wide range of moment-to-torque ratios, and interaction

diagrams can be plotted from the capacity measurements.

Figure 10(a) to 10(c) show the measured and calculated

interaction diagrams for the three series. The figures also

show the SPARCS results12 for Series TBO and TBU. In

general, the theoretical model was conservative except for

members subjected to relatively high moment-to-torque

ratios (TBU2 and TBO2) and for the prestressed beams

(TB series). It is to be noted that some difficulties in casting

Beams TBU2 and TBU4 resulted in a somewhat thinner

top flange, leading to a premature failure. In general,

SPARCS calculated more accurately the ultimate capacities,

especially in the specimens of Series TBO. The somewhat

unconservative results for the prestressed TB series could be

due to the larger concrete cover used in this series. Large cover

can spall off at high loads, causing a reduction in the strength.

Figure 11 shows the relationship between the capacity and

the concrete strength in the TBS series. Good agreement is

observed between the calculated and experimental values,

which show that an increase in concrete strength increases

the capacity of the beam.

Table 1 compares the measured ultimate capacity of the 19

beams with the calculations of COMBINED. The average of

Texp/Tcalc and Mexp/Mcalc for the 19 specimens is 1.00 and

the coefficient of variation (COV) is 10.6%. The corresponding

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2003

specimens tested under combined shear and torsion. 10

This consistency in performance of the model for different

stress resultants is another merit of the MCFT.

For the specimens of Series TBO, the average ratio of the

experimental to the COMBINED calculated capacity was

1.07 and the COV was 8.6%. These values were 1.02 and

4.9% for the calculations using SPARCS.12 For the specimens

of Series TBU, the average was 0.94 and the COV was 8.5%.

These values were 0.95 and 6.7%, respectively, for the

SPARCS calculations.

CONCLUSION

This study presented an evaluation of an analytical model

(COMBINED) that is based on the MCFT for the loading

case of combined flexure and torsion in reinforced and

prestressed concrete beams.

Comparing the calculations of the model against experimental

results showed that the model can accurately calculate the

full response of members subjected to combined torsion and

bending. The performance of the theoretical model in the case

of combined bending and torsion was similar to its previously

reported performance for the case of combined shear and torsion.

The results of the model were also compared with those

from a powerful three-dimensional nonlinear finite element

model named SPARCS. It was shown that the accuracy of

the two models was similar in most cases, but SPARCS was

slightly more accurate in determining the mode of failure

and the ultimate capacity. It is to be noted that COMBINED analysis required a very limited fraction of the time and

memory required for the SPARCS analysis. Unlike

SPARCS, COMBINED is suitable for use in design offices.

Currently used building and bridge codes do not provide

procedures or basic guidelines for the analysis and design of

beams subjected to complex loading such as biaxial shear,

biaxial bending, torsion, and axial load. The computational

tool presented in this paper (COMBINED) fills this gap and

offers a rational procedure that can be used to predict the

response of sections subjected to such loading.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The research reported in this paper was carried out during the period of

employment of the first author with the Department of Civil Engineering at

Kuwait University. Support and making the computer facilities available is

gratefully acknowledged.

The development of the MCFT has been made possible by a series of

grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of

Canada. This support is gratefully acknowledged.

fc

M

NOTATION

=

=

applied bending moment

Mcalc =

Mexp =

My =

Mz =

N

=

T

=

Tcalc =

Texp =

Vy =

=

Vz

cen =

L

=

t =

y =

z =

=

experimental ultimate bending moment

applied bending moment about minor axis (y)

applied bending moment about major axis (z)

applied axial load

applied torsional moment

calculated ultimate torsional moment

experimental ultimate torsional moment

applied shear force about minor axis (y)

applied shear force about major axis (z)

longitudinal strain at centroid of section

longitudinal strain in wall

transverse stirrup strain in wall

sectional curvature in y direction

sectional curvature in z direction

angle of inclination of crack

REFERENCES

1. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural

Concrete (ACI 318-02) and Commentary (318R-02), American Concrete

Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 2002, 443 pp.

2. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and Commentary, SI

Units, Second Edition, Washington, D.C., 1998, 1091 pp.

3. CSA Standard, Design of Concrete Structures (A23.3-94), Canadian

Standards Association, Rexdale, Ontario, Canada, 1994, 199 pp.

4. Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., Modified Compression Field Theory

for Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear, ACI Structural Journal, V. 83,

No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 219-231.

5. Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., Predicting the Response of Reinforced

Concrete Beams Subjected to Shear Using the Modified Compression Field

Theory, ACI Structural Journal, V. 85, No. 4, May-June 1988, pp. 258-268.

6. Collins, M. P.; Mitchell, D.; Adebar, P. E.; and Vecchio, F. J., A General

Shear Design Method, ACI Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1996,

pp. 36-45.

7. Rahal, K. N., and Collins, M. P., Background of the General Method

of Shear Design in the 1994 CSA-A23.3 Standard, Canadian Journal of

Civil Engineering, V. 26, No. 6, 1999, pp. 827-839.

8. Mitchell, D., and Collins, M. P., Diagonal Compression Field Theory

A Rational Model for Structural Concrete in Pure Torsion, ACI JOURNAL,

Proceedings V. 71, No. 8, Aug. 1974, pp. 396-408.

9. Onsongo, W. M., The Diagonal Compression Field Theory for

Reinforced Concrete Beams Subjected to Combined Torsion, Flexure, and

Axial Load, PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of

Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 1978, 246 pp.

10. Rahal, K. N., and Collins, M. P., Analysis of Sections Subjected to

Combined Shear and TorsionA Theoretical Model, ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 4, July-Aug. 1995, pp. 459-469.

11. Mardukhi, J., The Behavior of Uniformly Prestressed Concrete Box

Beams in Combined Torsion and Bending, MASc thesis, Department of

Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 1974,

73 pp.

12. Vecchio, F. J., and Selby, R. G., Towards Compression Field Analysis

of Reinforced Concrete Solids, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,

V. 118, No. 6, pp. 1740-1758.

13. Selby, R. G., and Vecchio, F. J., Non-Linear Finite Element Analysis

of Reinforced Concrete Solids, MASc thesis, Department of Civil

Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, 1990.

14. Selby, R. G., and Vecchio, F. J., Three-Dimensional Constitutive

Relations for Reinforced Concrete, Publication No. 93-02, Department

of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada,

Nov. 1993.

165

- Appendix-D-Review-of-Mechanics-of-Materials_2009_Elasticity-Second-Edition-.pdfTransféré parJaime
- Strength of Materials Lesson PlanTransféré parbalajimettur
- cap2 RMTransféré parDaNy3lMatheo
- teTransféré parOzan
- cel332 m2Transféré pardonotpanic
- b. BEAM Gaya Internal, DiaTransféré parAdi
- Me2254-Strength of Materials-r8 April.may 2010.BakTransféré paramdeva
- Lecture Plan 2252Transféré parram_prasath_31
- 5.BEAM Gaya Internal, DiaTransféré parsutrimo
- Mechanics of SolidsTransféré parSrikanth Gogineni
- Project ReportTransféré parAbhijit Haval
- SFD and BMDTransféré parvempadareddy
- apr 2010Transféré parArvind Thankappan
- 28TOCIEJTransféré parBeny Abdou
- 3d Beam Element Including Warping and Shear EffectsTransféré parsriki_neel
- Steel Structure I Sesi 10Transféré parsagokkantang
- IJCIET_09_10_153Transféré parMaria Plaza Garcia
- Elasticity and strength of materials used in engineering construction .. (1922)Transféré parTaliaNara
- A1200 Red Thread II PipingTransféré parjimmycabrera
- beams with openingsTransféré parhemanthyadav
- Chapter 5 Restrained Beam DesignTransféré paraisha nakato
- HW5_SS_38-39Transféré parKhaled Hamid
- Development of Pippard’s elastic method for the assessment of short span masonry arch bridgesTransféré parjdkelley
- Introduction to nonlinear mechanics.CNTransféré parpanos2244662864
- DAMAS Paper RevisedTransféré parJogi Oscar Sinaga
- IMAM et al. (1995)Transféré parAlessandra A Moraes
- Comparative Inelastic Pushover Analysis of Masonry FramesTransféré parGeorge Varelis
- Recommendations on the Use of Grillage Analysis for Slab and Pseudo-slab Bridge Decks-R. West OCRTransféré parWill Harrow
- som15.pdfTransféré parjhalakdutta
- EG202 Syllabus Strength of Materials Spring 2011.docxTransféré parJames Hancock

- Lecture 07Transféré parfefahim
- Lecture 09Transféré parfefahim
- PM Presentation QasimTransféré parfefahim
- Lecture 08Transféré parfefahim
- Muhammad Junaid_Research PaperTransféré parfefahim
- 0. Title PageTransféré parfefahim
- Solved ExamplesTransféré parfefahim
- Lecture 10 UpdatedTransféré parfefahim
- CEE5155 Final Term, Fall-18Transféré parfefahim
- Week 06_Cables and Suspension BridgesTransféré parfefahim
- bps-18Transféré parfefahim
- Lec 7_Truss AnalysisTransféré parfefahim
- Strucutre Mid SolutionsTransféré parfefahim
- Lec 8_Beam AnalysisTransféré parfefahim
- bps20newTransféré parfefahim
- 4. Weighted Residual Based FEMTransféré parfefahim
- 2. Lecture 02-Modified Galerkin MethodTransféré parfefahim
- 1. Lecture 01-Weighted Residual MethodsTransféré parfefahim
- Curriculm of Civil Engg& Allied DisciplineTransféré parMuhammad Shakil Jan
- Fahim Shb CertificateTransféré parfefahim
- 5. One Dimensional Bar ElementTransféré parfefahim
- Part I- 3. Ethical and Social Issues (34%)Transféré parfefahim
- finite element methodTransféré parsanoizu
- Part II-2. Engineering Mechanics (10%)Transféré parfefahim
- Part I- 2. Written and Coummunication Skills (33%)Transféré parfefahim
- 3. Variational Based FEMTransféré parfefahim
- Part I- 1. ManagementTransféré parfefahim
- 6. Applications of Axial Bar ElementTransféré parfefahim
- MA English Syllabus KUST.pdfTransféré parittehad
- Plates PaperTransféré parfefahim

- Chap-3 Media AccessTransféré parHardik Patel
- T3907-390-01_SG-Ins_Exc_ENTransféré parNanda Kumar
- Branch Prediction Schemes2Transféré parCharchica Agrawal
- V 6280 manualTransféré parDayna Weaver
- Product training smart cone.pdfTransféré parCoco Galindo
- colorwheel-revisedTransféré parapi-275582933
- Trouble shootingTransféré parNicolai Aquino
- Modelling of SMA Materials Training and Two Way Memory EffectsTransféré parKijiiiiii Au
- 03022017 LIC PaymentTransféré parsiva anand
- PVDnotesTransféré parsvhanu4010
- Purpose of Miniature Circuit Breakers MCBsTransféré parmohammedviqhas3541
- Volume 1Number 2PP 356 363Transféré parHajer Al Fasi
- Expt_5_BinaryPhasesmmmTransféré parKevin Cruz
- Amlsbrobotcat05Transféré parfernando
- Data Flow Migratimon From BW 3.5 to BI 7.XTransféré parBabuChowdary
- School Management SystemTransféré parNelson Devasagayam
- Matlab FrameworkTransféré parnarumugai29
- CS2253_uwTransféré parVallam Ramesh
- CE 61Transféré parAbhilash Nagavarapu
- IOC DurgasoftTransféré parprashant110484
- ABB Communication Protocol Manual Iec 60870-5-103Transféré parNedzadZaklan
- AssignmentTransféré parAnil v
- Logic Week 5 Lecture 1Transféré parPi
- Small Avid Lockit TC Sound GuideTransféré parEmad Soliman Saadeldin
- statistika zadaciTransféré parErnestina Straga-Šašić
- Economic Manufacturing QuantityTransféré parDharshan Kofi
- CAP314Transféré parPrakhar Bhardwaj
- combinepdf.pdfTransféré parAlexander Monroe
- Burtch Works Study PAP 2017Transféré parwroin1
- 2065935-002_D_MACi_SvcMnl.pdfTransféré parmas naryanto