Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 10

See

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

Combined torsion and bending in reinforced and


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

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,


letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Khaldoun Rahal


Retrieved on: 03 September 2016

ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 100-S17

Combined Torsion and Bending in Reinforced and


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

Fig. 1General case of loading on beam cross section.


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

ACI member Khaldoun N. Rahal is an associate professor at the Department of Civil


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.

moment on the torsional behavior. It also checks the ability of the


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

Fig. 2Model based on MCFT.


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

The bending moments and the corresponding curvatures


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

Fig. 3Flow chart of program COMBINED.


159

Fig. 4Cross section details of beams used in verification


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

Fig. 5Torque-transverse strains diagrams of Specimens


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

Fig. 7Variation of transverse strains and principal angles


across depth.

Fig. 6Torque-hoop strain diagrams at different faces of


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

Figure 5 compares the calculated and measured transverse


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

Fig. 8Torque-twist diagrams for eight specimens.


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

dent methods, a metrisite rotational transducer covering the


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

Fig. 9Moment-curvature diagrams for four specimens.


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

Fig. 10Torsion-flexure interaction diagrams for TBU,


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

Table 1Experimental verification


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

Texp, kN.m Mexp, kN.m Tcalc, kN.m Mcalc, kN.m

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.

Given the difference in computational requirements


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.

Fig. 11Relationship between torsional and flexural


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

Ultimate strength and interaction diagrams


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

values were 1.00 and 7.8% for 35 reinforced concrete


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
=
=

concrete compressive strength


applied bending moment

ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2003

Mcalc =
Mexp =
My =
Mz =
N
=
T
=
Tcalc =
Texp =
Vy =
=
Vz
cen =
L
=
t =
y =
z =
=

calculated ultimate bending moment


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