Concrete Design Twisting Moments (Wood -

Armer)
thread507-375326
Forum Search FAQs Links MVPs
Gumpmaster (Structural)
(OP)
19 Nov 14 18:29
Just a quick survey:

1) Do you, in your typical concrete design, consider twisting moments?

2) Have you ever considered twisting moments?

3) If you do consider twisting moments, what method do you use for design (Wood-Armer?)?

4) What region are you in (USA, NZ, Europe...)?

I think that the inclusion of twisting moments in design is not universal, and varies greatly by
region, but it would be interesting to see everyone's experience with this.
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Professional Development for Engineering Students Highlights Rising Stars

Conference

 17 Tips for Designing Cost Effective Machined Parts

Will Wood be the Future of Skyscraper Engineering

 Digimat Determines Material Characterization of Continuous Fiber Reinforced

Composites

KootK (Structural) 19 Nov 14 20:30

1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) Wood-Armer
4) Canada

It sort of depends on what you mean by "consider". In an elastic, two way FEM analysis,
twisting moments will almost always be generated. To disregard those moments altogether is
to produce a flawed design, without question. It doesn't make sense to reinforce for the
twisting moment explicitly however. You tend to wind up with light amounts of reinforcing in
places where reinforcing looks odd. Dealing with the twisting by converting it to conventional
flexure somehow (Wood-Armer) is better.

The greatest trick that bond stress ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.

asixth (Structural) 19 Nov 14 21:51

thread744-372518: Wood-Armer & Twisting Moments

This question gets asked alot. Mxy in FEM analysis needs to be accounted for in design.

Nobody should be using Mxx and Myy as there orthogonal strip design actions and ignoring
Mxy.
jrbaus (Structural) 19 Nov 14 22:01
Refer to Page 7 of the recent publication below. It has a good discussion on this exact issue
and states that ignoring the moment generally (but not not always) results in <10% increase in
moment.

http://www.structural-safety.org/media/364894/cros...

Regards Jake
TehMightyEngineer (Structural) 20 Nov 14 00:04
1) Typical? No FEA? Yes.
2) Yes.
3) Wood-Armer
4) USA

Maine EIT, Civil/Structural.

Gumpmaster (Structural)
(OP)
20 Nov 14 10:46
1) No
2) Yes
3) Wood-Armer
4) USA

I agree that the twisting moments are an integral part of achieving equilibrium and that they
should be included in design. It's not the standard practice at my current company though.
Designs are primarily for crack control with ACI 350, and that adds quite a bit of
conservatism. The majority of engineers in my office have actually never heard of Wood-
Armer.
Gumpmaster (Structural)
(OP)
20 Nov 14 10:51
Asixth, I think this is common practice outside the USA, but not necessarily common practice
in the US, apart from maybe automated design of PT slabs. Not that that's right, but I think
that's probably how it is. I don't think most ACI 318 based textbooks even mention twisting
moments or Wood-Armer. I'm hoping to maybe get a better feel for if that's true or not.
TehMightyEngineer (Structural) 20 Nov 14 12:31
I think most people just hand-calculate the design of complex concrete using the strip-method
thus avoiding FEA, Mxy, and so on.

Maine EIT, Civil/Structural.

AlanLord (Structural) 20 Nov 14 14:55

Yes,

And Advance Design America software does it for you

PicoStruc (Structural) 20 Nov 14 15:06
Have same answer than KootK

But I add that A23.3-2004 Concrete code REQUIRED to consider twisting moment using
Wood-Amer Method for elastic plate method (FEM). See Clause 13.6.4
rapt (Structural) 20 Nov 14 19:11
There is a difference between analysing for Mxy and allowing for it in design. ALL FEM
software will generate Mxy moments. It is the design routines that need to be programmed to
allow for it in design.
US Design software tends to ignore it. European always allows for it. e.g. RAM Concept
ignores it by default but they added an option for the user to include it in design a few years
ago. Sofistik, Oasys, Cedrus and Orion from Europe all allow for it automatically.
Some design codes specifically say to include it (Canadian, NZ), while other does not see the
need to define it specifically and instead insist that the design satisfy equilibrium. To satisfy
equilibrium, you must include all actions from the analysis and Mxy must therefore be
included in design.

I did an interesting comparison with a square grid once between RAPT (2D frame) and Orion
(FEM) and the total panel moments were exactly the same as long as Orion included the
effects of the Mxy moments in the design moments (which it does automatically).

The actual effect will vary depending on the coarseness of the mesh and the symmetry of the
structure and the location in the structure.
Ingenuity (Structural) 20 Nov 14 19:28
Some historical perspective...not related to Mxy, but interesting none the less...ACI-318 up
until 1971 (I think) permitted the user to design for 85% of statics for RC flat plates! Yep,
Nichols' classic 'total static moment' of wL2/8 was not accepted by some in the profession
(Turner, Eddy etc) in 1915 era, and it took more than 50 years for the "less than equilibrium"
provision of ACI-318 to be removed.
slickdeals (Structural) 21 Nov 14 08:21
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Wood-Armer (turned on in Ram Concept Strip design preferences)
4. U.S.A/India