Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 3263–3276

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Analytical model for the torsional behaviour of reinforced concrete beams

retrofitted with FRP materials
Constantin E. Chalioris ∗
Democritus University of Thrace, Department of Civil Engineering, Reinforced Concrete Laboratory, 12 V. Sofias Street, Xanthi 67100, Greece

Received 28 May 2007; received in revised form 9 September 2007; accepted 19 September 2007
Available online 5 November 2007

Abstract

An analytical approach for the prediction of the torsional response of reinforced concrete (RC) beams strengthened with fibre-reinforced-
polymer (FRP) materials is described. The analysis method employs the combination of two different theoretical models: a smeared crack
model for plain concrete in torsion for the elastic till the first cracking response and a properly modified truss model for the post-cracking
response. The proposed method addresses the contribution of the externally bonded FRP materials to the torsional capacity of RC beams using
specially developed equations in the well-known truss theory and utilizes softened and FRP-confined concrete stress–strain relationships. Detailed
verification of this methodology is achieved through extensive comparisons between analytically predicted behaviour curves and experimentally
obtained ones. The experimental data comprise a series of 12 tests in pure torsion and an additional database of experimental information for 24
specimens compiled from works around the world. These comparisons demonstrated that the proposed model is capable of adequately describing
the full torsional response and of predicting with satisfactory accuracy the torsional moment at cracking and the ultimate torque capacity of FRP
strengthened RC beams. Applications of the developed method as an assessment tool to strengthened beams with U-shaped FRP configurations
and some first design examples that demonstrate the contribution of the FRP materials on the torsional response are also included.
c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Concrete reinforced; Beams; Fibre-reinforced-polymers (FRP); Retrofit; Truss model; Torsion

1. Introduction Despite the plethora of the conducted research on the

The application of fibre-reinforced-polymers (FRPs) has
been proved to be a competitive strengthening technique for
inadequate reinforced concrete (RC) elements. The well-known
advantages of these composite materials, such as their relatively
high strength to weight ratio and their easy-to-apply character,
make them promising candidates for repair and retrofit of
deficient RC structures. In the last decade, several experimental
and theoretical studies have been carried out, most to the
flexural and less to the shear strengthening of RC members
using FRP materials as external reinforcement. Epoxy-bonded
FRP sheets and laminates were also used as a repair and
rehabilitation method for damaged RC beam–column joints and
elements due to cyclic deformations [1–5] and for corroded RC
columns [6,7].
∗ Tel.: +30 25410 79632; fax:+30 25410 79632.
E-mail address: chaliori@civil.duth.gr.
upgrading of the flexural and shear behaviour of RC beams
with FRP materials since almost the early 1990s, the literature
on torsional strengthening is quite limited and initiated just in
2001 [8–10]. This might be related to the specialized nature
of the problem of torsion and to the fact that torsional action
rarely occurs alone, and thus the demand for flexure or shear
strengthening in common structures is more likely than for
torsion strengthening. Besides, the contribution of FRP to the
shear capacity has just been included in the design guides and
recommendations (Concrete Society [11], fib [12], JSCE [13],
ACI [14], CSA [15]), while only fib proposed design equations
for the case of torsional strengthening with FRP materials.
The published work on the torsional behaviour of FRP
strengthened RC beams is mainly focused on the experimental
investigation since 2006. Most of the tested specimens available
in the literature encompass solid rectangular beams, steel
reinforced with longitudinal bars and transverse stirrups,
strengthened with externally bonded carbon or glass FRP
(CFRP or GFRP) materials in the transverse direction and

0141-0296/$ - see front matter 

c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.09.009
3264 C.E. Chalioris / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 3263–3276
tested under monotonic torsion [9,16–18]. Box-section RC
beams strengthened with CFRP strips were also tested under
monotonic torque by Hiii and Al-Mahaidi [19,20] and under
cyclic torque by Jing et al. [21]. Moreover, torsional tests
of retrofitted beams with GFRP in the transverse or/and
longitudinal direction were conducted by Panchacharam and
Belarbi [22]. There are only a few torsional tests of non-
rectangular beams strengthened with FRP materials [23,24].
Most of the previous mentioned experimental studies
have been published in very recent years. Therefore, the
lack of quantitative and representative tests on the torsional
strengthening, so far, made the proposal of rigorous analytical
models difficult to validate. A simplified analysis [25], an
extension of the compression field theory [26] and some
modifications on the current national design codes [20]
comprise the very few analytical attempts for the prediction of
the torsional capacity of FRP strengthened RC beams.
The topic of this paper is torsional strengthening of RC
beams using externally bonded FRP materials, which is a
recent development and it is still an open field of study.
The recent growing interest for the use of these composite
materials, the brittle and catastrophic character of the torsional
failure and the lack of relative studies are the main motives
behind this effort. The objective of this study is to present and
experimentally verify an analytical model for the prediction of
the entire torsional response of FRP strengthened RC beams.
The proposed approach employs the combination of two well-
established theories for the torsional behaviour of (a) plain
concrete members [27,28] and (b) steel reinforced concrete
members [29,30]. This combination has also been adopted in
order to develop a behavioural model which has been used
to provide full analytical torque versus twist curves for steel
reinforced beams [31]. In the present study, this methodology is
extended and properly modified in order to include the influence
of the FRP materials on the torsional behaviour as external
reinforcement.
To obtain an authoritative validation of the proposed
approach, two mutually supplementary studies were undertaken
in the present paper. First, the results of an experimental
program consisting of 12 beams are presented and compared
with the analytical ones. Further, published experimental data
available from the literature were considered collectively and
used as an additional database (24 beams) in an attempt to check
the accuracy of the proposed method based on test results of
a range of parametric studies. Extensive comparisons between
analytical and measured data that also include full torsional
curves of RC beams strengthened with carbon or glass FRP
materials (continuous sheets and strips) in various retrofitting
configurations are also presented and discussed herein.
2. Analytical model
The prediction of the entire torsional behaviour of RC
beams strengthened with FRP is initially based on a combined
analytical procedure that has already been used for RC
beams [31]. In the present study this approach is extended to
include the influence of epoxy bonded FRP materials on the
torsional response. The method employs the combination of
two different theoretical models. A typical experimental curve
of an FRP strengthened RC beam under torsion consists of
a pre-cracking and a post-cracking region and justifies this
twofold simulation. The elastic till the first cracking response
and the cracking torsional moment are predicted by a smeared
crack analysis for plain concrete in torsion [27]. The calculation
of the post-cracking behaviour and the ultimate torsional
moment is based on the well-known softened truss theory [29,
30], which is properly modified herein in order to take into
account the contribution of the FRP materials.
2.1. Elastic response and torsional moment at cracking
It is justified that for the elastic till the first cracking response
the percentage of reinforcement has a minor effect on the
torsional behaviour and RC elements behave, more or less, as
plain concrete members. The analytical smeared crack model
for plain concrete in torsion proposed by Karayannis [27]
proved to be successfully applicable to RC beams for the
prediction of the first elastic part till the developing of concrete
cracking [31]. The model is based on an analytical technique
that employs constitutive relations expressed in terms of normal
stress and crack width for the behaviour of the crack process
zones. Extensions of this method to steel fibre reinforced
concrete and to prestressed concrete beams under torsion have
also been proposed [32,33]. Detailed derivation of the equations
and the solution technique of this theoretical model can be
found in [27,28].
2.2. Post-elastic response and ultimate torsional moment
For the calculation of the post-elastic torsional behaviour
and the estimation of the ultimate torque strength the basic
equations and considerations of the softened truss model are
initially adopted and properly modified to include the influence
of FRP. The well-known softened truss theory, which was first
developed by Hsu and Mo [29] and later modified and unified
by Hsu [30], relies on solving equilibrium and compatibility
equations along with the constitutive laws of an element taken
from a member subjected to pure torsion. Especially for the
concrete in compression, it is considered that the concrete strut
strength is greatly reduced by the diagonal cracking caused by
tension in the perpendicular direction (concrete softening).
In the proposed approach, the influence of the epoxy-bonded
FRP materials as external reinforcement is implemented as an
additional component that contributes to the torsional resistance
along with the steel reinforcement. Further, the developed
confinement due to the wrapping FRP is also taken into
account in the analysis using specially developed compressive
stress–strain curves for softened and FRP-confined concrete.
Moreover, the effective tensile strain of the fibres is estimated
based on two analytical procedures, depending on the material
and the failure mode of the FRP. An efficient trial-and-error
algorithm procedure has also been developed in order to solve
the following equations and to calculate the torsional moment
versus angle of twist data points.
 C.E. Chalioris / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 3263–3276 3265

Fig. 1. Typical cracking mode of RC beams retrofitted with FRP.

Fig. 2. Space truss for the torsional analysis of RC beam strengthened with FRP materials.

2.2.1. Equilibrium equations

Typical cracking patterns of RC beams strengthened with
FRP materials and subjected to pure torsion are shown in the
photographs of Fig. 1. When the torsional strength at cracking
is reached, diagonal helical cracks are developed around the
cross-section of the beam. After concrete cracking, the beam
can be idealized as a space truss as shown in Fig. 2(a), where
the external torsional moment T is resisted by an internal torque
resulting from the shear flow q, which is developed in the
centre of a shear flow zone with an effective wall thickness td .
Considering the state of stress in a finite concrete element E
of the cracked beam, which is assumed to lie in the plane of
the shear flow, it is subjected to a set of stresses in the plane
represented by Mohr’s circle [30]. Thus, from the stresses’
equilibrium the following relationships that include the effect
of FRP are deduced (see also Fig. 2(b)):
σ = σd cos2 α + σr sin2 α + ρs f s + ρ f  f f 
σ =σr =0
−−−−−→ −σd cos2 α = ρs f s + ρ f  f f 
σt = σd sin2 α + σr cos2 α + ρst f st + ρ f t f f t
σt =σr =0
−−−−−→ −σd sin2 α = ρst f st + ρ f t f f t (2)
σr =0
τt = (−σd + σr ) sin α cos α −−−→ τt = −σd sin α cos α (3)
where σ and σt are the normal stresses of the element in
longitudinal and transverse direction, respectively; σd and σr
are the principal compressive and tensile stresses, respectively;
α is the inclination angle of the diagonal compression
struts (crack angle); τt is the shear stress; ρs and ρst
are the longitudinal and transverse steel reinforcement ratio,
respectively; ρ f  and ρft are the ratio of the FRP materials
in longitudinal and transverse direction, respectively; f s , f st ,
f f  and f ft are the stresses of steel reinforcement and FRP in
longitudinal and transverse direction. It is noted that for the
Eqs. (1)–(3) the tensile stress of concrete has been neglected
(σr = 0). Also, since only shear stresses develop on a cross-
section of an element subjected to pure torsion without skew
(1) restraint, an infinitesimal element on this cross-section is in
3266 C.E. Chalioris / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 3263–3276

pure shear stress state without normal stresses (σ = σt = 0). Therefore, the crack angle α is related to the materials strains
The crack angle α can be calculated from Eqs. (1) and (2): by the following relationship:
 
ρst f st + ρft f ft ε − εd
tan α = . (4) tan α = . (12)
ρs f s + ρ f  f f  εt − εd

It is emphasized that the reinforcement ratios in the above According to the compatibility equation of the thin-walled tube
mentioned equations are not the normalized reinforcement theory, the angle of twist per unit length ϑ is related to the shear
ratios for the use in design, but they are calculated by the distortion in the wall by the equation
following expressions: po
ϑ= γt . (13)
As 2Ao
ρs = (5a)
po td
Further, the bending of the concrete struts which is caused
Ast pst by the warping in the wall due to the twisting is defined by the
ρst = (5b)
po td s compatibility conditions and the curvature of the concrete strut
  ψ is
Af n f · tf pf
ρf = = (6a)
po td p o td ψ = 2ϑ sin α cos α. (14)
 
Aft pft n ft · tft w f pft
ρft = = (6b) Assuming linear strain distribution within the effective
p o td s f po td s f thickness of the compression zone in the diagonal compression
where po is the perimeter of the centreline of the shear struts, the maximum compressive strain εds at the surface can
flow; td is the effective thickness of the compression zone be expressed as
in the diagonal compression struts; As is the total area of
εds = −td ψ. (15)
steel longitudinal bars; Ast is the area of one steel stirrup
(one leg); pst is the perimeter of the steel stirrup; s is the Substituting ψ from Eq. (14) into Eq. (15) and assuming
spacing of steel stirrups; n f  , n ft and t f  , tft are the numbers that the average compressive strain εd is equal to the half of the
of plies and the thicknesses of one ply of the FRP in the maximum strain εds , the following relationship is derived:
longitudinal and transverse direction, respectively; p f  , pft
are the perimeters of the strengthened beam cross-section using εd = −td ϑ sin α cos α. (16)
FRP in the longitudinal and transverse direction, respectively;
w f is the width of the FRP strips; s f is the length along Substituting ϑ from Eq. (13) into Eq. (16) results in
the beam over that FRP area is distributed, which is equal
− po γt td sin α cos α
to the spacing between the centroid line of the FRP strips; εd = . (17)
and A f  , Aft are the FRP area in longitudinal and transverse 2Ao
direction, respectively. Also, inserting γt from Eqs. (11b) and (11c) into Eq. (17)
The shear flow derived from the Bredt equation has the form yields
T q=τt td T Eq. (3)
q= −→ τt = −→ po td
2Ao 2Ao td εd = − (ε − εd ) cos2 α (18a)
2Ao
T = −σd 2Ao td sin α cos α (7) po td
εd = − (εt − εd ) sin2 α. (18b)
where T is the torsional moment; Ao is the area enclosed by the 2Ao
centreline of the shear flow.
Substituting cos2 α from Eq. (1) and sin2 α from Eq. (2)
2.2.2. Compatibility equations into Eqs. (18a) and (18b) and rearranging, the following two
The in-plane deformation of the element E of Fig. 2(b) relationships are derived, respectively:
should satisfy the following compatibility equations that relate
the shear distortion in the wall γt to the strains of the concrete A o σd
ε = εd + εd (19a)
and reinforcements: As f s + A f  f f 

ε + εt = εd + εr (8) Ao σd
εt = εd + εd Aft pft
. (19b)
Ast pst
ε = εd cos2 α + εr sin2 α (9) s f st + s f f ft

εt = εd sin2 α + εr cos2 α (10) It is also noted that substituting γt from Eq. (11a) into Eq. (17)
γt = 2 (−εd + εr ) sin α cos α (11a) and (18a) and (18b), td can be expressed as
γt = 2 (ε − εd ) cot α (11b) Ao (−εd ) (εr − εd )
td = (20)
γt = 2 (εt − εd ) tan α. (11c) po (ε − εd ) (εt − εd )
 C.E. Chalioris / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 3263–3276 3267

Fig. 3. Constitutive stress–strain laws for the materials: (a) concrete; (b) steel; (c) FRP.

where the perimeter po and the area Ao of the centreline of the proposed by Vinzileou and Panagiotidou [35] have been
shear flow are related to the area Ac and the perimeter pc of the considered:
gross cross-section:
εcu = 0.003k 2 , (25a)
Ao = Ac − 0.5 pc td + td2 (21a) k = 1 + 2.8 · 0.5αn ωw (25b)
po = pc − 4td . (21b) where αn is the in-section coefficient confinement calculated by
the cross-section dimensions b and h:
2.2.3. Constitutive stress–strain laws of the materials b2 + h 2
The concrete struts’ strength is greatly reduced by the αn = 1 − (25c)
3Ac
diagonal cracking caused by tension in the perpendicular
and ωw denotes the volumetric mechanical ratio for external
direction (concrete softening). The appropriate constitutive law
FRP-confinement taken as
with softening effect developed by Belarbi and Hsu [34] is used
as a basis in the proposed model: volume of FRP material ffu
ωw = (25d)
   volume of the confined concrete core f c
εd εd 2
σd = ζ f c 2 − for εd ≤ ζ εo (22a) where f f u is the ultimate tensile strength of the FRP.
ζ εo ζ εo For the steel reinforcement and the FRP materials the
   idealized stress–strain relationships shown in Fig. 3(b) and (c)
εd / (ζ εo ) − 1 2
σd = ζ f c 1 − for εd > ζ εo (22b) are used, respectively. Especially for the FRP, the maximum
2/ζ − 1 developed tensile strain of the fibres, or else the effective strain
in the principal material direction ε f e , is estimated using the
where f c is the concrete cylinder compressive strength; εo =
following analytical approaches, depending on the material
−0.002 (concrete strain corresponding to peak strength); and ζ
(carbon or glass) of the FRP.
is the softening coefficient taken as
For the case of carbon FRP, the model of Triantafillou and
0.9 Antonopoulos [36] which fib Bulletin 14 [12] has adopted is
ζ =√ . (23) considered:
1 + 400εr
– for wrapping and rupture failure:
In the cases of totally wrapped beams with FRP, the external
confinement of concrete due to FRP is taken into account in
2/3 0.30
fc
the present study. For this reason, a special compressive stress ε f e = 0.17 εfu (26a)
versus strain curve for softened and FRP-confined concrete is Efρf
formulated (Fig. 3(a)). The proposed stress–strain relationship – for U-jacketing and rupture or peeling-off failure:
is defined as a parabolic equation until the point of ultimate ⎧ ⎫

2/3 0.30
stress and after that point the curve is linearly reduced until the ⎪
⎪ f ⎪
⎪
point of ultimate strain ζ εcu (see also Fig. 3(a)): ⎪ 0.17
⎪
c
εfu ⎪ ⎪
⎨ Efρf ⎬
  2 ε f e = min
2/3 0.56 (26b)
εd εd ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪

σd = kζ f c 2 2 − for εd ≤ k 2 ζ εo . (24) ⎪
⎪
fc
× 10−3 ⎪⎪
k ζ εo k 2 ζ εo ⎩0.65 ⎭
Efρf
The following confinement parameters of an empirical where E f is the elastic modulus of the FRP; ρ f is the FRP ratio
model for FRP-confined concrete which recently has been for torsion.
3268 C.E. Chalioris / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 3263–3276

Table 1
Characteristics of the tested beams
Beam code name b/ h fc Asλ f ysλ Ast /s f yst CFRP (fibres in transverse direction)
(mm/mm) (MPa) (mm2 ) (MPa) (mm) (MPa) A f /s f (mm) Configuration
Ra 100/200 27.5 201 560 – – – –
Ra-FC(1) 100/200 27.5 201 560 – – 0.110 W-C
Ra-FC(2) 100/200 27.5 201 560 – – 0.220 W-C
Ra-FS150(2) 100/200 27.5 201 560 – – 0.110 W-S [w f /s f = 150/300]
RaS 100/200 27.5 201 560 0.183 350 – –
RaS-FS150(2) 100/200 27.5 201 560 0.183 350 0.110 W-S [w f /s f = 150/300]
Rb 150/300 28.8 201 560 – – – –
Rb-FC(1) 150/300 28.8 201 560 – – 0.110 W-C
Rb-FS200(1) 150/300 28.8 201 560 – – 0.055 W-S [w f /s f = 200/400]
Rb-FS300(1) 150/300 28.8 201 560 – – 0.055 W-S [w f /s f = 300/600]
RbS 150/300 28.8 201 560 0.238 350 – –
RbS-FS200(1) 150/300 28.8 201 560 0.238 350 0.055 W-S [w f /s f = 200/400]
W: Wrapping; C: Continuous sheets; S: Strips [width w f at spacing s f (in mm)].
A f = n f × t f × w f ; n f = 1 or 2 (number of plies); t f = 0.11 mm (CFRP thickness per ply).

For the case of glass FRP, the model of Chen and Teng [37, 3. Experimental validation
38] is used:
The validity of the proposed analytical model is checked
ε f e = D f σ f,max /E f (27a) through extensive comparisons between analytical and exper-
imental results of FRP strengthened RC beams under torsion.
where the maximum FRP stress σ f,max and the stress The experimental data used herein were derived from a series
distribution factor D f are given as: of 12 torsional beams tested and presented for this reason and
from a database of 24 beams strengthened with FRP materi-
– for rupture failure (wrapped beams):
als available from the literature [16,17,19,20,22]. It is noted
⎧ ⎫ that separate parts of the experimental program of the 12 tor-
⎪
⎪ 0.8 f f u
ffu
≤ 1.5%⎪
⎪
⎨ ⎬ sional beams have already been published by the author [18,24,
Ef
σ f,max = and 39]. However, for completeness and the better understanding of
⎪
⎪
ffu
> 1.5%⎪
⎪
⎩0.8 · 0.015 f f u ⎭ this issue, the whole experimental program is briefly described
Ef
below.
D f = 0.5 (27b)
3.1. Experimental program
– for debonding failure (U-jacketed beams):
⎧ ⎫ The experimental program examined in this study consists
⎪
⎨ f f ⎪
√ ⎬
u of 12 RC beams with rectangular cross-section tested under
σ f,max = min E f fc and pure torsion and sorted in two groups of six specimens each.
⎪
⎩0.427β L βw ⎪
⎭ The geometry and reinforcement arrangements of the beams
tf
⎧ ⎫ and the mean compressive strengths of the concrete used are
⎪ 2 1 − cos (πλ/2)
⎨ λ ≤ 1⎪
⎬ reported in Table 1. Eight beams were strengthened using
D f = πλ sin (πλ/2) (27c) epoxy-bonded carbon FRP materials as external transverse
⎪
⎩ π −2 ⎪
1− λ > 1⎭ reinforcement, while the other four were the control specimens.
πλ The longitudinal reinforcement of all the tested beams was the
where: same: four re-bars of diameter 8 mm. Each group comprises
two un-strengthened control specimens: one without transverse
L max 0.9 min (b, h) reinforcement and one with closed stirrups of 5.5 mm diameter.
λ= =  ;
Le Ef tf Three beams were retrofitted using continuous FRP sheets that
√
fc wrapped around the rectangular cross-section of the beams
  
1 λ≥1 2 − w f /s f along their entire length, while five beams were strengthened
βL = ; βw = . using discrete FRP strips that also wrapped around the cross-
sin (πλ/2) λ < 1 1 + w f /s f
section. The wrapping patterns of the FRP materials of the
beams are summarized in Table 1. Unidirectional carbon FRP
The effective stress of the FRP is calculated by Hooke’s law and
(SikaWrap-200C) with thickness t f = 0.11 mm per ply
the modulus of elasticity (Fig. 3(c)):
were used. The fibre direction was oriented perpendicular to
the longitudinal axis of the beam. The manufacturer specified
f fe = εfeE f . (28)
elastic modulus, ultimate tensile strength and elongation at
 C.E. Chalioris / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 3263–3276
Fig. 4. Test setup.
failure of the fibre were E f = 230 GPa, f f u = 3900 MPa and
ε f u = 1.5% mm/mm, respectively. A two-component rubber-
toughened cold-curing-construction epoxy adhesive (Sikadur
330) with density 1310 kg/m3 , elastic modulus 3800 MPa and
tensile strength 30 MPa was also used for bonding the FRP to
concrete.
The experimental setup is shown in Fig. 4. Tested specimens
were supported on two roller supports which ensured that
the beam was free to twist and to elongate longitudinally
at both ends during the test. The load was applied by a
hydraulic actuator through a diagonally placed steel spreader
beam on the ends of two steel arms. These arms were fixed
at the end parts of each tested beam which were properly
over-reinforced in order to bear without cracking the imposed
torsional loading. The examined pure torsional test region was
the central part of the specimens (approximately 1 m wide).
During the test procedure, torsional diagonal cracking and,
finally, failure have been localized strictly inside this test region.
The load was measured by a load cell and the average angle
of twist per unit length of the tested beams was estimated
using the measurements of two LVDTs. The strains of the
steel reinforcements were also measured by electrical resistance
strain gauges.
The measured torsional moment at cracking Tcr and at
ultimate Tu are presented in Table 2. It is noted that the
reinforcement ratios of the tested beams shown in Table 2 are
the normalized reinforcement ratios. The torsional behaviour
of seven typical beams is presented in Fig. 5(a) and (b) in
terms of torsional moment versus angle of twist per unit
length experimental curves. The retrofitted beams with FRP
as external transverse reinforcement showed, as expected,
increased torsional strength and upgraded performance with
respect to the control specimens. This improvement was more
significant in the FRP strengthened beams with continuous
3269
sheets than with strips. It is emphasized that the beam Ra-FC(1)
with one ply of continuous FRP sheets exhibited considerable
higher torsional capacity (approximately 1.6 times) than the
specimen Ra-FS150(2) that was strengthened using two plies
of discrete FRP strips, although that both beams had the same
ratio of FRP (0.33%), as shown in Fig. 5(a). This is related to
the different failure processes of these beams. Strips prevented
crack propagation at the retrofitted parts of the beam and failure
was mainly observed at the unwrapped concrete. In contrast,
wrapping with continuous sheets shifted the failure to fibre
rupture and the benefits of the high strength composite material
were even more utilized.
Analyses for the prediction of the torsional behaviour of
the eight tested FRP strengthened beams using the proposed
model were performed. Calculated torque curves for the
behaviour of specimens Ra-FC(1) and Ra-FS150(2) (without
stirrups) and specimens RaS-FS150(2) and Rb-FS200(1) (with
stirrups) are compared with the measured ones in Fig. 5(a)
and (b), respectively. From these comparisons it is indicated
that the analytically predicted behaviour curves of the beams
with stirrups and FRP strips fit exceptionally well to the
experimental ones (see also Fig. 5(b)).
3.2. Relevant experimental studies from literature and compar-
isons
In order to validate the proposed analytical model, the
experimental data of 24 beams strengthened with FRP materials
available from the literature were also used as an additional
database. These test results were considered collectively
from the recent experimental studies of Ameli et al. [17],
Panchacharam and Belarbi [22], Ghobarah et al. [16] and
Hii and Al-Mahaidi [19,20]. This way, the accuracy of the
model is checked based on test results of a broad range of
3270 C.E. Chalioris / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 3263–3276

Table 2
Experimental results of the tested beams

Beam code name n

ρs n
ρst ρftn Tcr Tu T f = Tu,F R P − Tu,control
(%) (%) (%) (kN m) (kN m) (kN m)
Ra (control beam) 1.01 – – 2.39 2.39 (= Tcr ) –
Ra-FC(1) 1.01 – 0.33 2.80 4.87 2.48
Ra-FC(2) 1.01 – 0.66 2.83 6.65 4.26
Ra-FS150(2) 1.01 – 0.33 2.22 3.02 0.63
RaS (control beam) 1.01 0.38 – 2.25 2.41 –
RaS-FS150(2) 1.01 0.38 0.33 2.35 4.33 1.92
Rb (control beam) 0.45 – – 6.95 6.95 (= Tcr ) –
Rb-FC(1) 0.45 – 0.22 8.79 10.05 3.10
Rb-FS200(1) 0.45 – 0.11 6.73 9.32 2.36
Rb-FS300(1) 0.45 – 0.11 6.96 7.52 0.57
RbS (control beam) 0.45 0.38 – 6.90 7.15 –
RbS-FS200(1) 0.45 0.38 0.11 6.93 9.80 2.65
 
n ft ·tft w f pft
n = s
ρs
A n = Ast · pst
ρst ρftn = .
Ac Ac ·s Ac s f

(a) Beams with equal FRP ratio (without stirrups). (b) Beams with stirrups and FRP strips.

Fig. 5. Experimental behaviour and comparisons with the analytically predicted curves for the FRP strengthened beams of the present study.

parametric studies. The 24 beams used as a database had solid
rectangular cross-section, were steel reinforced with bars and
stirrups and strengthened with externally bonded CFRP or
GFRP materials in various configurations: complete wrapping
or U-jacketing with continuous sheets or strips in the transverse
or/and longitudinal direction. Geometrical and reinforcement
characteristics of the beams are presented in Table 3.
Analyses for the prediction of the entire torsional
behaviour of the database beams using the proposed model
were performed. Comparisons between analytically predicted
torsional curves and experimental ones are presented in
Fig. 6(a) and (b) for the 10 beams tested by Ameli et al. [17], in
Fig. 7 for 6 beams tested by Ghobarah et al. [16] and in Fig. 8
for 5 beams tested by Panchacharam and Belarbi [22]. From
these figures it is shown that in most of the examined cases the
calculated behaviour curves are in reasonable agreement with
the experimental ones through the entire torsional response.
Further, calculated values of the torsional moment at
cracking Tcr and at ultimate Tu of the 8 beams of the
present experimental study and the 24 beams of the additional
database from the literature are presented and compared with
the measured ones in Table 4. The average value of the ratios
of the experimental to the calculated cracking torsional moment
for the total examined cases (32 beams) is 1.014, with standard
deviation 10.1%. Good correlation was also obtained between
the measured and the analytical values of the ultimate torsional
strength, since the mean value and the standard deviation were
0.989 and 9.9%, respectively.
 C.E. Chalioris / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 3263–3276 3271

Table 3
Geometrical and reinforcement characteristics of the CFRP and GFRP strengthened RC beams used as an additional database from the literature

Beam code name b/ h fc As f ys Ast /s f yst FRP

(mm/mm) (MPa) (mm2 ) (MPa) (mm) (MPa) Fibre Configuration
Ameli et al. (2007)

CFE 150/350 39 804 502 0.353 251 Carbon W-C (t)

CFE2 150/350 39 804 502 0.353 251 Carbon W-C (t)
CJE 150/350 39 804 502 0.353 251 Carbon U-C (t)
CFS 150/350 39 804 502 0.353 251 Carbon W-S [w f /s f = 0.5] (t)
CJS 150/350 39 804 502 0.353 251 Carbon U-S [w f /s f = 0.5] (t)
GFE 150/350 36 804 502 0.353 251 Glass W-C (t)
GFE2 150/350 36 804 502 0.353 251 Glass W-C (t)
GJE 150/350 36 804 502 0.353 251 Glass U-C (t)
GFS 150/350 36 804 502 0.353 251 Glass W-S [w f /s f = 0.5] (t)
GJS 150/350 36 804 502 0.353 251 Glass U-S [w f /s f = 0.5] (t)

Panchacharam and Belarbi (2002)

A90W4 279/279 34 792 420 & 460 0.468 420 Glass W-C (t)
A90S4 279/279 34 792 420 & 460 0.468 420 Glass W-S [w f /s f = 0.5] (t)
C90U3 279/279 31 792 450 & 320 0.468 450 Glass U-C (t)
B90U3-Anch 279/279 26 792 450 & 320 0.468 450 Glass U-C with anchorage (t)
A0L4 279/279 34 792 420 & 460 0.468 420 Glass W-C ()
A0L3 279/279 34 792 420 & 460 0.468 420 Glass U-C ()
B0L4/90S4 279/279 26 792 450 & 320 0.468 450 Glass W-C () & W-S [w f /s f = 0.5] (t)

Ghobarah et al. (2002)

C1 150/350 37 603 409 & 466 0.452 457 Carbon W-C (t)
C2 150/350 37 603 409 & 466 0.452 457 Carbon W-S [w f /s f = 0.5] (t)
C4 150/350 37 603 409 & 466 0.452 457 Carbon W-S [w f /s f = 0.67] (t)
C5 150/350 37 603 409 & 466 0.452 457 Carbon W-S [w f /s f = 0.4] (t)
G1 150/350 37 603 409 & 466 0.452 457 Glass W-C (t)
G2 150/350 37 603 409 & 466 0.452 457 Glass W-S [w f /s f = 0.5] (t)

Hii and Al-Mahaidi (2006)

FS050D2 500/350 56.4 1100 398 0.226 426 Carbon W-S [w f /s f = 0.29] (t)
Carbon: MBrace CF130; Glass: MBrace EG900.
W: Wrapping; U: U-Jacketing; C: Continuous sheets; S: Strips [width w f at spacing s f ].
(t): Fibres in transverse direction; (): Fibres in longitudinal direction.

4. Applications of the proposed model
The previous examined comparisons between experimental
and analytically predicted results showed that the proposed
combinative approach provides a reliable assessment tool for
the overall torsional analysis of FRP strengthened beams. On
the same note, applications of the developed behavioural model
to strengthened beams using U-shaped FRP configurations
are also included in the present study. Since non-rectangular
flanged beams are more common in cast-in-place concrete
beam–slab constructions, the contribution of U-jacketing FRP
on the torsional response is examined using the proposed
approach as an analysis tool.
Thus, Fig. 9 shows and compares the analytical results of (a)
a completely FRP wrapped rectangular beam around the cross-
section, (b) the same rectangular beam strengthened using U-
shaped FRP application and (c) an FRP U-jacketed T-shaped
beam with the same characteristics as the rectangular beams.
Each examined beam has been strengthened using 1, 2 and
3 plies of GFRP continuous sheets (MBrace EG900) which
have been bonded along the entire beam length as external
transverse reinforcement. Calculated curves of the first beam
(Fig. 9(a)) have been obtained using the proposed method with
the FRP confinement effect, while for the U-jacketed beams
(Fig. 9(b) and (c)) no confinement has been employed. For
comparison reasons, the relative experimental curves of the
completely wrapped and U-jacketed rectangular beams tested
by Ameli et al. [17] are also presented in Fig. 9(a) and (b),
respectively. It is also noted that the overhanging parts of the T-
shaped beam (Fig. 9(c)) have not been taken into account in the
truss model analysis for the post-cracking torsional response.
Based on the comparisons of Fig. 9(a), (b) and (c) it is deduced
that the U-jacketed beams displayed substantial reductions of
the potential capability in torsional strength due to premature
debonding failure of the externally bonded FRP sheets.
Further, in order to demonstrate the use of the developed
method for practicing engineers, two design examples of (a)
a typical rectangular beam and (b) a T-shaped beam with
the same characteristics are examined in Fig. 10(a) and (b),
respectively. The strengthening configuration of the rectangular
beam includes continuous FRP sheets which completely
wrap around the cross-section, whereas for the case of the
3272 C.E. Chalioris / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 3263–3276

Table 4
Analytical predictions and comparisons to the experimental data for the FRP strengthened beams of the present study and from the literature
Tcr,exp Tu,exp
Beam code name Tcr,exp Tcr,cal Tcr,cal Tu,exp Tu,cal Tu,cal
(kN m) (kN m) (kN m) (kN m)
present study

Ra-FC(1) 2.80 2.32 1.21 4.87 4.55 1.07

Ra-FC(2) 2.83 2.32 1.22 6.65 5.54 1.20
Ra-FS150(2) 2.22 2.32 0.96 3.02 3.20 0.94
RaS-FS150(2) 2.35 2.32 1.01 4.33 4.40 0.98
Rb-FC(1) 8.79 7.19 1.22 10.05 10.49 0.96
Rb-FS200(1) 6.73 7.19 0.94 9.32 8.84 1.05
Rb-FS300(1) 6.96 7.19 0.97 7.52 8.84 0.85
RbS-FS200(1) 6.93 7.19 0.96 9.80 9.69 1.01
Mean value (8 beams): 1.060 1.009
Standard deviation: 13.0% 10.3%

Ameli et al. (2007)

CFE 10.40 10.26 1.01 28.00 25.28 1.11

CFE2 10.70 10.26 1.04 36.50 30.42 1.20
CJE 10.60 10.26 1.03 20.00 18.82 1.06
CFS 10.30 10.26 1.00 21.70 22.09 0.98
CJS 10.20 10.26 0.99 17.40 16.28 1.07
GFE 9.70 9.55 1.02 26.30 24.32 1.08
GFE2 10.50 9.55 1.10 31.10 29.61 1.05
GJE 10.20 9.55 1.07 19.50 18.71 1.04
GFS 10.50 9.55 1.10 19.90 20.05 0.99
GJS 9.90 9.55 1.04 16.90 15.93 1.06
Mean value (10 beams): 1.041 1.065
Standard deviation: 3.8% 6.1%

Panchacharam and Belarbi (2002)

A90W4 22.00 25.94 0.85 45.00 44.64 1.01

A90S4 21.00 25.94 0.81 34.00 35.20 0.97
C90U3 20.00 24.39 0.82 24.00 28.33 0.85
B90U3-Anch 21.00 21.69 0.97 25.00 29.04 0.86
A0L4 26.00 25.94 1.00 29.00 29.34 0.99
A0L3 25.00 25.94 0.96 26.00 27.15 0.96
B0L4/90S4 22.00 21.69 1.01 35.00 36.50 0.96
Mean value (7 beams): 0.918 0.941
Standard deviation: 8.9% 6.2%

Ghobarah et al. (2002)

C1 6.73 6.19 1.09 17.98 19.45 0.92

C2 5.53 6.19 0.89 13.96 16.65 0.84
C4 6.57 6.19 1.06 15.83 17.37 0.91
C5 5.87 6.19 0.95 13.42 16.01 0.84
G1 7.17 6.19 1.16 18.93 18.38 1.03
G2 6.29 6.19 1.02 13.15 16.42 0.80
Mean value (6 beams): 1.027 0.891
Standard deviation: 9.6% 8.3%

Hii and Al-Mahaidi (2006)

FS050D2 73.70 76.57 0.96 93.80 93.24 1.01

Total mean (32 beams): 1.014 0.989
Total standard deviation: 10.1% 9.9%

T-shaped beam U-jacketing is applied using the same
continuous FRP sheets. The application of fibres in the
transverse or/and longitudinal direction and their contribution
to the torsional strength of the beams are investigated in both
examples. First, the beams have been designed according to
the specifications of Eurocode-2 [40] for torsion design and
for an applied design torsional moment equal to TEd =
35 kN m. Based on these specifications, the required torsional
reinforcement of a beam with width: b = 300 mm, height:
h = 500 mm, characteristic compressive cylinder strength
of concrete: f ck = 25 MPa and characteristic yield strength
of longitudinal and transverse steel reinforcement: f yk =
 C.E. Chalioris / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 3263–3276 3273

(a) Carbon FRP strengthened beams.

(b) Glass FRP strengthened beams.

Fig. 6. Comparison between the calculated and the experimental curves for the beams tested by Ameli et al. [17].

Fig. 7. Comparison between the calculated and the experimental curves for the CFRP and GFRP strengthened beams tested by Ghobarah et al. [16].

500 MPa has been calculated as 6∅12 re-bars and ∅8/100 mm the external design torsional moment is increased and therefore
closed stirrups (Fig. 10). Afterwards, it has been assumed that the applied torsional steel reinforcement is inadequate. For
3274 C.E. Chalioris / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 3263–3276

Fig. 8. Comparison between the calculated and the experimental curves for the strengthened beams in the transverse or/and longitudinal direction tested by
Panchacharam and Belarbi [22].

Fig. 9. Applications of the proposed model: (a) Completely FRP wrapped rectangular beam, (b) FRP U-jacketed rectangular beam, and (c) FRP U-jacketed T-shaped
beam with the same characteristics.

this reason, the strengthening technique using externally 5. Concluding remarks

bonded carbon FRP continuous sheets (MBrace CF130) in
the transverse or/and longitudinal direction is examined. The
results of the proposed analytical model have been used in order
to provide the design charts of Fig. 10(a) and (b). In these
charts the increase of the ultimate torsional moment due to the
application of FRP as external transverse or/and longitudinal
reinforcement in various ratios is displayed. The increase of the
torsional strength is presented in the form of the ratio of the
torsional strengths of the FRP strengthened beam to the initial,
non-strengthened reinforced concrete beam: Tu,F R P /Tu,RC .
A behavioural model for the description of the torsional
response of RC beams retrofitted with FRP that combines
two different analytical methods is proposed in this study.
The proposed analysis addresses the development of a special
truss model which utilizes softened and FRP-confined concrete
relationships and employs the contribution of the externally
bonded FRP to the torsional capacity. Application of this
methodology allows for a realistic modelling of the elastic
and the post-cracking response of FRP strengthened RC beams
under torsion. This has been demonstrated by means of
 C.E. Chalioris / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 3263–3276
(a) Complete wrapping in a rectangular beam.
Fig. 10. Design examples of FRP strengthened beams using the proposed model as an assessment tool.
comparisons between calculated and experimental behaviour
curves. The experimental program reported herein comprises
12 beam specimens tested in pure torsion. Furthermore,
experimental data for 24 RC beams strengthened with FRP
in various configurations compiled from published works are
also used as an additional database in an attempt to establish
the validity of the described approach. The conclusions drawn
from the presented comparisons imply that the proposed
approach yields realistic torsion versus rotation curves for
the full response of FRP strengthened RC beams and
predicts with satisfactory accuracy the torsional moment at
cracking and the ultimate torsional capacity. Applications of
this model to rectangular and non-rectangular beams under
torsion strengthened with U-shaped FRP configurations are
also included. Further, using the developed method as an
assessment tool, some first design examples that demonstrate
the contribution of the FRP materials as external torsional
reinforcement are presented in this study.
Acknowledgments
The FRP materials were provided by Sika Hellas. J. Kostakis
and N. Daskalakis, undergraduate students of Democritus
University of Thrace, were involved in the preparation and
testing of the beams as part of their undergraduate theses.
References
[1] Ghobarah A, Said A. Shear strengthening of beam–column joints.
Engineering Structures 2002;24(7):881–8.
[2] Karayannis CG, Sirkelis GM. Effectiveness of RC beam-column
connections strengthening using carbon-FRP jackets. In: Proceedings
12th earthquake engineering. 2002; PR549.
[3] Tsonos AG, Stylianidis KH. Pre-earthquake and post-earthquake
strengthening of R/C structural subassemblages using GFRP. Scientific
Review Ktirio 2001;A:41–50. [in Greek].
3275
(b) U-jacking in a T-shaped beam.
[4] Vougioukas E, Zeris CA, Kotsovos MD. Toward safe and efficient use
of fiber-reinforced polymer for repair and strengthening of reinforced
concrete structures. ACI Structural Journal 2005;102(4):525–34.
[5] Dritsos SE. Repairs and strengthening of reinforced concrete structures.
University of Patras. 2001. [in Greek].
[6] Tastani SP, Pantazopoulou SJ. Experimental evaluation of FRP jackets in
upgrading RC corroded columns with substandard detailing. Engineering
Structures 2004;26:817–29.
[7] Bousias SN, Triantafillou TC, Fardis MN, Spathis L, O’Regan BA.
Fiber-reinforced polymer retrofitting of rectangular reinforced concrete
columns with or without corrosion. ACI Structural Journal 2004;101(4):
512–20.
[8] Ghobarah A. Torsional strengthening of reinforced concrete beams. In:
Proceedings FRP composites in civil engineering. 2001.
[9] Zhang JW, Lu ZT, Zhu H. Experimental study on the behaviour of RC
torsional members externally bonded with CFRP. In: Proceedings FRP
composites in civil engineering. 2001. p. 713–22.
[10] Matthys S, Triantafillou T. Shear and torsion strengthening with externally
bonded FRP reinforcement. In: Proceedings composites in construction: a
reality. 2001. p. 203–12.
[11] Concrete Society Technical Report 55. Design guidance for strengthening
concrete structures using fibre composite materials, UK. 2000.
[12] fib Bulletin 14. Externally bonded FRP reinforcement for RC structures.
(CEB-FIB) Lausanne (Switzerland): The International Federation for
Structural Concrete; 2001.
[13] JSCE Concrete Engineering Series 41. Recommendations for upgrading
of concrete structures with use of continuous fiber sheets. 2001.
[14] ACI Committee 440. Guide for the design and construction of externally
bonded FRP systems for strengthening concrete structures. Farmigton
Hills (MI, USA): American Concrete Institute; 2002.
[15] CSA S806. Design and construction of building components with fiber-
reinforced polymers. Toronto (Ontario, Canada) Canadian Standards
Association; 2002.
[16] Ghobarah A, Ghorbel MN, Chidiac SE. Upgrading torsional resistance
of reinforced concrete beams using fiber-reinforced polymer. Journal of
Composites for Construction 2002;6(4):257–63.
[17] Ameli M, Ronagh HR, Dux PF. Behavior of FRP strengthened reinforced
concrete beams under torsion. Journal of Composites for Construction
2007;11(2):192–200.
3276 C.E. Chalioris / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 3263–3276
[18] Chalioris CE. Tests and analysis of reinforced concrete beams under
torsion retrofitted with FRP strips. In: Proceedings 13th computational
methods and experimental measurements. 2007. p. 633–42.
[19] Hii AKY, Al-Mahaidi R. An experimental and numerical investigation on
torsional strengthening of solid and box-section RC beams using CFRP
laminates. Composite Structures 2006;75:213–21.
[20] Hii AKY, Al-Mahaidi R. Torsional capacity of CFRP strengthened
reinforced concrete beams. Journal of Composites for Construction 2007;
11(1):71–80.
[21] Jing M, Raongjant W, Li Z. Torsional strengthening of reinforced concrete
box beams using carbon fiber reinforced polymer. Composite Structures
2007;78:264–70.
[22] Panchacharam S, Belarbi A. Torsional behaviour of reinforced concrete
beams strengthened with FRP composites. In: Proceedings 1st FIB
congress. 2002. p. 1–10.
[23] Salom PR, Gergely JM, Young DT. Torsional strengthening of spandrel
beams with fiber-reinforced polymer laminates. Journal of Composites for
Construction 2004;8(2):157–62.
[24] Chalioris CE. Torsional strengthening of rectangular and flanged
beams using carbon fibre-reinforced-polymers — Experimental study.
Construction & Building Materials 2008;22(1):21–9 (available online
since 16 Nov. 2006).
[25] Deifalla A, Ghobarah A. Simplified analysis for torsionally strengthened
RC beams using FRP. In: Proceedings bond behaviour of FRP in
structures. 2005. p. 373–8.
[26] Jing SM, Grunberg J. Mechanical analysis of reinforced concrete box
beam strengthened with carbon fiber sheets under combined actions.
Composite Structures 2006;73:488–94.
[27] Karayannis CG. Smeared crack analysis for plain concrete in torsion.
Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE 2000;126(6):638–45.
[28] Karayannis CG, Chalioris CE. Experimental validation of smeared
analysis for plain concrete in torsion. Journal of Structural Engineering
ASCE 2000;126(6):646–53.
[29] Hsu TTC, Mo YL. Softening of concrete in torsional members — Theory
and tests. ACI Journal Proceedings 1985;82(3):290–303.
[30] Hsu TTC. Unified theory of reinforced concrete. Boca Raton (Fl): CRC;
1993.
[31] Chalioris CE. Experimental study of the torsion of reinforced concrete
members. Structural Engineering & Mechanics 2006;23(6):713–37.
[32] Karayannis CG. Nonlinear analysis and tests of steel-fiber concrete beams
in torsion. Structural Engineering & Mechanics 2000;9(4):323–38.
[33] Karayannis CG, Chalioris CE. Strength of prestressed concrete beams in
torsion. Structural Engineering & Mechanics 2000;10(2):165–80.
[34] Belarbi A, Hsu TTC. Constitutive laws of softened concrete in biaxial
tension–compression. ACI Structural Journal 1995;92(5):562–73.
[35] Vintzileou E, Panagiotidou E. An empirical model for predicting
the mechanical properties of FRP-confined concrete. Construction &
Building Materials 2007 [in press] Available online.
[36] Triantafillou TC, Antonopoulos CP. Design of concrete flexural members
strengthened in shear with FRP. Journal of Composites for Construction
2000;4(4):198–205.
[37] Chen JF, Teng JG. Shear capacity of fiber-reinforced polymer-
strengthened reinforced concrete beams: Fiber reinforced polymer
rupture. Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE 2003;129(5):615–25.
[38] Chen JF, Teng JG. Shear capacity of FRP-strengthened RC beams: FRP
debonding. Construction & Building Materials 2003;17:27–41.
[39] Chalioris CE. Behavioural model of FRP strengthened reinforced concrete
beams under torsion. In: Proceedings 1st FRP in structures. 2007.
[40] EN 1992-1 - Eurocode 2. Design of concrete structures - Part 1: General
rules and rules for buildings, CEN. 2003.