STRUCTURES 2006

Softened Truss Model for RC Torsional Members under Combined

Action

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Authors:
Gary Greene, Jr., University of Missouri Rolla, Department of Civil, Architectural, and
Environmental Engineering, Phone: 573-341-7209, Gary.GreeneJr@umr.edu
Abdeldjelil Belarbi, University of Missouri Rolla, Department of Civil, Architectural,
and Environmental Engineering, Phone: 573-341-4478, belarbi@umr.edu

INTRODUCTION
Torsion can be a significant action in many structural members that are part of civil
engineering infrastructure. Curved bridges and spandrel beams under gravity loads
exhibit torsional forces. During an earthquake event, members of other structures such as
single column connectors, as well as beams and columns of bridges with outriggers are
subject to seismic loads that cause cyclic torsion combined with other actions such as
bending and shear. Whether the occurrence of torsional stresses in a member are due to
gravity loads or seismic loads, their existence necessitates reliable models to predict their
effect on a members capacity and load-deformation response.
Under static loads, it is difficult to precisely characterize the state of internal
stress in a member whether the torsion occurs alone or combined with other actions.
Early models for predicting the capacity of members under static torsional loads were
based on the skew-bending approach. Later, rotating angle truss models were developed
that could predict the entire load-deformation history of members under pure torsion or
combined actions including torsion. A more recent model was developed for members
under combined shear and torsion [1], however it is inconsistent in its application of
Bredts thin tube theory and is based on Modified Compression Field Theory which has
several deficiencies [2].
This paper will describe a proposed model of an RC member under torsion
combined with other actions such as shear and bending. The model is based on the
softened truss model (STM) developed at the University of Houston [3]. The first part of
the paper will explain how the STM has been expanded to account for combined loads
and the second part will compare the predicted load-deformation response with some
experimental studies.

COMBINED ACTION SOFTENED TRUSS MODEL

The combined action STM (CA-STM) proposed in this paper has been validated to
predict the load-deformation response of a member under torsion combined with bending
moment and shearing stress. The model assumes that RC members can be treated as
having four walls acting as shear panels. The effective thickness of each panel is equal to
the depth of the shear flow zone in the panel. Applied loads on the member act uniformly

Copyright ASCE 2006

Structures 2006
Structures Congress 2006

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

STRUCTURES 2006

along the edges of the panel as normal and shear stresses. The proposed model assumes
an apparent truss action to model the behavior before cracking in the same manner as
after cracking. Equilibrium and strain compatibility are maintained in each panel, and
strain compatibility in the longitudinal direction is maintained between the panels. Also,
the members twist and panel curvature is influenced by the other panels.
Figure 1A shows a member under combined loads, and Figure 1B shows how the
model distributes the load to the four panels. The cross section of a typical hollow
rectangular member is shown in Figure 2A with dimensions of h by b and wall thickness,
t. The subscripts in the figure indicate the panel number as shown in Figure 1B. The
effective panel dimensions used to analyze the cross section are shown in Figure 2B.
Panel 2
y-axis

Torque

z-axis
Panel 3
Moment (Mz)

x-axis

Bending

Shear Torque

Bending

Torsion (Tx)
Shear (Vy)

Panel 1
Torque + Shear

Torque
Panel 4

(A)

(B)

FIGURE 1
(A) MEMBER UNDER COMBINED LOADS (B) DISTRIBUTION OF APPLIED LOADS TO WALL PANELS
T
t2

td,2
t1

t3

td,3

td,1

t4

td,4

b0

(A)

h0

(B)

(C)

T
d

LT

(D)

FIGURE 2
(A) MEMBER CROSS SECTION (B) EFFECTIVE PANEL DIMENSIONS (C) RC PANEL (D) PRINCIPAL AXES

DISTRIBUTION OF APPLIED LOAD

The CA-STM assumes that the torque resisted by the section acts as shear stress that
flows around the perimeter of the section as described by Brendts thin-tube theory. The
theory assumes that shear stress due to torsion is constant over the thickness of the thin
tube. The thickness of the thin-tube in which the shear stresses act is also known as the
shear flow zone. The area bounded by the centerline of the shear flow zone in a
rectangular member, A0, has dimensions of h0 by b0. The CA-STM assumes that a

Copyright ASCE 2006

Structures 2006
Structures Congress 2006

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

STRUCTURES 2006

vertical applied shear acts as a uniform shear flow on Panels 1 and 3, and a horizontal
applied shear acts on Panels 2 and 4. Since the shear flow due to an applied torsion or
shear is assumed constant over the shear flow zone, they can be summed. The combined
shear flow in Panel 1 is given by (1).
An applied moment about the z-axis (Mz) is assumed to cause a tensile force in
Panel 1 and a compressive force of equal magnitude in Panel 3 that act as a couple
moment. The force is then applied to each panel as a uniform normal stress, L. A
tensile normal stress is considered positive. An axial load is assumed to cause a uniform
normal stress in all four panels. Equations (2) and (3) give the applied moment and axial
load in terms of the normal stress in each panel. The force in each panel is equal to LA,
where A is the cross sectional area of a panel and is equal to the product of td and the
effective width of the panel shown in Figure 2B. A similar expression for a moment
about the y-axis (My) can also be derived.
q1 = T ( 2 A0 ) + Vy

( 2h0 )
M z = ( L ,4 A4 L ,2 A2 ) ( h0 2 )

(1)

(2)

N x = L A

(3)

EQUILIBRIUM AND STRAIN COMPATIBILITY OF A WALL PANEL

The proposed CA-STM adopts most of the equilibrium and compatibility
equations used in the STM for a shear panel without modification. The equilibrium,
compatibility, and material laws used in the STM, are described in Reference [3]. These
include the three equilibrium and three compatibility equations developed for an RC
panel under in-plane membrane stresses shown in Figure 2C. The panel has an
orthogonal grid of reinforcement in the L and T directions, and has cracks at an angle to
the L-axis. The cracks are normal to the principal tensile stress, and the principal tensile
and compressive stresses act in the d and r directions, respectively, as shown in Figure
2D. The cracks divide the panel into a series of concrete struts, which allows the panel to
act as a truss such that the concrete is in compression and the reinforcement is in tension.

STRESS-STRAIN MODELS FOR REINFORCEMENT

TENSION AND COMPRESSION

AND

CONCRETE

IN

Truss models can use a constitutive relationship for bare reinforcing bars under uniaxial
loads and the relationship of concrete in compression under biaxial membrane stresses.
RC under uniaxial compression will have a stress-strain response similar to that of a plain
concrete cylinder. However, when the compression is accompanied by tensile strain in
the transverse direction, the response will be significantly different [4],[5]. Models of
this biaxial behavior typically assume that either the compressive stress is scaled down
(stress softening) as shown in Figure 3A, or the stress and strain are proportionally scaled
down together (proportional softening) as shown in Figure 3B. The magnitude of the
scaling down is referred to as the softening coefficient, .

Copyright ASCE 2006

Structures 2006
Structures Congress 2006

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

STRUCTURES 2006

Concrete acting in tension may only have a small effect on a members peak
strength, however it has a significant effect on a members full load-deformation
response. In an RC member that has cracked under tensile stresses, the reinforcement
carries the entire tensile force at the cracks. Between the cracks, some of the force is
transferred to the concrete. This tension-stiffened response [5],[6] is related to the strainstrain response of concrete acting in tension. Concrete acting in tension is typically
modeled as linear up to the cracking stress and strain, fcr and cr, respectively, as shown in
Figure 3C. After cracking, many different linear and non-linear expressions have been
proposed.
The CA-STM uses a stress softened constitutive relationship for concrete acting
in compression based on the one proposed by Belarbi and Hsu [4] and later expanded by
Greene and Belarbi [7]. The CA-STM assumes a linear relationship for post-cracking
constitutive law of concrete acting in tension [7] and an elastic-perfectly-plastic
relationship for a bare reinforcing bar.
d

Non-softened

f 'c

Non-softened

f 'c

Linear

f cr

Non-Linear

Softened
Softened

(A)

(B)

cr

(C)

FIGURE 3
STRESS-STRAIN MODEL FOR CONCRETE IN COMPRESSION ASSUMING: (A) STRESS-SOFTENING (B) AND
PROPORTIONAL SOFTENING, (C) STRESS-STRAIN MODEL FOR CONCRETE IN TENSION

SHEAR FLOW ZONE

When an RC member under pure torsion twists, the walls are warped causing flexural
stresses in the concrete struts as shown in Figure 4A. The concrete between the neutral
axis and the outside of the face acts in compression and the concrete inside the neutral
acts in tension axis and is considered ineffective. The STM assumes that the strain
distribution in the concrete strut is linear, that the depth to the neutral axis, td, coincides
with the thickness of the shear flow zone, and that the member is fully cracked with the
concrete and reinforcing steel acting as a truss. This does not reflect the behavior of an
uncracked member, and therefore the proposed model assumes that an apparent truss
action occurs before cracking.
The CA-STM assumes that the shear stress due to the combined shear flows from
an applied torsion and shear act uniformly over the thickness of the shear flow zone,
where LT = q / td. For the case of td less than the wall thickness, the strain distribution
shown in Figure 4B is assumed, where ds is principal compressive strain in the concrete
at the exterior surface of the wall and d is the principal compressive strain at half the
depth of td into the wall. The depth of the shear flow zone is limited by the wall

Copyright ASCE 2006

Structures 2006
Structures Congress 2006

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

STRUCTURES 2006

thickness, so for the case of td = t, the compressive strain at the inside wall is a as shown
in Figure 4C. The curvature in the concrete strut is calculated by = (ds a) / d .
In softened concrete, the STM calculates the principal compressive stress using
the formula d = k1 fc, where k1 is the ratio of the average stress to the peak stress, and
fc is the peak stress of a concrete cylinder. A typical stress diagram for the case of td = t
is shown in Figure 4D. Equation (4) was derived to calculate k1 when a < ds and (5)
was derived for the case when a = ds. 0 is the concrete strain at fc.
LT

ds

td

a = 0

Stress
1

d = k1 p

Strain

td

LT

ds

p = fc '

Reinforcement

(A)

(B) td < t

(C) td = t

(D) td = t

FIGURE 4
STRESS AND STRAIN DISTRIBUTION IN SHEAR FLOW ZONE: (A) CONCRETE STRUT (B,C) STRAIN
DISTRIBUTION (D) STRESS DISTRIBUTION

For a < ds :
For a = ds :

2
ds
k1 = ds 1 ds a 1 a

0 3 0 ds 0 3 0 ds a
k1 = 2 ds 0 ds2 02

(4)

(5)

INTERACTION OF STRAIN COMPATIBILITY AMONG PANELS

The panels are linked by several compatibility conditions. The longitudinal strain in each
panel is related to the longitudinal strain at the centerline of the member. Curvature in
the panel is not only caused by the members twist, as in the case of pure torsion, but also
to the longitudinal and transverse curvature in the panel. Also, the unit twist of the
member is related to the cumulative shear strain in the four panels.
The difference in longitudinal strain between Panels 1 and 3 causes a curvature
about the members y-axis, L,13. Also, the difference in transverse strain between the
two panels causes a transverse curvature, T,13. Figure 5A shows these curvatures and
the expression for T,13 is given by (6). The difference in longitudinal and transverse
strain between Panels 2 and 4 cause similar curvatures, L,24 and T,24, in these two
panels. The longitudinal strain at the centerline of the member, CL, and the two
longitudinal curvatures can be used to calculate the longitudinal strain in any panel.
Equation (7) gives the expression for the longitudinal strain in Panel 1.
The curvature of the diagonal compression strut, , is a function of the twist in
the beam, as well as the longitudinal and transverse curvatures. When a rectangular

Copyright ASCE 2006

Structures 2006
Structures Congress 2006

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

STRUCTURES 2006

member is twisted the walls will warp. The curvature along a plane inclined 45 from the
members longitudinal axis will be equal to the members unit twist, , as shown in
Figure 5B. For Panel 1, the transverse curvature will be a maximum along the side of the
panel and the longitudinal curvature will be a maximum along the top of the panel. The
compressive strut is in the direction of the principal compressive stress and is inclined at
an angle to the to members longitudinal axis as shown in Figure 5C. The curvature of
the diagonal strut can then be obtained from L, T, and using Mohrs circle [8].
Equation (8) gives for Panel 1 as originally derived in Reference [8].
In a member under pure torsion, can be related to the shear strain, LT, by the
simple expression: = LT p0 / (2A0), where p0 is the perimeter around A0. This
expression is derived by integrating the total warping displacement due to the twist and
shear deformation around the perimeter of the section. For a closed section, the total
warping displacement must be equal to zero. Because each wall in the CA-STM is
modeled as a shear panel, the shear strain is assumed constant in each wall. Based on this
assumption, Equation (9) gives the expression for .

T ,13 = ( T ,1 T ,3 ) b0

(6)

L ,1 = CL + L ,13 ( b0 2 )

(7)
(8)

= ( LT ,1 + LT ,3 ) h0 + ( LT ,2 + LT ,4 ) b0 ( 2 A0 )

(9)

1 = sin 2 + ( L ,13 ) cos 2 + ( T ,13 ) sin 2

L ,3
Panel 3 T ,3

L ,13

L ,13
T ,13

T ,1

L ,1

T ,13

Panel 1
b0

45D

Outside Face of Panel 1

(A)

(B)

Plane through centerline

of compressive strut

(C)

FIGURE 5
(A) LONGITUDINAL AND TRANSVERSE CURVATURE (B) CURVATURE IN PANEL (C) CURVATURE IN
COMPRESSIVE STRUT

METHOD OF SOLUTION
Many of the experimental studies in literature involving torsion combined with
one or more other actions were conducted such that the ratio of torsion to the other
actions was held constant. The method of solution described in this paper allowed the
model to calculate predicted load-deformation responses under specified ratios of torque
to bending, shear, and axial load.

Copyright ASCE 2006

Structures 2006
Structures Congress 2006

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

STRUCTURES 2006

Given the dimensions of the cross section, the reinforcement, and the material
properties, a solution to the equations is made by first selecting the principal compressive
strain at the surface of one panel, ds, and the ratio of the applied torque to the other
actions. Then trial values are assumed for several unknown variables and an iterative
procedure is used to find new values for the assumed variables that solve the equilibrium
equations, compatibility equations, and constitutive material relationships. This will
result in one point on the load-deformation curve. Additional points are found by varying
the value of ds.

EXPERIMENTAL CORROBORATION OF PROPOSED MODEL

The CA-STM was validated by comparing the predicted response to the
experimental response of the specimens tested by McMullen and Warwaruk [9] and the
specimens tested by Lampert and Thrlimann [10].
The specimens tested by McMullen and Warwaruk had a 300mm by 150mm solid
cross section and were loaded under combined torsion, bending, and shear. The two
specimens shown in Figure 6, 1-1 and 1-4, were loaded under pure torsion and combined
torsion and bending moment at a ratio of 1.0, respectively. These specimens had more
longitudinal reinforcement in the bottom wall than in the top wall and the bending
moment was applied to cause additional tensile stresses in the bottom wall. As shown in
Figure 6A, the addition of a small bending moment increased the capacity of the
specimen, and the CA-STM was able to model this behavior. Also, the predicted
longitudinal reinforcement stress in the bottom wall compared well to the reported
experimental stress.
The specimens tested by Lampert and Thrlimann had a 500mm square cross
section and were loaded under combined torsion, bending. Specimen T-3 and TB-1,
shown in Figure 6, were loaded under pure torsion and combined torsion to bending
moment at a ratio of 0.78, respectively. These specimens also had unsymmetrical
longitudinal reinforcement and the CA-STM was able make a good prediction of the
experimental behavior. The simple linear model for tension stiffening used by the CASTM overestimates the effect of tension stiffening at strains slightly larger than cr. This
has the effect of reducing the predicted stress in the reinforcement and caused the slight
difference between the predicted and experimental longitudinal reinforcement stress in
Specimen T-3.

CONCLUDING REMARKS
This paper presented a model for predicting the load-deformation behavior of RC
members under torsion combined with bending moment and shear. It can provide the
entire load-deformation prediction of the behavior both before and after cracking. Also,
it can be used to develop interaction surfaces for RC members under combined torsion,
shear, and bending. The behavior predicted by the model was compared to beams
available in literature and showed a close comparison.
The model is an improvement over previous models because it is based on the
STM and because the shear stresses due to an applied torsion and shear are assumed
constant over the shear flow zone, so Bredts thin-tube theory is applied consistently.

Copyright ASCE 2006

Structures 2006
Structures Congress 2006

STRUCTURES 2006

16

Torque (kN-m)

12
1-1 - Experiment
1-1 - CA-STM
1-4 - Experiment
1-4 - CA-STM

4
0
0

2
Twist (deg/m)

12
8
1-1 - Experiment
1-1 - CA-STM
1-4 - Experiment
1-4 - CA-STM

4
0
0

200
400
Longitudinal Reinforcement Stress (M Pa)

(A)

(B)
120
Torque (kN-m)

120
Torque (kN-m)

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 08/14/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Torque (kN-m)

16

80
TB-1 - Experiment
TB-1 - CA-STM
T-3 - Experiment
T-3 - CA-STM

40
0
0

1
Twist (deg/m)

80
TB-1 - Experiment
TB-1 - CA-STM
T-3 - Experiment
T-3 - CA-STM

40
0

200
400
Longitudinal Reinforcement Stress (M Pa)

(C)

(D)

FIGURE 6
COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTAL AND PREDICTED BEHAVIOR: (A AND B) MCMULLEN AND WARWARUK
SPECIMENS 1-1 AND 1-4 (C AND D) LAMPERT AND THRLIMANN SPECIMENS TB-1 AND T-3

REFERENCES
[1] Rahal, K, N, and Collins, M, P, Analysis of Sections Subjected to Combined Shear and Torsion A
Theoretical Model, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 92, No. 4, 1995, pp. 459-469.
[2] Hsu, T, T, C, Stresses and Crack Angles in Concrete Membrane Elements, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 124, No. 12, 1998, pp. 1476-1484.
[3] Hsu, T, T, C, Unified Theory of Reinforced Concrete, CRC Press, Florida, 1993.
[4] Belarbi, A, and Hsu, T, T, C, Constitutive Laws of Softened Concrete in Biaxial TensionCompression, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 92, No. 5, 1995, pp. 562-573.
[5] Vecchio, F, J, and Collins, M, P, The Modified Compression-Field Theory for Reinforced Concrete
Elements Subjected to Shear, ACI Journal, Vol. 83, No. 2, 1986, pp. 219-231.
[6] Belarbi, A, and Hsu, T, T, C, Constitutive Laws of Concrete in Tension and Reinforcing Bars
Stiffened by Concrete, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 91, No. 4, 1994, pp. 465-474.
[7] Greene, G, G, and Belarbi, A, Tension Stiffened Softened Truss Model for RC under Pure Torsion,
Second FIB Congress, Naples, Italy, 2006, pp. 12.
[8] Onsongo, W, M, The Diagonal Compression Field Theory for Reinforced Concrete Beams Subjected
to Combined Torsion, Flexure, and Axial Load, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Toronto, 1978, 246 pp.
[9] McMullen, A,E, and Warwaruk, J, The Torsional Strength of Rectangular Reinforced Concrete Beams
Subjected to Combined Loading, Report No. 2, The University of Alberta, 1967, pp. 234.
[10] Lampert, P, and Thrlimann, B, Torsion Tests of Reinforced Concrete Beams, Report No. 6506-2,
Intitut fr Baustatik, ETH, Zurich, 1968; Torsion-Bending Tests on Reinforced Concrete Beams, Report
No. 6506-3, Intitut fr Baustatik, ETH, Zurich, 1969.

Copyright ASCE 2006

Structures 2006
Structures Congress 2006