I

SP 59-6

SHEAR STRENGTH OF REINFORCED ANO PRESTRESSED

CONCRETE--CEB APPROACH

By Bruno ThUrlimann

Synospis: Besides a "Standard Method" derived from semi-

empirical considerations the new CEB model code proposes a
"Refined Method" for the design of reinforced and pre-
stressed concrete members subjected to bending and shear.
It is compatible with the design method for tarsio~ and
combined cases of bending,shear and torsion.

The method is theoretically based on the plastic analysis

of a truss model consisting of two stringers acting as com-
pression and tension chords, stirrups as posts and a con-
tinuous concrete compression field acting at a variable
inclination a. The model is explained and the design for-
mulas for the "Refined Method" are derived. Comparisons
with appropriate test results as well as with the CEB
"Standard Method" are made.

Keywords: beams (supports); bending; building codes; plasticity;

prestressed concrete; reinforced concrete; shear strength; structural
design; ultimate strength method; web reinforcement.

93
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------~-

ACI fellow Bruno Thurlimann is professor of structural 8ngincLrlnf. ,Jt t ilL:

Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, SwitzeI'land. llP L; tht' CJuthor
of many technical papers especially on the application of plasticity lo
steel and concrete structures. He is Pn~sident of the Intcrnat icmcJl 1ssocia-
tion for Bridge and Structural Engineering (IABSE l. 11c scrves as r11ainnan
of Commission V, 'Shear and Torsi on'. Comi t Euro-International du Ot11n
(CEBJ. He is a member of ACI-ASCE Committee 445 'Shear and Torsion'.

1. Introduction

Some 70 years ago W. Ritter and E. Morsch developed design formulas for the
shear reinforcement of concrete beams assuming a truss model with 4S 0 compression
diagonals. About 30 years later E. Rausch extended this approach to beams sub-
jected to torsion. During the past 25 years extensive experimental research has
been conducted in many countries. Today we are faced with results of tests
exceeding very likely a few thousand. Nevertheless, we have still not developed
a generally accepted approach to the design of reinforced and prestressed concrete
beams subjected to shear (e.g. (1) ). Dne reason is that an interpretation of all
the empirical results offers almost insurmountable difficulties. Some difficulties
are due to the complexity of the problem. Many, however, are caused by insuffi-
ciencies in the planning of the test programs (no systematic separation of the
variables), in the design of the test specimens (improper details, unrealistic
proportions between shear and longitudinal reinforcement, etc. l or in the incom-
plete reporting of the results. It is hence not surprising that many different
approaches have been developed leading to considerable differences in the design.
They can be classified into three categories:
1. Empirical methods
2, Semi-empirical methods
3. Methods based on physical models.
'
The rules of the CEB-Recommendations, 1970, and also the "Standard Method" of
the new Model Code, 1978 [2] fall under 1. or 2. depending on more or lessar-
bitrary physical interpretation of the different terms in the design formulas
(e.g. shear resistance of the compression zone, inclined compression chords,
dowel effect, etc. [3], [5]).

From a scientific standpoint an empirical approach is only tenable if the separa-

tion and control of the main variables in a test program is assured and suffi-
cient tests are conducted to allow a statistical treatment of the results. In
testing structural components or entire structures of reinforced concrete these
conditions are practically never met. For this reason an approach based on even
a simplified model, considering only the main v~riables, analysed with an ideal-
ized theoretical procedure is preferacle. It can then be checked by a few select-

94
ed critical tests and if necessary improved. The "Refined Procedure" of the
1978 CEB-Model Code [2) (also [4) l is based on such an approach.

2. Unified Approach to Shear and Torsion

A shear farce V or a torsional moment T produce a resultant shear farce in a

z
side wall of a box girder (Fig. 1). The state of stress and strain in a side
wall due to shear is hence similar to the one due to torsion. This similarity
holds in the uncrackeo state, in the cracked state as well as at ultimate load.
It follows that a unified approach to both actions is not only desirable but
necessary considering especially the combined loading case of bending, shear
and torsion.

In the following a generalized space truss model will be described which allows
. ) . d . t . [ 9]
such a unified treatment for shear, c1rculatory tors1on an warp1ng ors1on ,
[10), [17). Fig. 1 shows a box girder subjected to'a normal farce N, bending
moments M and M , shear forces V and V and a torsional moment T. At ultimate
y z y z
load a system of inclined cracks develops in the walls. The static system of a
side wall (Fig. 2) consists of two stringers acting as compression or tension
chords, stirrups as posts and a continuous compression field made up of the
concrete compression diagonals at an angle a. In the following such an element
is called a shear wall. It can be a side wall of a box girder, the web of an

T
-~
' '
' ........
Shear Wall I
I
fz

F 1g. 1 Box G1rder

*) A circulatary constant shear flow around the perimeter of a box or solid

cross section is characteristic for this type of torsion. In the theory
of elasticity it is called St. Venant's torsion.

95
 &

.____----:; Stirrups Posts

I
'"
~

"

Sheor
Woll
Stringers - Chords

Concrete Compress1on F1eld - D1ogonols ~

F1g 2 Sheor Woll - Truss Model

I
t

I- or T-beam, or the web of a beam with rectangular cross section.

f
To analyse the strength of a shear wall or the resistance of an entire box sec- f
tion the theory of plasticity will be used (see also [6)). The following assump-
tions are made:
1. At ultimate load the concrete resists only compression. Hence, in a beam
it can develop compression chords or compression diagonals.

2. The reinforcement transmits only tensile or compressive forces in the

axis of the bars.

3. Only underreinforced sections are considered to ensure that failure occurs

due Lo yielding of the reinforcement prior to crushing of the concrete.

4. At ultimate load, i.e. after initial elastic and inelastic displacements and
the redistribution of the internal forces have taken place, the following
flow rules for reinforced concrete hold: Uniaxial yielding of the reinforcing
bars; opening of the final cracks perpendicular to the crack direction.

5. The detailing of the reinforcement is such that no local failures are possible
[i.e. the compression diagonals are properly anchored"by the stringers and
stirrups, etc.).

6. Against a premature failure of the concrete an upper limit for the concrete
stresses is introduced (e.g. max. compressive stress, max. nominal shear
stress). In addition, limits on the inclination a of the concrete compression
field and, hence, on the redistribution of the internal forces are given.

96
3. Strength of a Shear Wall

The strength of a shear wall will be determined using the lower bound (static)
theorem. On an element (Fig. 3) the forces M, N and V are acting. The truss
forces are the upper and lower stringer forces Fu and F , the stirrup forces S
1
and the resultant diagonal farce O of the concrete compression field, a , under
e
the variable inclination a. Equilibrium between the actions and truss forces
furnishes the following relations:

Diagonal farce O:
V
o =
sina (1 )

Concrete compression stress cr :

c
o V 1
cr
e bhcosa ----
bh sinacosa
(2)

Stringer forces Fu and F : *)

1

. F
upper s t r1nger: u = 2N - hM + V
2cota (3)

.
1ower s t r1nger: F = -N MV+ -cota
+ - (4)
1 2 h 2

Stirrup farce S:
0
t
s = v-tana
h
( 5)

Truss Forces
Actions
Fu - -
f ~:;
ovvo j)-.
V
Fl- Gc, '''' I I

~ hco~~ ~

F1g. 3 : Forces in Sheor Woll

) In design h can be taken as the distance between the longitudinal reinforce-

ments enclosed by the stirrups. If a more exact value is desired h should be
taken as the distance between the tension and the compression resultants.

97
 ;;}i.

I
' f
For an underreinforced section the following plasticity conditions hold:
I I
upper stringer: F < F

lower stringer: F
u - yu
= A o
u yu

< F = A o ( 6)
I I
f
1 - yl 1 yl I

I
stirrup : s < sy = A o
S yS

where F , F and S are the yield forces, A , A AS the cross sectional

yu y1 y u 1
areas and a , a a S the yield stresses of the respective reinforcements.
yu y1 y f
In the following only the case bending and shear is considered. At ultimate
load both the lower stringers and the stirrups must yield.

Fl F
yl (7)
s sy iW'

Introduced into Eqs. (4) and (5) M and V will reach the ultimate values M
p

and V :
p
M V
P + _E. cota F (8)
h 2 yl
t
V -tana = S (9)
p h y
s .h i
_Y_ J
':Jith: tana ( 1 o) ~
V t
p l
~

tq. la l gives i.
~
3
~
M v2 t
1 p
_E_ + - -- F
h 2 s .h
y
yl i
Far convenience the equations will be nondimensionalized using the following
reference values.

If V O (pure bendingl the plastic moment is:

p

M F h ( 11 )
pO yl

If M O (pure shearl the plastic shear farce is:

p
h
V 2F S - (12)
pD yl y t

98
The f inal interaction equation takes the form:

M V
_P_ + ( p
M
pO
vl
pO
2
( 13)

The relationship is shown in Fig. 4.

Vp
Vpo K <2
2
1.0-k-------J- 1(: ] Eq.(19)

0.82 3
00..n---~----1<=
V , /,
:::.near

0.6 1<=112 }
' -Eq.(21)
I( =3
I
\
0.4 \
\
r- K > 3
0.2
Mp
Mp0

0.2 0.4 06 0.8 1.0

F g 4 lnteraction Oiagram Bending - Shear

1

3.2 Kinematic Considerations, Limitations on the Inclination a

The inclination a, given in Eq. (10), has to be limited as the following kine-
matic considerations will show. Fig. 5 illustrates the plastic strain increments
of a shear wall element at the onset of the plastic flow. The perpendicular
crac~ openings described by the crack parameter ER as defined in the figure
/
/
/

/
[F~, l ,j . ,.,,,.. -(,,

- - ;. -
/
,:t
/
/
/
coso. t,. ,;.. I ,
V .,,. ,,- : '-C fJ..,(.
/
/
/
\;'

coso.
(, .
~
\

/
/
L\ l : 'I-:.

!
/

'\ i\ e,(' ~' '

/
/
// f_~ - (,
I ,,
I ' ,)'i,

- - l . ,,.,..S~ 1 " M e __ , 1.
(5
,-;.,.,.:;.-.

'" i' -
I
t:L cotono. _____ ----1 ,, .) .
r---- coton o. /-,
6 ,/,

F1g. 5: Plostic Strrnns 1n Shear Wall Element

('& 99

L
te


("mean crack strain") lead to the following strain components:

Stirrup Strain: e: e: cos 2 a

5 R
Longitudinal Strain: e:L e: sin 2 a
R
Shearing Strain: y e: tana + e: cot~
S L
Between the strains the following relations exist:

e:s e: cot 2 a I
L
( 14)
e:R = e:S + e:L

The total strains at ultimate load depend on the entire loading process covering
the uncracked and cracked state including the redistribution of forces and cracks.
The above relations can nevertheless be used to get an estimate of the strains.
To reach the yield strain e: of the reinforcement the following values of the
y
crack parameter e:R are required:

Yielding of Longitudinal Reinforcement e:L e: :

y

=e: (1+cot 2 a) ( 15)

R y
Yielding of Stirrup Reinforcement e: e: :
5 y

e: =e: (1+tan 2 a) ( 16)

R. y

The relationship can be discussed with the aid of Fig. 6. Far an inclination of
the compression diagonals a = 45 the crack parameter e:R and, hence, the crack

(R
Ey
I on,.. ot Yilding I
10 in Stringer in Stirrup

6
5--
4

0 I V;" + ,. 11 -o.
r:J' 15 0 45 w 75 90"
- --- ~
05 5 tono. 5 2.0

R Crack Porometer ( Meon Cn:ick Stro1n)

Ey . Yield Stroin of Steel

~
Fig.6: Crack Width ( (R) vs. Y1eld Strain 1n Re1nforcement '!'
~
~
100 f

l
I
width become a minimum for yielding of both the longitudinal and stirrup rein-
forcement. A smaller angle a requires asymptotically increasing crack openings
and stirrup strains to obtain yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement. Far
o
angles a > 45 yielding of the stirrups demands larger and larger strains in
the other two elements. Hence, it becomes obvious that a can only vary between
certain limits. From test results the limits
0.5 < tana < 2 (17)

have been deduced (10), [17). The following considerations may lead to a physical
understanding of the problem. For small crack openings the aggregate interlock
remains intact allowing on the one side only a perpendicular crack opening. On
the other side a shear transfer in the originally formed cracks above the crack-
ing load remains possible. Such a transfer is necessary to obtain a redistribu-
tion of the forces up to the formation of the failure mechanism. If, however,
large cracks develop the aggregate interlock disintegrates. The conditions are
illustrateci in Fig. 7. At the lower limit tana = 1/2 the crack strain and the
stirrup strain are equal to 5 and 4 times the longitudinal strain, respectively.
Hence, it can be expected that yielding of the stirrups alone with a crack strain
approaching ES will lead to a shear failure without yielding of the longitudinal
steel. The apposite holds for tana = 2. Here the stirrups will no longer yield
and a bending failure will result.

~ f7
Mf.s ~"ER
()
V-EL

ton cx 112 2
Lonq. Stroin EL I Ey 4

St1rrup Stro1n E5 1Ey 4 1

Crock S!rom ERI Ey 5 2 5
Foilure Mechon1sm Sheor Comb1ned Bend1ng

Fig. 7 lnclinat1on fan cx vs Strains

101
 .3 Interaction Diagram

The Interaction Diagram of Fig. 4 can now be discussed. Eq. (13) is limited
by the condition (17)

0.5 < tana< 2

An upper limit for the shear farce V follows from Eq. (10) with tana = 1/2
p
V = 2. s .~ ( 18)
p y t

or in non-dimensional form

h
V 2s -
_e__
V
pO
=
I
y t
h'
- 2 F S -
={< ( 19)

yl y t

with the ratio K:

F t
K
-1.!_ (20)
s .h
y
Eq. (8) with tana 2 establishes the second limit

M 1 V
p
+ - p
4-F-=1
MpO yl

~ -~
1
with V = F
pO yl ~K

M V
__e_ + f-~~ (I= 1 ( 21 )
11
pO pO ~K
In Fig. 4 the limits for different values of the ratio K are shown. For K > 2
which holds far most practical cases the limit from Eq. (19) and, hence,
tana = 1/2
will always lead to a maximum value V < V whereas the limit from
p pO
Eq. (21) has no noticeable influence on the maximum moment M. The three types
p
of failure mechanisms, shear, combined bending - shear. and bending, are indicateci
in the figure far the case K = 3.
It should be noted that the values tana = 1/2 and tana = 2 are not exact bounda-
ries but should be regarded as regions where a rapid transition from one type
of mechanism to another takes place.

102
'f

t,~

i
3.4 Introduction of concentrated Laads

The truss system is influenced by the introduction af cancentrated laads.

Taking the situatian illustrated in Fig. 8 two compression fans will form at
the support and the concentrated laad. An admissible stress field can be de-
velaped leading to the static systems of Figs. 9 and 10. Cansidering the farce
in the tensile reinforcement under the concentrated load (Fig. 10) the bend-
ing contribution M/h is sucessively increased by the shear cantribution
1/2Vcota. From the figure it fallows that the reinforcement under the con-
centrated load shauld be extended far a distance
1
x = -hcota = h
2
Far further details reference (17] may be cansulted.
1- ------, r-----
I I I p I I p = 4 Sy
I

I I I fI f 1

:y/7
I

: "-
I I

(~ --- . \ihi-
/:~111
2~ ---- -1.ll"
1 tR=4Sy JIlL ____ JI
L _____ Rt
i
!~Syh
St1rrups: Y1eld1ng S =Sy
Spac1ng I = h/2
Crocks : toncx = 1/2
I
V= 4 Sy J
F1g 8 Concentroted Loads- Compress1on Fans

' ' h/2

bift//t ,/4/;v ,. //,. ---

h14~ -1 \ F 2
' ,~ u 1 4
3
F_ M 1
D'f+s~ t
~v ~3 ~ ~4 /
~l.
,>
u- - -h - v'coron o
2
'h
/
/
/ /
/ / /
/ 1-
I~/ , :,_
/

// ,,. I -- l > M 1
I / /
i:a= ton- 1 (1!2) ~ ' Ft =--vcorano.~2

j; = 4 Sy
2h

-x
-i
'-.--... ----...
4 ---::::::1 ?sy ----... . --... ./ - hM .. 21 V colon o.
"-,._ M
81 '--<: h

12Syi
i
-1 .... JI

'. ,,;r4S,
Fl f Lower Stringer

Fig.9 Equ1libr1um System ot Support

103
 I)

-+J: h/2.1-

_,-' /t/';7'I
,,. ,..
.,,,,."' / /
/I
I
-
Fu =-
M
h =- 20 S)
_,.,,. ,,.,,. ,,, ,. I I

/~'!-t~,,&l f:i,
h
"' ,,,. ,,. ,,,. // I
y _,. ,,, S' .

-
M
I F1 =h =20 Sy
4 3 2 16 Fu

~--Zh----i
x'----

12

~ 16
M
h 20Sy-
M 1 h
h+'2" Vcotonc:x

Lower Stringer f F
1

Fig.10: Equilibnum System under Concentrated Lood

3.5 Design Considerations

It may appear that a design based on a truss model with a variable inclination a.
of the compression field could become tao complicated. However, the apposite is
the case. In design the bending reinforcement A (Ml is determined first
1
M
A (M) = h-c1 l (22)
1 y

with h equal to the distance between the tension and compressian resultants or
approximately the distance between the longitudinal reinforcements enclosed by
the stirrups.

Then the shear reinforcement A (Vl is calculated. In many cases the limiting
5
value tana = 1/2 will be chosen as it will lead ta the least total cast far bath
the longitudinal and stirrup reinforcement (g). From Eq. (10):
Vt
AS(V) ---tana. (23)
ho
yS

The additianal longitudinal reinforcement A (V) depending on the shear farce V

1
and the chosen value of tana. can be calculated fram Eq. (8):
1 V
A (V) = --- cata. ( 24)
1 2 oyl
It shauld be mentioned that the choice of 1/2 < tana. < 2 assures only ultimate
t
104 k

I
strength. Crack control under working load may require under extreme conditions
some additional shear reinforcement.

So far only complete truss action has been considered requiring diagonal crack-
ing of the web. If, however, the nominal shear stresses
V
T (25)
bh
in the web are small at ultimate load, no or very limited diagonal cracking will
take place. Hence, the web provides an additional continuously diminishing shear
resistance in the transition range between the uncracked state and the fully de-
veloped truss action. Theoretical studies far a qualitative explanation of this
behavior have been made (e.g. reference [14), 3.3 and Fig. 12).

3.6 Influence of Prestressing

Prestressing of the longitudinal reinforcement influences the behavior under

working load conditions. However, at ultimate load both the prestressing and
the ordinary reinforcements of an underreinforced section will yield. Fig. 11
compares the stress-strain diagrams of prestressing and ordinary reinforcing
steel. Corrvnonly the level of prestress, o(f ), corresponds approximately to
p
o(f ) = o - a
p y y

i.e. the difference between the yield stresses of the prestressing and the ordi-
nary steel. The two o-E-diagrams have been superimposed to reflect this differ-
ence. After decompression of the concrete the strains of both reinforcements

s ~6'
N/mm2 Nlmm 2 ~

1500
'
I
I
I .e- u.?'Y
600
'G'y
I
I .
1 Ord1nory Reinforcemenr

- - I

10
-[
0
/o

l
1000 EY .5 1.'5

Oecomp<m,oo of Concrete

500 Prestress1ng 6' (Fp J -= Gy - Gy

- - - . - --L.--.L,.-- --, - - [ o/o

0.5 1 o 1.5 2.0 2.5
Ey

Fig 11 Stress - Strain Diagrams of Reinforcing and Prestress1ng St.:el

[1 N/rnm 2 = 145 psi]

105
 I
~
1

increase simultaneously and reach yielding at the same time. T~e strains and
cracks in the concrete will be the sane as far an ordinarily reinforced beam
with a yield farce equal to the yield farce of both reinforcements (e.g. [16) ).
Therefore, all previously derived equations hold if the yield farce of the j
combined reinforcement is introduced. i
Far small nominal shear stresses the transition range between the uncracked
state and full truss action will, however, be affected by prestressing. Accord-
ingly an increased additional resistance of the web concrete over an extended
transition range will result (e.g. [4] ). l
4. CEB-Specifications far Shear

4.1 Members without Web Reinforcement

The design is based on experimental and practical experience and constitutes

a compromise between viewpoints held in different European countries. f
)

f
4.2 Members with Web Reinforcement i
r
I
Two procedures are distinguished. The "Standard Method" is a semi-empirical f
method based essentially on test results. The "Refined Method" is theoretically
founded on the plastic analysis of the truss model described in this paper. It
has been checked and calibrateci with test results. It is applied to more
I
~

special cases like main girders in buildings and bridges and in particular to
cases involving combined bending, torsion and shear.

For the sake of clarity only the essentials are given in the following leaving
out all additional considerations such as influence of normal forces, variable
depth of section, prestressing, inclined cables, etc. {

In both methods the design shear farce V must be equal to or less than the
(
Sd f
resistance VRd made up of the resistance Vwd carried by truss action (inclined f
~
concrete struts and shear reinforcementl and the resistance V attributed to
cd
the shear resistance of the concrete compression zone and secondary effects

V V (26)
VSd ~ VRd3 wd
+
cd
1. Standard Method:
A
V = ~0.9df (1+ cotalsina ( 27l
wd1 s ywd

i
V = 2 . 5 T Rd b wd ' TRd -- C\
..J.
75f
~ ctd (28) ~
cd1 i

The symbols are defined in Fig. 12. Attention should be given to the fact that

106 l
'
 ... s

I
\/ Sd
j

_l __
,

_iJ I
A sw

-A l

~~
lncl1no11on c;f St1rrups (). (In Poper 90 l
lncl1no11on of Compression F1eld 8 (In Poper O<

St1rrup Spocing s (In Poper

F1g 12 Nototion for CEB - Design Formulos

they differ from the symbols used in the paper. The design stress f for the
ywd
web reinforcement is the characteristic value of the yield stress divided by the
appropriate resistance safety factor. The design concrete tensile stress f
ctd
is equal to the characteristic value of the tensile strength divided by the
appropriate resistance safety factor.

Obviously the first expression is based on a truss model with stirrups at an

angle a and concrete compression diagonals at an angle 0 = 45.

On the other hand the shear resistance reaches an upper limit controlled by
crushing of the concrete compression diagonals

V = 0.30f b d [29)
Rd2 cd w
with f the design concrete stress, i.e. the characteristic value of the con-
cd
crete strength divided by the appropriate resistance safety factor.

Fig. 13 is a standard non-dimensional presentation cf the amount of shear rein-

forcement Asw versus the shear farce v5 d. As reference value the upper limit
of VRd Eq. (29), is used. ~he test points shown i~ the figure are taken from
2
tests in which the longitudinal reinforcement dici not yield at failure.

107
 O 9 fyw<l
Asw O 30 fcd . b.,. s

100
Refe rene es :
~~
~("
o [ 7] [ 8 /.;:..'
./,<o ~
V [11] , [12) / ,, ~
/, .;;.I~
o [13) .,''o'
. ,,
'i/
o [15) / V
/ Dg~
/ ~~OPJ V

/ ~'JoJo v "7
'J% Vsd 0.30 fcd. b.,. d

100

Fig. 13: CEB - Standard Method. Sf1rrup Reinforcemenl

2
vs Shear Force [1N/mm = 145psi]

2. Refined Method:
A
V
wd2
= ~0.9df
s ywd
(cot8 + cotalsina (30)

o
The equation follows directly from Eq. [9) if the stirrups are vertical, a = 90 ,

The value of the inclinations of the concrete compression diagonals can be varied
between
3/5 < cot8 < 5/3 ( 31)

Compared to Eq. (17) the indicated values far cot8 have been chosen cautiously.
They assure a reasonable control of cracking under working load conditions.
The value of cot8 has a direct influence on the design of the longitudinal rein-
forcement. According to Eq. (8) the bending reinforcement A CM l has to be
s 1 Sd
increased by an additional longitudinal reinforcement 6A rv dl due to the design
51 5
shear farce, i.e. the working shear farce multiplied by the appropriate load
safety f actor
V 2 s
Sd
Msl (VSdl (32)
2A f d f
sw ywd yld

108

i.
wit~, f the design stress of the longitudinal reinforcement, i.e. the charac-
y 1d
teristic value of the yield stress divided by the appropriate resistance safety
factor. Eq. (32) follows from Eq. (24) and Eq. (10) using the appropriate CEB-
notation. In the standard procedure the increase of the longitudinal reinforce-
ment is indirectly made by the so-called "shift-rule".

The contribution Vcd varies linearly with the intensity of the nominal shear
2
stress in the transition range between no diagonal cracks and fully developed
truss action as discussed under 3.5.

Range V
cd2

Uncracked : V < 2.51 b d 2.51Rdbwd

Sd - Rd w

Transition : 2.51 b d < V < 7.51 b d 1

-(7 5T b d - V ) (33)
Rd w Sd Rd w 2 ' Rd w Sd

Truss Action: VSd .:_ 7.5TRd'bwd o

where: T = 0.25f
Rd ctd

The design equations are illustrateci in Fig. 14 in non-dimensional form for

chosen values of cotG. The test points of Fig. 13 are repeated. As in all of
these tests the longitudinal reinforcement did not yield the test points de-
monstrate the applicability of the adopted upper limit of cot0 = 5/3.

Finally, the upper limit of the shear resistance is controlled by crushing of

the concrete compression diagonals (see Eq. (2))

V = 0.30f b dsin20 (34)

Rd2 cd w

109
 ,-
~
~

0.'Jf~
As .. 0.30\-d. b., . s

1.00 4-------------~

Un- I Truss
crocked Tronsition

/
0.50
/ V'

V
~

'V
1
VSd 0.30 fcd'bw d

0-88 100
. \~'''
~o~~
Q20 \c.\
1
Vcd2 0.30fcd bwd
0.88 1.00

~-:-.... VSd 0.30 led b.., d

........... ~~~coro,..
.... ~.-~
~ ~., n

CO ~

OA5
~
~C'OIJ S
.J References

''\ o [ 7] [ 8]
'Q (11). (12]
0.75i fyld o [13]
Asl 0.30fcd b,,d
0.90-t-------------~
o [15]

Fig. 14: CEB- Ref in ed Method: St1rrup ond Long. Reinforcements

vs. Sheor Force [1N/mm 2 = 145psi]

110
4.3 Comments on the Design Methods
Thc uscfulncss of a design method depends on its accuracy judged from comparison
with test results, its applicability to different problems, its ease of han-
~ling dn~ last but not least on its scientific foundation.

At present Q study of the accuracy of different methods is a nearly hopeless

undcrtaking. For the many test points plot like a "Milky Way" allowing almost
any interpretation. It is not an objective of this paper to comment on this
state of affairs. Nevertheless, a comparison with test results allows at least
to find out if a procedure is on the safe side.

The two CEB-Procedures give very similar results for low shear stresses. At high
values the refined procedure can lead to a considerable reduction in the shear
reinforcement if a low value of tan8 is chosen. In the practical use there
should be no difference in ease of handling. However, the second approach has
the decided advantage of being compatible with the torsion design as both are
derived from the same truss model.

Finally, it is felt that the refined method has a sound theoretical foundation
being based on a clear truss model and the theory of plasticity. Despite of the
fact that simplifying assumptions are made reasonable correspondence with test
results is obtained. It shows that the theory of plasticity can be sucessfully
applied to determine the resistance of reinforced concrete sections to the com-
oined action of shear and bending.

Sumc,dry

The shear strength of reinfor:ed and prestressed cenerete beams is determined

on a truss model with a variable inclination a of the concrete compression field.
Tne theory of plasticity is usec te derive the interaction for the combined
loading of oending and shear. L!~its on tne inclination, 3/5 < tana < 5/3, restrict
tne redistribution of the internal forces at ultimate load.

The "Refin~d Mctncj" of tne CEB-Model Code, 1975, for the design of beams sub-
jected to shear and bencin~ is bassd on such a model.

111
Notation

1. Used in Paper:

Al cross sectional area of the lower stringer or the longitudinal rein-

forcement

AS cross sectional area of the stirrup

A cross sectional area of the upper stringer
u
b width of shear wall; width of web
o diagonal resultant of the concrete compression field

Fl farce in the lower stringer

Fp prestressing farce
F farce in the upper stringer
u
F yield farce of the lower stringer
yl
F yield farce af the upper stringer
yu
h depth of shear wall, i.e. distance between the langitudinal reinforce-
ments enclased by the stirrups; distance between the tension and com-
pressian resultant causedby M
'
M bending moment
M plastic bending mament
p
M
pO
plastic bending mar.ent 1~ shear farce V o
N normal farce
P concentrateci laad
R reactian
S stirrup farce
S yield farce af a stirrup
y
T torsianal moment
t spacing af stirrups
V shGar farce
V plastic shear farce
p
V plastic shear farce if bending mament M = O
pO
a angle af inclinatian af the concrete compressian field
y shear strain
L langitudinal strain
R crack parameter ("mean crack strain"l
s stirrup strain
5
yield strain of reinfarcement
y
K ration between the yield forces af the lawer stringer and the stirrup,
Eq. (20)

112
o normal stress
o stress in prestressing steel
oc concrete stress of the compression field
a yield stress of the ordinary reinforcement
y
a yield stress of prestressing steel
y
a yield stress of the lower stringer or the yield stress of the
yl
longitudinal reinforcement
a yield stress of the stirrup reinforcement
yS
a yield stress of the upper stringer
yu
T nominal shear stress

2. CEB-Notation

A cross sectional area of web reinforcement

sw
Asl cross sectional area of longitudinal reinforcement
b width of web
w
d effective depth of beam

fcd design concrete stress, i.e. characteristic value of concrete strength

divided by resistance safety factor
f design concrete tensile strength, i.e. characteristic value of tensile
ctd
strength divided by resistance safety factor
f design stress of longitudinal reinforcement, i.e. characteristic
yld
value of yield stress divided by resistance safety factor
f design stress of web reinforcement, i.e. characteristic value of yield
ywd
stress divided by resistance saf ety f actor
s spacing of web reinforcement (stirrups)
V shear farce carried by compression zone and secondary effects
cd
VSd design shear farce, i.e. shear farce multiplied by load safety factor

VRd design value of the shear resistance

V shear farce carried by truss action of the web
wd
a angle of inclination of the web reinforcement
0 angle of inclination of the concrete compression diagonals

TRd 0.25f ctd

113
List cf ~ef Erences

[1] ASCE-ACI Tas~ Comn~ttee ~2E, "The S~ear Str8ng~~ of ~einforced Con-
crete "'~err,te~s"; Jourrs~ =f the ::J:ructur-31 [ ivi5icn,
1
A5C[, \'cl. 99,
No. ST6, June 1973 and .cl. 100, ~ic. STB, f;ugust 1974.
[2] Comit Euro-Internatioral du Bton, "Systrne international de rgle-
mentation technique unifie de structures"; Information Bulletin
~Jo. 124/125, Paris, Ai:;ril 1975.

[3] Comit Europen du Bton, "Effort tranchant - Torsion"; Manuel de

Calcul, Information Bulletin No. 92, Paris, June 1973.
(4] Schweizerischer Ingenieur- und Architekten-Verein (SIA), "Bruchwider-
stand und Bemessung von Stahlbeton- und Spannbetontragwerken" (Ultimate
Strength and Design of Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Membersl;
Swiss Code No. 162, Recomrnendation No. 34, SIA, Zurich, 1976.
(5) Bachmann, H., ThUrlirnann, B., "Schubbemessung von Balken und Platten
aus Stahlbeton rnit Spannzulagen und Spannbeton" (Shear Design of
Bearns and Slabs of Reinforced, Partially Prestressed or Prestressed
Concrete), Schweizerische Bauzeitung, Vol. 84, No. 33/34, August 1966.
Translation by K. Zoluda, Portland Cement Association.
[5] Braestrup, M., "Plastic Analysis of Shear in Reinforced Concrete",
Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 26, No. 89, Oecember 1974.
(7) Caflisch, R., ThUrlirnann, B., "Schubversuche an teilweise vorgespannten
Betonbalken" (Tests on the Shear Behavior of Partially Prestressed
Concrete Beams); Report No. 6504-2, Institute of Structural Engineering,
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, October 1970.
(8) Caflisch, R., ThUrlimann, B., "Biege- und Schubversuche an teilweise
vorgespannten Betonbalken, Serie C" (Bending and Shear Tests on Partially
Prestressed Concrete 8eams, Serie Cl; Report No. 6504-3, Institute of
Structural Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich,
February 1971.
(9) Grob, J., ThUrlimann, E'., "Ultimate Strength and Design cf Reinforced
Concrete Beams under E'ending and Shear"; Publications No. 35-II,
IABSE, Zurich, 1976.
(10) Lampert, P., ThOrlimann, B., "Ultimate Strength and Design of Reinforced
Concrete Beams in Torsion and Bending"; Publications No. 31-I, IABSE,
Zurich, 1971.
[11) Leonhardt, F., Walther, R., "Schubversuche an einfeldrigen Stahlbeton-
balken mit und ohne Scnubbewehrung" (Shear Tests on Simply Supported
Concrete Beams with an~ without Web Reinforcement), Report No. 151,
Oeutscher Ausschuss fDr Stahlbeton, Berlin, 1962.
(12) Leonhardt, F., Walther, R., "Schubversuche an Plattenbalken mit unter-
schiedlicher Schubbewehrung" (Shear Tests on Reinforced Concrete T-Beams
with Different Web Reinforcementl, Report No. 156, Oeutscher Ausschuss
fur Stahlbeton, Berlin, 1963.
(13) Lyngberg, B.S., "Ulti~ate Shear Resistance of Partially Prestressed
Reinforced Concrete I-6eams"; Structural Research Laboratory,
Technical University cf Denmark, October 1974.
(14] Marti, P., ThUrlimann, 3., "Fliessbedingung fDr Stahlbeton rnit BerUck-
sicntigung der Betonz~gfestigkeit" [Yield Condition for Reinforced
Concrete Including tne Concrete Tensile Strength), Beton- und Stahl-
betonbau, January 1977, p. 7.
114
l

[15) Sl".lre.'lsen, ,-.,.[., "Shear Tests on 12 '<einforced Concrete T-Beams",

Report No. R 60, Technical University of Oenmark, 1974.
[16) Thurlimann, B., "A Case for Partial Prestressing", Proceedings,
Structural Concrete Symposium, University of Toronto, Toronto, May 1971.
[17) Thurlimann, B., Grob, J., Luchinger, P., "Torsion, Biegung und Schub
in Stahltctontrggern" (Torsion, Bending and Shear of Reinforced Con-
creto Oeamsl, Lecture Notes, Institute of Structural Engineering,
Swiss Fed~ral Institute of Technology Zurich, April 1975.

115

,..
SP 59-7

TORSIONAL STRENGTH OF REINFORCED ANO PRESTRESSED

CONCRETE BEAMS--CEB APPROACH

By Bruno Thurlimann

Synopsis: Besides a "Standard Method" derived from semi-empirical

l onsiderations the new CEB model code proposes a "Refined Method" for

the design of reinforced and prestressed concrete members subjected to

torsion. It is compatible with the design method for bending and shear
and combined cases of bending, shear and torsion.

The method is theoretically based on the plastic analysis of a space

truss model consisting of stringers acting as compression or tension
chords, stirrups as posts and an effective concrete shell forming a
compression field at a variable inclination a. The model is explained
and the design forroulas for the "Refined Method" are deri ved. Compar-
isons with appropriate test results as well as with the CEB "Standard
Method" are made.

Keywords: beams (supports); bending; prestressed concrete; reinforced

concrete; shear properties; structural design; torsion.

117
ACI fellow Bruno Th~rlimann is professor of structural engineering at the
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Swit~erland. He is the author
of many technical papers especially on the application of plasticity to
steel and concrete structures. He is President of the International Associa-
tion for Bridge and Structural Engineeering (IABSEJ. He serves as Chairman
of Commission V, 'Shear and Torsion', Comit Euro-International du Bton
(CEB). He is a member of ACI-ASCE Committee 445 'Shear and Torsion'.

1. Introduction

The intensive research over the past 15 years into the torsional strength of
reinforced concrete memhers has lead to design procedures based on two ap-
proaches, the "Skew-Bending Theory" [e.g. [1), (5), (10), [24)), and the
"Space Truss Model" (e.g. (3), [7], (13), (14], (24] J. In many cases they
lead to the same results.

However, it is felt that with the truss model certain scientific shortcomings
of the Skew Bending approach are avoided (19]. Furthermore, it is applicable
to any type of cross section. Finally, it allows a uniform treatment of other
loading cases such as shear and combined bending, shear and torsion [1B], [22].
Recently, it has been used to determine the warping resistance of thin-walled
reinforced concrete beams with open cross sections (9). It has also served to
determine the torsional stiffness of members after cracking (11], (23].

For these reasons the "Space Truss Model" has been adopted by CEB in arder to
derive appropriate design procedures [2].

In the following, reference is made to the article on "Shear Strength" (20],

especially to paragraph "2. Llnified Approach to Shear and Torsion" giving the
description of the space truss model and the assumptions made in determining
the strength of such a model.

2. Torsion e

2.1 Torsional Resistance of Box Section

If a reinforced concrete beam with a box section is subjected te a torsional

moment T (Fig. 1), a constant shear flow arc:..:nd the circumference results. In
the membrane theory of cylindrical shells - :i box beCJr, is such a str:..;ctural
element - i t is shown [e. g. [6], p. 107 J ttv:i: a constant shear flow consti-
tutes a statically admissible stress fiel~ fcr the case of a ccnstant torsion-
al moment.

The shear flow is a function of the torsional moment and the enclossd area
A , i.e. area enclosed by the perimeter connecting the longitudinal stringers
0
118
 Stringer A1 , G'v 1 , F1 , Fv 1

(8) 7

:r Cr
1-----T
bz
Sz (2)
I: lbl

L.- - - -,- - --l

3 (4) 5

Sl1rrup A54, ~s ; Sq ; Sv4

\ f'er1rneter u , Ao

Fig. 1 Box. Sect1on - Nota11on

in the corner of the section (Fig. 1)

T
(Tb) = ~ (1)
o
The truss forces pruduced by the shear flow (Tbl in a side wall of depth s
are shown in Fig. 2. The compression resultant O of the compression field,
o , is inclined at an angle a. From equilibrium the following relations are
c
obtained:

Diagonal farce O:
O= (Tb)s (2)
sina

Concrete compression stress oc:

o
o --
(Pb)
sina:osa
---- T
( 3)
e bscosa b sinacosa

. r'"ss Forces A SneorFlow:~,

/ .s .. ~J
s ~J'. et
1- .
F,- -r

F3-
t/o Se',,,,,,
(2) : s'

_l
'

3
...,_~ 1="~1
I I I ";
r--1
s cotona b

F1g 2 Forces in Sheor I/Voli

119
Stringer forces F = F3 = F:
1
1 1 1
F =-O = -Dcosa = -(Tblscota (4)
2 H 2 2
Or the total tension resultant for the side s:

2F = (T"b)scota ( 5)

Stirrup farce S:
Sscota (pb)s
t

s (Tb)ttana (6)

If now an entire cross section with a constant stirrup reinforcement A under

5
a torsional moment T is considered the inclination a of the compression diago-
na!s remains constant around the perimeter. Replacing the shear flow (Tbl by
Eq. (1) the following expressions are derived:

Axial resultant R of all stringer forces F:

Tu
R = l:F = (Tblcotal:s 2-A"'cota (7)
o
with: u LS perimeter connecting the longitudinal stringers of
cross section (Fig. 1).

The resultant R, acting in the centroid C of the perimeter (not centroid of

u
cross section nor centroid of enclosed area A l is in equilibrium with the
0
resultant of the axial components OH of all compression dagonals.

Stirrup forces S:
Tt ,
s = 2-At. .. J. ( 8)
o
Concrete compresson stresses cr :
e
T
cr ~~~~~~~-
2 A b sinacosa
( 9)
e
o
The state of stress descrbed by Eqs. (7), (8) and (9) s statcally admssible,
i.e. it fulfills all equilibrium equations. Assuming an underrenforced cross
section, i.e. yelding of the steel wll take place prior to crushing of the
concrete, R and S are limited by the yeld forces R of all strngers and S
y y
of the stirrups, respectively.

120
Resultant of stringers: R < R
- y
( 1 o)
Stirrup s <
-
sy Asoys J
The ultimate torsional resistance T is reached if both the stringers and
p
stirrups yield. Eqs. (7) and (8) give:
2A R
T = O Ytana
p u
( 11 )
2A S
T Q__zcota
p t

Eliminating T or a the final expressions are obtained:

p

tana

T
p
=

*f?i
2A
o
y
t
( 12)

( 13)

In [20] limitations on the value of tana have been introduced and discussed
(further references [14], [22] J. Kinematic considerations concerning the rela-
tionships between crack width and the strains in the stringers and stirrups
and also the rapid deterioration of the aggregate interlock in the concrete
with increasing crack width require such limits. From tests the following values
have been deduced:

1
- < tana < 2 (14)
2 - -

2.2 Box Sections with Symrnetric and Unsymmetric Reinforcernents

In the following the discussion will be restricted to rectangular box sections

(fig. 1).

Case 1:
Fully syrrmetric section, i.e. all stringers have the same cross sectional
area AL and the same yield farce FyL' The stirrup reinforcernent A with yield
5
stress oyS is constant around the cross section, the corresponding yield farce
is S
y

With respect to Fig. 1 the following conditions hold:

121
Stringers: Areas A1 A AS A AL
3 7
Yield forces: Fy F F F F
1 y3 yS y7 yl

Stirrups Constant section AS and spacing t

Yield farce: Sy = ASoyS

From Eqs. (12) and (13) with R 4F the following expressions are derived:
y yl
4F S
T 2A ~ ( 1 5)
p o ut

tana ( 16)

Case 2:

The section has a "bending-type" reinforcement, i.e. the yield forces of the
upper stringers F are smaller than F of the lower stringers. Hence, the
yu y1
upper stringers will yield and the section will rotate about an axis 3-5 through
~he lower strins~r3.

Referring to Fig. 1 the fol~owing conditions hold:

Upper stringers: Areas : A = A = A
1 7 u
Yield forces: Fy1 = F = F < F
y7 yu yl
Lower Stringers: Areas : A3 = A = A
5 1
Yield forces: F = F = F
y3 y5 yl
Stirrups: Constant Section AS and Spacing t
Yield farce : S A o
y S yS

At ulti~ate loaG al stringer forces become equal. Hence, the rcsultant R of

y
Eq. (12) respectively (13) takes the value:

F 4F ( 17l
y yu

The result can be generalized. If the stringers are irregularly placed around
the periMeter of a section [Fig. 3) the value of the resultant R ~inimum
y
governs the resi5tance. Taking an arbitrary axis B-B through a side the resultant
R in the centroij
y
eu of the perimeter can be determined as follows:
l::F 7

i
R =~ ( 18)
y z
'.J

The axis 6-B has to be varied to find the minimum of Ry. An axis 6-B inter-
secting the section as shown in Fig. 3 is not admissible because it would put
the stringer i and hence the concrete of that region into compression.

122
 /B

-- Fy,

of Perimeter

Perimeter u

s/
Fig. 3: Generai Cross Sect1on

Ho><ever, a concrete cornpression failure has been excluded in the assurnption.

Case 3:

The stirrup reinforcernent in the bottorn side 4, \S y /t :i , is weaker than

y
in the other three sides, S /t = S . This would be for instance the case in a
y y
bridge box girder where the upper side acting as bridge deck is heavily rein-
forced, the side walls have substantial shear reinforcernent and the bottorn
side has only a nominal transverse reinforcernent. If the yield forces of the
upper stringers F are larger than the yield forces of the lower stringers
yu
Fyl rotation about the axis 1-7 wil} take place.

The specified conditions are hence as follows [Fig. 1):

Upper Stringers: Areas = A7 = Au

: A1
Yield forces: F
y1
= Fy7 = Fyu > F
yl
Lower Stringers: Areas . A3 = A = A
. 1 5
Yield forces: Fy 3 = FyS = Fyl
Stirrups: Sides 2, 6 and 8 : sy ;t
2 2
= sy 61t 6 = sy 81t 8 = sy
Side 4 : sY 41t 4 = \3Y: < 1

With the shear flow (Tbl constant around the section the inclinations a and
2
a will differ in arder to meet this condition. Using relations (4) and [6)
4
together with the yield conditions the following expressions result:

123
Side 2:
1
nF nF - (T b) s cata
3 yl 2 2 2

s2
- = s (T-b)tana
t2 y 2
Side 4:
1
(1-nJF (1-nJFyl - (T"b) s cata
3 2 4 4

s4
S (T"b) tana
t4 y 4

Eliminating the angles a and a gives

2 4

n F
1
= - (T b) s (Tb)
--
yl 2 2 s
y
1 (Tb)
(1-n)F = -(T"b)s - -
yl 2 4 s
y

The sum af these twa expressians equals the yield farce of the stringer 3:
2
1
1 (T"b) (s + -s
F
yl -
2 - 2 4) ~=

sy ~.

Replacing (Tb) by Eq. (1) the torsional resistance becames:

.
r1
T 2A 4F S - - - - - - ( 19)
p o yl y
1 1;
2 (s + s -)
2 4 1~
Obviausly far a canstant stirrup reinfarcement, Sy = tSy' =1 and 2(s +s l l]
i
2 4
= u. and far equal yield forces of all faur stringers, Fy 1 = F = F L' Eq. (19) l
yu y
will simplify into Eq. (15).

The three treated cases can be extended to more general cross sectians such
that any canfiguration can be analyzed [22). The limits far tana given by Eq.(14)
hald far any one side. If they are reached no further redistributian of the in-
ternal forces is possible and the circulatory torsional strength provided by a
constant shear flow (Tb) is reached. *)

*) The expression "Circulatory Torsion" is introduced to indicate the circula-

tion of a constant shear flow around the perimeter of the section. In elastic-
ity it is referred to as St. Venant's Torsion.

124
However, an increase in warping resistance may ther. still be possible (9). In
many practical cases this additional resistance can be neglected.

2.3 Distorsion of Side Walls

The diagonal compression stresses a (Fig. 2) in the side walls of a section

c
are superimposed by secondary bending stresses caused by twisting of the side
walls as illustrateci in Fig. 4, [14], [22].

s
\
-z

-
T

d tJ
-- s. CiX
-
i)

~ s di.!
2
Y
2"'cix

F1g 4 D1storsion of Side Walls

Kinematic relations furnish the following expression far the bending strain
on the surface of a wall with thickness b:
b dlJ
Eb ( lJ) = + (20)
- -
2 dx
-

where is the angle of twist. The uniform compression a (T) of the concrete
1J
e
diagonals (Eq. (9)) is hence increased by bending stresses ob(lJ)

a = oc(Tl ob(1JJ ( 21 )

In tests maximum values of ob e1ual to two to three times the value of oc have
been observed [22]. Far convenience in design the influence of the Ob(lJ)
stresses can be indirectly considered by selecting an appropriate value for the
effective wall thickness b discussed in the following paragraph, i.e. a some-
e
what smaller value such that the o -stresses will become larger and include
e
approximately the wall bending contribution. In such a way it becomes possible
to introduce the same upper limits for the a -stresses in tofsion as well as in
e
shear. Under combined loading the a -stresses due to torsion and shear can then
e
be directly superimposed.

125
2.4 Solid Cross Sections
-~

Tests of beams with solid cross sections (e.g. (15)) have shown that their
torsional strength is made up of the closed reinforcing cage, consisting of
the longitudinal stringers and the transverse stirrups, dnd an effective con-
crete shell forming the necessary compression field under an inclination a.
On the basis of test results CEB [2) and others (4) take as effective wall
thickness b of the resisting concrete shell
e
do
b (22)
e 6

where d is the diameter of the circle inscribed into the perimeter connecting
0
the corner stringers of the section (fig. 5). For box sections the minimum \_

wall thickness b . is taken provided it is smaller than b

m1n e
r.- ---,
I I
'!:_ ""'

8
do
-6 I I
/ ._~, . I
'~.....
bmin
._
'!
--
I
I !
~--j
d0 ~

do b _ /bm1n
Sol1d Section be Box
6 e - ""- do
6

F1g 5 E ffect1ve Woll Th1ckness

3. Combined Torsion - Bending - Shear

In most applications torsion will be combined with bending and/or shear. First,
the simpler case torsion - bending will be treated.
3.1 Torsion - Bending

The discussion will be restricted to members with rectangular cross sections.

The syrrmetric underreinforced section in Fig. 6 with a constant shear rein-
forcement, yield farce S , has a "bending-type" longitudinal reinforcement,
y
i.e. F > F . Failure will occur by yielding of the reinforcement. The follow-
Y1 yu
ing yield conditions hold
F < F = A O
u - yu u yu

F l -< Fy = A o
1 yl
s < s y = AS o yS
126
 r-----
Fy
a ---- ~

I
" (81 Fyu

rr, ~i . t 7 -

aJ,fJi: \2)

I ,,,
'' : (6) h

'r- ,-1 Fyt F,L Fyu

F1g 6 Combined Tors1on - Bending - Sheor

Far pure bending the plastic moment MpO will be reached if yielding of the
lower stringers starts. Hence,

M 2F h (23)
pO yl

The height h is the distance between the tension and compression resultants.
Far underreinforced sections h can be taken as the distance between the upper
and lower stringers enclosed by the stirrups.

In pure torsion the weaker upper stringers will yield first and the section
will then rotate about the lower axis 3 - 5. The resultant axial farce of all
stringers is

R = 4F yu

From Eq. (13) the plast~ict~nal moment TpO follows

F S
T = 2 A ~ yu y (24)
pO O ut

The case torsion - bending is considered next. Fig. 7 shows visually the super-
position of the stringer forces F(Tl and F[MJ due to torsion and bending. It
is first assumed that the combination is such that yielding of the lower
tringers and the stirrups will take place at failure. The stirrups contr1bute
Tors1on Bending Tors1on .- Bend1ng

----, '
F(T) F(T1F\Mi
FTF(M)

Fig 7 Superpos1t1on of Tors1on ond Bending

127
only to the torsional resistance. One part of the lower stringers, 2nFyl'
resist bending, the other part, 2[1-nlFyl' torsion. Hence,

M 2n-F h
p r.-:-:---:-----.
y1
4[1-nlF S
T 2A '-\/ yl y
p o V ut
'
The term 4F of Eq. [24) is replaced by 4(1-nlF as far each stringer only
yu yl
the part (1-n!F is resisting torsion. Failure takes place by rotation a.Jout
yl "-
the upper axis 1 - 7. If n is eliminateci and MpO and TpO from Eqs. (23) and [24)
are used as reference values the following interaction equation can be derived:

F T 2 M
Fl F ~( ___E_ ) + _P_ (25)
yl Fyl T M
pO pO
I

\'
Next the case of yielding of the upper stringers is considered. The tensile fo~ce

in the upper stringers due to torsion is counteracted by the compression due to

bending. Hence, the effective farce far the torsional resistance is
M
1 p
F F + --
eff yu 2 h

and introduced into Eq. (24)

I4[F
~~~~~~.,.,.--~~~

M
+;__p_lS
'
yu , h y
T
p
= 2A
O
l -
u t

With the reference values the final interaction equation is obtained

T F M
p ~._P_ (26)
F F -T-
u yu F M
pO yu pO

The interaction is illustrateci in Fig. 8 far the ratio F /F

yl yu
= 3. The torsional
resistance can be increased by an additional bending moment up to a maximum value
where yielding of both the upper and lower stringers occur. It is reached if the
mean yield farce F of the stringers resists torsicn and the difference F, is used
m u
far ber1cing.
With: F ,2_, ( F + F l
m 2 yl yu

Fli
2_. [ F - F l
2 yl yu
~------
2.[F TF ) S
yl yu y (27)
Max.: T 2.A T + 1)
p max 0 u t pO

Far: M = [F - F )h [28)
p yl yu
128
 To Ro!10 Fyl I Fyu 0 3
Tpo
Str 1nger Y1eld1ng

-13 /

',,_- // D
o Stringer R191d
/

-f2' I

o
~--L--+-----
1
3 3
1 Mp
Mp0

F1g. 8: lnteraction Diagram Bending- Torsion

Hence, an increase of the torsional resistance is not possible if ~he longi-

tudinal stringer reinforcement is uniformly distributed aver the section. On
the other hand if no upper reinforcement is provided, F = O, the maximum
yu
torsional resistance is reached when the bending moment is half the plastic
moment MpO

3.2 Torsion - Bending - Shear

The section of Fig. 6 with the indicateci values for the yield forces of the
stringers and stirrups is now investigated far the general combination T, M, V.
~he shear flows due to torsion T and shear V are given in Fig. 9. By super-
position the flows for the different sides are:

Side 2 (Tb) = - T- + -
V
2 2A 2h
o
T
Sides 4 and 8 [Tb) =-- = [T"b) (29)
4 2A 8
0
T V
Side 6 [Tb) = -- - -
6 2A 2h
o

129
 f
I
I
\
Torsion Sheor

I'
lllllllilltllllllllll 1- --1 I
t1 -(8)--71 f
o

1-
~
7'
I} I
-(8-l

~ :(2) (6 )1 t h + ~1(2) (6):~

~ __j_4)_ ~ ~ __0l_ ~ --

1111111111:ti111111111

T V
(Tb): 2AO (Tb)=2h

F1g 9 Shear Flows due to Torsion and Shear

The corresponding static system is shown in Fig. 10. All sides will have differ-
ent inclinations far the compression field such that yielding of two stringers
and the stirrups will occur. As a first failure mechanism it will be assumed
that the two upper stringers will not yield, hence, the section will rotate
about the axis 1 - 7. Taking moments about this axis furnishes
h h
M = 2F h - (Tbl hcota - - (T-bl acota h - (pb) hcota - (30)
p yl 2 2 2 4 4 6 6 2

F3

F ig. 10: Stati e System under Torsion - Be.nding- Shear

Eq. (6) establishes the relation between the stirrup forces and inclination of
the compression field, a. If yielding occurs

S = lTblttana = S
y

and with Eq. (29)

130
 (T"b) t
2 t T V
cota = = -(-- + -)
2 sy S
y
2A
o 2h

(Tb) t
4 t T
cota = = ---
4 sy S
y
2A
o
(T"b) t
6 t T V
cota = = -(-- - -)
6 sy S
y
2A
o 2h

Replacing the cota in Eq. (30) by the above expressions and making use of the
reference values ""
M 2F h (Plastic Moment)
pO yl

T
pO
2A
o ~ h
y (Plastic Torsional Momentl ( 31)

V 2 ""'\ /2F S - (Plastic Shearl

pO yu y t

the following interaction equation can be derived

F3 FS F
yl
F
~. ~( T
_P_
2
+ ( __E )
V 2 J +
M
p
MpO (32)
Fyl TpO VpO

Similarly an expression for yielding of the upper stringers can be derived:

T 2 V 2 F M
_ P_ + ( _P_ -2'.l_._P_
F = F =F (33)
1 7 yu T V F M
pO pO yu pO

As a further possibility yielding of the two stringers

F =F = Fyu
1 u
and
F =F =F
3 1 yl

should be investigateci. In this case rotation will take place about a vertical
axis 5 - 7 through the right side, the moment which respect to this axis being
zero. In such a way the third interaction equation is found

F1 F
yu V F
p p ~
T 2
2TV 2
_P_ + 2h +
-
p 1 yl
) = -(- + 1) ( 34)
T T V u V O 2 F
F3 F pO pO pO p yu
yl

131
The three interaction equations are graphically presented in Fig. 11 far the

ratio F ;F= 3. The different failure mechanisms indicateci by yielding of the

Y1 yu
stringers are also shown. Far a discussion of the results references (18] and
(22) may be consulted.

Ratio: Fyl I Fyu =3

Tp
Stringer Y1eld1ng

o /. " . . . . . . X o
Tp0 11
o Stringer Rig1d
A
. ........... \
/ ......... . \
_,v,;__. .... \ \ Eq (32)

>\ \
\ \

\ \o
.
,.\--'~
)

~
.

- ), I Y4J- j

~
o DEQ(34)

VpQ

F1g 11 : lnteraction Diagrom for Torsion - Bend1ng - Sheor

3.3 Design Considerations

The interaction equations are usful far an understanding of the rather complex
interrelations between torsion - bending - shear and the different failure
mechanisms. However, for practical design a direct approach is much simpler.
The bending reinforcement A (Ml and A (M) is determined first (Fig. 6):
3 5
M
A (M) = A (M) = 2ho (35)
3 5 yl

Then the shear flows (Tbl due to torsion and shear are determined. The inclina-
tion a of the compression field can be assumed within the limits given by Eq.(14).
1
Economical considerations are generally leading to the lower limit tana = 2
The additional longitudinal reinforcement due to torsion and shear follows from
Eq. (4) far the different sides:

132
 1 T h V
Side 2: A CT,V) = A3 CT,Vl = ~( .A + lcota
1
yl
2
o 2
1 Ta
Side 4: A [T,V)
3
= A5 (T_,VJ = - -.-2-Acota
2 0 yL o
(36)
1 T h V
Side 6: A [T,Vl = A (T,Vl = z:o--( ~ - )cota
5 7
yl o 2
1 Ta
Side 8: A (t,Vl =A [T,V) = ----cota
7 1 2o 2A
yl o
The reinforcements on the lowCTr side,i.e. tension side far bending, must al-
ways be added. On the upper side, i.e. compression side far bending, the ten-
sion farce due to shear and torsion is counteracted by the compression farce
due to bendi11g. Hence, the tensile reinforcement can be proportionately re-
duced
M
A = LA [T,Vl - 2ho
1 1 yl
(37)
M
A = ZA (T,Vl -
7 7 2 .ho yl

Finally, the stirrup reinforcement follows from Eq. (6)

s
A = _jl_ (T-blt.tana (38)
s o
yS oyS

Introducing into Eq. (38) the shear flows of the different sides, Eq. (29),
the required stirrup reinforcement far each side is obtained.

Finally, a checK of the concrete stresses is necessary. Eq. (3) gives:

(T' b)
o - -- [39j
e b sinacosa

The minimum value is obtained far a= 45. For the two limits, Eq. [14),
tana = 1/2 and tana = 2, the stresses increase by 25%. In a box section the
o stresses due to shear and torsion can be directly superimposec for each
e
side. TaKing the case of a solid section, however, far shear b is the width
of the web, whereas far torsion the effective wall thicKness b must be used.
' e
Oespite of the fact that the two states can not be directly superimposed it
is felt that a safe value far o (V, Tl is obtained if o (V) and o (T) are cal-
e e e
culated separately, using the corresponding width b and b , and then added.
e
This value should not exceed a specified limit in arder to avoid a concrete
failure.

133
So far only complete truss action at high nominal shear stresses
1 T V
1: = -( -:z;-;;:- -+ 2h ) (40)
b o
leading to cracking of the web and a redistribution of the internal forces has
been considered. However, in the transition range between the uncracked state
and full truss action the concrete of the web provides an additional continuous-
ly dominishing rcsistance. :ue to the aggregate interlock a shear transfer in
the first formed cracks remains possible if the nominal shear stresses are rela-
tively small.

Considering the compression flange of a cross section, such as side 8 in Fig.6,

the inclined compression field due to shear and torsion is superimposed by axial
compression due to bending. Hence, cracking of the concrete will be delayed or
eliminateci depending on the relative magnitudes of the two effects. Hence, a
reduction of the shear reinforcement in the compression flange may be possible.

The inf luence of prestressing on the shear resistance of a beam under combined
bending and shear has been discussed in [20] (and also [21) ). The same observa-
tions hold if in addition torsion is acting. For high nominal shear stresses at
ultimate load a prestressed beam is acting like a reinforced beam as the strain
and crack pattern of the two beams will be similar. Hence, all previously derived
equations are applicable if the yield forces of the ordinary reinforcements are
replaced by the yield forces of the cornbined reinforcements.

In the transition range, however, prestressing has a beneficial effect as web

cracking will bE delayed and, hence, the additional resistance of the concrete
will remain active aver a wider range.

4. CEB-Specifications for Torsion

The CEB-Approach is based on the plastic analysis of the space truss model de-
scribed in this paper. lo simplify the discussion only the essentials are pre-
sented leaving out all acd~tional considerations such as prestressing, normal
forces, etc.

4 .1 Defin tions
The following definitions are introduced:
- Compatibility Torsion
- Equilibrium Torsion
- Circulatory Torsion
- Warping Torsion
134
Compatibility torsion is caused by deformations of adjacent members in statical-
ly indeterminate structures. It produces secondary effects which should be con-
sidered in evaluating the serviceability. It is however neglected in designs
based on ultimate strength.

Equilibrium torsion is necessary to establish equilibrium. Hence, it must be

taken into account in determining the ultimate strength of a member.

In box sections or solid sections a torsional moment produces at ultimate load

a constant shear flow around the per.imeter of the section. To characterize this
"circulation" the term "Circulatory Torsion" is introduced. Members with thin-
walled open cross sections on the other hand resist torsion mainly by their
warping resistance, i.e. by bending and shear in their walls [9), (22].

4.2 Circulatory Torsion

The design torsional moment TSd must be equal to or less than the resistance
value TRd

TSd :_ TRd

An upper limit of the resistance is given by the strength of the concrete com-
pression field:

TRd1 O 2 5f cd 2A ef h 'ef ~i~?

~~, .~<:J
0
( 41 )

Eq. (41) is based on Eqs. (1) and (3). The symbols are defined in Fig. 12.
Attention is given to the fact that they differ from the notation used previous-
ly in the paper. The design concrete stress fcd is equal to the characteristic
value of the strength divided by the appropriate resistance safety factor. The
inclination G of the compression field can be chosen between
3/5 < cot8 < 5/3 (42)

Compared to Eq. (14) the indicateci values far cotO have been chosen cautiously.
They assure a reasonable control of cracking under working load conditions.

The other limit of the resistance is provided by the space truss action of the
reinforcing cage consisting of longitudinal stringers, closed stirrups and con-
crete compression diagonals, i P
-
..eI J -I,
U
a r1 ,..J
-
-
-
-
I I!~
- adui tiune:JJ r~~ '_J i :..:i t ::in ce of thL~ c1mcn::te,
T , in the transition range between the uncracked state and full truss action:
cd
T + T (43)
TRd2 ef,d cJ

135
 het

Uet ( Perimeter)
Aef( Enclosed Areo)

As

A,l (Totol Areo)

lnclination of Compression Field : 8 (In Poper cx )

Stirrup Spocing s (In Paper t )

Etfective Woll Thickness

det (In
hef5 Poper be= 6 l
do

Enclosed Areo Aef (In Paper A 0 )

Fig.12: Notation tor CEB - Design Formulos

The stirrup reinforcs~ent (cross sectional arsa A and spacing sl follows

s
from Eq. (11-2)
.;:,,
T
1
ef,j
--2.:::."'
s
f
ef yw:';
cot8 (44)

with f d the design stress of the stirrup reinforcement, i.e. the characteristic
yw
value of the yield stress divided by the appropriate resistance safety factor.

From Eq. [11-1) the total longitudinal reinforcement, Asl' is derived

T u
A Sd ef cot8 (45)
sl f , 2A
y id ef
The resistance Tcd depends on the magnitude of the nominal shear stress T(TSdl
as follows:

li
Range Tcd t
l1
Uncracked : T < 5-T A h 501 0 0
Sd - Rd ef E:f Rc Aef hef
1 ( 1 5 T A h - T )
-
Transition : S1 ~ h < T < 151 A h [ l
Rd ef ef Sd cd ef ef 2 Rd ef ef Sd
Truss .~ction: 151 A h < T o
Rd ef ef - Sd

where: 1 Rd '.J.25fctd

136
The design tensile concrete stress, f , is equal to the characteristic value
ctd
of the tensile strength divided by the appropriate resistance safety factor.

The results of the CEB-design procedure are summarized in Fig. 13. In dimension-
less form the stirrup reinforcement A , the total longitudinal 'reinforcement A
s s1
and the additional resistance T of the concrete in the transition range are
cd
shown as functions of the design torsional moment TSd and the inclination of
the concrete compression field, i.e. cot8. The influence of the design con-
crete tensile stress f on T d is also shown. Comparison with Fig. 14 of
ctd c
reference [20) shows that the procedure is completely identical with the CEB-
Refined Method for the shear desigr.

1.0()-1---~---------__,

4fywd
As f . h t' s
cd ,e

Uncrock.ed Transition
I
I

0.50
~~!

Tsd
0.50 fcd Aef hef
0.88 1.00

0.88 1.00

Tsd
\~. 0.50 fcd'Ae1hef
\ \
""co,,-~&_, .j
\ Co-Q.., 6l . ~
\('I
\o... "~

~6) ~
0.50 \''
\ \
\
\
A~
sl f .
\
1.00 cd he(Uef
\
Fig.13: CEB-Method:
2
St1rrup and Long Reinforcements vs Tors1onal MJment [1N/rnm =145 psi)
137
 ......-

References:
[6] 1 [1ZJ, [15], [16], [17)
2.00 //0.7
A._ /
//
/V/
1.0

1.00
_.-_.-1.5
_..,.....o
0.50

Tsd
0.5 focsAerhet

0.88 1.00
TSd
0.5fcdA.fhet

0.50

1.00

1.0

. ."""o
Selecled Tesi Poinls: ""
4fytd
"'l 0.71 < colon 8 < 0.82
Asi. fcd. hef. Uef
2.00 o 0.95 c:coton 8 < 0.99
o colon 8 = 1.5 " " 1.5

Fig. 14: CEB - Method: Comporison with Test Results

In Fig. 14 a nurnber of test results where yielding of the reinforcement caused

failure are cornpared with the CEB procedure. Points for three ranges of cot8
are plotted. The results exceeding rnarkedly the abscissa 1.00 were obtained on
beams with relatively small solid cross sections and, hence, extreme ratios
between width and concrete cover, etc. Therefore the considerable difference
between the concrete area A and the enclosed area A f resulted in high norninal
c e
concrete stresses. The upper limit of the concrete stresses should not be in-
creased on the basis of these extreme results.

138
4.3 Combined Torsion - Shear

As discussed under 3.3 the reinforcements are determined separately for bend-
ing, torsion and shear. In the tension zone caused by bending all longitudinal
reinforcements must be added. In the compression zone, however, the reinforce-
ments can be reduced proportionally to the compression resultant of the bend-
ing moment.

The stirrup reinforcements for shear and torsion are added. It should be noted
that the transition range is governed by the intensity of the combined shear
flow. In arder to simplify the design procedure the additional resistances of
the concrete, Vcd for shear and Tcd for torsion, are neglected.

Finally, the acting design torque and shear farce, TSd and VSd' must fulfil
the condition:

TSd + VSd <

1
T V -
Rd1 Rd2
with: T = 0.25f 2A h sin20
Rd1 cd ef ef

V = 0.30f b dsin20
Rd2 cd w

4.4 Warping Torsion

Only the case of beams with U-shaped cross sections consisting of three walls
is treated. The shear components in each wall due to a shear farce and/or a
torsional moment can be calculated from purely static considerations. The
stirrup reinforcement in each wall and the longitudinal reinforcement due to
bending, shear and torsion can then be designed. Far the strength analysis of
beams with arbitrary thin-walled open cross sections references [9] and [22]
may be consulted.

5. Summary

The CEB-Approach to the torsional strength of reinforced and prestressed con-

crete beams is based on the plastic analysis of a space truss model with a
variable inclination a of the concrete compression field. Limits on the inclina-
tion, 3/5 < tana < 5/3, restrict the redistribution of the internal forces at
ultimate load.

The same model is used in the CEB Shear Design. Hence, the general loading case
of combined bending - shear - torsion can be treated in a uniform and consist-
ent manner.
139
Notati on
1) Used in Paper
A area enclosed by the perimeter u connecting the corner stringers
o of a cross section

Al cross sectional area of the lower stringer or the longitudinal rein-

forcement

AL cross section of longitudinal stringer, all stringers equal

AS cross sectional area of the stirrup

A cross sectional area of the upper stringer
u
a width of rectangular box section
b width of shear wall; width of web
b effective wall thickness
s
eu centroid of perimeter u of a cross section
o diagonal resultant of the concrete compression field

do diameter of circle inscribed in perimeter u

F stringer farce

Fl farce in the lower stringer

F farce in the upper stringer
u
F yield farce of the ~tringers i
yi
F yield farce of longitudinal stringer, all stringers equal
yl
F yield farce of the lower stringer
yl
F yield farce of the upper stringer
yu
h depth of shear wall, i.e. distance between the longitudinal rein-
forcements enclosed by the stirrups; distance between the tension
and compression resultant caused by M; or height of rectangular box
section
M bending moment
M plastic bending moment
p
M plastic bending moment if shear foce V O and torsional moment T o
pO
s stirrup farce
sy yield farce of a stirrup
s depth of shear wall side
T torsional moment
T plastic torsional mornent
p
T plastic torsional rnornent if bending moment M O and shear farce V o
pO
t spacing of stirrups
u length of perimeter cannecting the corner stringers of a cross section
V shear farce
V plastic shear farce
p
V plastic shear farce if bending rnoment M O and torsional moment T o
pO
140
 dis~a~se of stringer i from axis (Fig. 3)
zi
z
u
distance of centroid eu from axis (Fig. 3)
a. angle of inclination of the concrete compression field
factor <
e: normal strain
n factor <
i) angle of twist
o normal stress

ob bending stress due to distorsion of side wall

o concrete stress of the compression field
c
o yield stress of the reinforcement
y
o yield stress of the lower stringer or the yield stress of the
yl
longitudinal reinforcement
o yield farce of longitudinal stringer, all stringers equal
yl
cr yield stress of the stirrup reinforcement
yS
cr yield stress of the upper stringer
yu
T nominal shear stress
(T b) shear flow

2 l CEB-Notation

A area enclosed by the perimeter u f connecting the corner stringers

ef of a cross section e
A cross sectional area of stirrup
s
cross sectional area of total longitudinal reinforcement
\1
b width of web
w
d effective depth of beam
f design concrete stress, i.e. characteristic value of concrete
cd
strength divided by resistance safety factor
f design concrete tensile stress, i.e. characteristic value of tensile
ctd
strength divided by resistance safety factor
f design stress of longitudinal reinforcement, i.e. characteristic
yld
value of yield stress divided by resistance safety factor
f design stress of stirrup reinforcement, i.e. characteristic value of
ywd
yield stress divided by resistance safety factor

hef effective wall thickness

s spacing of stirrups
T torsional resistance provided by space truss action
ef Id
T additional torsional resistance of the concrete in the transition
cd
range

TSd design :orsional moment, i.e. torsional moment multiplied by

load saf Pty factor

TRd design resistance value of torsional strength, i.e. torsional

strength divided by resistance safety factor
141
vcd additional shear resistance carried by concrete in the transition
range

VSd design shear farce, i.e. shear farce multiplied by load safety factor

uef length of perimeter connecting the longitudinal corner reinforce-

rnent
0 angle of inclination of the concrete compression diagonals

def diameter of circle inscribed into the perimeter u f

8
1 = 0.25f ctd
Rd
Referenr::es

[1) ACI-Committee 438, "Torsion of Structural Concrete"; Publication

SP-18, ACI, 1968.
(2) Comit Euro-International du Bton, "Systme international de rgle-
mentation technique unifie de structures"; Inforrnation Bulletin
No 124/125, Paris, April 1978.

(3) Cornit Europen du Bton, "Effort tranchant-Torsion"; Manuel de

de Calcul, Inforrnation Bulletin No. 92, Paris, June 1972.
(4) Schweizerischer Ingenieur- und Architekten-Verein (SIA),
"Bruchwiderstand und Bernessung von Stahlbeton- und Spannbetontrag-
werken" (Ultimate Strength and Design of Reinforced and Prestressed
Concrete Mernbers), Swiss Code No. 162, Recommendation No. 34, SIA,
Zurich, 1976.
(5] Collins, M.P., "The Normal Moment Yield Criterion Applied to Beams
in Flexure - Torsion"; Proceedings, International Conference on
Shear, Torsion and Bond in Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete,
P.S.G. College of Technology, Coimbatore, India, January 1969.
[6) Omorieux, J.M., "Essais la torsion de poutres tubulaires en bton
prcontraint" (Torsion Tests on Prestressed Concrete Box Girdersl;
Annales de l'institut technique du batiment et des travaux publics,
No. 282, June 1971.
[ 7] Elfgren, L., Karlsson, I . Losberg, A., "Torsion - Bending - Shear
Interaction far Concrete Beams"; Journal of the Structural Division,
ASCE, Vol. 100, No. ST8, August 1974.
(8) FlQgge, W., "Stresses in Shells", 4th printing, Springer Verlag,
Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1967.
(9) Grob, J., "Traglast von St~ben mit dOnnwandigen offenen Querschnitten"
(Plastic Strength of Beams with Thin-Walled Open Cross Sectionsl,
Report No. 56, Institute of Structural Engineering, Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology Zurich, June 1975.

(10) Gvozdev, A.A., Lessig, N.N., Rulle, L.K., "Research on Reinforced

Concrete Beams under Cornbined Bending and Torsion in the Soviet
Union"; Publication SP-18, ACI, 1968.

142
(11] Hsu, T., "Post-Cracking Torsional Rigidity of Rcinforced Concrete
Sections"; Journal of the American Concrete Institute, Val. 70,
No. 5, May 1973.
(12] Hsu, T., "Torsion of Structural Concrete-Behavior of Reinforced
Concrete Rectangular Members"; Publication SP-18, ACI, 1968.
[13] Lampert, P .. Collins, M.P., "Torsion, Bending and Confusion -
An Attempt to Establish the Facts"; Journal of the American Concrete
Institute, Val. 69, No. 8, August 197=.

[14] Lampert, P . ThUrlimann, B. "Ultimate Strenfth and Design of Rein-

forced Concrete Beams in Torsion and Bending"; Publications No. 31-I,
IABSE, Zurich, 1971.
(15] Lampert. P., ThUrlimann, B.. "Torsionsversuche an Stahlbetonbalken"
(Torsion Tests on Reinforced Concrete Beams); Report No. 6506-2,
Institute of Structural Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology ZUrich, June 1968.
[16] Lampert, P., LUchinger, P . ThUrlimann, B., "Torsionsversuche an
Stahl- und Spannbetonbalken" (Torsion Tests on Reinforced and Pre-
stressed Concrete Beams); RepQrt No. 6506-4, Institute of Structural
Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, February
1971.
(17] Leonhardt, F., Schelling, G., "Torsionsversuche an Stahlbetonbalken"
(Torsion Tests on Reinforced Concrete Beams); Report No. 239,
Oeutscher Ausschuss fUr Stahlbeton, Berlin, 1974.
[18] LUchinger, P., "Bruchwiderstand van Kastentr~gern aus Stahlbeton
unter Torsion, Biegung und Querkraft" (Strength of Reinforced Concrete
Box Girders Subjected to Combined Torsion, Bending and Shearl;
Report No. 69, Institute of Structural Engineering, Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology Zurich, May 1977.
[19] MUller, P., "Failure Mechanisms for Reinforced Concrete Beams in
Torsion and Bending"; Publications Nu. ,,'-1:1. l/l3'.JE, 1976.
[20] ThUrlimann, B., "Shear Strength of Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete
Beams - CEB Approach"; ACI-Symposium 1976, Philadelphia, USA.
(21] ThUrlimann, B., "A Case for Partial Prestressing"; Proceedings,
Structural Concrete Symposium, University of Toronto, Toronto,
May 1971.
[22] ThUrlimann, B., Grob, J., LUchinger, P., "Torsion, Biegung und Schub
in Stahlbetontr~gern" (Torsion, Bending and Shear of Reinforced Con-
crete Beams); Lecture Notes, Institute of Structural Engineering,
Swiss Federal Inskitute of Technology ZUrich, April 1975.
(23] ThUrlimann, B.. LDchinger. P . "Steifigkeit van gerissenen Stahl-
betonbalken unter Torsion und Biegung" (Stiffness of Reinforced
Concrete Beams Subjected to Torsion and Bending after Cracking);
Beton- und Stahlbetonbau, 68. Jahrgang, Heft 6, June 1973.
(24] Zia, P., "What Do We Know About Torsion in Concrete Members?";
Jour::.=i~ of t~1L1 S~!"'...:.:..tur(,l '. 1 Lvi.~i,_=-111, l"~C,, ".rriJ. 'P, ~,:n. :;:, :u11,--, 117r1.

143