Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 215231

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Composites: Part B
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb

Torsional behavior model of steel-ber-reinforced concrete members

modifying xed-angle softened-truss model
Hyunjin Ju a,1, Deuck Hang Lee a,2, Jin-Ha Hwang a,2, Joo-Won Kang b,3, Kang Su Kim a,, Young-Hun Oh c,4
a

Department of Architectural Engineering, University of Seoul, 90 Jeonnong-dong, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 130-743, Republic of Korea
School of Architecture, Yeungnam University, 280 Daehak-Ro, Gyeongsan, Gyeongbuk 712-749, Republic of Korea
c
Department of Architectural Engineering, Konyang University, 121 Daehak-Ro, Nonsan, Chungnam 320-711, Republic of Korea
b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 25 January 2012
Received in revised form 3 September 2012
Accepted 6 September 2012
Available online 15 September 2012
Keywords:
A. Fibers
A. Polymermatrix composites (PMCs)
B. Strength
C. Analytical modeling
Torsion

a b s t r a c t
Steel-ber-reinforced concrete (SFRC) is an efcient cement-based composite material that can compensate for the drawbacks of the material properties of conventional concrete and has better structural performances than conventional concrete. It can improve torsional behavior as well as exural and shear
behavior. However, analysis of the torsional behavior of SFRC members is quite complicated because
force equilibrium and strain compatibility in a three-dimensional space should be satised. Accordingly,
many studies proposed empirical evaluation equations for the torsional strength of SFRC members based
on experimental results. Therefore, this study derived a constitutive model of SFRC in tension, which
greatly inuences the torsional behavior of SFRC, based on the test results of SFRC shear panels under
biaxial stress, and this tensile behavior model was introduced to a xed-angle softened-truss model. A
theoretical evaluation model based on the modied xed-angle model for torsional behavior of SFRC
was developed, and the performance of the analytical model was also evaluated compared to test results
obtained from literature.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Since the 1960s, studies have been consistently carried out on
steel-ber-reinforced concrete (SFRC), which compensate for the
brittle material characteristics of conventional concrete [1,2].
Existing studies report that the inclusion of steel bers in concrete
drastically improves the crack and drying-shrinkage control capacity of concrete as well as tensile strength, exural capacity and
shear resistance performance [316]. In addition, SFRC may be
applicable to converting the brittle failure mode of concrete members to the ductile failure mode [1,4,5]. However, only some limited research on torsional behavior of SFRC members has been
performed, and most studies focused on investigations of tensile
or shear behavior [618]. As the complex and various oor plans,
heights and shapes of modern buildings and bridges often require
substantial consideration of torsion during structural design
[19,20], the torsional behavior of SFRC is an important research
Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 2 2210 5707; fax: +82 2 2248 0382.
E-mail addresses: s00z@uos.ac.kr (H. Ju), dklee@uos.ac.kr (D.H. Lee), asorange
@hanmail.net (J.-H. Hwang), kangj@ynu.ac.kr (J.-W. Kang), kangkim@uos.ac.kr
(K.S. Kim), youngoh@konyang.ac.kr (Y.-H. Oh).
1
Tel.: +82 2 2210 5375; fax: +82 2 2248 0382.
2
Tel.: +82 2 2210 5354; fax: +82 2 2248 0382.
3
Tel.: +82 53 810 2429; fax: +82 53 810 4625.
4
Tel.: +82 41 730 5615; fax: +82 41 730 5615.
1359-8368/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.09.021

theme and should be claried. Thus, in this study, a constitutive

relationship of SFRC in tension, which is very important in analysis
of the torsional behavior of SFRC members, was derived based on
results of the shear panel test [21,22]. This paper presents a torsional behavior model for SFRC members utilizing the proposed
tensile constitutive relationship. This analytical model is also validated by comparing to those test results reported in the literature
[20,2229].

2. Research signicance
Recent torsional behavior/strength models consider that the
torsional behaviors of SFRC members are heavily inuenced by
the tensile performance of SFRC. In general, the sectional elements
of a torsional member are under biaxial stresses, and thus, a clear
biaxial tensile behavior model is required to accurately predict the
torsional behavior of SFRC members. However, most of the tensile
behavior models of SFRC are based on the results of uniaxial tension tests. Accordingly, a constitutive relationship of SFRC in tension is proposed in this paper based on the results of shear panel
tests subjected to biaxial stresses, and a torsional behavior model
of SFRC member that adopts the proposed tensile constitutive relationship is presented. Moreover, the presented torsional behavior
model reects the difference of the angle between principal stresses and crack direction, which has been ignored in the xed-angle

216

H. Ju et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 215231

Nomenclature
A0
Ac
B
df
Ec
Ecf
Es
F
fc0
fcr
fcr,f
ffu
fly
fn
fr
fs
fsp
ft
fty
ft
fy
H
kc
kt
p0
ph
pc
q
s
T
td
Vf

a2
b

c21

area enclosed by the centerline of shear ow zone

cross-sectional area bounded by the outer perimeter of
the concrete
cross sectional width of member
diameter of ber
elastic modulus of concrete
elastic modulus of concrete
elastic modulus of the SFRC
ber factor
specied compressive strength of concrete
stress in concrete at cracking
stress in concrete or SFRC at cracking
ultimate strength of steel ber
direct tensile strength of longitudinal directions
average yield stress of the embedded steel bars
modulus of rupture
average stress of steel bars
splitting tensile strength of concrete
direct tensile strength of transverse directions
direct tensile strength
direct tensile strength
yield stress of bare steel bars
cross sectional height of member
ratio of the average compressive stress to the peak compressive stress in the concrete struts
ratio of the average compressive stress to the tensile
cracking stress in the concrete struts
perimeter of the centerline of shear ow
perimeter of the centerline of closed stirrup (2(x0 + y0))
perimeter of the outer concrete cross section
shear ow
spacing of transverse hoop bars
torsional moment
effective thickness of shear ow zone
volume fraction of steel ber
angle of applied principal compressive stress with respect to l axis
deviation angle (a2  a); 2b = tan1(c21/(e2  e1))
average shear strain in the 21 coordinate

model. The presented model is relatively concise and enables accurate evaluations of SFRC torsional behavior compared with the
existing torsional behavior models based on the smeared truss
approach.

3. Review of previous researches

The thin-walled tube theory proposed by Bredt [30], in which
torsional behavior of a thin and arbitrarily shaped tube is clearly
explained, has been adopted as the theoretical background for
the torsion design methods suggested in such modern concrete design codes as ACI318 [31], ASHTTO-LRFD [32], CEB-FIP [33], CSA
[34], and KCI [35].
Rausch [36] utilized the 45 plane truss analogy concept, proposed by Ritter [37] and Mrsch [38], for torsional analysis of concrete members, which so-called the space truss model or the
plastic space truss model [19,39]. Later, Anderson [40] pointed
out that the space truss model did not take into account the contribution of concrete to the torsional capacity, and proposed the torsional strength of RC members with sum of the torsional
contributions of the concrete and torsional reinforcements. In
1959, Lessig [41] proposed the skew-bending theory, which was

clt
eo
e1
e2
e1s
e2s
ecr
ed
eds
el
en
er
ers
es
et
ey
f

g
h
hcr
hu

q
qf
ql
qt

rcd
rfd
rcr
rc1
rc2
rl
rt

sc21
slt
wc
wt

average shear strain in the lt coordinate

strain at specied compressive strength of concrete
average strain in the 1-direction
average strain in the 2-direction
average surface strain in the 1-direction
average surface strain in the 2-direction
cracking strain
average principal compressive strain
maximum principal compressive strain
average strain in the l-direction
average yield strain of the embedded steel bars
average principal tensile strain
maximum principal tensile strain
average strain of the steel bars
average strain in the t-direction
yield strain of the bare steel bars
softened coefcient of concrete in compression
reinforcement index, taken as (Atftyph)/(Alflys)
angle of twist per unit length
cracking angle of twist per unit length
ultimate angle of twist per unit length
steel ratio
bond factor that accounts for differing bond characteristics of the ber
longitudinal steel ratio
transverse steel ratio
average principal compressive stress in conrete
average principal compressive stress in SFRC
average principal tensile stress in concrete
average normal stresses of concrete or SFRC in the 1direction
average normal stresses of concrete in the 2-direction
applied normal stresses in the l-direction
applied normal stresses in the t-direction
applied shear stresses in the 21 coordinate
applied shear stresses in the lt coordinate
curvature of the concrete struts along the 2-direction
curvature of the concrete struts along the 1-direction

further developed by Hsu and his colleagues [42,43], and was

adopted in the ACI318 Building Code [44] from 1971 to 1989. Currently, many international design codes, such as ACI [31], CSA [34],
and CEB-FIP [31], include the 45 space truss models as the design
method for torsion utilizing the thin-walled tube theory proposed
by Lampert [45], Lampert and Thlimann [46], and Lampert and
Collins [47].
Truss models have been continuously developed according to
better understanding on the torsion and/or shear behavior of reinforced and prestressed concrete members [4856]. In torsional
models [4850,5254,5759], the effective thickness of the tube
walls is dened as the shear ow zone determined utilizing Bredts
thin-walled tube theory [30] and the compatibility relationships
for torsion with the assumption that the distribution of strain in
the crack direction (or principal tensile stress direction) within
the effective thickness is linearly distributed from the extreme outer ber (i.e., surface) of the tube to the depth of the effective tube
thickness. Such a linear strain gradient was measured closely from
experimental researches [60,61]. As torsional analysis models
using the softened-truss model are applicable for evaluating the
torsional behavior of reinforced concrete members as well as prestressed concrete members, many recent studies have adopted the
softened-truss model [53,54,6265]. For instance, softened-truss

217

H. Ju et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 215231

models have been utilized to predict the torsional capacity model

of high-strength concrete deep beams [61], FRP strengthened concrete beams [65] and SFRC beams [20,26] as well as prestressed
concrete or reinforced concrete members. With the progress of torsional analysis methods, many cement-based composites have
been developed since the 1960s to improve the brittle material
characteristics of concrete, and SFRC is such advanced highperformance material. There have been many studies on the tensile, shear, and exural behavior of SFRC [1,2,516] whereas there
are few studies on the torsional behavior of SFRC in the literature.
Due to the enhanced tensile strength and stiffness resulting
from the addition of steel ber to concrete, the torsional performance of a SFRC member is drastically increased [11,12].
Narayanan and Kareem-Palanjian [34] reported that the torsional
strength of SFRC with over 1.5% of the volume fraction of steel bers (Vf) increases by more than 25% compared to that of RC, and
Mansur and Paramasivam [23] also reported an about 27% increase
in torsional strength depending on the volume fraction of steel bers and the ber types. Moreover, Craig et al. [24] experimentally
conrmed that effectiveness of steel ber is maximized in SFRC
torsional members reinforced in both the longitudinal and transverse directions [24]. Many other studies [20,2629,66] also have
reported improved torsional performances of the SFRC members
based on experimental observations.
As the torsional behavior of SFRC members is heavily inuenced
by the material performances of the concrete under tension, many
researchers proposed constitutive relationships of SFRC in tension,
which were reected on their torsional strength or behavior models [47]. Mansur and Paramasivam [23] proposed three types of
torsional strength equations for SFRC based on the elasticity, plasticity, and skew-bending theories, and Craig et al. [24] proposed an
ultimate torsional strength model using the enhanced splitting
tensile strength (or modulus of rupture) of SFRC as a key parameter. Other torsional strength equations for SFRC were also proposed
by El-Niema [66] and Narayanan and Kareem-Palanjian [25].
Mansur et al. [26] proposed their initial model on the torsional
behavior of SFRC, in which the tensile constitutive relationship of
RA-STM [50,67] is modied for SFRC using Lim et al.s uniaxial tensile behavior model [12]. This model showed good estimation for
the post-cracking behaviors of SFRC specimens subjected to pure
torsion. However, since they assumed a fully cracked section status
through the overall behavior of a member, the initial torsional stiffness was signicantly under-estimated compared to the test results [26]. Karayannis [68] proposed two types of uniaxial tensile
behavior models of SFRC after cracking based on the model proposed by Lim et al. [12] with the critical volume fraction of steel
ber (Vf,cr) as the main variable, and presented a torsional behavior
model of SFRC using the nite difference method (FDM). Moreover,
they carried out torsional experiments on SFRC members with a
wide range of ber types and section shapes [27]. Although their
torsional behavior model was somewhat complex, it accurately
estimated the experiment results. In this approach, however, it is

difcult to reect the tensile behavior of SFRC subject to biaxial

stress due to the uniaxial-based tension constitutive relationship
used in the FDM model. Gunneswara Rao and Rama Seshu [20] improved the Mansur et al.s [26] model that tended to underestimate
the torsional stiffness of SFRC prior to cracking, by applying Saint
Venants elastic theory [67] to the tosional behavior of SFRC before
torsional cracking, which yielded more accurate analysis results.
The aforementioned researches reported a substantial enhancement of torsional behavior of SFRC due to the tensile stress transfer
capacity of steel bers at crack interfaces, which is believed to be
inuenced by the volume fraction of steel ber (Vf), interfacial
bond strength (su), and ber directionality at the crack interfaces.
The softened-truss models, which were adopted by the existing
torsional behavior models [39,48,50,52,53,60,67], are based on
the test results of shear panels subject to biaxial stress; however,
the constitutive models of SFRC in tension are based on the results
of the uniaxial direct tension tests. Therefore, shear panel tests are
required to more accurately estimate the torsional behavior of
SFRC members [1216]. The estimation of the torsional behavior
after cracking of the SFRC members reinforced asymmetrically in
the transverse and longitudinal directions also requires a consideration on the difference in angles between the principle stress and
the crack direction [56,69]. Therefore, this paper presents a constitutive relationship for SFRC in tension based on the results of recently conducted SFRC shear panel tests [21,22], and proposes a
torsional behavior model for SFRC modifying the original xedangle softened-truss model (FA-STM) [56,69].

4. The constitutive model for SFRC in tension

As mentioned in the previous section, the shear and torsional
behaviors of SFRC members rely heavily on the tensile performances of the materials subject to biaxial stress. In this respect,
a constitutive relationship of SFRC in tension was derived in this
study based on the results of SFRC shear panel tests conducted recently at the University of Toronto [21,22]. The size of each shear
panel specimens was 890 mm  890 mm  70 mm, and as shown
in Table 1, the key variables of the experimental program were
the specied compressive strength of concrete (fc0 ), the volume
fraction of steel ber (Vf), and the types of steel ber. The reinforcing bars were uniformly placed only in the longitudinal direction,
and the total area of the reinforcements was 2063 mm2, which corresponded to 3.31% of the reinforcement ratio (qs). In the test program, the concrete compressive strengths (fc0 ) were 50 MPa and
80 MPa for series C1 and C2, respectively; the aspect ratios of ber
(lf/df) were 81, 79, and 64 for series F1, F2 and F3, respectively; and
the volume fractions of steel ber were 0.5%, 1.0%, and 1.5% for series V1, V2 and V3, respectively.
Fig. 1 shows the tensile stressstrain relations obtained from
the SFRC shear panel tests and those estimated by existing models
[1216] shown in Table 2 for comparison. The panel specimens

Table 1
Summary of Toronto SFRC panel specimens [21,22].
Specimen names

C1F1V1
C1F1V2
C1F1V3
C1F2V3
C1F3V3
C2F1V3
C2F2V3
C2F3V3

Concrete

Steel ber

Reinforcement

fc0 MPa

e0cu 103

Vf (%)

lf (mm)

df (mm)

fy (MPa)

Asx (mm2)

qsx (%)

51.4
53.4
49.7
59.7
45.5
79.4
76.5
62.0

2.150
2.670
2.500
3.280
2.340
2.770
2.220
2.030

0.5
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5

50
50
50
30
35
50
30
35

0.62
0.62
0.62
0.38
0.55
0.62
0.38
0.55

0.40
0.81
1.21
1.18
0.95
1.21
1.18
0.95

552
552
552
552
552
552
552
552

2063
2063
2063
2063
2063
2063
2063
2063

3.31
3.31
3.31
3.31
3.31
3.31
3.31
3.31

218

H. Ju et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 215231

5
C1F1V1 test result
Vecchio and Collins (RC)
Tan and Mansur
Bischoff

Proposed model
Lim et al.
Voo and Foster

Tensile stress, 1 (MPa)

Tensile stress, 1 (MPa)

200 mm crack spacing

100 mm crack spacing

C1F1V2 test result

Proposed model

Vecchio and Collins (RC)

Lim et al.

Tan and Mansur

Voo and Foster

200 mm crack spacing

Bischoff

100 mm crack spacing

0
0

Tensile strain, 1 (x10-3mm/mm)

6
C1F1V3 test result

Proposed model

C1F2V3 test result

Vecchio and Collins (RC)

Lim et al.

Vecchio and Collins (RC)

Lim et al.

Tan and Mansur

Voo and Foster

Tan and Mansur

Voo and Foster

200 mm crack spacing

Bischoff

Tensile stress, 1 (MPa)

Tensile stress, 1 (MPa)

(b) C1F1V2 panel

(a) C1F1V1 panel

100 mm crack spacing

3
2
1

Proposed model

200 mm crack spacing

100 mm crack spacing

Bischoff

4
3
2
1
0

0
0

Tensile strain, 1 (x10-3mm/mm)

Tensile strain, 1 (x10-3mm/mm)

(c) C1F1V3 panel

(d) C1F2V3 panel

7
C1F3V3 test result

Proposed model

Vecchio and Collins (RC)

Lim et al.

Tan and Mansur

Voo and Foster

Tensile stress, 1 (MPa)

Tensile stress, 1 (MPa)

Tensile strain, 1 (x10-3mm/mm)

Bischoff

200 mm crack spacing

100 mm crack spacing

3
2
1
0

C2F1V3 test result

Proposed model

Vecchio and Collins (RC)

Lim et al.

Tan and Mansur

Voo and Foster

Bischoff

200 mm crack spacing

100 mm crack spacing

4
3
2
1
0

Tensile strain, 1 (x10-3mm/mm)

Tensile strain, 1 (x10-3mm/mm)

(e) C1F3V3 panel

(f) C2F1V3 panel

Fig. 1. Tensile stressstrain behavior of SFRC test panels and various prediction models.

with high ber factors (F, say greater than 0.95) or a high volume
fraction of steel ber (Vf) of 1.5 tend to show some strain-hardening behaviors, which can also be found in Chao et al.s test observations [70]. Moreover, the shear cracking strength appeared to be
similar to the
p cracking strength of conventional reinforced concrete, 0:33 fc0 [39,51], but the tensile behavior of SFRC in the
post-cracking region showed a drastic increase compared to the

RC models (i.e., the tensile stressstrain relationship proposed by

Vecchio and Collins [39,51]). The tensile behavior model proposed
by Lim et al. [12], which was adopted by most of the existing shear
and torsional behavior models, considerably under-estimated the
tensile behavior of the normal-strength specimens with low volume fractions of steel ber (Vf), while it accurately estimated the
tensile behaviors of the high-strength specimens. It is shown that

219

H. Ju et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 215231

Proposed model

C2F3V3 test result

Proposed model

Vecchio and Collins (RC)

Lim et al.

Vecchio and Collins (RC)

Lim et al.

Tan and Mansur

Voo and Foster

Tensile stress, 1 (MPa)

Tensile stress, 1 (MPa)

C2F2V3 test result

200 mm crack spacing

100 mm crack spacing

Bischoff

4
3
2

Tan and Mansur

Voo and Foster

200 mm crack spacing

Bischoff

100 mm crack spacing

1
0

0
0

Tensile strain, 1

Tensile strain, 1

(x10-3mm/mm)

(g) C2F2V3 panel

(x10-3mm/mm)

(h) C2F3V3 panel

Fig. 1. (continued)

Table 2
Constitutive models of SFRC in tension reported in literature.
Researcher(s)

Constitutive equation (descending branch)

Ref.

Vecchio and Collinsa

rr 1pfcr
for er > ecr
500e

[51]

rfr 2gl g0 su V f dlff

[12]

Lim et al.

Tan and Mansur

Abrishami and
Mitchell
Bischoff d
Voo and Fostere

f
r

for er > ecr

i
fcr  ftu eecrr eecrtf fcr for
h

ecr < er < etf

rfr ftu for er > etf

rfr 16 V f Ef er  ecr;y 6 16 V f f yf for er > ecr;y
rfr bf f cr for er > ecr
 
rfr rr K f K d dlff V f sb for er > ecr

[13]

[14]
[15]
[16]

p
a
fcr 0:33 fc0 .

p
b
gl 0:5; g0 0:405; su 2:5f ct 2:5 0:33 fc0 .

lf
c
1
ftu 2gl g0 suf V f d ; gl 0:33; g0 0:5; suf 4:12 MPa;ecr fEcrc ; etf ecr 1 0:48
f
0:39 fcr .
d
bf bc 0:4ff =fcr ; ff 3 MPa for er < ecr;y ; bf ff =fcr ; ff 1:5 MPa for
p
er > ecr;y ; bc 1=1 500er .

2
a
f
e
cr
rr 1p
1  2w
; a df =3:5; K d 1; sb 2:5f ct 2:5
; K f atanw=
p
lf
500er
p
0
0:33 fc ; w er  crack spacing.

this model actually cannot capture the hardening behavior observed in the specimens with high ber factors (F). The model proposed by Abrishami and Mitchell [14] considers the contribution of
bers only after yielding of reinforcement, thus, no direct comparison is made in Fig. 1. The tensile behavior model proposed by
Bischoff [15] was derived semi-empirically introducing a bond factor based on the uniaxial tensile responses of the SFRC prisms. This
model estimated the tensile behavior of SFRC relatively similar to
the experimental results before reinforcement yielding, but under-estimated the tensile behavior SFRC after reinforcement yielding compared to the other models. The model proposed by Tan and
Mansur [13], greatly underestimated the tensile behavior of SFRC
when the volume fraction of steel ber (Vf) was low, but yielded results similar to those of Bischoff [15] when the volume fraction of
steel ber (Vf) was high. The variable-engagement model (VEM)
proposed by Voo and Foster [16] is also shown in Fig. 1, for which
the crack width was calculated by multiplying the tensile strain (er)
by crack spacing (Sr), and the cracking spacing (St) of 100 mm and
200 mm were presented. The VEM showed relatively good analysis
results, and in particular, a considerably good estimation was provided for the normal strength SFRC panels (C1 series). However,
the tensile behaviors of the high-strength SFRC specimens (C2)

were over-estimated, and the cracking strength was also estimated

very different from test results.
Most of the existing tensile behavior models presented in Table
2 were derived based on the results of the uniaxial tension tests,
leading to inappropriate evaluation of the tensile behaviors of
the SFRC panels subjected to biaxial stresses. Some models are also
quite complex in their form. Thus, it is necessary to develop a simple constitutive model in tension that can describe the tensile
behavior of SFRC subjected to biaxial stresses. To reect the effect
of bers on tensile behavior of concrete concisely, this paper utilizes the ber factor (F) [6], which simultaneously considers the ber length (lf), ber diameter (df), volume fraction of steel ber (Vf),
and bond factor (qf) according to ber types. The tensile stress
strain relation of SFRC subject to biaxial stress was derived using
the Vecchio and Collins model [51] as the basic form of the equation as follows:

rfr Ecf er 6 fcr;sfrc for er < ecr

rfr

p
0:33 fc0 3:5F
1 500er 0:51F

for

er P ecr

1a

1b

where rfr is the average tensile stress of SFRC, Ecf is the modulus of
elasticity of SFRC (fcr,sfrc/ecr), and fcr,sfrc is the cracking strength of
SFRC, which can be obtained by substituting the cracking strain (ecr)
into Eq. (1b) under the assumption that the cracking p
strain
(ecr) is
similar to that of conventional concrete, (that is, 0:33 fc0 =Ec ) [51].
The ber factor (F) is dened as (ld/df)Vfqf, and qf is the bond factor,
which is 1.0 for hooked-type, 0.75 for crimped-type, and 0.5 for
straight-type [8]. As shown in Fig. 1, the proposed model very closely estimated the tensile behaviors of the shear panels subjected
to biaxial stresses. In particular, the tensile strain-hardening behaviors of the specimens with ber factors (F) greater than 1.0, such as
C1F1V3, C1F2V3, C2F1V3, and C2F2V3, were accurately estimated.
Fig. 2a shows the normalized shear cracking strength of SFRC
measured from SFRC shear panel tests. It is worthwhile to note
that, in the case of the ber factor (F) with greater than

pabout
1.0, the cracking strength tended to be lower than 0:33 fc0 that
is generally used for the cracking strength of RC. This shows that
ber-reinforced concrete may have a similar or slightly lower level
of shear cracking strength compared to that of RC as reported by
Harajli et al. [71] In this study, this phenomenon was inferred to
be due to the decrease in the net concrete cross-sectional area
according to the increase in the volume fraction of steel bers
(Vf). Thus, the proposed model reected the decrease in cracking

220

H. Ju et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 215231

5. Modied xed-angle softened truss model

Normalized shear cracking strength

(fcr,test / 0.33fck)

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

Toronto panel test results

0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

Fiber factor, F

(a) Effect of fiber factor (F) on the shear cracking strength

Normalized stress, 1/fcr

df = 0.5, lf = 50, f = 1.0

1.5

Smeared-truss models can be classied into the rotating-angle

model and the xed-angle model according to consideration of
the crack direction. The former category includes the compression
eld theory (CFT) [39], the modied compression eld theory
(MCFT) [51] and the rotating-angle softened-truss model (RASTM) [50], while the latter category includes the xed-angle
softened-truss model (FA-STM) [69] and the softened-membrane
model (SMM) [67]. Despite the slight difference between the two
types of truss models, both theoretical models fully satisfy the
equilibrium, strain compatibility, and stressstrain relationships
of material, which are known as Naviers three fundamental principles of structural analysis [42,54,67]. For the analysis of SFRC torsional behavior, this study proposes a constitutive relationship of
SFRC in tension based on the SFRC panel tests, and FA-STM is modied to make it suitable for torsional analysis under the assumption that SFRC members can be treated as plane elements
idealized with the thin tube [41]. The FA-STM [67,69] applies the
stressstrain relationships of concrete in the xed-crack direction,
which is determined from the stressstrain relation in the principal
stress direction. Thus, this model cannot appropriately consider
the difference between the stresses in the crack direction and in
the principal stress direction as the deviated angle (b) between
the initial crack (a2) and the principle stress direction (a) increases,
as shown in Fig. 3 [72,73]. Later, the deviated angle (b) was

1
Vf = 0.5 %
Vf = 1.0 %

0.5

Vf = 1.5 %

0
1

Tensile strain, 1 (x10-3mm/mm)

2
2

(c) Stresses at initial crack

direction

r
(d) Stresses at principal
direction

0
1

( l , lt )

hooked-type (f = 1.0)

d
d

crimped-type (f = 0.75)

0.5

21
1

2
straight-type (f = 0.5)

1.5

(b) Element in l - t direction

2
t

df = 0.5, lf = 50, Vf = 1.5 %

Normalized stress, 1/fcr

lt

(a) Element coordinate

system

(b) Effect of fiber volume fraction

l
l

1
0

lt

c
1

21c

Tensile strain, 1 (x10-3mm/mm)

2 2 2

dc

(c) Effect of fiber type

Fig. 2. Characteristics of proposed tensile behavior model for SFRC.

strength as the ber factor (F) increases, and changes in the tensile
behavior of SFRC due to the volume fraction of the steel ber (Vf)
and the ber types, as shown in Fig. 2b and c, respectively. That
is, the tension stiffening and strain hardening can be described easily by the proposed tensile behavior model as function of the ber
factor (F).

c
2

c
, 21
)

rc

21c

c
, 21
)

( t , lt )
(e) Mohrs stress circle
Fig. 3. Average stresses of an element in thin-walled tube.

221

H. Ju et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 215231

incorporated in the softened membrane model for torsion (SMMT)

[53] and the more recent text book [70], whereas it was considered
in the concrete in compression only but not in the concrete in tension. In this study, the stresses and strains in the xed-crack direction (21 direction) were calculated by transforming the stresses
and strains in the principal stress direction (dr direction) by the
deviated angle, b, rather than modifying the concrete stressstrain
relationship to account for the b. The proposed method for torsional behavior analysis of SFRC can be also applied to other advanced softened truss models developed for shear behavior
analysis such as softened membrane model (SMM) and distributed
stress eld model (DSFM). In this study, however, the derived SFRC
tensile constitutive model is applied to the modied FA-STM because this model is relatively simple and can reect the difference
of the angle between principle stresses and crack direction.
5.1. Equilibrium equations

qt

At
std

where Al is the area of the longitudinal reinforcements p0 is the

perimeter of the centerline of shear ow, td is the effective thickness
of the shear ow zone, and s is the spacing of transverse reinforcement. According to Bredts thin-walled tube theory [30], the relationship between the shear stress within the shear ow zone and
the torsional moment can be expressed as follows:

T 2A0 q 2A0 td slt

where A0 is the cross-sectional area enclosed by the center line of

the shear ow zone. In the case of a SFRC member subjected to pure
torsion, all normal stresses are assumed to be zero (i.e., rl = rt = 0),
and the initial crack angle (a2) becomes 45 [53,69] because the element A is under a pure shear stress condition, as shown in Fig. 4a.
5.2. Compatibility equations

As shown in Fig. 4, when a SFRC member is subjected to torsional moment (T), this external force is resisted by the shear ow
(q) in a thin-walled tube with an effective thickness of td [53]. Equilibrium equations in the shear ow zone can be expressed with reference to Fig. 3 as follows:

Fig. 4b shows element A in detail, which is the part of the thinwalled tube shown in Fig. 4a. The compatibility equation of this
element is calculated using Mohrs strain circle shown in Fig. 5
as follows:

rl rc2 cos2 a2 rc1 sin2 a2 sc21 2 sin a2 cos a2 ql fl

el e2 cos2 a2 e1 sin2 a2 c21 sin a2 cos a2

rt rc2 sin2 a2 rc1 cos2 a2  sc21 2 sin a2 cos a2 qt ft

et e2 sin2 a2 e1 cos2 a2  c21 sin a2 cos a2

slt rc1  rc2 sin a2 cos a2 sc21 cos2 a2  sin2 a2

clt 2e1  e2 sin a2 cos a2 c21 cos2 a2  sin2 a2

where rl and rt are the average normal stresses in the l and t directions, respectively, slt is the average shear stress in the lt coordinate, rc2 and rc1 are the average compressive and tensile stresses
of concrete in the 2 and 1 directions, respectively, sc21 is the average
shear stress of concrete in the initial crack direction (i.e., 21 coordinate), a2 is the angle between the lt and 21 coordinate, fl and ft
are the stress of reinforcement in the l and t directions, respectively.
ql and qt are the reinforcement ratios in the l and t directions,
respectively, which can be dened as follows:

ql

Al
p0 td

where el and et are the average strains in the l and t directions,

respectively, clt is the average shear strain in the lt coordinate, e2
and e1 are the average strain in the 2 and 1 directions, respectively,
and c21 is the shear strain in the 21 coordinate. The relationship
between average shear strain (clt) and the twist angle per unit
length (h) can be dened as follows [30]:

p0
c
2A0 lt

11

As indicated in Fig. 4a and b, a strain gradient at the concrete

strut idealized with a thin tube occurs when members with noncircular sections are subjected to torsion [48,52,53,60]. According

L
T

A
Shear flow path

td

kc f c
Effective outside surface

td
ds

A0
L

stresses

curvature

td
2

strains

Shear flow, q
per unit length around
perimeter P0

(a) Torsional member

10

kt f cr , f
rs

(b) Element A

Fig. 4. Torsional behavior of a SFRC member and strain gradients in thin-walled tube.

222

H. Ju et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 215231

where R is:

lt
l ,
2

21

2 ,

2 2 2
2

1 2

19

5.3. Constitutive relationships

21
1 ,

2e2s
4e2

clt sin 2a2 clt sin 2a2

The constitutive relationships of the steel bars in tension and

the concrete in compression of FA-STM proposed by Hsu and
Zhang [56] shown in Fig. 6 are used in this study. Eq. (1) proposed
in this study (Fig. 2) was applied as a tensile stressstrain relationship of SFRC. The stresses (rc2 and rc1 ) and strains (e2 and e1) in the
crack direction (21) can be determined by transforming the stresses and strains in the principal stress direction (dr) by the deviation angle of b as follows [70]:

21

lt

t ,
2

rc2 rcd cos2 b rcr sin2 b

20

Fig. 5. Mohr circle for average strains.

to Jeng and Hsu [53] and Jeng [54], the relationship between the
curvature of the strain gradient in a thin-walled tube and the twist
angle per unit length (h) is expressed as follows:

wc h sin 2a2

12a

wt h sin 2a2

12b

fc '

td

wc

e1s
wt

13

where e2s and e1s are the compressive and tensile strains at the surfaces of the tube in the 2 and 1 directions, respectively. Under the
assumption of a linear strain distribution, the relationship between
the average strains in element A within the effective depth (td) and
the maximum strain at the surface of the thin-walled tube can also
be expressed, as follows [53]:

e2
e1

e2s
2

e1s
2

d
d
r

Eq. 26
d

(a) Compressive stress-strain relationship of SFRC

rf

f cr ,sfrc

Eq. 1-b

f cr

Eq. 1-a

14a

Ecf = f cr ,sfrc / cr

14b

Ec = f cr / cr

Vecchio and Collins70

By substituting Eq. (11) into Eq. (12a) and then Eq. (13), the
effective thickness of the shear ow zone (td) is derived as follows
[53]:

2A0 e2s
td
p0 clt sin 2a2

fc '

where wc and wt are the curvature of compression and the tension

strut of concrete, respectively. As shown in Fig. 4b, the strain gradient in the 2 and 1 directions is assumed to have a linear distribution
within the effective thickness of the shear ow zone (td), which is
expressed as follows [53,54]:

e2s

nonsoftened

0
cr

(b) Tensile stress-strain relationship of SFRC

15

fs

where p0 is the perimeter of the centerline of shear ow, and A0 is

the cross-section area enclosed by the center line of shear ow,
which can be expressed, respectively, as follows:

p0 pc  4td

16

A0 Ac  0:5pc t d t2d

17

Bare rebar

fy
fn
Eq. 36

where pc and Ac are the perimeter and the area of the gross concrete
section. The effective thickness of the shear ow zone (td) also can
be modied by substituting Eqs. (16) and (17) into Eq. (15) as follows [53]:

2
s3



2
1
R
R
4
td
p2c  4RR 4Ac 5
 pc 1

1
2R 4
2
2

18

fs

fs

Es = f y / y

0 y
n

(c) Stress-strain relationship of steel rebar

Fig. 6. Stressstrain relationship of materials.

223

H. Ju et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 215231

rc1 rcd sin2 b rcr cos2 b

21

e2 ed cos2 b er sin2 b

22

e1 ed sin2 b er cos2 b

23

2s
td

where rcd and rcr are the average principal compressive and tensile
stresses in concrete, respectively, and ed and er are the average principal compressive and tensile strains, respectively. The deviation
angle (b = a2  a) between the initial crack angle (xed-crack angle)
and the angle of the principal stress direction is calculated from
Mohrs strain circle (Fig. 5) as follows [53,67,73]:

1
tan1
2

c21
e2  e1

1s

24

sc21 rd  rr sin b cos b

td

"     #
ed
ed 2
0

ffc 2
for
fe0
fe0

rd

1

ed =fe0  1

2 #

4=f  1

ed
61
fe0

for

ed
fe0

>1

5:8
1
At fty ph
f p q 6 0:9 where g
Al fly s
fc0 1 400er
g

rcd kc ffc0

f cr , f

rs

rc = kt f cr , f

fe0
eds  fe0 3

3eds 3eds 4e0  fe0 2

eds
fe0

>1

r =

rs
2

Fig. 7. Idealization of stress distributions in thin-walled tube to average stresses.

rcr kt fcr;sfrc

27

29a

for

1s

26b

28

eds eds 2
eds

for
61
fe0 3fe0 2
fe0

1 =

26a

where kc is the ratio of the average compressive stress to the peak

compressive stress of the concrete struts. kc is obtained by integrating Eq. (26) with respect to the compressive strain through the
effective depth (td), and then normalizing by the maximum compressive stress (ffc0 ) and the maximum principal compressive strain
(eds = 2ed) as follows:

kc 1 

As shown in Figs. 4b and 7b, the tensile strain gradient within

the effective thickness (td) in the perpendicular direction of the
compressive strut is also considered by using the average tensile
stress factor (kt), based on which the average tensile stress (rcr )
can be expressed, as follows [53]:

where f is the softening coefcient of concrete in compression, e0 is

the strain at the compressive strength of concrete, and fty and fly are
the yield strength of transverse and longitudinal reinforcement,
respectively. It is reported in several studies on material characteristics of SFRC [24,7476] that the compressive strength of SFRC was
almost same with that of conventional concrete, but the strain at
the compressive strength of SFRC (e0) appear to be somewhat greater than that of conventional concrete. Based on study results mentioned above, e0 of 0.003 was used in this study.
To transform a torsional member in the three-dimensional
space into a two-dimensional plane element, the average compressive stress in the concrete strut with effective thickness (td) needs
to be estimated considering the linear strain gradients induced by
the torsional moment. As shown in Figs. 4b and 7a, the average
compressive stress of the concrete struts can be expressed using
the average compressive stress factor (kc), as follows:

kc

ds

(b) Strain and stress distribution in tensile struts

and average stress block

25

As shown in Fig. 6a, the compressive stressstrain relationship of

concrete considering the softening effect of concrete is used in this
study as follows [56]:

"

d =

Additionally, the shear stress of concrete in the crack direction

(s
can be calculated by transforming the principal stresses by
the deviation angle (b) as follows [73]:

ffc0

= 2s
c 2 2

dc = kc f c '

(a) Strain and stress distribution in compressive

struts and average stress block

c
21 )

rd

fc '

ds

29b

30

where kt is the ratio of the average tensile stress to the tensile cracking stress of the SFRC strut. The average tensile stress factor (kt) is
obtained in the same way as the average compressive stress factor
[53].

kt

1
ers fcr;sfrc

ers

rfr er der

31

where ers is the maximum principal tensile strain (=2er), and rfr er
is calculated using Eq. (1). However, direct integration of Eq. (1b) is
difcult, thus Eq. (1b) is integrated numerically using the four-point
Gaussian quadrature [77] to determine an average tensile-stress
factor (kt) as follows:

kt

kt

ers
ers
2ecr

ers
61
ecr

for

2ecr

ers fcr;sfrc

for

32a

ers
>1
ecr

32b

where I is the area of the tensile stressstrain curve of SFRC after

cracking (er > ecr). Note that detailed calculation procedures are given in Appendix A.
As shown in Fig. 6c, the stressstrain relationship of reinforcement [48,50,53,67,69], which reects the tension-stiffening effect
of the embedded bar in concrete, is adopted in this study as
follows:

fs Es es

for

es 6 en

33a



es
for
fs fy 0:91  2B 0:02 0:25B

ey

es > en

33b

where fs is the stress in the reinforcement, Es is the modulus of elasticity of the reinforcement, es is the strain in the reinforcement, fy is
the yield strength of the bare bar, fn is the smeared yield strength of
the reinforcement, and ey is the yield strain of the bare bar. Here, en
is the smeared yield strain in the reinforcement that equals to
ey(0.932B), and B is dened as follows:

224

H. Ju et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 215231

 1:5
1 fcr
q fy

34

where q is the reinforcement ratio, which should be greater than

0.5%, and fcr is the shear cracking stress in the concrete.
5.4. Solution algorithm
The convergence conditions are imposed to the calculation procedures at any loading states, combining the equilibrium equations
(Eqs. (2) and (3)) as follows:

ql fl qt ft rl rt  rc2 rc1

35

ql fl  qt ft rl  rt  rc2  rc1 cos 2a2  2sc21 sin 2a2

36

Fig. 8 shows a ow chart of nonlinear analysis procedures. Here, b = 0

is used as an initial value under the assumption that the initial crack
angle is identical to the angle of principal stress. The following is a
summary of procedures for analyzing the torsional behavior of SFRC:

START
Select d and ds = d
Assume 21

Assume r
Cal. d , r
by Eq. (28), (30)
c

Existing studies have reported that the SFRC member showed

sufcient ductile behavior compared to the RC members
[11,12,23,24,26]. Accordingly, the load after the maximum value
decreases steadily as the angle of twist increases. But, when tests
are conducted under load-control system, the post-peak can be
hardly captured by data acquisition system. Thus, determining
the actual failure point of the specimens tested under load-control
is difcult. For this reason, the analysis of the specimens under
load-control was terminated when both the transverse and longitudinal reinforcements yielded. For specimens under displacement-control, the analysis was terminated when the principal
compressive strain (eds) at the surface of thinwalled tube reached
at 0.0035 [20,26].

6. Verication

Cal. l , t , lt , 21
by Eq. (8), (9), (10), (25)
c

Cal. p0 , A0 , td
by Eq. (16), (17), (18)
Cal. l , t , f l , f t
by Eq. (5), (6), (33)

Check if satisfy

l f l + t f t Eq. (35)

No

Yes

Check if satisfy

l f l t f t Eq. (36)

No

Yes
Cal. lt , T , ,
by Eq. (4), (7), (11), (24)

No

Select a value for ed and eds = 2ed.

Assume a value of c21.
Assume a value of er.
Calculate rcd and rcr using Eqs. (28) and (30).
Calculate rc2 , rc1 , e2, and e1 using Eqs. (20)(23).
Calculate el, et, clt, and sc21 using Eqs. (8), (9), (10), and (25).
Calculate p0, A0, and td using Eqs. (16)(18).
Calculate ql, qt, fl, and ft using Eqs. (5), (6), and (33).
If qlfl + qtft does not satisfy Eq. (35), then repeat steps 36.
If qlflqtft does not satisfy Eq. (36), then repeat steps 27.
Calculate T, h, and b using Eqs. (7), (11), and (24).
Select another value of ed in proper increments up to
eds = 0.0035, and repeat steps 211 to obtain the complete
response.

Cal. 2 , 1 , 2 , 1
by Eq. (20), (21), (22), (23)
c

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)

Is ds end
point of strain?
Yes
END

Fig. 8. Solution algorithm of the proposed model.

To verify the torsional behavior model presented in this study,

38 SFRC specimens were collected from previous studies [20,24
29]. The material and dimensional properties of the specimens
are shown in Table 3. All the collected specimens were reinforced
in the longitudinal and transverse directions, and more than the
minimum amount of reinforcements were provided, as specied
in the structural concrete design codes [31,35]. Moreover, the ber
factors (F) of the specimens ranged from 0.1 to 2.0, the volume
fractions of steel ber (Vf) were between 0.3% and 3%, and the compressive strengths (fc0 ) ranged from 17 MPa to 51 MPa.
Fig. 9 presents the comparison of test results on 38 SFRC torsional specimens and analysis results by the analytical model.
The dotted lines (refer to Analysis-0) indicate the analysis results
by the analytical torsional behavior model adopting the tensile
constitutive model presented in Eq. (1). The analysis model well
estimated the overall behavior of specimen including initial stiffness, but, torsional cracking moments of specimens were signicantly underestimated. This phenomena were also found by Jeng
and Hsu [53], who reported that torsional behavior model adopting
the tensile constitutive model derived in shear underestimated the
torsional cracking moment. They also reported that this is because
of the strain gradient effect which occurs within the effective
thickness in torsional members unlike the members subjected to
shear, and for this reason, they increased the tensile cracking
strength for torsion by 2.1 times greater than that for shear. Thus,
the tensile constitutive model derived from panel test in this study
should also be modied to be applied to torsional behavior model.
For this purpose, a tting coefcient for torsion (af) is introduced,
which can be estimated by the ratio of the torsional cracking moment obtained from test results to that of analysis results. The tting coefcient for torsion (af) of 1.7 was determined in this study,
and the modied tensile cracking strength for torsional member
can be expressed as follows:

225

H. Ju et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 215231

7
6

Torque (kNm)

(a) Vf = 0.3 %, F = 0.1

(b) Vf = 0.6 %, F = 0.2

R40C-F1

Analysis-F

R40C-F2

R40C-F3

Analysis-F

Analysis-F

Analysis-0

0
0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Angle of Twist (rad/m)

0.1

0.15

Analysis-F

R40L-F1

R40L-F2

Analysis-F

Analysis-F

0
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0
0

Angle of Twist (rad/m)

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Analysis-F

R40L-F4

Analysis-F

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0
0

Angle of Twist (rad/m)

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

R40T-F3

Analysis-F

0.05

0.1

0.15

Angle of Twist (rad/m)

Analysis-F
Analysis-0

0
0

R40T-F4

Analysis-0

Analysis-0

0
0.2

0.2

(l) Vf = 1.2 %, F = 0.4

Analysis-F

0.15

(k) Vf = 0.9 %, F = 0.3

R40T-F2

0.1

Angle of Twist (rad/m)

(j) Vf = 0.6 %, F = 0.2

0.05

Angle of Twist (rad/m)

7
6

Analysis-F
Analysis-0

0
0

0.2

R40T-F1

Analysis-0

Analysis-0

0.15

(i) Vf = 0.3 %, F = 0.1

R40L-F3

0.1

(h) Vf = 1.2%, F = 0.4

0.05

Angle of Twist (rad/m)

(g) Vf = 0.9 %, F = 0.3

Angle of Twist (rad/m)

0.2

Analysis-0

Analysis-0

0.15

(f) Vf = 0.6 %, F = 0.2

R40C-F4

0.1

0.05

Angle of Twist (rad/m)

(e) Vf = 0.3 %, F = 0.1

Analysis-0

Torque (kN

0.2

(d) Vf = 1.2 %, F = 0.4

Torque (kN

0.05

Angle of Twist (rad/m)

Torque (kN

Analysis-0

Analysis-0

0
0

(c) Vf = 0.9 %, F = 0.3

0
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Angle of Twist (rad/m)

Fig. 9. Verications of proposed model by comparison with test results in literature.

0.05

0.1

0.15

Angle of Twist (rad/m)

0.2

226

H. Ju et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 215231

30

30

Torque (kNm)

25

25

25

20

20

20

15

15

15

10

10

T3

10
Analysis-F

Analysis-0
0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0
0

0.05

Angle of Twist (rad/m)

Torque (kNm)

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Angle of Twist (rad/m)

(q) Vf = 0.9 %, F = 0.6

(p) Vf = 1.0 %, F = 1.0

25

(r) Vf = 0.5 %, F = 0.1

50

3
40

20

30

15
10

T9

20

RF1

Analysis-F

Analysis-F

Analysis-0

Analysis-0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Analysis-0

0.05

0.1

0.15

(s) Vf = 1.0 %, F = 0.3

0.25

0.3

40

30

30

20

30
20
A-1.5

Analysis-F

Analysis-F

10

B-1.0

Analysis-0
0

0
0.1

Angle of Twist (rad/m)

0.05

40
30

(w) Vf = 1.0 %, F = 0.3

0.05

Angle of Twist (rad/m)

RR3
1

Analysis-F

Analysis-0
0

(x) Vf = 3.0 %, F = 1.1

RR1

Analysis-F

Analysis-F
Analysis-0

Analysis-0
0.1

0.1

C-1.0

10

0.05

Angle of Twist (rad/m)

20

0.1

Angle of Twist (rad/m)

(v) Vf = 1.0 %, F = 0.3

50

Analysis-F

10

Analysis-0

Analysis-0
0

0.1

(u) Vf = 1.0 %, F = 0.3

50

A-1.0

0.05

0.05

40

20

Angle of Twist (rad/m)

(t) Vf = 1.5 %, F = 0.5

50

40

10

0.2

Angle of Twist (rad/m)

Angle of Twist (rad/m)

50

Analysis-F

0
0

0.25

A-0.5

10

Torque (kNm)

0.1

Angle of Twist (rad/m)

4

30

Analysis-F
Analysis-0

0
0.05

T8

Analysis-0

0
0

(o) Vf = 2.0 %, F = 2.0

T4

Analysis-F

Torque (kNm)

30

(n) Vf = 1.0 %, F = 0.6

(m) Vf = 1.5 %, F = 1.5

0
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

Angle of Twist (rad/m)

0.2

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Angle of Twist (rad/m)

Fig. 9. (continued)

fcr;sfrc af
where

p
0:33 fc0 3:5F
1 500ecr

af 1:7; ecr

0:51F

q
0:33 fc0 =Ec

37

The analysis results based on the modied tensile cracking

strength Eq. (37) are presented as a chain line in Fig. 9 (refer to
Analysis-F).
Fig. 9al shows comparisons of the Gunneswara Rao and Rama
Seshus test results [20] with the analysis results of the analytical

227

H. Ju et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 215231

18

18

(y) Vf = 0.5 %, F = 0.3

Torque (kNm)

15

12

T1
Analysis-F

7
6
5
4

0.02

0.04

0.06

10

(ab) Vf = 1.0%, F = 0.4

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

Angle of Twist (rad/m)

Angle of Twist (rad/m)

10

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

Angle of Twist (rad/m)

(ac) V f = 1.5 %, F = 0.6

Analysis-0

0
0

0.08

Analysis-F

Analysis-0
0

T05

Analysis-F

Analysis-0

Torque (kNm)

T2

(aa) Vf = 0.5%, F = 0.2

15

12

(z) Vf = 1.0 %, F = 0.6

3
2
1

T10

T15

Analysis-F

Analysis

Analysis-0

Analysis-0

0
0

0.02

0.04

0.06

Angle of Twist (rad/m)

0.08

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

Angle of Twist (rad/m)

Fig. 9. (continued)

model. These specimens were classied into three groups, (a)(d),

(e)(h), and (i)(l), according to gt/gl (refer to the bottom of Table
3). gt/gl of series (a)(d), (e)(h) and (i)(l) series was 1.36, 0.45
and 2.17, respectively. Moreover, the volume fraction of steel ber
in each group varied from 0.3% to 1.2%. For instance, from (a) to (d),
Vf increased from 0.3% to 1.2%. The analysis results of groups (a)
(d) conrmed that the analytical model well captured the effect
of the volume fraction of steel ber (Vf) on the torsional behavior
of SFRC. Such a tendency was also found in groups (e)(h) and
(i)(l). Moreover, in comparing each group for instance, comparing (a), (e), and (i) the analytical model rationally evaluated the
effect of the reinforcement ratio (i.e., gt/gl) on the torsional behavior of SFRC. However, the initial torsional cracking strengths of
these specimens were somewhat underestimated.
Fig. 9mp shows comparisons of the analysis results estimated
from the analytical model with the test results reported by Craig
et al. [24]. gt/gl was 0.60 for all specimens, and the main test variables were the volume fraction (Vf) and the aspect ratio (ld/df) of
steel ber. The analysis results of the analytical model showed
pretty close agreements with tests results of the SFRC specimens
regardless of the volume fraction of steel ber (Vf) and the ber
type. In particular, the behaviors of specimens T3, T8, and T9 with
ber factors (F) greater than 1.0 were estimated very accurately by
the analytical model. However, the failure points of these specimens showed some differences.
Fig. 9q shows the test results reported by Narayanan and
Kareem-Palanjian [25] and estimations by the analytical model
presented in this study. Narayanan and Kareem-Palanjian carried
out experiments on a total of ten SFRC torsional specimens, as
shown in Table 3. However, there is no information on the torque-twist relation of the specimens (i.e., torsional behavior), except for specimen RF1; thus, for those specimens, only the
torsional strengths were estimated by the analytical model as provided in Table 3. For specimen RF1, the analytical model somewhat

underestimated the torsional strength and overall behavior. However, the torsional strengths of the rest of the specimens, were very
accurately estimated, in which the average of test to analysis value
(Tu,test/Tu,cal.) for the ten specimens was 1.09, the standard deviation
(SD) was 0.141, and the coefcient of variation (COV) was 0.130.
Fig. 9rv presents comparisons of the experimental results reported by Mansur et al. [26] with the analysis results. Specimens
A-0.5, A-1.0, and A-1.5 shown in Fig. 9rt had an gl of about
0.6%, and the volume fractions of steel ber (Vf) were 0.5%, 1.0%,
and 1.5%, respectively. Moreover, for specimens B-1.0 and C-1.0
shown in Fig. 9uv, the volume fraction of steel ber (Vf) was
1.0%, and gl and gt were about 1.5 and 2.0 times greater than the
A series, respectively. The analysis result of specimen A-0.5 with
a small volume fraction of steel ber (Vf) was somewhat overestimated in terms of the strength and deformation capacity compared
to the test result, which is thought to be due to the balling of ber.
In terms of the rest of the specimens, the analytical model appears
to accurately reect the effect of the volume fraction of steel ber
(Vf) and the relative reinforcement ratio (gt/gl) on the torsional
behavior of SFRC.
Fig. 9w and x shows comparisons of the test results by Chalioris
and Karayannis [27] with those of the presented analytical model.
The volume fractions of steel ber (Vf) in the two specimens were
1.0% and 3.0%, respectively, and the corresponding ber factors (F)
were 0.3 and 1.1, respectively. The proposed model slightly overestimated the torsional strength of the specimens, but accurately
predicted the overall torsional behavior of the specimens.
Fig. 9yac shows comparisons of the experimental results reported by Al-Ausi et al. [28] and Kaushik and Sasturkar [29] with
the analysis results of the analytical model. As indicated by the torque-twist behavior of the specimens, it seems that the experiments
were performed under load-control; thus, the analysis was terminated when both the longitudinal and transverse reinforcements
yield. Although the analysis results showed a difference in the

228

Table 3
Comparison of the proposed model with previous tests.
Ref.

Specimen

fc0 MPa

H  B (mm  mm)

x0 (mm)

y0 (mm)

gl (%)

gt (%)

fly (MPa)

fly (MPa)

s (mm)

Vf (%)

lf
df

qf

hu,test

hu,cal.

hu;test
hu;cal:

rad/m  102
[20]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

40.05

200  100

72

172

1.00

1.36

90

0.30

90

0.30

41.06

200  100

72

172

1.00

1.36

90

0.60

90

0.60

R40C-F3

41.98

200  100

72

172

1.00

1.36

90

0.90

90

0.90

R40C-F4

43.26

200  100

72

172

1.00

1.36

90

1.20

90

1.20

R40L-F1

41.28

200  100

74

174

1.57

0.70

100

0.30

100

0.30

R40L-F2

42.16

200  100

74

174

1.57

0.70

100

0.60

100

0.60

R40L-F3

43.37

200  100

74

174

1.57

0.70

100

0.90

100

0.90

R40L-F4

44.06

200  100

74

174

1.57

0.70

100

1.20

100

1.20

R40T-F1

41.47

200  100

72

172

0.57

1.23

100

0.30

100

0.30

R40T-F2

42.81

200  100

72

172

0.57

1.23

100

0.60

100

0.60

R40T-F3

43.06

200  100

72

172

0.57

1.23

100

0.90

100

0.90

R40T-F4

43.87

200  100

72

172

0.57

1.23

100

1.20

100

1.20

T3

32.19

304.8  152.4

112.4

264.8

1.09

0.65

177.8

1.50

177.8

1.50

T4

28.95

304.8  152.4

112.4

264.8

1.09

0.65

177.8

1.00

177.8

1.00

T8

33.78

304.8  152.4

112.4

264.8

1.09

0.65

177.8

2.00

177.8

2.00

T9

29.64

304.8  152.4

112.4

264.8

1.09

1.30

88.89

1.00

88.89

1.00

RF1

42.3

178  85

56.5

149.5

0.77

0.44

60

0.90

60

0.90

RF2

51.3

178  85

53.92

146.9

0.77

0.73

105

0.59

105

0.59

RF3

49.1

178  85

53.92

146.9

0.77

0.51

150

0.82

150

0.82

RF4

46.1

178  85

56.5

149.5

0.77

0.25

105

1.09

105

1.09

RF5

48.6

178  85

56.5

149.5

0.77

0.17

150

1.16

150

1.16

RF6

48.6

178  85

53.92

146.9

0.25

1.28

60

0.52

60

0.52

RF7

46.1

178  85

53.92

146.9

0.25

0.73

105

1.11

105

1.11

RF8

44.7

178  85

56.5

149.5

0.25

0.44

60

1.42

60

1.42

RF9

47.5

178  85

56.5

149.5

0.25

0.25

105

1.61

105

1.61

RF10

49.1

178  85

53.92

146.9

0.51

1.28

60

0.84

60

0.84

A-0.5

25.8

300  300

260

260

0.63

0.69

120

0.50

120

0.50

A-1.0

21.4

300  300

260

260

0.63

0.69

120

1.00

120

1.00

A-1.5

28

300  300

260

260

0.63

0.69

120

1.50

120

1.50

B-1.0

21.4

300  300

260

260

0.95

1.03

80

1.00

80

1.00

C-1.0

21.4

300  300

260

260

1.27

1.37

60

1.00

60

1.00

RR1

18.96

200  100

62

162

1.57

0.56

200

1.00

200

1.00

RR3

16.89

200  100

62

162

1.57

0.56

200

3.00

200

3.00

T1

40.22

310  152

114.5

272.5

0.83

0.73

100

0.50

100

0.50

T2

40.15

310  152

114.5

272.5

0.83

0.73

100

1.00

100

1.00

T05

24.22

300  125

69

244

0.49

1.05

45

0.50

45

0.50

T10

26.57

300  125

69

244

0.49

1.05

45

1.00

45

1.00

T15

25.51

300  125

69

244

0.49

1.05

45

1.50

45

1.50

Tu,cal.

T u;test
T u;cal:

kN m

41
0:54
41
0:54
41
0:54
41
0:54
41
0:54
41
0:54
41
0:54
41
0:54
41
0:54
41
0:54
41
0:54
41
0:54

0.5

12.63

13.22

0.955

5.56

5.60

0.992

0.5

12.05

13.09

0.921

5.69

5.73

0.992

0.5

12.32

12.94

0.952

5.73

5.87

0.976

0.5

12.60

12.91

0.976

5.82

6.01

0.967

0.5

15.77

14.59

1.081

4.11

4.49

0.914

0.5

15.47

14.56

1.063

4.19

4.63

0.904

0.5

16.21

14.67

1.105

4.23

4.79

0.884

0.5

14.53

14.67

0.990

4.23

4.94

0.858

0.5

15.77

18.26

0.864

3.85

4.40

0.874

0.5

15.84

19.09

0.830

3.93

4.52

0.871

0.5

15.23

19.14

0.796

3.98

4.63

0.859

0.5

14.51

19.27

0.753

4.02

4.75

0.845

50
0:5
30
0:5
50
0:5
50
0:5

1.0

4.48

8.01

0.559

16.84

17.11

0.984

1.0

7.06

9.15

0.771

14.13

14.61

0.967

1.0

8.59

7.90

1.087

20.23

19.79

1.022

1.0

6.14

8.67

0.709

16.50

20.23

0.816

38
0:39
30
0:3
30
0:3
30
0:3
30
0:3
30
0:3
30
0:3
30
0:3
30
0:3
30
0:3

1.0

8.71

24.19

0.360

2.80

2.65

1.055

0.75

27.59

2.74

2.62

1.046

0.75

26.52

2.56

2.45

1.046

0.75

23.35

2.60

2.33

1.116

0.75

21.72

2.76

2.29

1.206

0.75

23.17

2.18

2.37

0.917

0.75

8.52

2.18

2.19

0.996

0.75

38.95

2.67

2.09

1.278

0.75

1.31

2.63

2.00

1.314

0.75

26.10

2.74

3.03

0.902

30
0:8
30
0:8
30
0:8
30
0:8
30
0:8

1.0

4.57

3.83

1.194

27.34

33.79

0.809

1.0

5.28

4.05

1.304

29.01

35.18

0.825

1.0

5.26

3.77

1.398

34.67

37.87

0.916

1.0

5.96

5.13

1.161

36.46

46.71

0.781

1.0

5.90

5.43

1.087

40.86

51.79

0.789

30
0:8
30
0:8

1.0

8.80

11.00

0.800

2.73

3.58

0.762

1.0

10.09

10.88

0.928

3.15

4.14

0.761

30
0:5
30
0:5

0.5

5.53

5.44

1.016

13.95

14.49

0.963

0.5

6.09

5.55

1.097

15.67

15.55

1.007

38:6
0:46
38:6
0:46
38:6
0:46

0.5

5.11

5.94

0.860

7.50

8.05

0.932

1.0

4.89

5.63

0.868

9.00

8.58

1.049

1.0

5.33

5.93

0.899

8.50

9.14

0.944
0.213
0.225

Mean
SD
COV

Mean
SD
COV

C: compression failure, P: pull-out failure, gl: longitudinal reinforcement ratio to sectional area (=Al/Ac), gt: transverse reinforcement ratio to sectional area (=Atph/(Acs)) where, ph = 2(x0 + y0), Ac = BH.

0.930
0.951
0.130
0.136

H. Ju et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 215231

[24]

R40C-F1
R40C-F2

Tu,test

229

H. Ju et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 215231

initial stiffness of the specimens, the overall torsional stiffness and

behavior after cracking were reasonably well estimated by the proposed model.
As shown in Table 3, the ratios of the experimental and analysis
results in terms of the torsional strength of all the specimens
(Tu,test/Tu,cal.) showed a mean, a SD, and a COV of 0.951, 0.130 and
0.136, respectively. Moreover, for the ratios of the twist angle per
unit length at ultimate (hu,test/hu,cal.), the average, SD, and COV were
0.944, 0.213 and 0.225, respectively, which are considered excellent results compared to existing prediction models.

1
ers fcr;f

kt

Z
0

In this study, based on the results of the SFRC panel tests, a simple and rational constitutive model of SFRC in tension was proposed, and the proposed tensile behavior model was applied to
the modied xed-angle softened-truss model in order to estimate
the torsional behavior of SFRC members. Moreover, the proposed
model was veried by comparing the experimental results of 38
SFRC beams, based on which the following conclusions were made:
(1) The tensile behavior model for SFRC proposed in this study
considered the bond properties according to the volume
fraction of steel ber (Vf), aspect ratio (ld/df), and ber types
using the ber factor (F) in a simple manner, and the results
obtained using the proposed model agreed with the results
of the SFRC panel tests.
(2) Moreover, the proposed tensile behavior model rationally
considered the key inuential factors in behavior of SFRC
in tension and accurately estimated the tension stiffening
behavior and strain hardening behavior.
(3) The modied xed-angle softened-truss model, which
adopted the proposed tensile behavior model, reected the
deviation angle between the principal stress and xed-crack
direction, and, for this reason, the analytical model accurately estimated the torsional behavior of the SFRC member
with various ber volume contents, ber types, member
sizes, reinforcement ratios, and so on, compared to the existing models.
(4) The analytical model provided excellent estimation of the
overall torsional behavior and the torsional strength, compared to the experimental results of the 38 SFRC torsional
members.
Acknowledgments

Appendix A

Ecf e2rs =2 ers =2

ers

ers fcr;f
ecr
2ecr

for

ers
61
ecr

As for Eq. (3b), which shows the tensile stressstrain relation after
cracking, direct integration with respect to tensile strain (er), is difcult; thus, Eq. (3b) can be integrated numerically using the Gaussian method as follows:

yxdx

n
X

W i yi

A2

i1

where Wi is the Gaussian weight factor, and yi is the function to be

integrated. To guarantee the accuracy of the numerical method in
this study, a four-point Gaussian quadrature [77] was used. Substituting the range of 1 to 1 for tensile strain ranging from ecr to ers,
the following equation can be obtained:

ers

ecr

rfr er der

4
X
W i rfr i

A3

i1

X1, X2, X3, and X4, which substituted the location xi (Table A1) with
the tensile strain (er) can be calculated as follows:

ecr

X1

ecr

X2

ecr

X3

ecr

X4

ers  ecr
ers  ecr x1

2
2

A4a

ers  ecr
ers  ecr x2

2
2

A4b

ers  ecr
ers  ecr x3

2
2

A4c

ers  ecr
ers  ecr x4

2
2

A4d

Moreover, as the Gaussian weight factor Wi is a weight value corresponding to unity, it should be substituted with the value corresponding to the function intended to be applied. That is, the
substitute value, Wsub,i, is:

W sub;i W i

ers  ecr
2

A5

Therefore, the integrated value I of the stressstrain relation

after the cracking of SFRC against tensile strain (er) can be expressed as follows:

This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program

through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded
by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology
(2012R1A1A2002444).

rfr er der

A1

1

7. Conclusions

ers

ers

ecr

rfr e1 der

4
X
W i rfr i
i1

rfr X 1 W 1 rfr X 2 W 2 rfr X 3 W 3 rfr X 4 W 4

A6

The average tensile stress factor (kt) in the post-cracking region is

nally derived as follows:

kt

ers
2ecr

ers fcr;f

for

ers
>1
ecr

A7

The average tensile stress factor, kt, is calculated as follows:

kt

1
ers fcr

where

ers
0

rfr er der

28

rfr Ecf er for er 6 ecr

rfr

Table A1
Gauss points for the integration from 1 to 1 [77].

rfr er can be expressed as follows:

fcr 3:5F
1 500er 0:51F

for

er > ecr

3a

No. of points

Locations (xi)

Associated weights (Wi)

3b

1
2
3

x1 = 0.000...
x1, x2 = 0.57735026918962
x1, x3 = 0.77459666924148
x2 = 0.000. . .
x1, x4 = 0.8611363116
x2, x3 = 0.3399810436

2.000
1.000
5/9 = 0.555. . .
8/9 = 0.888. . .
0.3478548451
0.6521451549

As in Eq. (3a), the tensile stressstrain curve prior to cracking is linear,

and the average tensile stress factor (kt) can be derived as follows:

230

H. Ju et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 215231

References
[1] ACI Committee 544. Design consideration for steel ber reinforced concrete
(ACI 544.4R-88). ACI Struct J 1988; 85(5): 56380.
[2] Romualdi JP, Mandel JA. Tensile strength of concrete affected by uniformly
distributed and closely spaced short lengths of wire reinforcement. ACI J Proc
1964;61(6):65771.
[3] Mitchell D, Collins MP. Diagonal compression eld theory a rational model
for structural concrete in pure torsion. ACI Struct J 1974;71(8):396408.
[4] Romualdi JP, Batson GB. The mechanics of crack arrest in concrete. J Eng Mech
Div, Proc ASCE 1963;89(EM3):14768.
[5] Dupont D, Vandewalle L. Calculation of crack widths with the s-e method, test
and design methods for steel bre reinforced concrete: background and
experiences. In: Proceedings of the RILEM TC162-TDF workshop, RILEM
technical committee 162-TDF, Bochum, Germany; 2003. p. 11944.
[6] Lee DH, Hwang JH, Ju H, Kim KS, Kuchma DA. Nonlinear nite element analysis
of steel ber-reinforced concrete members using direct tension force transfer
model. Finite Elem Anal Des 2012;49(2):26686.
[7] Kim KS, Lee DH, Hwang JH, Kuchma DA. Shear behavior model for steel berreinforced concrete members without transverse reinforcements. Compos B:
Eng 2012;43(2):232434.
[8] Narayanan R, Darwish IYS. Use of steel bers as shear reinforcement. ACI Struct
J 1987;84(3):21627.
[9] Kwak YK, Eberhard MO, Kim WS, Kim JB. Shear strength of steel berreinforced concrete beams without stirrups. ACI Struct J 2002;99(4):5308.
[10] Ashour SA, Hassanain GS, Wafa FF. Shear behavior of high-strength ber
reinforced concrete beams. ACI Struct J 1992;89(2):17684.
[11] Lim TY, Paramsivam P, Lee SL. Shear and moment capacity of reinforced steelber concrete beams. Mag Concr Res 1987;39(140):14860.
[12] Lim TY, Paramsivam P, Lee SL. Analytical model for tensile behavior of steelber concrete. ACI Mater J 1987;84(4):28698.
[13] Tan KH, Mansur MA. Shear transfer in reinforced ber concrete. J Mater Civ
Eng ASCE 1990;2(4):20214.
[14] Abrishami HH, Mitchell D. Inuence of steel bers on tension stiffnening. ACI
Struct J 1997;94(6):76976.
[15] Bischoff PH. Tension stiffening and cracking of steel ber-reinforced concrete. J
Mater Civ Eng ASCE 2003;15(2):17482.
[16] Voo JYL, Foster SJ. Variable engagement model for bre reinforced concrete in
tension. UNICIV report no R-420 June 2003. The University of New South
Wales, Sydney, Australia; 2003. p. 186.
[17] Chalioris CE. Experimental study of the torsion of reinforced concrete
members. J Struct Eng Mech 2006;23(6):71337.
[18] Karayannis CG, Chalioris CE. Experimental validation of smeared analysis for
plain concrete in torsion. J Struct Eng ASCE 2000;126(6):64653.
[19] Macgregor JG, Wight JK. Reinforced concrete: mechanics and design. PrenticeHall; 2005. p. 1111.
[20] Gunneswara Rao TD, Rama Seshu D. Analytical model for the torsional
response of steel ber reinforced concrete members under pure torsion. Cem
Concr Compos 2005;27(4):493501.
[21] Susetyo J. Fibre reinforcement for shrikage crack control in prestressed, precast
segmental bridges. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto; 2009. 307pp.
[22] Susetyo J, Gauvreau P, Vecchio FJ. Effectiveness of steel ber as minimum
shear reinforcement. ACI Struct J 2011;108(4):48896.
[23] Mansur MA, Paramasivam P. Steel bre reinforced concrete beams in pure
torsion. Int J Cem Compos Lighw Concr 1982;4(4):3945.
[24] Craig RJ, Dunya S, Riaz J, Shirazi H. Torsional behavior of reinforced brous
concrete beams. In: Fiber reinforced concrete-international symposium, SP-81.
American Concrete Institute, Detroit; 1984. p. 1749.
[25] Narayanan R, Kareem-Palanjian AS. Torsion in beams reinforced with bars and
bers. J Struct Eng ASCE 1986;112(1):5366.
[26] Mansur MA, Nagataki S, Lee SH, Oosumimoto Y. Torsional response of
reinforced brous concrete beams. ACI Struct J 1989;86(1):3644.
[27] Chalioris CE, Karayannis CG. Effectiveness of the use of steel bres on the
torsional behavior of anged concrete beams. Cem Concr Compos
2009;31(5):33141.
[28] Al-Ausi MA, Abdul-Whab HMS, Khidair RM. Effect of bres on the strength of
reinforced concrete beams under combined loading. In: The international
conference on recent developments in bre reinforced cements and
concretes. UK: University of Wales College of Cardiff; 1989. p. 66475.
[29] Kaushik SK, Sasturkar PJ. Simply supported steel bre reinforced concrete
beams under combined torsion, bending and shear. In: The international
conference on recent developments in bre reinforced cements and
concretes. UK: University of Wales College of Cardiff; 1989. p. 68798.
[30] Bredt R. Kritische Bemerkungen zur Drehungselastizitat. Z Vereines Deutscher
Ingenieure, Band 1896;40(28):78590.
[31] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for structural concrete and
commentary (ACI 318M08). American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills;
2008. 473pp.
[32] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Ofcials. AASHTO
LRFD bridge design specications. 3rd ed. AASHTO, Washington, DC; 2004.
1450pp.
[33] Comite Euro-International du Beton. CEB-FIP model code 1990. Thomas
Telford, London; 1990. 437pp.
[34] CSA Committee A23.3-04. Design of concrete structures for buildings (CAV3A23.3-04). Canadian Standards Association, Canada; 2004. 232pp.

[35] KCI-M-07. Design specications for concrete structures. Korea Concrete

Institute; 2007. 523pp.
[36] Rausch E. Design of reinforced concrete in torsion (Berechnung des
Eisenbetons gegen Verdrehung). PhD thesis, Technische Hochschule, Berlin,
Germany; 1929. 53pp.
[37] Ritter W. Die Bauweise Hennebique. Schweizerische Bauzeitung
1899;33(7):5961.
[38] Mrsch E. Concrete-steel construction. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company; 1909. 368pp.
[39] Collins MP, Mitchell D. Prestressed concrete structure. Prentice Hill; 1991. 766
pp.
[40] Anderson P. Rectangular concrete section under torsion. ACI J Proc
1937;34(1):111.
[41] Lessig NN. Determination of the load carrying capacity of reinforced concrete
elements with rectangular cross-section subjected to exure and
torsion. Moscow: Insitute Betonai Zhelezobetona; 1959. p. 428.
[42] Hsu TTC. Torsion of reinforced concrete. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold,
Inc.; 1984. 516pp.
[43] Hsu TTC. Torsion of structural concrete: behavior of reinforced concrete
rectangular members. Torsion of structural concrete, ACI SP-18. American
Concrete Institute; 1968. p. 261306.
[44] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for reinforced concrete (ACI
31889). American Concrete Institute; 1989. 355pp.
[45] Lampert P. Torsion und Biegung von Stahlbetonbalken (Torsion and Bending of
} r Baustatik, Zurich; 1970.
Reinforced Concrete Beams). Bericht 27, Institute fu
} rliman B. Ultimate strength and design of reinforced concrete
[46] Lampert P, Thu
beams in torsion and bending, vol. 31-I. Zurich: International Association of
Bridge and Structural Engineering, Publication; 1971. p. 10731.
[47] Lampert P, Collins MP. Torsion, bending, and confusion an attempt to
establish the facts. ACI J Proc 1972;69(8):5004.
[48] Hsu TTC, Mo YL. Softening of concrete in torsional members theory and tests.
ACI J Proc 1985;82(3):290303.
[49] Hsu TTC, Mo YL. Softening of concrete in torsional members-prestressed
concrete. ACI J Proc 1985;82(5):60315.
[50] Hsu TTC. Softened truss model theory for shear and torsion. ACI Struct J
1988;85(5):62435.
[51] Vecchio FJ, Collins MP. Modied compression eld theory for reinforced
concrete elements subjected to shear. ACI J Proc 1986;83(2):21931.
[52] Rahal KN, Collins MP. Analysis of sections subjected to combined shear and
torsion a theoretical model. ACI Struct J 1995;92(4):45969.
[53] Jeng CH, Hsu TTC. A softened membrane model for torsion in reinforced
concrete members. Eng Struct 2009;32(9):194454.
[54] Jeng CH. Simple rational formulas for cracking torque and twist of reinforced
concrete members. ACI Struct J 2010;107(2):18998.
[55] Vecchio FJ. Disturbed stress eld model for reinforced concrete: formulation. J
Struct Eng ASCE 2000;126(9):10707.
[56] Hsu TTC, Zhang LX. Nonlinear analysis of membrane elements by xed-angle
softened-truss model. ACI Struct J 1997;94(5):48392.
[57] Feo L, Mancusi G. Modeling shear deformability of thin-walled composite
beams with open cross-section. Mech Res Commun 2010;37(3):3205.
[58] Fraternali F, Feo L. On a moderate rotation theory of thin-walled composite
beams. Compos B: Eng 2000;31(2):14158.
[59] Ascione L, Feo L, Mancusi G. On the statical behaviour of bre-reinforced
polymer thin-walled beams. Compos B: Eng 2000;31(8):64354.
[60] Rahal KN, Collins MP. Effect of thickness of concrete cover on shear-torsion
interaction an experimental investigation. ACI Struct J 1995;92(3):33442.
[61] Koutchoukali N, Belarbi A. Torsion of high-strength reinforced concrete beams
and minimum reinforcement requirement. ACI Struct J 2001;98(4):4629.
[62] You YM, Belarbi A. Thickness of shear ow zone in a circular RC column under
pure torsion. Eng Struct 2011;33(9):243547.
[63] Rahal KN. Combined torsion and bending in reinforced and prestressed
concrete beams using simplied method for combined stress-resultants. ACI
Struct J 2007;104(4):40211.
[64] Ashour SA, Samman TA, Radain TA. Torsional behavior of reinforced highstrength concrete deep beams. ACI Struct J 1999;96(6):104958.
[65] Chalioris CE. Analytical model for the torsional behaviour of reinforced
concrete
beams
retrotted
with
FRP
materials.
Eng
Struct
2007;29(12):326376.
[66] El-Niema EI. Fiber reinforced concrete beams under torsion. ACI Struct J
1993;90(5):48995.
[67] Hsu TTC, Mo YL. Unied theory of concrete structures. Wiley and Sons; 2010.
p. 500.
[68] Karayannis CG. Nonlinear analysis and tests of steel-ber concrete beams in
torsion. Struct Eng Mech 2000;9(4):32338.
[69] Pang XB, Hsu TTC. Fixed-angle softened-truss model for reinforced concrete.
ACI Struct J 1996;93(2):197207.
[70] Chao S, Naaman AE, Parra-Montesinos GJ. Bond behavior of reinforcing bars in
tensile strain-hardening ber-reinforced cement composites. Struct J
2009;106(6):897906.
[71] Harajli MH, Hout M, Jalkh W. Local bond stress-slip behavior of reinforcing
bars embedded in plain and ber concrete. ACI Mater J 1995;92(4):34354.
[72] Lee JY, Mansur MY. New algorithm for xed-angle softened-truss model. Proc
ICE Struct Build 2006;159(6):34959.
[73] Lee JY, Kim SW, Mansour MY. Nonlinear analysis of shear-critical reinforced
concrete beams using xed angle theory. J Struct Eng ASCE
2011;137(10):101729.

H. Ju et al. / Composites: Part B 45 (2013) 215231

[74] Choi KK, Park HG, Wight JK. Shear strength of steel ber-reinforced concrete
beams without web reinforcement. ACI Struct J 2007;104(1):1221.
[75] Fanella DA, Naaman AE. Stressstrain properties of ber reinforced mortar in
compression. ACI J 1985;82(4):47583.

231

[76] Nataraja MC, Dhang N, Gupta AP. Stressstrain curves for steel-ber reinforced
concrete under compression. Cem Concr Compos 1999;21:38390.
[77] Smith IM, Grifths DV. Programming the nite element analysis. 4th ed. John
Wiley and Sons, Ltd.; 2004. p. 628.