Suleiman A. S. Al Hunity MSC Thesis "Torsion in Reinforced Concrete Beams - Spread Tube Approach"

i
TORSION OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAMS – SPREAD
TUBE APPROACH
By
Suleiman Al-Aiman Suleiman Al-Hunity
Supervisor
Dr. Abdelqader S.Najmi, Prof.
This Thesis was submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Master’s Degree of Science in Civil Engineering
Faculty of Graduate Studies
The University of Jordan
August, 2016
ii
COMMITTEE DECISION
This Thesis (TORSION OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAMS – SPREAD
TUBE APPROACH) was Successfully Defended and Proved on 9, Aug, 2016
Examination Committee Signature
Dr. Abdulqader S. Najmi, (Supervisor) …………………………..
Prof. of Civil Engineering
Dr. Nazzal S. Armouti, (Member) …………………………..
Dr. Samih S. Qaqish, (Member) ……………………….....
Dr. Hasan N. Katkhuda, (Member) ……………………….
Assoc. Prof. of Civil Engineering

(Hashemite University)
iii
DEDICATION
This Dissertation is dedicated to my parents, Eng. Aiman Al-Hunity and
Mrs. Suhad Hawamdeh. Thank you for telling me what I’m capable of. For
giving me the support that I needed to build a dream to chase after. And for
believing that I have the talent to reach my goals. For your endless support,
love and encouragement. I am truly honoured to have you as my parents

iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
It is my proud privilege to release the feelings of my gratitude to several persons who
helped directly or indirectly to complete this dissertation.
I would like to express my deep appreciation and owe a deep sense of gratitude to my
teacher and supervisor Dr. Abdelqader S. Al-Najmi. His dedication and keen interest
above all his overwhelming attitude to help his students had been solely and mainly
responsible for completing my work. His timely advice, meticulous scrutiny, scholarly
advice, and scientific approach have helped me to a very great extent to accomplish this
dissertation.
I would like to thank the rest of my thesis committee members for their useful remarks
and for their time.
Special thanks and appreciation goes to Eng. Ekhlas Rababa’a, Manager of Investment
and Planning Directorate at Jordan Water Company, for her kind help and co-operation
throughout my study period.
It is my privilege to thank my wife, Mrs. Haneen for her constant support and
encouragement throughout my research period.
I am extremely thankful to my two younger brothers Mohammad and Ahmad, my little
lovely sister Reham, and to my two great cousins Hassan and Yousef for their
unconditioned help, encouragement and support whenever required.
Finally, special thanks to my friend Osama Barakat for his help and support whenever
needed.
v
TABLE OF CONTENT
Table of Contents
COMMITTEE DECISION ............................................................................................... ii
DEDICATION ................................................................................................................. iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................... iv
TABLE OF CONTENT .................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................... ix
Table of Figures ................................................................................................................ x
Nomenclature .................................................................................................................. xii
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................... xiv
Chapter 1 ........................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 General .................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 History of Torsion in Reinforced Concrete Members ............................................ 3
1.3 Torsion in Reinforced Concrete Members .............................................................. 4
1.3.1 Pre-cracking Strength ................................................................................................... 4
1.3.2 Post-cracking Strength ................................................................................................. 4

vi
1.3.3 Torsional Reinforcement and Mode of Failure ............................................................ 5
1.4 Significance of the Study ............................................................................................ 6
Chapter Two ..................................................................................................................... 9
Literature review ............................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Torsional Behaviour of RC Beams – Theories and Models ....................................... 9
2.1.1 Skew Bending Theory ......................................................................................... 9
2.1.2 Space Truss Analogy ......................................................................................... 11
2.1.3 Variable Angle Truss Model - VATM .............................................................. 13
2.1.4 Compression Field Theory - CFT ...................................................................... 14
2.1.5 Modified Compression Field Theory - MCFT .................................................. 15
2.1.6 Softened Truss Model ........................................................................................ 15
2.1.7 Comments on the Comparison Between Skew-Bending and Truss Theories ... 16
2.2 Reinforced Concrete Beam Strengthening against Applied Torsion ........................ 16
2.2.1 Strengthening of RC Beams with High Strength Concrete (HSC) .................... 17
2.2.2 Strengthening of RC Beams using Ultra-High Performance Concrete (UHPC) 17
2.2.3 Strengthening of RC Beams Using Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP) .............. 18
2.2.4 Comments on Torsional Strengthening Techniques .......................................... 19
Chapter Three ................................................................................................................. 20
Spread Tube Approach ................................................................................................... 20

vii
3.2 Thickness Calculations for the Proposed Tube......................................................... 22
3.2.1 Contribution of Stirrups ..................................................................................... 22
3.2.2 Contribution of Longitudinal Reinforcement .................................................... 23
3.2.3 Thickness Ratio.................................................................................................. 24
Chapter Four ................................................................................................................... 25
Experimental Study......................................................................................................... 25
4.1 Beam Details and Test Parameters ....................................................................... 25
4.2 Reinforcement Ratios ............................................................................................... 31
4.3 Materials ............................................................................................................... 32
4.4 Welding Technique ............................................................................................... 35
4.5 Testing Apparatus ................................................................................................. 37
4.6 Testing Procedure ................................................................................................. 39
Chapter Five .................................................................................................................... 40
Test Results and Torsional behaviour of Test Beams..................................................... 40
5.1 Cracking Behaviour and Mode of Failure ............................................................ 40
5.1.1 C 8-12, 10-125 Crack Pattern and Mode of Failure.................................................... 40
5.1.2 B 8-12, 10-125 Crack Pattern and Mode of Failure.................................................... 42
5.1.3 B 12-12, 10-125 Crack Pattern and Mode of Failure.................................................. 43
5.1.4 B 8-12, 10-75 Crack Pattern and Mode of Failure...................................................... 46
5.1.5 B 8-12, 12-125 Crack Pattern and Mode of Failure.................................................... 47

viii
5.2 Ultimate Torsional Strength of the Test Specimens ............................................. 49
5.2.1 Effects of Transverse and Longitudinal Ratios ........................................................... 51
5.3 Proposed Tube Thickness and its Effect on Ultimate Torsional Strength ................ 55
Chapter 6 ......................................................................................................................... 59
Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................... 59
6.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 59
6.2 Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 61
7.0 References ................................................................................................................. 63

ix
List of Tables
TABLE 4.1: SPECIMEN DETAILS SUMMARY …………………………………………….30
TABLE 4.2: TORSIONAL REINFORCEMENT RATIOS OF THE SPECIMENS………………… 32
TABLE 4.3: CYLINDERS’ COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS ……………………...34
TABLE 4.4: CUBE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AND THEIR EQUIVALENT CYLINDRICAL
STRENGTH …………………………………………………………………………34
TABLE 5.1: SUMMARY OF CRACK WIDTH AND NO. OF CRACKS ………………………….49
TABLE 5.2: ULTIMATE TORSIONAL STRENGTH OF TEST BEAMS………………………...51
TABLE 5.3.1: IMAGINARY TUBE THICKNESS AND CORRESPONDING ULTIMATE TORQUE OF
EACH SPECIMEN …………………………………………………………………...55

x
Table of Figures
FIG. 1.1: EQUILIBRIUM TORSION ........................................................................................ 2
FIG. 1.2: SECONDARY TORSION ......................................................................................... 2
FIG. 1.3.2.1: TORQUE-TWIST CURVE .................................................................................. 4
FIGURE 2.1: MODE OF FAILURES – SKEW BENDING THEORY ........................................... 10
FIGURE 2.2.1: THIN WALLED TUBE UNDER TORSION ...................................................... 12
FIGURE 2.2.2: SPACE TRUSS MODEL ............................................................................... 12
FIGURE 3.1: STIRRUPS MELT IN THE LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION ...................................... 21
FIGURE 3.2: LONGITUDINAL BARS MELT IN THE X-Y PLANE OF THE CROSS-SECTION ........ 21
FIGURE 3.3: PROPOSED IMAGINARY TUBE INSIDE THE BEAM ............................................ 22
FIGURE 4.1.1: SPECIMEN DETAILS, C 4-10, 10-100 AND B 4-10, 10-100............................ 26
FIGURE 4.1.2: SPECIMEN DETAILS, C 4-10, 10-200 AND B 4-10, 10-200............................ 26
FIGURE 4.1.3: SPECIMEN DETAILING, C 8-12, 10-125 AND B 8-12, 10-125 .................... 27
FIGURE 4.1.4: SPECIMEN DETAILING, B 12-12, 10-125 ................................................... 28
FIGURE 4.1.5: SPECIMEN DETAILING, B 8-12, 12-125............................................................. 28
FIGURE 4.1.6: SPECIMEN DETAILS, B 8-12, 10-75 ............................................................ 29

xi
FIGURE 4.3.1: SPECIMENS AT POURING DAY AND AFTER SHUTTER REMOVAL .................. 33
FIGURE 4.3.2: TEST CUBES AND CYLINDERS .................................................................... 35
FIGURE 4.4.1: STEEL CAGE AFTER WELDING WAS APPLIED .............................................. 36
FIGURE 4.5.1: TESTING APPARATUS DETAILS ................................................................... 38
FIGURE 4.5.2: TEST APPARATUS ..................................................................................... 38
FIGURE 5.1.1: C 8-12, 10-125 AFTER FAILURE ................................................................. 41
FIGURE 5.1.2: SPECIMEN B 8-12, 10-125 AFTER FAILURE ................................................ 43
FIGURE 5.1.3: B 12-12, 10-125 AFTER FAILURE .............................................................. 45
FIGURE 5.1.4: B 8-12, 10-75 AFTER FAILURE .................................................................. 47
FIGURE 5.1.5: B 8-12, 12-125 AFTER FAILURE ................................................................. 48
FIGURE 5.2.1: BEAMS ULTIMATE TORSIONAL STRENGTH VS TOTAL REINFORCEMENT
RATIO ...................................................................................................................... 54
xii
Nomenclature
𝑓’𝑐 Uniaxial concrete compressive strength of standard cylinder (MPa)
ƒcu Compressive strength of standard concrete cube (MPa)
ƒy Reinforcement steel yielding stress (MPa)
RC Reinforced concrete
ρl Longitudinal reinforcement ratio
ρst Transverse reinforcement ratio
ρtotal Total reinforcement ratio
Ph Perimeter of centreline of the closed stirrups
S Spacing between stirrups
T Torsional strength
Tcr Cracking torque
Tu Ultimate torque
θ Angle of twist
PCA Principal components analysis
VATM Variable angle truss model

xiii
CFT Compression field theory
MCFT Modified compression field theory
FRP Fibre reinforced polymer
GFRP Glass fibre reinforced polymer
HSC High strength concrete
NSC Normal strength concrete
UHPC Ultra high performance concrete
tt Imaginary cylindrical tube total thickness
tts Stirrups virtual tube thickness
ttL Longitudinal reinforcement virtual tube thickness
λ Torsional tube thickness ratio
λs Continuity index
xiv
TORSION OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAMS – SPREAD
TUBE APPROACH
By
Suleiman Al-Aiman Al-Hunity
Supervisor
Dr. Abdelqader S.Najmi, Prof.
ABSTRACT
A new approach was developed in this experimental study to predict and enhance the
torsional behaviour of reinforced concrete beams. The proposed approach treats the
steel cage after cracking as a cylindrical tube. The cylindrical tube is assumed to be
formed by two layers, projected from the longitudinal bars and the stirrups. The tube
was achieved by proper structural welding between the longitudinal reinforcement bars
and the transverse reinforcement closed stirrups, forming what is to be called the steel
skeleton instead of the ordinary steel cage.
Nine 250 × 250 mm beams where tested under pure torsion, three beams were
controlling samples, the main parameters were the yielding stress, longitudinal
reinforcement ratio, transverse reinforcement ratio and the steel cage type whether a
steel skeleton or an ordinary one.
Test results proved that the proposed approach was efficient regarding torsional
capacity, concrete confinement and torsional ductility. The welded samples showed
about 50% increase in torsional capacity, also the welded sample showed a more ductile
behaviour upon failure when compared to the controlling samples.

1
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 General
Reinforced concrete members are subjected to different types of loadings; namely,
bending moments and transverse shear forces, and in case of columns, the axial forces
exist along with bending moments and shear forces. Torsional forces scarcely act alone
on reinforced concrete members, they usually act concurrently with shear forces,
bending moments and sometimes with axial forces as well.
It is useful when considering torsion to distinguish between the two types of torsion;
Equilibrium torsion and Secondary torsion. Equilibrium torsion occurs when the
torsional moment is required to be in equilibrium and maximum torsional moment (Tu)
cannot be reduced by redistribution of moments. In this case the torsion reinforcement
must be provided to resist all of Tu. This type of torsion is also known as primary
torsion. An example of this type of torsion is the cantilevered slab of Figure 1.1, in such
case, the structure will collapse if the applied torsional moments are not resisted.
2
FIG. 1.1: EQUILIBRIUM TORSION
Secondary torsion - also known as Compatibility torsion - occurs when the torsional
moment can be reduced by the redistribution of internal forces while compatibility of
deformation is maintained in the member. This type of torsion when disregarded from
design will often cause extensive cracking but in general it won’t lead to collapse. A
good example for this type is an edge beam supporting two transverse beams producing
twisting moment as illustrated in Figure 1.2.
FIG. 1.2: SECONDARY TORSION

3
1.2 History of Torsion in Reinforced Concrete Members
Through the first half of the twentieth century, torsional forces effects were not
considered by designers due to the fact that the design provision were highly
conservative and the torsional effects could be absorbed in the overall factor of safety.
However, the present design procedures are less conservative and produce slenderer
reinforced concrete members, furthermore, the architectural engineers nowadays are
using more complex architectural components which require the use of structural
members for which torsion is a primary feature of the structural behaviour. Therefore,
reinforced concrete members must be reinforced against applied torsional forces.
Considerable research has been done in an effort to develop methods for predicting
the behaviour of reinforced concrete beams in pure torsion and in torsion combined
with flexure and/or shear. In studying torsion, elasticity theory was used by some
researchers in the second half of the past century, Cowan (1965), for the analysis of
reinforced concrete beams, while others adopted the plastic theory approach, Nadai
(1950). Moreover, analytical models were developed for the design of reinforced
beams. These models enabled researchers and engineers to gain a better understanding
of actual structural behaviour and minimise the usage of existing empirical design
equations.
The current design provisions for designing reinforced concrete members against the
applied torsional forces are based predominantly on experimental data resulted from the
tests conducted on specific types of structural members. However, these studies were
conducted to achieve a better understanding of the torsional behaviour of reinforced

4
concrete (RC) members, where few of them were aiming to enhance the torsional
strength of these RC members.
1.3 Torsion in Reinforced Concrete Members
1.3.1 Pre-cracking Strength
Before cracking, load is resisted mainly by concrete and steel is virtually unstressed.
When the diagonal tension stresses exceed the tensile resistance of the concrete, a crack
forms diagonally at some accidentally weak location and spreads immediately across
the beam. The value of torque at which the diagonal crack has formed is known as the
cracking torque. This behaviour is true for concrete beams reinforced in both directions.
i.e. longitudinal and transverse reinforcement.
1.3.2 Post-cracking Strength
Upon cracking, the torsional strength of the concrete reduces to about half of that of the
un-cracked section, where the remainder is being resisted by steel reinforcement. This
redistribution of internal torsional resistance is reflected in the torque-twist curve, as
illustrated in Figure 1.3.2.1.
FIG. 1.3.2.1: TORQUE-TWIST CURVE

5
The cracking torque shows continued twist at constant torque until the internal forces
have been redistributed from the concrete to the steel reinforcement.
Many models have been developed for predicting the behaviour of members reinforced
with both longitudinal and transverse steel subjected to pure torsion. These models can
be categorised under two groups, the skew-bending theory and the space truss theory. In
recent years, the space truss theory has dominated the research field in both design and
non-linear analysis. A brief discussion of some significant developments in these
theories will be presented in the following chapter.
1.3.3 Torsional Reinforcement and Mode of Failure
In general, mode of failure of reinforced concrete members subjected to pure torsion is
mainly characterized by the behaviour of its material under direct tension, therefore, in
RC members the concrete is the weakest link due to its low tensile strength. As a result,
reinforced concrete members subjected to pure torsion fails in a brittle manner. Brittle
failure is least desirable mode of failure in RC members.
The conventional reinforcement against torsional effects consists from longitudinal bars
and transverse stirrups, both arranged in a cage assembly, where the longitudinal
reinforcement is equally distributed around the stirrups perimeter and tied at the points
of intersection using tie wires. In addition, the transverse stirrups used for torsional
reinforcement must be of closed form to provide the required tensile capacity across the
diagonal cracks of all faces of the beam.
Beside its role to resist the tension stresses across the diagonal cracks, torsional
reinforcement has a secondary role which is to provide confinement for the concrete
core (enclosed by stirrups reinforcement) to achieve sufficient ductility for the RC beam
6
under pure torsion. Concrete confinement is mainly affected by the following factors;
concrete strength, aggregate interlocking, steel strength and volume of steel
reinforcement. The contributor to the concrete confinement is the volume of steel
reinforcement. Steel is increased by either increasing the longitudinal reinforcement
volume in regard of diameter and number or increasing the stirrups volume in regard of
bigger diameter and less spacing.
It is proposed in our approach to transform the traditional steel cage reinforcement into
a skeleton reinforcement by welding the transverse reinforcement with the longitudinal
bars in order to create an imaginary steel tube inside the beam. Therefore, if this
imaginary tube works properly, then the concrete core will be confined before the
concrete reaches it cracking point, leading to enhanced torsional behaviour and ductile
mode of failure.
This study intends to introduce a new technique to improve the torsional strength of RC
beams, where the collected experimental results are expected to reflect the importance
of the approach in improving the overall torsional behaviour of RC beams.
1.4 Significance of the Study

This study is aiming to provide an efficient approach for assessing the torsional behaviour
of reinforced concrete beams. In order to achieve this aim, the following objectives can be
identified:
1. To study the behaviour of reinforced concrete beams subjected to pure torsion in
terms of torsional strength and failure modes.

7
2. To investigate the beneficial effects of welding the longitudinal bars to the
transverse reinforcement on the confinement of concrete core through investigating
the number of cracks and the concrete core relative movements and bond with the
reinforcement steel.
3. To investigate the effects of using a steel skeleton (welded steel cage) on the
ultimate torsional capacity and whether it will help strengthen the beams or not.
4. To compare the failure modes of the steel skeleton with the failure modes when the
ordinary steel cage is used.
5. To investigate the torsional strength and failure modes when the transverse and
longitudinal reinforcement steel ratios are changed.
6. To estimate the thickness ratios of the proposed tube model.
Experimental results presented in this study provide valuable information about the
structural behaviour of RC squared cross-section beams reinforced with spread tube
approach through the whole stages of loading; Pre-cracking and Post-cracking. These
results could be further used to overcome some of the defects in the current design
procedures and to develop design equations that can better predict the torsional
behaviour of RC beams.
1.5 Methodology
In order to achieve the mentioned objectives, the following methodology will be followed:
1. Conducting an experimental program on nine reinforced concrete beams with
four primary parameters, the transverse reinforcement ratio, the longitudinal

8
reinforcement ratio, the yielding stress of reinforcement, and whether the
stirrups and the longitudinal bars are welded together or not.
2. Documenting the behaviour of the tested beams in terms of torsional capacity,
crack patterns and failure modes.
Test results have shown that the longitudinal reinforcement alone hardly increase the
torsional capacity of RC beams, and with the presence of stirrups the torsional capacity
of RC beams is improved up to a certain limit. Thus, this dissertation suggests a new
approach to improve the torsional behaviour of beams by welding the longitudinal bars
with transverse reinforcement in the right and proper structural way resulting in
skeleton reinforcement that provides higher torsional strength and improved overall
torsional behaviour against applied torques.
Ultimately, the published work on Spread Tube Approach (skeleton reinforcement) to
enhance the torsional strength and behaviour of RC beams is very limited, mainly
carried out by the author and his colleagues at the University of Jordan (UJ), therefore
this area is still an open field of study.

9
Chapter Two
Literature review
2.1 Torsional Behaviour of RC Beams – Theories and Models
2.1.1 Skew Bending Theory
Lessig (1958) proposed an approach of analysis for under-reinforced beams where the
equilibrium conditions for an observed skew-bending type of failure mechanism is
assumed. Inclined tension crack spiral round three faces of the beam. On the fourth side,
the ends of the crack are joined by a compression zone. At failure, reinforcement is
assumed to be yielding on the three sides. She presented the first two modes of failure
shown in figure 2.1. Mode I failure happens when bending moment is predominant,
tension cracks appear first on the bottom and then spreads to the side faces. The
compression zone is located at the top face. Failure occurs by yielding of both bottom
and transverse steels. Mode 2 failure happens when torsion and shear are predominant,
and cracks appear first at an angle of about 45 to the longitudinal axis of the beam, on
the vertical face in which the shear stresses due to torsion and shear are additive. These
cracks later spread to the bottom and top faces. The compression zone is located along
the other face where the shear stresses are subtractive

10
FIGURE 2.1: MODE OF FAILURES – SKEW BENDING THEORY
The following assumptions were made in Lessig's theory:
1. Both longitudinal and transverse steels yield at failure and no compressive
reinforcement is considered.
2. Concrete resists no tension.
3. Stirrups are equally spaced.
4. No aggregate interlock or dowel action of reinforcement is considered.
5. The ratio of torsion to bending moment remains constant within the failure
zone.
It should be noted that the assumptions of both longitudinal and transverse steels yield
at failure and the angle of inclination is 45 require equal amount of steel in each
direction.
11
Collins et al. (1968) discovered mode 3 failure and extended the analysis to a more
general case of un-symmetrically reinforced members where the top longitudinal steel is
significantly less than the bottom longitudinal steel and subjected to large torque and
small bending moment. Cracks are initiated at the top and side faces and the
compression zone is at the bottom face. Failure occurs when both top and transverse
steels yield.
While, the skew bending theory proved to successfully describe the overall torsional
behaviour of rectangular reinforced concrete beams, it was considered not practical to
predict the torsional behaviour of reinforced concrete flanged beams because of it
mathematical complexity (Karayannis and Chalioris, 2000).
Skew Bending theory was the basic formula adopted by American code between 1971
and 1995 to calculate the torsional strength of reinforced concrete members. In 1995, it
was replaced by the Space Truss Analogy which was considered more rational than the
skew bending theory.
2.1.2 Space Truss Analogy
Ritter (1899) and Morsch (1902) were the pioneers who introduced the truss analogy to
analyse cracked reinforced beams subjected to shear. However, Rausch (1929) was the
first to apply the truss analogy to beams subjected to torsion.
Using this analogy, the shear stresses produced by the torsional moment are treated as
constant over a finite thickness around the periphery of the member allowing the beam
to be presented as an equivalent tube as shown in Figure 2.2.1.

12
FIGURE 2.2.1: THIN WALLED TUBE UNDER TORSION
FIGURE 2.2.2: SPACE TRUSS MODEL
The space truss analogy is based on the following assumptions:
1. The space truss is made up of 45º diagonal concrete struts, longitudinal bars, and
hoop bars connected at the joints by hinges.
2. The diagonal concrete member carries only axial compression; i.e. shear resistance
by aggregate interlock is neglected.

13
3. The longitudinal and transverse bars carry only axial load i. e. dowel action
resistance is ignored.
4. For a solid section, the concrete core does not contribute to the ultimate torsional
resistance.
5. In the case of pure torsion, the path of the shear flow coincides with the centreline
of the closed stirrup.
This model also assumes that the volume of all longitudinal steel within the stirrup
spacing is equal to the volume of one complete stirrup. This is so called the equal
volume principal which allows the concrete to form 45º inclined struts which might be
possible in the case of shear or torsion. Test results of Hsu (1968), Mattock (1968) and
Osburn et al. (1969) revealed that the 45º model is quite conservative, particularly for
beams with small amounts of web reinforcement.
2.1.3 Variable Angle Truss Model - VATM
Many models have been proposed using the truss analogy after it was developed. One of
these models is the Variable Angle Truss Model (VATM). Lampert and Thurlimann
(1971) generalised the space truss model for under reinforced members subjected to
torsion or to combined torsion and bending. They assumed that the angle of inclination
of the concrete struts is constant for each side and may deviate from 45º. In the walls
governing the failure, both longitudinal and transverse steel reach yield at failure. They
assumed an elastic-perfectly plastic stress-strain curve for reinforcement. The 45º truss
model became a special case of their model when equal volume reinforcement is
provided. They also assumed that the shear flow uses a path defined by a line
connecting the centres of the longitudinal comer bars enclosed by the stirrups.
14
In this model the superposition approach of steel required to resist torsion and that
required to resist bending was adopted. In the tensile zone the two longitudinal steel
components are added, whereas in the flexural compression zone, the longitudinal
torsional reinforcement can be reduced by an amount corresponding to the flexural
compressive force.
2.1.4 Compression Field Theory - CFT
Collins and Mitchell (1980) suggested a compatibility relationship which links the
strains in the concrete diagonals, the longitudinal steel and the transverse steel as given
by the following equation
𝜖𝑙 + 𝜀𝑑
𝑡𝑎𝑛2 𝜃 =
𝜖𝑡 + 𝜀𝑑
where:
𝜃 = the angle of inclination of the diagonal struts.
𝜖𝑙 = longitudinal tensile strain.
𝜖𝑡 = transverse tensile strain.
𝜖𝑑 = diagonal compressive strain.
They used this equation for the prediction of the equilibrium equations of the truss, and
the stress-strain relationships of concrete and steel in reinforced concrete members
subjected to shear or torsion. Thus the compression field theory can predict the angle of
inclination of the diagonal compression.

15
The compression field theory assumes that the concrete carries no tension stresses after
cracking and that the diagonal compressive stresses can be transmitted through cracked
concrete by means of aggregate interlock and dowel action of reinforcement crossing
the crack. In this theory it was also assumed that the compression in the concrete tends
to push off the concrete while the tension in the stirrups holds it on. Since concrete is
weak in tension, the concrete outside of the stirrups spalls off. Because of this spalling it
was assumed that the effective outer surface of the concrete coincides with the stirrup
centreline.
2.1.5 Modified Compression Field Theory - MCFT
Vecchio and Collins (1986,1988) developed the modified compression field theory to
analyse reinforced concrete elements subjected to in-plane shear and normal stresses.
This theory was based on the assumption that the reinforcement is uniformly
distributed. This is to ensure well distributed cracks. While the original compression
field theory ignored tension in the cracked concrete, in this modified model, concrete
between cracks is assumed to resist tensile stresses. The average stresses and average
strains were used in formulating the equilibrium, compatibility and stress-strain
relationships. The post cracking behaviour was given in a form of compression
softening and tension stiffening of concrete in the stress- strain relationships.
2.1.6 Softened Truss Model
Combining the equilibrium, compatibility and softened stress-strain relationships, a
softened truss model theory was developed (Hsu 1988), which was able to analyse the
shear and torsional behaviour of reinforced concrete members throughout the post-
cracking loading history.

16
2.1.7 Comments on the Comparison Between Skew-Bending and Truss
Theories
Kuyt (1971) made a theoretical comparison between the truss analogy and the ultimate
equilibrium method (skew-bending) for under-reinforced beams. He stated: " the latter
method will give the same results as the truss theory, provided that proper assumptions
are made with respect to the form of the failure surfaces and the magnitude of the
stirrup stresses at the smaller and the larger sides of the beam respectively". In a final
observation he said: "... it may be stated that calculations based on the truss analogy are
preferable, because they rest on a more definite basis with regard to the internal
equilibrium of the beam as a whole ".
Thurlimann (1979), in his comment on the two theories said: " In many cases they lead
to the same results". However, he preferred the truss analogy because it is applicable to
any type of cross section, allows a uniform treatment of combined load cases, can be
used to determine the warping resistance of thin walled reinforced concrete beams with
open cross sections, and torsional stiffness members after cracking. Hsu (1988) stated
that " It is agreed by researchers in recent years that the truss model theory provides a
more promising way to treat shear and torsion".
2.2 Reinforced Concrete Beam Strengthening against Applied Torsion
Early experimental studies have shown that the behaviour of an element subjected to
pure torsion is mainly characterised by the behaviour of its material under direct
tension. Hence, concrete is the main subject material due to its low tensile strength,
therefore, different research papers and investigators have focused on improving the
17
tensile properties of concrete and suggested different ways to do so and consequently
improving the ultimate torsional strength of RC member.
Several strengthening techniques proved to be successful in terms of improving the
torsional capacity of reinforced concrete beams, such as using fibre reinforced polymers,
high strength concrete and ultra-high performance concrete.
2.2.1 Strengthening of RC Beams with High Strength Concrete (HSC)
The use of High Strength Concrete (HSC) to improve torsional strength of RC
members was first suggested by Rasmussen and Baker [4] in 1995. Later, this subject
has been investigated by other researchers like Wafa FF et al (1995), Leonardo and
Lopez (2013) Ashour et al. (1999). All of these studies’ results have shown improved
torsional strength of the tested beams compared to other beams with Normal Strength
Concrete (NSC).
However, these studies have concluded that the torsional reinforcement ratio is the
variable that has the most influence on the mode of failure, where tests have that the use
HSC leads to less ductile members and the cracking mode of these members is fragile
and noisier compared to beams with (NSC).
2.2.2 Strengthening of RC Beams using Ultra-High Performance Concrete
(UHPC)
The ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) is a special high strength ductile material
containing steel or organic fibres, the UHPC provides compressive strengths up to 200 MPa
and flexural strengths up to 50 MPa.

18
Another approach that has been proposed to enhance the mechanical properties of
concrete was the use of UHPC by incorporating steel fibres in the concrete mix, In-
Hwan Yang et al (2013) and Nanni A. (1990).
In their study, Hwan Yang et. al. (2013) have explored the torsional behaviour of
thirteen UHPC beams with compressive strengths more than 150 MPa, different steel
reinforcement ratio and different steel fibre content. It has been shown that using UHPC
improves greatly the concrete performance under tension. It also improved greatly the
post-cracking behaviour and a very high increase in the ultimate torsional strength for
these beams.
2.2.3 Strengthening of RC Beams Using Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP)
Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP) as an external reinforcement is used extensively to deal
with the strength requirements related to flexure and shear in structural systems. But the
strengthening of members subjected to torsion is explored only recently. Strengthening RC
beams with FRP sheets in the form of external reinforcement comes with several
advantages, FRP is a light weight, and an easily placed material, but there are also
disadvantages for using the FRP sheets as it is an easily damaged material unless proper
protection is provided.
Gobarah et al. (2002) have investigated the torsional behaviour of eleven RC beams
strengthened with FRP. Test results have shown higher ultimate torsional strength of
beams strengthened with FRP than the torsional strength of control beams.
Chhabirani Tudu (2012) has explored the torsional behaviour of RC beams wrapped
with Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer (GFRP). These beams were fully wrapped,
wrapped at 90º inclination to the beam axis or wrapped at 45º inclination to the beam
19
axis. The experimental results show that externally bonded GFRP can increase the torsional
capacity of the beam significantly. The results also indicate that the most effective
0
configuration is the full-wrap of GFRP fabrics. In addition, GFRP applied in 45 with axis of
0
the beam gives more strength than GFRP applied in 90 with the axis of the beam.
2.2.4 Comments on Torsional Strengthening Techniques
Although the above mentioned techniques proved to enhance the torsional behaviour of
RC beams, it is rather obvious from the aforementioned techniques that they focus on
improving the tensile strength of the concrete to enhance the overall behaviour of RC
subjected to pure torsion, and that none of them aimed to improve the interaction
between the beam’s components. i.e. the interaction between concrete, longitudinal
reinforcement and transverse reinforcement.
In our study, we focus on improving the role of the conventional steel reinforcement
used in beams (Longitudinal bars and Stirrups) by introducing the Spread Tube
Approach, which will be discussed in the following chapter.

20
Chapter Three
Spread Tube Approach
It is a common knowledge among the science society that a homogenous cylindrical
tubular section is the most efficient section to resist applied torques. This fact was the
first spark that lightened the way to come up with the idea of our proposed approach.
The Spread Tube Approach adopts the idea of transforming the traditional torsional
reinforcement into an imaginary steel tube within the beam’s cross-section by welding
the transverse stirrups with the longitudinal bars that forms the cage reinforcement. This
fictitious tube consists of two tubes. The first tube comes from the contribution of the
transverse reinforcement, visualise that each transverse stirrup melts in the longitudinal
direction of the beam and connects with the adjacent stirrup, which also melts, in order
to resemble a cylindrical tube inside the beam with an average thickness (tts) as shown
in Figure 3.1. The other tube come from the contribution of the longitudinal
reinforcement, where each longitudinal bar melts in the x-y plane of the beam’s cross-
section and connects with the adjacent bar, which also melts, to form a cylindrical tube
with an average thickness (ttl) within the beam’s cross-section as shown in Figure 3.2.
The main tube that is meant to resist the applied torques is resembled by the
contribution of the two aforementioned tubes, the integrated tube has a total thickness
(tt), which is equal to the summation of (tts) and (ttl) as shown in Figure 3.3.
21
FIGURE 3.1: STIRRUPS MELT IN THE LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION
It must be emphasised that the above assumptions to form the imaginary tube are only
valid if the welding between the stirrups and longitudinal bars is presented, meaning
that the proposed spread tube approach can only take place if the steel torsional
reinforcement is welded together.
FIGURE 3.2: LONGITUDINAL BARS MELT IN THE X-Y PLANE OF THE CROSS-SECTION
22
FIGURE 3.3: PROPOSED IMAGINARY TUBE INSIDE THE BEAM
3.2 Thickness Calculations for the Proposed Tube
3.2.1 Contribution of Stirrups
 The total volume of the proposed tube is defined as follows;
𝑉𝑠𝑡 = 𝜋 ∗ 𝑑 𝑇 ∗ 𝐿 𝑇 ∗ 𝑡𝑡 ..…. (1) Where
𝑉𝑠𝑡 ≡ 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒
𝑑𝑇 ≡ 𝑇𝑢𝑏𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑟𝑟𝑢𝑝𝑠
𝐿𝑇 ≡ 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒
𝑡𝑡 ≡ 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒
 The total volume of the stirrups is defined as follows;
𝑛
𝑉𝑠 = ∗ 𝜋 ∗ 𝑑𝑠2 ∗ 𝐿𝑠 ……… (2) Where
4
𝑉𝑠 ≡ 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑟𝑟𝑢𝑝

23
𝑑𝑠 ≡ 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑟𝑟𝑢𝑝𝑠
𝐿𝑠 ≡ 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑟𝑟𝑢𝑝
𝑛 ≡ 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑜. 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑟𝑟𝑢𝑝 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛
 Equating equation 1 and 2 gives
𝑛 ∗ 𝑑𝑠2 ∗ 𝐿𝑠
𝑡𝑡𝑠 =
4 ∗ 𝐿𝑡 ∗ 𝑑𝑡
where 𝑡𝑡𝑠 refers to the tube thickness formed by transverse stirrups.
3.2.2 Contribution of Longitudinal Reinforcement
 The total volume of the longitudinal bars is defined as follows;
𝑛
𝑉𝑙 = ∗ 𝜋 ∗ 𝑑𝑙2 ∗ 𝐿𝑙 ……… (3) Where
4
𝑉𝑙 ≡ 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑏𝑎𝑟𝑠
𝑑𝑙 ≡ 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑏𝑎𝑟𝑠
𝐿𝑠 ≡ 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑏𝑎𝑟𝑠
𝑛 ≡ 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑜. 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑏𝑎𝑟𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛
 Equating equation 1 and 3 gives noting that length of the proposed tube = length
of bars,
𝑛 ∗ 𝑑𝑙2
𝑡𝑡𝑙 =
4 ∗ 𝑑𝑡
where 𝑡𝑡𝑙 refers to the tube thickness formed by longitudinal reinforcement.

24
3.2.3 Thickness Ratio
The ratio of the stirrups tube thickness to the longitudinal bars tube thickness will be
defined as follows:
𝑡𝑡𝑠
𝜆 =
𝑡𝑡𝑙
Where (λ) is the thickness ratio which expresses the contribution of each tube
(transverse and longitudinal) to global proposed tube.

25
Chapter Four
Experimental Study
4.1 Beam Details and Test Parameters
Osama Barakat, May, 2016 has studied nine 250mm x 250mm RC beams and reported
his results in his dissertation previously done on the same subject. In this study, the
torsional behaviour of another five beams with different steel ratios have been
investigated. These fourteen beams were tested through two stages, the first stage
included four beams; two control beams and two beams with skeleton cage
reinforcement. The second stage included the testing of ten beams; two control beams
and eight beams with skeleton reinforcement, five of these beams of the second stage
are included in this study, the other five was investigated and reported by O. Barakat,
May, 2016.
The clear concrete cover was 40 mm to the outer surface of the stirrups, and the average
concrete cylinders’ compressive strength was in the range of 17-20 MPa. The test
parameters considered in this experimental study are the longitudinal reinforcement
ratio and transverse reinforcement ratio. Stirrups of nominal diameter of 10 mm and 12
mm were used, and the transverse reinforcement ratios varied between 2.58% and
3.72%. Nominal bar diameter of 10mm and 12 mm were used for longitudinal bars, the
ratios of longitudinal varies between 1.09% and 2.35%. In addition, test beams’ ends
were reinforced in a way to force the predicted failure to take place at the middle region
of the beam; i.e. both ends of the beam were torsionally stiffer than the beam’s middle
region, this region has a total length of 0.9 m.

26
Each of the test beams in Table (4.1) were given a designation that indicates the type of
reinforcement (B for Skeleton and C for Cage), number and diameter of longitudinal
bars, stirrups diameter and spacing. For instance, B 8-12, 10-125 indicates that the beam
is a skeleton type reinforcement, longitudinal reinforcement consists of 8 - Ф12 mm
bars, and stirrups diameter is 10 mm spaced at 125mm intervals.
C 4-10, 10-100 and B 4-10, 10-100 specimens both have the same torsional
reinforcement, 4Ф10 longitudinal bars and 1Ф10 / 100 mm transverse reinforcement.
The only difference between them is that B 4-10, 10-100 specimen has its torsional
reinforcement welded together. Figure 4.1.1 shows the detailing of these two beams.
The same applies to specimens’ C 4-10, 10-200 and B 4-10, 10-200. Figure 4.1.2 shows
the detailing for these two beams

CB 1
1Ø10 / 100mm 4Ø10
2.0
25
10 10
25
25
2.0
10 10
5.0
2.0
160
CB 2 FIGURE 4.1.1: SPECIMEN DETAILS, C 4-10, 10-100 AND B 4-10, 10-100

Section
1Ø10 / 200mm 4Ø10

2.0
25
20
2.0
25
25
5.0
20 20
2.0
160
Section
FIGURE 4.1.2: SPECIMEN DETAILS, C 4-10, 10-200 AND B 4-10, 10-200
27
Specimens C 8-12, 10-125 and B 8-12, 10-125 both have the same torsional
reinforcement; eight Ф12 longitudinal bars. The transverse reinforcement has two
different spacing; the first one is located within the middle region of the beam that has a
total length of 0.9 m, this region has Ф10 stirrups spaced at 125 mm. The other spacing
is located at the two ends of the beam which are 0.35 m in length each, the beams ends
has Ф10 stirrups spaced at 50 mm. this difference in spacing was made to force the
failure to occur at the middle region.
C 8-12, 10-125 is a control specimen and B 8-12, 10-125 specimen has its torsional
reinforcement welded together. Figures 4.1.3 shows the detailing of these specimens.
1Ø10 / 125mm
2.0
1Ø10 / 50mm 8Ø12
25
2.0
25
25
5.0
12,5
35.0 35.0
2.0
160
Section
FIGURE 4.1.3: SPECIMEN DETAILING, C 8-12, 10-125 AND B 8-12, 10-125
Specimen B 12-12, 10-125 is reinforced with twelve Ф12 longitudinal bars and Ф10
stirrups space at 125 mm in the middle region of the beam (length = 0.9 m) and Ф10
stirrups at 50 mm at both beam ends. Figure 4.1.4 shows B 12-12, 10-125 detailing.
Note that the longitudinal reinforcement ratio has been increased compared to control
specimen C 8-12, 10-125.

28
1Ø10 / 125mm
2.0
1Ø10 / 50mm 8Ø12
25
2.0
25
25
5.0
12,5
35.0 35.0
2.0
160
FIGURE 4.1.4: SPECIMEN DETAILING, B 12-12, 10-125
B 8-12, 12-125 specimen has the same longitudinal reinforcement ratio as the control
specimen. The transverse reinforcement is 1Ф12 spaced at 125 mm at the middle
region and 1Ф10 spaced at 50 mm for the ends. Figure 4.1.5 shows the detailing of this
specimen. Note that the transverse reinforcement ratio is increased by using bigger
stirrup diameter at the middle region compared to control beam.
1Ø10 / 50mm 1Ø12 / 125mm 8Ø12

2.0
25
2.0
25
25
5.0
12,5
35.0 35.0
2.0
160
Section
FIGURE 4.1.5: SPECIMEN DETAILING, B 8-12, 12-125
Specimen B 8-12, 10-75 is the last one, it is reinforced with eight Ф12 longitudinal bars
and 1Ф10 stirrup spaced at 75 mm in the middle region, the beam ends have the same
29
reinforcement as the control specimen. Figure 4.1.6 shows the detailing of this
specimen. Note that the transverse reinforcement ratio is increased by using smaller
stirrup spacing at the middle region compared to control beam.
1Ø10 / 75mm
2.0
1Ø10 / 50mm 8Ø12
25
2.0
25
25
5.0
35.0 35.0
2.0
160
Section
FIGURE 4.1.6: SPECIMEN DETAILS, B 8-12, 10-75
30
Table 4.1 summarises the specimens’ details. Note that the difference in concrete
strength between the two stages is due to the fact that the concrete was procured from
two different batches.
TABLE 4.1: SPECIMEN DETAILS SUMMARY
Equally Spaced
Stirrups
Longitudinal
Reinforcement
Bars
Concrete
Cross-
Compres No. Type of
Test Beam section Diam. Spacing diam.
sive of Torsional
Designation (mm X (mm) (mm) (mm)
strength bars Reinforcement
mm)
(MPa)
C 4-10, 10-100 4 10 100 10 Cage
B 4-10, 10-100 4 10 100 10 Skeleton

16.9
C 4-10, 10-200 4 10 200 10 Cage
B 4-10, 10-200 4 10 200 10 Skeleton

250
C 8-12, 10-125 X 8 12 125 10 Cage
250
B 8-12, 10-125 8 12 125 10 Skeleton
B 12-12, 10-
21.1 12 12 125 10 Skeleton
125
B 8-12, 12-125 8 12 125 12 Skeleton
B 8-12, 10-75 8 12 75 10 Skeleton

31
4.2 Reinforcement Ratios
The transverse and longitudinal reinforcement ratios are listed in Table 4.2. These ratios
were calculated as follows:
𝐴𝑠𝑙
𝜌𝑙 =
𝐴𝑐
𝐴𝑠𝑡 × 𝑃𝑠𝑡
𝜌𝑠𝑡 =
𝐴𝑐 × 𝑠
Where.
𝜌𝑙 ≡ 𝐿𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑡 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜
𝜌𝑠𝑡 ≡ 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑜𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜.
𝐴𝑠𝑙 ≡ 𝐿𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑏𝑎𝑟𝑠 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙 (𝑚𝑚2 )
𝐴𝑐 ≡ 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑚 𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 − 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 (𝑚𝑚2 )
𝐴𝑠𝑡 ≡ 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑟𝑟𝑢𝑝 𝑙𝑒𝑔 (𝑚𝑚2 )
𝑃𝑠𝑡 ≡ 𝑆𝑡𝑖𝑟𝑟𝑢𝑝 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 (𝑚𝑚)
𝑠 ≡ 𝑆𝑡𝑖𝑟𝑟𝑢𝑝 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔 (𝑚𝑚)
Note that for the second stage five beams, the transverse reinforcement ratios were
calculated as percentage contribution from each specimen’s length with different
spacing; for each segment with different spacing the ratio was calculated then
32
multiplied by (segment length / total specimen length). The total transverse
reinforcement ratio is the summation of these ratios.
TABLE 4.2: TORSIONAL REINFORCEMENT RATIOS OF THE SPECIMENS
Longitudinal Transverse Total

Test Beam Yield
Reinforcement Reinforcement Reinforcement
Designation Strength
Ratio Ratio Ratio
C 4-10, 10-100 0.50% 1.186% 1.688%
B 4-10, 10-100 0.50% 1.186% 1.688%

280 MPa
C 4-10, 10-200 0.50% 0.593% 1.095%
B 4-10, 10-200 0.50% 0.593% 1.095%
C 8-12, 10-125 1.43% 1.57% 3.005%
B 8-12, 10-125 1.43% 1.57% 3.005%
B 12-12, 10-125 420 MPa 2.15% 1.57% 3.721%
B 8-12, 12-125 1.43% 2.24% 3.675%
B 8-12, 10-75 1.43% 1.93% 3.360%
4.3 Materials
Two sets of concrete batches were procured form a local plant during the preparation of
test specimens. The first batch of concrete was C15 class concrete (desired compressive
strength is 15 MPa). The second batch of concrete was C20 class concrete (desired
compressive strength is 20 MPa). Concrete was properly vibrated during pouring
process to achieve a good quality concrete.

33
FIGURE 4.3.1: SPECIMENS AT POURING DAY AND AFTER SHUTTER REMOVAL
For the first batch of concrete, six 15 x 30 cm cylinders were cast properly to check the
concrete compressive strength after 7 days, 14 days and get the 28 compressive
strength. Table 4.3 summarises the compressive test results of these cylinders. Note that
the average 28-day cylindrical compressive strength for the first batch is 16.9 MPa.
For the second batch of concrete, nine 15x15x15 cm cubes were cast properly to check
the concrete compressive strength after 7 days, 14 days and get the 28 days. Table 4.3
summarises the compressive test results of these cubes. It is worth noting that a
correlation factor of (0.8) is used according to EN 206-1:2000 to get the equivalent

34
cylindrical compressive strength. The average equivalent cylindrical compressive
strength is 21.12 MPa.
TABLE 4.3: CYLINDERS’ COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS

Cylinder No. Load (kN) 𝑓𝑐′ (MPa)
7 days 𝑓𝑐′
1 227 12.8
2 236 13.4
Average Compressive strength @ 7 days = 13.1 MPa
14 days 𝑓𝑐′
3 269 15.2
4 274 15.5
Average Compressive strength @ 14 days = 15.4
MPa
28 days 𝑓𝑐′
5 295 16.7
6 302 17.1
Average Compressive strength @ 28 days = 16.9
MPa
TABLE 4.4: CUBE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AND THEIR EQUIVALENT CYLINDRICAL

STRENGTH
Cylinder No. Load (kN) 𝑓𝑐′ (MPa) Equivalent 𝑓𝑐′ (MPa)

7 days 𝑓𝑐′
1 413 18.36 14.7
2 455 20.22 16.2
3 463 20.58 16.5
Average Compressive strength @ 7 days15.76 MPa
14 days 𝑓𝑐′
4 528 23.47 18.8
5 542 24.09 19.3
6 556 24.71 19.8
Average Compressive strength @ 14 days 19.28 MPa
28 days 𝑓𝑐′
7 567 25.20 20.2
8 588 26.13 20.9
9 628 27.91 22.3
Average Compressive strength @ 28 days 21.12 MPa
35
FIGURE 4.3.2: TEST CUBES AND CYLINDERS
4.4 Welding Technique
Flux-cored arc welding technique was used according to American Welding Society
standards AWS D1.4/D1.4M:2011 (Structural Welding Code – Reinforcing steel). The
welding process took place in a local lathe workshop. Welding was applied on each
intersection point between the longitudinal reinforcement and the transverse ties to
transform the steel cage into a steel skeleton as shown in Figure 4.4.1, note that the
wires were not removed before or after welding.

36
FIGURE 4.4.1: STEEL CAGE AFTER WELDING WAS APPLIED

37
4.5 Testing Apparatus
The experimental set up is shown in Figure 4.5.1. The total length of the specimens is
1600 mm. The test set up consist of hydraulic jack, spreader beam, four W20 steel
beams and two fabricated roller supports 1400 mm apart. These two supports were
designed to ensure that test beams are free to twist and elongate longitudinally at both
beam ends during testing.
The source load was applied through the hydraulic jack with a total compressive
capacity of 400 kN at the centre of the spreader beam which rests on two W20 steel
beams.
The twisting load was applied through a diagonally placed steel spreader beam; the
spreader beam was fabricated by welding two IPE 160 channels back to back together,
these two channels were further strengthened by welding plain steel plates in the void
between the two flanges of each channel.
The twisting load from the spreader beam was transferred to the specimens using four
cantilevered W20 steel beams. These cantilevered beams are clamped to the test
specimen’s ends using 24-diameter tie rods, and they transfer the load to the test beam
as a torque. Figures 4.5.1 and 4.5.2 shows the details of the testing apparatus.
The test rig set up is configured in a way to produce a pure torque between the two
supports of the test beam to avoid any other loadings to be produced throughout testing
of the beam such as bending moments and / or shear forces.

38
FIGURE 4.5.1: TESTING APPARATUS DETAILS
FIGURE 4.5.2: TEST APPARATUS

39
4.6 Testing Procedure
The specimens were loaded in a controlled manner (The load was increased at a
constant rate of 0.5 kN/min until several cracks were visible on the surface of those
specimens. The first cracking load and the associated torsional moment were recorded,
then the monotonic loading was resumed until failure.
After initial cracking and in order to measure the cracks widths the load was held
constant for several minutes at every load stage, also the propagations of the cracks
were traced and marked on the specimens’ surfaces, and then the maximum width of the
cracks was measured.
Finally, the steel cage was extracted from the concrete body to observe and examine the
reinforcement steel behaviour and failure modes. The steel cage was extracted using a
rotary hammer drill, then a small hammer was used to clean the steel cage from the
remaining concrete.
40
Chapter Five
Test Results and Torsional behaviour of Test Beams
5.1 Cracking Behaviour and Mode of Failure
The formation of cracks in concrete test beams was observed during and after the
testing of these beams. Until the point of the first crack, the behaviour of the tested
beams was elastic and the applied torque was mainly resisted by concrete itself, i.e.
without any contribution from the torsional reinforcement.
By the time the applied torque has reached its cracking torque value, the initiation of
cracks on beam’s surface was observed, these initial cracks were diagonally and spirally
formed around the test beam’s surfaces. In addition, it was observed that all initial
cracks were formed simultaneously on all four faces of the test beams, where according
to theory of elasticity, cracks initially form on longer faces of a rectangular cross-
section beam, however, our beams’ cross-sections are square, therefore theory of
elasticity suggests these cracks must initiate simultaneously.
As the applied torque increased, the number of cracks has also increased parallel to the
initial cracks, until the ultimate torque was reached.
5.1.1 C 8-12, 10-125 Crack Pattern and Mode of Failure
The crack pattern of control beam C 8-12, 10-125 has been observed throughout testing
and after failure. The beams initiated cracks at a torque value of (Tcr) equal to 15.50
kN.m. These initial cracks were diagonally and spirally formed around the test beam’s
surfaces. C 8-12, 10-125 has generated two major cracks at failure at the middle region,
these two cracks were spaced at 180 mm apart. The failure took place at the middle
41
region of the test beam and the total length of the failure zone is 330 mm. Prior to the
beam’s failure, one specific crack grew wider than the other cracks, then the beam failed
at the plane of this crack. The maximum measured crack width was 9 mm.
The failure of C 8-12, 10-125 is related to core concrete crushing and excessive
concrete spalling off. The beam failed in a brittle manner shortly after the formation of
the first crack. The beam exhibited a small rotation prior to failure which indicates that
the steel cage was still in the elastic range. Figure 5.1.1 shows beam C 8-12, 10-125
after failure.
FIGURE 5.1.1: C 8-12, 10-125 AFTER FAILURE

42
5.1.2 B 8-12, 10-125 Crack Pattern and Mode of Failure
This beam has the same reinforcement ratios (longitudinal and transverse) as the control
beam C 8-12, 10-125. The beam initiated its first cracks at a torque value of (Tcr) equal
to 14.57 kN.m. These initial cracks were diagonally and spirally formed around the test
beam’s surfaces. B 8-12, 10-125 has formed four major cracks at failure at the middle
region, these four cracks were spaced at 12.5 cm apart on average. The higher number
of cracks observed on test beam B 8-12, 10-125 indicates that welding stirrups with
longitudinal bars has the effect of enhancing the beam’s torsional resistance, where the
test beam B 8-12, 10-125 had to develop more cracks in order to reach its ultimate
torsional strength.
The failure took place within the middle region of the test beam and the total length of
the failure zone is 400 mm. Prior to the beam’s failure, one specific crack grew wider
than the other cracks, then the beam failed at the plane of this crack. The maximum
measured crack width was 10 mm.
The failure of B 8-12, 10-125 is related to core concrete crushing and the kinking
(permanent deformation) in longitudinal bars. The beam failed in a semi-ductile manner
a little while after the formation of the first crack. The beam’s stirrups exhibited a
relatively small rotation prior to failure, and since the stirrups and longitudinal
reinforcement are welded together, the longitudinal bars were forced to rotate with the
stirrups. this unified behaviour of steel skeleton caused the longitudinal bars to kink
(yield) and partly contribute to beams failure. Figure 5.1.2 shows beam B 8-12, 10-125
after failure.
43
FIGURE 5.1.2: SPECIMEN B 8-12, 10-125 AFTER FAILURE
B 12-12, 10-125 has the same transverse reinforcement ratio as the control beam, and a
higher longitudinal reinforcement ratio content. B 12-12, 10-125 initiated its first crack
at a torque value of (Tcr) equal to 16.45 kN.m. These initial cracks were diagonally and
spirally formed around the test beam’s surfaces. B 12-12, 10-125 has formed eight
major cracks at failure at the middle region, these eight cracks were spaced at 6.1 cm
apart on average. The higher number of cracks observed on test beam B 12-12, 10-125
44
indicates that increasing the number of longitudinal bars has the effect of enhancing the
beam’s torsional behaviour.
The failure of B 12-12, 10-125 is caused by core concrete crushing and the kinking
a little while after the formation of the first crack. The longitudinal bars were slightly
kinked in this specimen although the beam’s stirrups exhibited a relatively higher
rotation than B 8-12, 10-125. Prior to failure, and since the stirrups and longitudinal
stirrups. This unified behaviour of steel skeleton caused the longitudinal bars to kink
after failure.
45
FIGURE 5.1.3: B 12-12, 10-125 AFTER FAILURE

46
This specimen has the same longitudinal reinforcement ratio as the control beam, and a
higher transverse reinforcement content. The specimen initiated its first cracks at a
torque value of (Tcr) equal to 15.93 kN.m. These initial cracks were diagonally and
spirally formed around the test beam’s surfaces. B 8-12, 10-75 has formed nine major
cracks at failure at the middle region, these nine cracks were spaced at 4 cm apart on
average. The higher number of cracks observed on test beam B 8-12, 10-75 indicates
that using less stirrup spacing has the effect of enhancing the beam’s torsional ductility.
The failure of B 8-12, 10-75 is related to sever core concrete crushing and a slight
kinking (permanent deformation) in longitudinal bars. The beam failed in a semi-ductile
manner a little while after the formation of the first crack. B 8-12, 10-75 torsional
behaviour is almost similar to B 12-12, 10-125 specimen. The difference between these
two specimens is that B 8-12, 10-75 has its failure mode to be more ductile than B 12-
12, 10-125 specimen. The beam’s stirrups exhibited a small rotation prior to failure, and
since the stirrups and longitudinal reinforcement are welded together, the longitudinal
bars were forced to rotate with the stirrups. this unified behaviour of steel skeleton
caused the longitudinal bars to kink (yield) and partly contribute to beams failure.
Figure 5.1.4 shows beam B 8-12, 10-75 after failure.

47
This specimen has the same longitudinal reinforcement ratio as the control beam, and a
higher transverse reinforcement content in terms of using bigger diameter. The
specimen initiated its first cracks at a torque value of (Tcr) equal to 15.73 kN.m. These
initial cracks were diagonally and spirally formed around the test beam’s surfaces.
B 8-12, 12-125 has formed four major cracks at failure at the middle region, these four
cracks were spaced at 10.25 cm apart on average. The failure took place within the
middle region of the test specimen and the total length of the failure zone is 410 mm.
Prior to the beam’s failure, one specific crack grew wider than the other cracks, then the
beam failed at the plane of this crack. The maximum measured crack width was 10 mm.
The failure of B 8-12, 10-125 is related to core concrete crushing and the kinking

48
a little while after the formation of the first crack. The beam’s stirrups exhibited a
relatively small rotation prior to failure, and since the stirrups and longitudinal
stirrups. this unified behaviour of steel skeleton caused the longitudinal bars to kink
after failure.

49
Table 2 shows the number of cracks and the average spacing between these cracks.
TABLE 5.1: SUMMARY OF CRACK WIDTH AND NO. OF CRACKS
Average
No. of average crack
Test Specimen crack width
cracks spacing (mm)
(mm)
C 8-12, 10-125 2 180 9
B 8-12, 10-125 4 125 10
B 12-12, 10-125 8 61 8
B 8-12, 12-125 6 102.5 10
B 8-12, 10-75 9 45 7
It is clearly indicated in Table 2 that increasing the transverse reinforcement ratio
develops more cracks in the test beam, it is also observed that increasing longitudinal
reinforcement ratio has the same effect as increasing the transverse reinforcement ratio
but with less influence.
5.2 Ultimate Torsional Strength of the Test Specimens
In general, the ultimate torsional strength of the test specimens reinforced using the
spread tube approach has been improved. The improvement percentages range between
23% and 38%. C 8-12, 10-125 specimen, which is the control beam, has the ultimate
torsional strength equal to 17.7 kN.m.
Accordingly, the B 8-12, 10-125 specimen, which has the same reinforcement ratios
(longitudinal and transverse) as the control specimen, has collapsed at a torque value
50
equal to 21.78 kN.m with a total increase in torsional strength of 23.02% compared to C
8-12, 10-125 ultimate torque. In addition, increasing the longitudinal reinforcement
ratio has further enhanced the ultimate torsional strength. B 12-12, 10-125 ultimate
torque is 24.55 kN.m with a total increase in torsional strength of 38.71% comparing it
to control specimen C 8-12, 10-125, and total increase in torsional strength of 12%
compared to specimen B 8-12, 10-125.
Moreover, increasing the transverse reinforcement ratio, either by using bigger stirrup
diameter or less stirrups spacing, has also further improved the torsional strength of the
test specimens. B 8-12, 12-125 and B 8-12, 10-75 specimens have failed at a torque
values equal to 23.63 kN.m and 24.21 kN.m showing a total improvement in torsional
strength of 33.5% and 36.8% respectively. Furthermore, comparing the ultimate torque
values of these beams with B 8-12, 10-125 specimen, it is shown that B 8-12, 12-125
specimen has a percentage increase in ultimate torque of 8.5% and B 8-12, 10-75
specimen has improved the ultimate torque value by 11.2% compared to B 8-12, 10-125
ultimate torsional strength.
The ultimate torque values for test beams is shown in Table 3. Table 3 also shows the
percentage increase in ultimate torsional strength of test beams with welded cage
compared to ultimate torsional strength of control beams in which the steel cage is not
welded.
51
TABLE 5.2: ULTIMATE TORSIONAL STRENGTH OF TEST BEAMS
Test Beam Designation Tu (kN.m) % Increase
C 8-12, 10-125 17.7 0%
B 8-12, 10-125 21.775 23.02%
B 12-12, 10-125 24.552 38.71%
B 8-12, 12-125 23.625 33.47%
B 8-12, 10-75 24.21 36.78%
C 4-10, 10-100 5.68425 0%
B 4-10, 10-100 8.1575 43.51%
C 4-10, 10-200 4.5175 0%
B 4-10, 10-200 6.305 39.57%
5.2.1 Effects of Transverse and Longitudinal Ratios
It is evident from Table 5.2 that using the spread tube approach idea in reinforcing RC
beams against applied torques has improved the ultimate torsional strength of these
beams when it is compared to control beams. For example, a comparison between the
ultimate torsional strength of C 8-12, 10-125 and B 8-12, 10-125, where both have the
same reinforcement ratios (longitudinal and transverse), indicates that skeleton steel
cage has enhanced the ultimate torsional strength of the beam by 23.02 %, in addition,
ultimate torsional strength of B 8-10, 10-125 is improved by 33.56% compared to
torsional strength of C 8-10, 10-125.
This improvement in beams’ torsional strength is attributed to the fact that the welded
stirrups and longitudinal bars system behaves as a one unit against the applied torque,
52
resembling the behaviour of an imaginary steel tube. This unified behaviour of the
skeleton cage was observed in test beams after failure; a kink was noticed in skeleton
cage of RC beams, which indicates that the longitudinal and transverse reinforcements
have twisted almost at the same value of the ultimate twisting angle at failure. However,
this phenomenon was not observed in control beams.
Test Beam CB12
Test Beam B 8-12, 10-125
Test Beam B 12-12, 10-125

53
Test Beam B 8-12, 10-75
Test Beam B 8-12, 12-125
FIGURE 5.2.1: SPECIMENS AFTER FAILURE
It is evident from these photos that the steel cage of C 8-12. 10-125 was not deformed
and that the steel cage behaved elastically throughout the whole testing time and after
failure, however, in beam B 8-12, 10-125 the kink in steel cage is clearly observed and
the skeleton cage has permanently deformed. The kink in the skeleton cage was also
observed in all other test beams after failure. However, the degree of the kinking differs
as the total reinforcement ratios vary.
Another observation can be drawn from Table 5.2 is that the ultimate torsional strength
of RC beams increases as the total reinforcement ratio increases. This behaviour is
illustrated in Figure 3.
54
25
24
Total steel ratio vs Tu

23 Suleiman
Total Steel Ratio vs Tu

Tu
22
Osama B.
21
20
19
0.100% 1.100% 2.100% 3.100% 4.100%
ρtotal
FIGURE 5.2.1: BEAMS ULTIMATE TORSIONAL STRENGTH VS TOTAL REINFORCEMENT
RATIO
Furthermore, it is indicated in Table 3 that for the same amount of longitudinal
reinforcement, 1.57%, the ultimate torsional strength increased as the amount of
transverse ratio increased from 0.98% to 1.63%, and vice versa; i.e. For the same
amount of transverse reinforcement, 0.98%, the ultimate torsional strength of test beams
increased as the longitudinal reinforcement ratio increased from 1.09% to 2.35%.

55
5.3 Proposed Tube Thickness and its Effect on Ultimate Torsional
Strength
It has been argued in chapter three of this dissertation that an imaginary tube will form
when both longitudinal and transverse reinforcement are welded together, and are both
reinforcements melt in three directions to form the tube. This imaginary tube has an
average thickness that consists of the contribution of transverse reinforcement
imaginary tube thickness (tts) and the contribution from the longitudinal reinforcement
imaginary tube (ttl). The values of (tts) and (ttl) are calculated for each specimen using
equations Eq.(a) and Eq.(b) derived in chapter three. Table 5.3.1 lists the values of (tts),
(ttl) and (ttot) for each specimen.
TABLE 5.3.1: IMAGINARY TUBE THICKNESS AND CORRESPONDING ULTIMATE TORQUE
OF EACH SPECIMEN
Total
Test Specimen tts ttl Thickness Tu (KN.m) λ
Designation (mm) (mm) (mm)
C 4-10, 10-100 N.A N.A 1.56 6.5 N.A
B 4-10, 10-100 1.13 0.42 1.56 9 2.67
C 4-10, 10-200 N.A N.A N.A 5.5 N.A
B 4-10, 10-200 0.60 0.42 1.02 7.2 1.42
C 8-12, 10-125 N.A N.A N.A 17.7 N.A
B 8-12, 10-125 1.27 1.22 2.49 21.775 1.04

B 12-12, 10-125 1.27 1.83 3.10 24.552 0.69
B 8-12, 12-125 1.82 1.22 3.04 23.625 1.49
B 8-12, 10-75 1.53 1.22 2.75 24.21 1.26
56
It is evident from table 5.3.1 that as the thickness of the imaginary tube increases the
ultimate torsional strength is increased. This increase is mainly affected by the number
of longitudinal bars and the spacing between stirrups, i.e. more longitudinal bars and
less stirrup spacing will produce higher ultimate torsional strengths. This is true due to
the fact that increasing the number of longitudinal bars or utilizing less spacing would
produce higher imaginary tube thickness leading to greatly improve the concrete core
confinement.
Specimen B 8-12, 10-125 has the same total reinforcement ratio as the control beam and
hence has a tube thickness of 2.49 mm. Comparing Tu of this specimen with Tu of the
control beam C 8-12, 10-125, the effect of the tube approach is clearly evident where
the ultimate torsional strength is improved.
Specimen B 12-12, 10-125 has the same transverse reinforcement as the control
specimen but its longitudinal reinforcement ratio is higher. The average tube thickness
of this specimen is 3.1 mm, and the corresponding Tu is 24.55 KN.m, where both of
these values are the maximum among other specimens.
Specimen B 8-12. 10-75 contains the same number of longitudinal bars as the control
specimen, rather it has higher transverse reinforcement content. Comparing the tube
thickness of this specimen with tube thickness of B 8-12, 12-125, we see that tube
thickness of B 8-12. 10-75 is 2.75 mm which is lower than the tube thickness of B 8-
12, 12-125 which equal to 3.04 mm. However the ultimate torsional strength of B 8-12.
10-75 is 24.2 KN.m which is higher than the torsional strength of B 8-12, 12-125 (
23.63 KN.m).
It is concluded from the above discussion that the ultimate torsional strength is affected
mainly by the number of longitudinal bars and stirrups spacing, i.e. concrete
57
confinement. Using a bigger diameter for the stirrups does not contribute much to Tu as
the comparison between specimen B 8-12, 10-75 and specimen B 8-12, 12-125 states
that B 8-12, 10-75 has higher Tu even though it contains less total reinforcement ratio
and less imaginary tube thickness. Figure 5.3.1 shows the relation between Tu and total
thickness of imaginary tube produced by torsional reinforcement.
25
24.5
24
23.5
Tu vs Total thickness
23
22.5
22
21.5
0 1 2 3 4
FIGURE 5.3.1: RELATION BETWEEN TOTAL THICKNESS AND ULTIMATE TORSIONAL
STRENGTH
Another factor that affects the relation between the ultimate torsional strength and total
tube thickness is the thickness ratio (λ) which is defined in chapter three. The values of
(λ) is listed in table 5.3.1 for each specimen. It is evident from these value of (λ) that
the thickness ratio is inversely proportional to the ultimate torsional strength, except for
the specimen B 8-12, 10-125, again this phenomenon happens due to the fact that all
58
other specimens have a better concrete confinement and that the specimen B 8-12, 10-
125 has the least tube thickness.

59
Chapter 6
Conclusions and Recommendations
6.1 Conclusions
This dissertation discusses a new approach to reinforce RC beams against applied
torques. An experimental study is presented in this paper to introduce the Spread Tube
Approach, where the following conclusions can be drawn from the test results:
1. The post-cracking behaviour of test beams reinforced by the spread tube
approach has improved, since these test specimens had to develop more cracks
prior to failure. In addition, the transverse reinforcement ratio has the most
effect on the post-cracking behaviour of test specimens.
2. The steel reinforcement ratio has a direct impact on the ultimate torsional
capacity; higher reinforcement ratio produces higher torsional capacity.
3. The ultimate torsional strength of test beams was improved when skeleton steel
cage was used. Test results shows an increase in ultimate torsional strength of
test beams compared to control beams, where increase percentages ranged
between 23.02% and 38.71%.
4. Increasing the transverse reinforcement ratio was effective at improving the
post-cracking behaviour, furthermore, it improved the ultimate torsional
strength of test specimens. The addition of transverse stirrups has improved the
overall behaviour of test beams.
5. At the same amount of transverse reinforcement, the ultimate torsional
strength of test specimens improved by the addition of longitudinal bars.

60
Moreover, adding longitudinal bars was effective at enhancing the post-
cracking behaviour of test specimens.
6. The tube model was very efficient in replacing the undesired brittle mode of
failure with a moderate ductile behaviour, which can be partly attributed to the
contribution of the longitudinal reinforcement.
7. In the steel skeleton the longitudinal reinforcement bars has a role in confining
the concrete core by establishing friction with the concrete pieces trying to
escape the steel skeleton, this friction was due to the relative movement since
the bond between the concrete and the longitudinal bars is no longer easily
broken.
8. The proposed tube thickness ratio (λ) has a direct impact on the torsional
behaviour of reinforced concrete beam. The tube thickness parameter λ also
proved that the longitudinal reinforcement layer has a larger impact than
expected.
9. The total thickness of the imaginary tube is directly proportional to the ultimate
torsional strength of specimens, noting that longitudinal reinforcement
contribution to the imaginary tube thickness was more efficient at improving
the ultimate torsional strength. This is true due to the fact that longitudinal
reinforcement has higher bonding area with the concrete core.

61
6.2 Recommendations
For future investigations, the following is recommended:
1. Investigate the effect of placing the stirrups with different hook position and
welding the two hooks together to provide completely closed welded stirrups.
2. Investigate the approach by changing the parameters and the steel arrangements
in more significant and drastic ways so that the proposed behaviour can be
confirmed.
3. Include the stress-strain analysis to get a more accurate perception for the virtual
tube behaviour under pure torsion.
4. A modification to the proposed tube approach (steel skeleton) is to be provided
to make the concrete active in a better way, by establishing a technique to force
the concrete core to contribute to the ultimate torque of the section in the
post-cracking phase.
5. Increasing the width of the cylindrical support to match the width of the steel
torsional arms to ease placing those steel beams and to provide a better rotating
movement.
6. Welding the cylindrical supports upper part with the lower torsional steel beam
to ease preparing the setup, save time and achieve a better rotation for the
torsional steel beams.
7. Adjusting the upper torsional steel beams so that the spreader beam will be in
contact with them in the exact same point in order for the twisting to be equal
and uniform on the specimen.

62
8. Decreasing the length of the steel tie rods from one-meter-long to be fifty
millimetres longer than the total depth of the concrete specimen and the two
steel torsional beams (About 700 mm long) to save both time and effort.
63
7.0 References
[1] Rausch E. Design of reinforced concrete in torsion (Berechnung des
eisenbetons gegen verdrehung). PhD thesis (in German), Technische
Hochschule, Berlin; 1929, 53 pp.
[2] Hsu, T.T.C. (1968a) “Torsion of structural concrete – Behaviour of
reinforced concrete rectangular members” Torsion of structural
concrete, SP-18, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Mich.
[3] Hsu, T.T.C. (1968b) “Ultimate torque of reinforced rectangular
bembers” J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 94(2), 485-510.
[4] Rasmussen LJ, Baker G. Torsion in reinforced normal and high-
strength concrete beams – part 1: experimental test series. ACI Struct J.
1995;92(1):56–62.
[5] Wafa FF, Shihata SA, Ashour SA, Akhtaruzzaman AA. Pre-stressed
high-strength concrete beams under torsion. J Struct. Eng, ASCE
1995;121(9):1280–6.
[6] In-Hwan Yang; Changbin Joh; Jung Woo Lee; Byung-Suk Kim,
Torsional behaviour of ultra-high performance concrete squared beams,
Engineering Structures, 56 (2013) 372-383.
[7] Nanni A. Design for torsion using steel fiber reinforced
concrete. ACI Struct J 1990;87(6):556–64.

64
[8] Khaldoun N. Rahal, Torsional strength of normal and high
strength reinforced concrete beams, Engineering Structures, 56
(2013) 2206-2216.
[9] ACI-SP18. Torsion of structural concrete. American Concrete
Institute Special Publication, vol. 18; 1968, 512 p.
[10] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for
reinforced concrete, (ACI318-05). Detroit, MI: American
Concrete Institute; 2005.
[11] Luis F. A. Bernardo Æ Sergio M. R. Lopes, Behaviour of
concrete beams under torsion: NSC plain and hollow beams,
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:1143–1167.
[12] ACI 318-08. Building code requirements for structural
concrete. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Michigan, 2008.
[13] Chhabirani, T. (2012), Study of Torsional Behavior of
Rectangular Reinforced Concrete Beams Wrapped with
GFRP. Unpublished Master of Technology Dissertation,
National Institute of Technology Rourkela, Odisha, India.

65
[14] Nilson, A., Darwin, D. and Dolan, C. (2010), Design of Concrete
Structures, 14th edition, New York: McGraw-Hill.
[15] Pillai, S. and Menon, D. (2009), Reinforced Concrete Design, 3rd
edition, New Delhi, India: Twta McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.
[16] Prakash, M., Sadananpp, P., Manjunath R., Jagadeesh K. and
Prabhakara R. (2012), Cracking and torsional ductility behavior of HSC
Beams, International Journal of Civil, structural, Environmental
and Infrastructure Engineering, Research and Development
(IJCSEIERD), 2(4), 1-10.
[17] Saatcioglu, M. and Mongi, G. (1999), Confinment of Reinforced
Concrete Columns with Welded Reinforcement Grids, ACI Structural
Journal, 96(1), 29-39.
[18] R. Park and T. Paulay 1975 “Reinforced Concrete Structures” John
Wily and Sons, 1975.
[19] Robert D. Cook, Warren C. Young “Advanced Mechanics of
Materials” 2nd Edition, Prentice Hall 1999.
[20] Canadian Standards Association, Design of Concrete Structures:
Structures’ Design. Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, Ontario,
1994.
[21] European Standard. Eurocode 2, Design of concrete structures. EN
1992-1-1, Draft for stage 49, Commission of the European
Communities, European Committee for standardization.

66
[22] Osama Barakat, TORSION OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAMS – TUBE
APPROACH, University of Jordan, May 2016.

Suleiman A. S. Al Hunity MSC Thesis "Torsion in Reinforced Concrete Beams - Spread Tube Approach"

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Suleiman A. S. Al Hunity MSC Thesis "Torsion in Reinforced Concrete Beams - Spread Tube Approach"

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

i

TORSION OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAMS – SPREAD

Suleiman Al-Aiman Suleiman Al-Hunity

Dr. Abdelqader S.Najmi, Prof.

Master’s Degree of Science in Civil Engineering

Faculty of Graduate Studies

The University of Jordan

This Thesis (TORSION OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAMS – SPREAD

TUBE APPROACH) was Successfully Defended and Proved on 9, Aug, 2016

Examination Committee Signature

Dr. Abdulqader S. Najmi, (Supervisor) …………………………..

Prof. of Civil Engineering

Dr. Nazzal S. Armouti, (Member) …………………………..

Prof. of Civil Engineering

Dr. Samih S. Qaqish, (Member) ……………………….....

Prof. of Civil Engineering

Dr. Hasan N. Katkhuda, (Member) ……………………….

Assoc. Prof. of Civil Engineering

This Dissertation is dedicated to my parents, Eng. Aiman Al-Hunity and

love and encouragement. I am truly honoured to have you as my parents

It is my proud privilege to release the feelings of my gratitude to several persons who

helped directly or indirectly to complete this dissertation.

and for their time.

throughout my study period.

encouragement throughout my research period.

I am extremely thankful to my two younger brothers Mohammad and Ahmad, my little

unconditioned help, encouragement and support whenever required.

COMMITTEE DECISION ............................................................................................... ii

DEDICATION ................................................................................................................. iii

TABLE OF CONTENT .................................................................................................... v

List of Tables ................................................................................................................... ix

Table of Figures ................................................................................................................ x

Nomenclature .................................................................................................................. xii

1.1 General .................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 History of Torsion in Reinforced Concrete Members ............................................ 3

1.3 Torsion in Reinforced Concrete Members .............................................................. 4

1.3.1 Pre-cracking Strength ................................................................................................... 4

1.3.2 Post-cracking Strength ................................................................................................. 4

1.3.3 Torsional Reinforcement and Mode of Failure ............................................................ 5

1.4 Significance of the Study ............................................................................................ 6

Chapter Two ..................................................................................................................... 9

Literature review ............................................................................................................... 9

2.1 Torsional Behaviour of RC Beams – Theories and Models ....................................... 9

2.1.1 Skew Bending Theory ......................................................................................... 9

2.1.2 Space Truss Analogy ......................................................................................... 11

2.1.3 Variable Angle Truss Model - VATM .............................................................. 13

2.1.4 Compression Field Theory - CFT ...................................................................... 14

2.1.5 Modified Compression Field Theory - MCFT .................................................. 15

2.1.6 Softened Truss Model ........................................................................................ 15

2.2 Reinforced Concrete Beam Strengthening against Applied Torsion ........................ 16

2.2.1 Strengthening of RC Beams with High Strength Concrete (HSC) .................... 17

2.2.2 Strengthening of RC Beams using Ultra-High Performance Concrete (UHPC) 17

2.2.3 Strengthening of RC Beams Using Fibre Reinforced Polymer (FRP) .............. 18

2.2.4 Comments on Torsional Strengthening Techniques .......................................... 19

Chapter Three ................................................................................................................. 20

Spread Tube Approach ................................................................................................... 20

3.2 Thickness Calculations for the Proposed Tube......................................................... 22

3.2.1 Contribution of Stirrups ..................................................................................... 22

3.2.2 Contribution of Longitudinal Reinforcement .................................................... 23

3.2.3 Thickness Ratio.................................................................................................. 24

Chapter Four ................................................................................................................... 25

4.1 Beam Details and Test Parameters ....................................................................... 25

4.2 Reinforcement Ratios ............................................................................................... 31