Next Article in Journal
Effect of Water Ingress on the Mechanical and Chemical Properties of Polybutylene Terephthalate Reinforced with Glass Fibers
Next Article in Special Issue
A Combined Experimental-Numerical Framework for Assessing the Load-Bearing Capacity of Existing PC Bridge Decks Accounting for Corrosion of Prestressing Strands
Previous Article in Journal
Relationship between Young’s Modulus and Planar Density of Unit Cell, Super Cells (2 × 2 × 2), Symmetry Cells of Perovskite (CaTiO3) Lattice
Previous Article in Special Issue
Prediction of Compressive Strength of Fly Ash Based Concrete Using Individual and Ensemble Algorithm
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Evaluation of Smeared Constitutive Laws for Tensile Concrete to Predict the Cracking of RC Beams under Torsion with Smeared Truss Model

Centre of Materials and Building Technologies (C-MADE), Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Beira Interior, 6201-001 Covilhã, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Materials 2021, 14(5), 1260; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14051260
Submission received: 16 February 2021 / Revised: 1 March 2021 / Accepted: 4 March 2021 / Published: 7 March 2021

Abstract

:
In this study, the generalized softened variable angle truss-model (GSVATM) is used to predict the response of reinforced concrete (RC) beams under torsion at the early loading stages, namely the transition from the uncracked to the cracked stage. Being a 3-dimensional smeared truss model, the GSVATM must incorporate smeared constitutive laws for the materials, namely for the tensile concrete. Different smeared constitutive laws for tensile concrete can be found in the literature, which could lead to different predictions for the torsional response of RC beams at the earlier stages. Hence, the GSVATM is used to check several smeared constitutive laws for tensile concrete proposed in previous studies. The studied parameters are the cracking torque and the corresponding twist. The predictions of these parameters from the GSVATM are compared with the experimental results from several reported tests on RC beams under torsion. From the obtained results and the performed comparative analyses, one of the checked smeared constitutive laws for tensile concrete was found to lead to good predictions for the cracking torque of the RC beams regardless of the cross-section type (plain or hollow). Such a result could be useful to help with choosing the best constitutive laws to be incorporated into the smeared truss models to predict the response of RC beams under torsion.

1. Introduction

In the second half of the last century, the Space Truss Analogy (STA) was successively refined in order to better predict the response of structural concrete beams under torsion. Nowadays, modern truss-based models can be considered reliable, comprehensive and unified analytical models. They are able to simulate the complex 3-dimensional features of the torsional phenomenon, including the nonlinear behavior and the interaction between the material components of the beam in all loading stages. Models based on the STA constitute the basis models for most codes of practice to establish the design procedures for torsion and still continue to be improved and extended [1,2].
A STA-based model assumes that a reinforced concrete (RC) beam under torsion behaves like a cracked thin tube, where the external torque is resisted through a transversal circulatory shear flow. The tube is modeled with a spatial truss, which includes longitudinal and transverse steel reinforcement under tension interacting with inclined concrete struts under compression. The model satisfies the three Navier’s principles of the mechanics of materials, namely, stress equilibrium, strain compatibility and constitutive laws.
Among the STA-based models that have been developed, one of the most commonly used and extended is the Variable-Angle Truss Model (VATM), which was originally proposed by Hsu and Mo in 1985 [3]. This model incorporated for the first time smeared constitutive laws, or smeared stress ( σ )—strain ( ε ) relationships, for both tensile steel reinforcement embedded in concrete and compressive concrete. Such constitutive laws are established from controlled experimental tests on RC panels under in-plane shear, in order to account for, on average (considering an area sufficiently wide to include several cracks), the effect of the biaxial stress state in the principal direction of stresses, the effect of cracking, the interaction between the material components, and both the softening and stiffening effects. The Universal Panel Tester at the University of Houston is one of the testing devices which has most contributed to the establishment of smeared constitutive laws for smeared truss models [4].
Despite being a nonlinear model with an incremental and iterative calculation procedure, the VATM is relatively simple to implement, having access to programming languages in a computer. The model allows us to calculate the full response of RC beams under torsion, namely the torque ( M T )–twist ( θ ) curve. The predictions from the VATM showed good agreement with experimental results, namely when predicting the response of RC beams under torsion at the ultimate stage [3,5,6]. When compared with more complex models also proposed for the RC beam under torsion, which sometimes involve large computational effort (for instance [7,8,9,10]), the VATM is recognized as a simpler and more reliable model for predicting the torsional strength of RC beams under torsion, which is one of the most important key parameters for design. It should also be mentioned that smeared approaches, such as the VATM, constitute an alternative approach to local ones in which the local fracture properties are directly accounted for, such as in the numerical models from [11,12]. In smeared approaches, smeared constitutive laws for the materials are incorporated into the model. Such models have been shown to be reliable, on average, for modeling the global behavior of structural elements, such as for the RC beams under torsion.
The VATM has been extended for prestress concrete (PC) beams [13] and also for axially restrained RC beams [14,15]. The VATM was also improved in order to reliably predict the response of RC beam under torsion for the low loading stages, namely the transition between the uncracked stage and the cracked stage. This was achieved by incorporating into the model the contribution of the tensile concrete (neglected in the VATM) through an additional smeared σ ε constitutive law in the perpendicular direction to the concrete struts. The new model, called generalized softened variable angle truss-model (GSVATM), was proposed in 2015 for RC solid beams under torsion [16]. The predictions from the GSVATM showed good agreement with experimental results for all loading stages. The GSVATM was recently extended for PC beams [17], hollow RC beams [18] and RC flanged beams [19]. A unified version of the model was also recently proposed [2].
The predictions from any smeared truss model, such as the VATM or the GSVATM, strongly depend on the smeared σ ε relationships for the materials. This important aspect was previously demonstrated by Bernardo et al. in 2012 [20] for the prediction of the torsional strength and corresponding twist for the RC beams under torsion. The study aimed to find the most reliable smeared σ ε relationships for the materials, among the several ones found in the literature, to be incorporated into the VATM to better predict the ultimate response of RC beams under torsion. The best constitutive laws found in [20], for both the concrete in compression and steel reinforcement in tension, were posteriorly incorporated in the GSVATM [16]. Bernardo et al. in 2012 [20] did not include in their study the prediction of the key parameters for the low loading stages because, as referred to before, the predictions from the VATM were shown to be in good agreement with the experimental results only for the ultimate stage. This is mainly because the model assumes that the member has been fully cracked since the beginning of loading, which is not true.
For design, it is also important to reliably predict the behavior for the low loading levels. The current codes of practice compel us to check the structural members for both the serviceability and ultimate limit states. For the first one, it is important that the cracking torque is known. As previously referred to, the GSVATM is able to predict the full response of the RC beams under torsion, including the transition between the uncracked stage and the cracked stage. The prediction of such a transition zone highly depends on the smeared constitutive law for the tensile concrete. As for the other constitutive laws referred to (for concrete in compression and steel reinforcement in tension), different proposals of smeared constitutive laws for tensile concrete can be found in the literature. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no previous study was found with the aim of checking such constitutive laws in smeared truss models, in order to evaluate which features allow the model to give the best predictions for the low loading stages. Usually, researchers working with smeared truss models use their own smeared constitutive laws or choose them based on the proposals from other studies.
In this study, the GSVATM is used to check some proposed smeared constitutive laws for tensile concrete found in the literature. The GSVATM was the chosen model because, as previously stated, it is able to predict the full response of the RC beams under torsion for all loading stages. In addition, this model was proposed by the corresponding author [16] and has also been successfully used in previous studies [2,17,18,19,21]. The chosen parameters to be studied are the cracking torque and the corresponding twist. The theoretical predictions of such parameters are compared with the experimental results from several reported tests on RC beams under torsion. Only RC beams with rectangular sections are studied because they constitute the current solution used in practice. In addition, the number of reported experimental results in the literature for such beams is much higher than for other typologies such as PC beams or beams with a flanged cross-section.

2. The Generalized Softened Variable Angle Truss-Model

For the sake of the readers of this article, a brief description of the GSVATM is presented. The GSVATM was initially proposed for RC plain beams under torsion [16]. Recently, the model was extended and unified for RC hollow beams under torsion [18]. Details about the assumptions of the model, the derivation of the equations and the justification of the calculation solution procedure can be found [16,18].
According to the GSVATM, a cracked RC thin beam element under a vertical shear force V , which induces a shear flow q in the cross-section, is modeled with a smeared plain truss analogy, as illustrated in Figure 1. The behavior of the RC thin beam is governed by Equations (1) to (5). The smeared plain truss incorporates inclined concrete struts (with compressive force C ) with an angle α to the longitudinal axis, and perpendicular concrete ties (with tensile force T ). The corresponding stress fields are denoted by σ 2 c and σ 1 c , respectively. The meanings of the parameters are (see Figure 1): R is the resultant force, β is the angle of R to the force C , γ is the angle of R to the longitudinal axis, t c is the width of the cross-section and d v is the distance between centers of the longitudinal bars.
R = C 2 + T 2
β = arctan ( T / C )
γ = α + β
C = σ 2 c t c d v cos α
T = σ 1 c t c d v sin α
An equivalent cracked RC hollow beam under a torque M T , as illustrated in Figure 2, is modeled as the union of four thin beam elements as in Figure 1. Each thin beam constitutes a wall of the RC hollow beam. As a result of this union, the torque M T induces a circulatory shear flow q and the beam can be modeled with a smeared spatial truss analogy. The center line of the circulatory shear flow q coincides with the center line of the walls. The behavior of the RC hollow beam is governed by equilibrium equations, Equations (6) to (8), and compatibility equations, Equations (9) to (12). If γ = α + β > 90 , Equation (7) must be multiplied by (−1). The previous equations account for the strain gradient along the walls’ thickness due to the bidirectional opposite curvatures induced by bending (Figure 3).
M T = 2 A ο R sin γ d v
t c = A s l f s l σ 2 c p ο cos β cos α cos γ   for   γ = α + β 90
α = arctan ( F 2 ( tan β ) 2 + F ( tan β ) 4 + F + ( tan β ) 2 F ( tan β ) 2 + 1 )   with   F = A s t f s t p ο A s l f s l s
ε st = ( A o 2 σ 2 c sin γ p ο M T cos β tan α sin α 1 2 ) ε 2 s c
ε sl = ( A o 2 σ 2 c sin γ p ο M T cos β cot α sin α 1 2 ) ε 2 s c
θ = ε 2 s c 2 t c sin α cos α
ε 1 s c = 2 ε 1 c = 2 ε sl + 2 ε st + ε 2 s c
In the previous equations (see Figure 2 and Figure 3), t c is the effective thickness of the concrete strut and tie in the walls, A ο = ( x t c ) ( y t c ) and p ο = 2 ( x t c ) + 2 ( y t c ) are the area enclosed and the perimeter of the center line of the shear flow q (with x the minor and y the major outer dimension of the beam’s cross-section), respectively, A s l is the total area of the longitudinal reinforcement, A s t is the area of one rebar of the transverse reinforcement, s is the longitudinal spacing of the transverse reinforcement, f s l and f s t are the tensile stresses in the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement, respectively, ε sl and ε st are the tensile strains in the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement, respectively, ε 2 s c and ε 1 s c are the strains at the outer fiber of the concrete strut and concrete tie, respectively, ε 1 c is the average strain in the concrete tie, and θ is the twist per unit length.
As referred to in the introduction section, the GSVATM incorporates smeared σ ε relationships to model the behavior of the compressive concrete in the struts, the tensile concrete in the ties and the tensile longitudinal and transverse steel reinforcement (rebars embedded in concrete). For the RC beams under torsion, some suitable smeared σ ε relationships were previously found by Bernardo et al. in 2012 [20] and are also used in this study. For the compressive concrete, the smeared σ ε relationship proposed by Belarbi and Hsu in 1995 [22] (Equations (13) and (14)) with softening factor β * = β σ = β ε , for both the peak stress and corresponding strain, proposed by Zhang and Hsu in 1998 [23] (Equations (15) to (18)) are used. For the steel reinforcement in tension, the smeared σ ε relationship proposed by Belarbi and Hsu in 1994 [24] (Equations (19) to (21)) is used.
The meaning of the parameters are: f c is the average uniaxial concrete compressive strength, ε ο is the strain corresponding to f c , ε 2 c is the average strain in the concrete strut (Figure 3), ρ l and ρ t are the longitudinal ( ρ l = A s l / A c , with A c = x y ) and transverse ( ρ t = A s t u / A c s , with u = 2 x + 2 y ) reinforcement ratios, respectively, f l y and f t y are the yielding stresses for the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement, respectively, f c r is the tensile concrete strength, ε cr is the strain corresponding to f c r , f s and ε s are the stress and strain in the steel reinforcement (longitudinal or transversal), respectively, E s is the Young’s Modulus for steel reinforcement, f y is the yielding stress of steel reinforcement (longitudinal or transversal) and ρ is the reinforcement ratio (longitudinal or transversal).
σ 2 c = β σ f c [ 2 ( ε 2 c β ε ε ο ) ( ε 2 c β ε ε ο ) 2 ]   if   ε 2 c β ε ε ο
σ 2 c = β σ f c [ 1 ( ε 2 c β ε ε ο 2 ε ο β ε ε ο ) 2 ]   if   ε 2 c > β ε ε ο
β * = β σ = β ε = R ( f c ) 1 + 400 ε 1 c η
η = ρ l f l y ρ t f t y  
{ η 1 η = η η > 1 η = 1 / η
R ( f c ) = 5.8 f c ( MPa ) 0.9
f s = 0.975 E s ε s [ 1 + ( 1 , 1 E s ε s f y ) m ] 1 m + 0.025 E s ε s
m = 1 9 B 0.2 25
B = 1 ρ ( f c r f y ) 1.5
For the tensile concrete, the smeared σ ε relationships checked in this study are presented in more detail in the Section 3. However, in order to present the equations for some correction coefficients and also the flowchart with the calculation procedure for the GSVATM, the following general and common form of the equations are written ( F ( ) stands for “function of …”):
σ 1 c = E c ε 1 c   if   ε 1 c ε cr
σ 1 c = F ( f c r ; ε 1 c )   if   ε 1 c > ε cr
In Equation (22), which models the linear–elastic stage before cracking, E c is the Young’s Modulus for the concrete. Based on the proposals from previous studies [9,25,26], and in order to unify the GSVATM for both the RC plain and the hollow beams under torsion, and also to improve the predictions from the model for the low loading stages, in 2019 Bernardo [18] presented a set of equations (Equations (24) to (29)) to compute the parameters ε cr and E c , accounting for the correction coefficients μ and λ. These equations apply for all smeared σ —ε relationships for tensile concrete presented in the Section 3 and checked in this study.
ε cr = 0.00008 μ
E c = 3875 λ f c   ( MPa )
μ = λ = 1.45   ( RC   solid   beams )
μ = λ = 0.93   ( RC   thin-walled   hollow   beams )
μ = λ = 1.20   ( RC   thick-walled   hollow   beams   and   f c 48   MPa )
μ = λ = 1.129   ( RC   thick-walled   hollow   beams   and   f c > 48   MPa )
The classification of the RC hollow beams into “thin wall” or “thick wall” [26] is done during the calculation procedure of the GSVATM. The RC hollow beam is firstly calculated as an equivalent RC plain beam until both the cracking torque M T c r , p l a i n and the corresponding value for the effective wall’s thickness t c , c r , p l a i n are computed. Then, the following classification applies (with t being the real thickness of the wall of the RC hollow beam):
  • if t 0.91 t c , c r , p l a i n the RC hollow beam has a “thin wall”;
  • if t > 0.91 t c , c r , p l a i n the RC hollow beam has a “thick wall”.
Then, the beam is recalculated considering the real cross-section (hollow).
For the RC beams under torsion, average stresses σ 2 c (Equation (30)) and σ 1 c (Equation (31)) are computed for the concrete strut and tie, respectively, accounting for the section type through the correction coefficient η (Equations (32) to (35)). This simplification is assumed because the real stress diagrams along the effective wall’s thickness t c are not uniform due to the strain gradient (Figure 3). The coefficients k 2 c and k 1 c  are computed from the numerical integration of the smeared σ—ε relationships.
σ 2 c = η k 2 c β σ f c
σ 1 c = η k 1 c f c r
η = 1   ( RC   solid   beams )
η = 0.033 f c   ( MPa )   +   0.73   ( RC   thin-walled   hollow   beams )
η = 0.0938 f c   ( MPa )   +   0.43   ( RC   thick-walled   hollow   beams   and   f c 48   MPa )
η = 8.45 f c   ( MPa )   +   0.17   ( RC   thick-walled   hollow   beams   and   f c > 48   MPa )
To solve the nonlinear procedure of the GSVATM, an algorithm incorporating a trial-and-error technique was implemented using the programming language Delphi (see flowchart in Figure 4) [16,18]. For each iteration, the input parameter ε 2 s c = 2 ε 2 c (strain at the outer fiber of the concrete strut) is incremented in order to compute each solution point to draw the theoretical M T θ curve. The calculation procedure ends when the assumed failure strains for the materials is reached, either for concrete in compression ( ε cu ) or for steel reinforcement in tension ( ε su ). In this study, European code Eurocode 2 was used to define the conventional failure strains for the materials.

3. Smeared Constitutive Laws for Tensile Concrete

This section presents eight smeared σ ε relationships for tensile concrete proposed in previous studies (laws l1 to l8), so that they can be implemented in the GSVATM and checked (Section 4). In a previous study, it was showed that these relationships are suitable to be implemented in smeared truss models, such as the GSVATM, to account for the contribution of the tensile concrete [27].
Some of the presented smeared σ ε relationships for tensile concrete were proposed based on the experimental results from concrete panels under shear. In such cases, the average stress σ 1 c in the tensile concrete after cracking ( ε 1 c   >   ε cr ) is usually obtained from the equilibrium of the stress fields applied to the panels by separating the average stresses in both the tensile steel reinforcement and the tensile concrete. The other smeared σ ε relationships for tensile concrete were proposed by refining the previous ones in order to improve the predictions of the used smeared models.
For all presented smeared σ ε relationships for tensile concrete, two equations are written. The first one aims to model the tensile behavior of the concrete before cracking and is equal for all smeared constitutive laws:
σ 1 c = E c ε 1 c   if   ε 1 c ε cr
The second equation aims to model the tensile behavior of the concrete after cracking, and accounts for the tension softening (the influence of the cracks) and the tension stiffening (the retention of concrete tensile stress due to the interaction with steel reinforcement).
As presented in Section 2, parameters ε cr and E c are computed according to Equations (24) and (25), which apply for all the presented smeared σ—ε relationships. Further, for all presented equations, the symbology was adapted to the same one used in the previous section.

3.1. Law l1—Cervenka in 1985

In 1985, Cervenka proposed a smeared model for cracked RC panels. In this model, the author implemented the following equation for the descending branch of the smeared σ ε relationships for tensile concrete [28]:
σ 1 c = f c r [ 1 ( ε 1 c c ) k 2 ]   if   ε 1 c > ε cr
Parameter c is the average tensile strain ( ε 1 c ) for which the principal tensile stress can be considered null. The author observed that c ranges between 0.004 and 0.005. For this study, the average value (0.0045) was considered. The exponent k 2 is related with the curvature shape of the descending branch of the σ ε curve after the peak tensile stress. Cervenka proposed to consider k 2 = 0.5 .

3.2. Law l2—Vecchio and Collins in 1986

In 1986, based on several experimental results from RC panels under shear performed at the University of Toronto, Vecchio and Collins proposed the smeared model called Modified Compression Field Theory. For this model, the following postpeak smeared σ ε relationship for tensile concrete was proposed [29]:
σ 1 c = f c r 1 + 200 ε 1 c   if   ε 1 c > ε cr

3.3. Law l3—Hsu in 1991

In 1991, Hsu [30] proposed an efficient algorithm for his softened truss model theory to analyze the nonlinear behavior of concrete membrane elements. For this model, a refined version of the postpeak smeared σ ε relationship for tensile concrete from Vecchio and Collins in 1986 [29] was proposed:
σ 1 c = f c r 1 + ε 1 c ε cr 0.005   if   ε 1 c > ε cr

3.4. Law l4—Belarbi and Hsu in 1994

Based on experimental studies on RC panels under shear performed at the University of Houston, Belarbi and Hsu in 1994 [24] proposed Equation (40) for the descending branch of the smeared constitutive law for tensile concrete.
σ 1 c = f c r ( ε cr ε 1 c ) 0.4   if   ε 1 c > ε cr

3.5. Law l5—Collins and Colaborators in 1996

In 1996, Collins et al. [31] proposed a postpeak smeared constitutive law for tensile concrete slightly different from the one proposed by Vecchio and Collins in 1986 [29]:
σ 1 c = f c r 1 + 500 ε 1 c   if   ε 1 c > ε cr

3.6. Law l6—Vecchio in 2000

The Disturbed Stress Field Model for RC was proposed by Vecchio in 2000 [32]. For this model, the author proposed a somewhat more complicated postpeak smeared constitutive law for tensile concrete, in order to account more precisely for the tension stiffening. The author proposed two equations, with a maximum condition, to also account indirectly for the level of reinforcement ratio (Equations (42) to (45)). When a low (high) reinforcement ratio exists, tension softening (stiffening) is more relevant.
σ 1 c = max ( f c 1 a ; f c 1 b )   if   ε 1 c > ε cr
f c 1 a = f c r ( 1 ε 1 c ε cr ε ts ε cr )
f c 1 b = f c r 1 + c t ε 1 c
ε ts = 2.0 G f f c r L r
Parameter ε ts represents the terminal strain, which depends on the fracture energy ( G f ), assumed to be constant and equal to 75 N/m by Vecchio, and also on half of the distance between cracks ( L r ). Parameter c t can be simply considered equal to 200 for small members or for members incorporating steel reinforcement grids with very small spacing, and 500 for large members. For this study, L r was infered from the experimental data of the used reference beams (Section 4).

3.7. Law l7—Bentz in 2005

In 2005, Bentz proposed Equations (46) and (47) for the smeared postpeak tension stiffening relationship of tensile concrete [33].
σ 1 c = f c r 1 + 3.6 M ε 1 c   if   ε 1 c > ε cr
M = A c ϕ π
Parameter M (in “mm” units) accounts for the effective tensile concrete area around the rebars ( A c ) and for the rebars’ diameter ( ϕ ). For this study, A c was computed considering the effective thickness of the concrete tie ( t c ), which is computed from the GSVATM.

3.8. Law l8—Stramandinoli and Rovere in 2008

In 2008, for the nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete members, Stramandinoli and Rovere proposed equations for the postpeak smeared constitutive law for tensile concrete [34] (Equations (48) to (50)). The law accounts directly for the longitudinal reinforcement ratio ρ .
σ 1 c = f c r e α ( ε 1 c ε cr )   if   ε 1 c > ε cr
α = 0.017 + 0.255 ( n ρ ) 0.106 ( n ρ ) 2 + 0.016 ( n ρ ) 3
n = E s E c

3.9. Comparison between the Smeared Constitutive Laws

For comparison, Figure 5 illustrates the smeared σ ε curves for tensile concrete for each of the proposals presented in the previous subsections. The curves were computed considering the same arbitrary and typical cross-section with current materials.
After the peak stress, namely for the descending branch, Figure 5 shows high variability between the σ ε curves. In spite of the peak stress coincides for all the curves, it should be noted that the referred variability will influence the calculation of the cracking torque and corresponding twist with the GSVATM. This is because, as previously referred, the tensile stress σ 1 c computed from Equation (31) represents an average stress since the real stress diagram along the effective tie’s thickness is not uniform due to the strain gradient (Figure 3). The representative concrete tensile stress in the GSVATM ( σ 1 c ) does not coincide with the maximum tensile stress. Hence, the strain ε 1 c corresponding to the effective cracking torque in the M T θ curve computed with the GSVATM does not coincide with the strain ε cr corresponding to the peak stress in the smeared σ—ε curves for tensile concrete. This is illustrated in Figure 6, where an example of M T —θ and corresponding σ—ε curves for tensile concrete, computed with the GSVATM, are presented. The highlighted point in the curves (with marker “ Materials 14 01260 i001”) corresponds to the effective cracking torque, which is reached for a strain ε 1 c > ε cr , i.e., in the descending branch of the smeared σ—ε curve for tensile concrete. This explains why different smeared σ ε curves for tensile concrete incorporated in the GSVATM will lead to different coordinates for the cracking torque (cracking torque and corresponding twist).

4. Comparison with Experimental Results

For this study, the experimental results of 103 RC beams tested under torsion were collected from the literature. Both RC beams with plain and hollow rectangular cross section were considered. These beams were selected based on criteria related to minimum requirements from codes of practice (for instance, the beams should incorporate a minimum torsional reinforcement, the spacing between rebars should not exceed the maximum allowed, etc.) in order to ensure a typical behavior under torsion. A detailed discussion on such applied criteria can be found in [21]. For the RC plain beams, the data were collected from the following studies: Hsu in 1968 [35], McMullen and Rangan in 1978 [36], Koutchkali and Belarbi in 2001 [37], Fang and Shiau in 2004 [38], and Peng and Wong in 2011 [39]. For RC hollow beams, the following studies were consulted: Hsu in 1968 [35], Lampert and Thürlimann in 1969 [40], Leonhardt and Schelling in 1974 [41], Bernardo and Lopes in 2009 [42], and Jeng in 2015 [26].
Table A1 in Appendix A summarizes the main properties for each reference beam. In Table 1, “P” and “H” stand for “plain” and “hollow” cross-section, respectively. For all the reference beams from Table A1, the experimental values of the cracking torque ( M T c r e x p ) and corresponding twist ( θ cr exp ) were obtained from the data or graphs given by the authors [26,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42]. Such values are presented for each reference beam in Table A2, Table A3 and Table A4 (see Appendix A).
The torsional response of all the reference beams was computed using the GSVATM, for each of the smeared σ ε relationships for the tensile concrete presented in Section 3 (laws l1 to l8). From the obtained theoretical M T θ curves, the theoretical coordinates of the cracking point, i.e., the cracking torque ( M T c r t h l i , with i = 1   to   8 ) and corresponding twists, i.e., the cracking twists ( θ cr thli , with i = 1   to   8 ), were obtained. Such values are also presented for each reference beam in Table A2, Table A3 and Table A4 (see Appendix A). In addition, the ratios between the experimental to the theoretical values are also presented for each reference beam ( M T c r e x p / M T c r t h l i and θ cr exp / θ cr thli , with i = 1   to   8 ).
Figure 7 presents, as an example, a graph with the experimental and theoretical M T θ curves, computed for each smeared constitutive law for tensile concrete, for reference beam N-20-20 [38]. Figure 7 confirms that the coordinates of the cracking point, namely the cracking torque, as well as the postcracking response, highly depends on the used smeared constitutive law for the tensile concrete. The influence of the used smeared constitutive law is residual at the ultimate stage, namely for the maximum torque.
Table 1 summarizes and compares the results from Table A2, Table A3 and Table A4 (Appendix A) for the cracking torque ( M T c r e x p ) and corresponding twist ( θ cr exp ). For this, the following statistical parameters were computed for each ratio M T c r e x p / M T c r t h l i and θ cr exp / θ cr thli ( i = 1   to   8 ): the average value ( x ¯ ) and the coefficient of variation ( c v ( % ) = 100 × s / x ¯ , with s being the sample standard deviation). Table 1 also presents separately the results for plain (P) and hollow (H) beams. This is because some studies showed that noticeable differences exist between the response of plain and hollow beams under torsion for the low loading stages, namely for the transition between the uncracked and the cracked stage [26].
Table 1 shows that, for the RC plain beams, the smeared constitutive laws l1, l2, l4, l5 and l6 allow us to predict the cracking torque M T c r (with 0.95 < x ¯ < 1.05 ) very well and with a very acceptable degree of dispersion ( c v < 13 % ). Among those models, the smeared constitutive law l4 from Belarbi and Hsu (1994) [24] is the best (with x ¯ = 1.00 and c v = 11.35 % ). For the RC hollow beams, this constitutive law gives the better average value x ¯ = 1.03 , although the degree of dispersion is high ( c v = 32.17 % ). The higher difficulty of reliably predicting the cracking torque for the RC hollow beams, when compared with the RC plain beams, was also observed and discussed in previous studies [18,26,27]. In particular, the RC hollow beams are more sensitive to the high variability of concrete tensile strength, which highly influences the cracking torque. When all beams are considered together, the smeared constitutive laws l2, l4, l6 and l7 give the best results with x ¯ 1.00 , although the degree of dispersion is higher ( c v < 23 % ) due to the influence of the results for the RC hollow beams. In general, it can be stated that the smeared constitutive law l4 from Belarbi and Hsu (1994) [24] allows us to best predict the cracking torque, regardless of the cross-section type. This constitutive law has been widely used by authors in previous studies [9,16,17,18,19,23,26]. The results from Table 1 confirm the validity of such studies having chosen this smeared constitutive law for tensile concrete.
Regarding the twist corresponding to the cracking torque ( θ cr ), Table 1 shows that, in general, there is a higher difficulty in obtaining a good prediction of this parameter. The constitutive laws l3 and l8 give the best average values for both the RC plain beams ( 0.95 < x ¯ < 1.05 ) and also for all the RC beams together ( x ¯ 1.10 ). However, the dispersion of these results is high ( c v > 25 % ). The results are the worst for the RC hollow beams, which was also reported in previous studies [17,18,25,27]. One possible explanation for this is that the experimental twists are very small until the end of the uncracked stage. Hence, experimental limitations related to the accurate measurement of the twists at this stage are expected. However, since the cracking twist is not very important for design, the previously reported worst results can also be considered not very important.
Figure 8 presents, for each smeared constitutive law (l1 to l8), scatter graphs showing the experimental versus the theoretical values for the cracking torque. Similar graphs are not presented for the cracking twist because of the high dispersion of the results previously reported. In the graphs, different markers were used to distinguish the results regarding the cross-section type, namely “ Materials 14 01260 i002” for RC plain beams and “ Materials 14 01260 i003” for RC hollow beams.
Figure 8 visually confirms the observations previously stated from Table 1, namely the higher dispersion of the results for the RC hollow beams.

5. Conclusions

In this study, the GSVATM was used to check some proposed smeared constitutive laws for tensile concrete found in the literature in order to predict the response of the RC beams under torsion for the low loading stage; namely the transition from the uncracked stage to the cracked stage. As referred to in the introduction section, the smeared model GSVATM is simpler than the other, more complex models for the RC beams under torsion. In addition, it was also validated in several previous studies. Hence, the GSVATM was considered to be sufficiently simpler and reliable to evaluate the smeared constitutive laws for tensile concrete. From the obtained results, the following conclusions can be drawn:
(1)
The different proposals for the smeared constitutive law for tensile concrete analyzed in this study lead to high differences in the shape of the postpeak descending branch of the corresponding smeared σ ε curves;
(2)
The obtained results confirm that the predicted response of the RC beams under torsion, for the transition from the uncracked stage to the cracked stage highly depends on the smeared constitutive law for tensile concrete incorporated into the model;
(3)
The predictions for the cracking torque of the RC plain beams are better than the same ones for the RC hollow beams for which higher variability of the results is observed, as also reported in previous studies;
(4)
Regardless of the used smeared constitutive law for tensile concrete, the cracking twist is not very well predicted. Namely, higher variability of the results is observed, as also reported in previous studies;
(5)
Among the studied smeared constitutive laws for tensile concrete, the one proposed by Belarbi and Hsu in 1994 allows us to reliably predict the cracking torque of the RC beams under torsion, regardless of the cross-section type (plain or hollow). This result confirms the validity of several previous studies having incorporated this constitutive law in the used smeared truss models.
Finally, the authors consider that the results obtained in this study, using the smeared model GSVATM as reference model, can be extrapolated and could be useful to other smeared models for the RC beams under torsion. It must also be pointed out that additional solutions of experiments on the different failure mechanisms and related suitable approaches for the identification process for the parameters of relations of concrete are greatly needed and should be further studied, namely for the cracking of the RC beams under torsion.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.B.; methodology, L.B.; validation, L.B.; formal analysis, M.T.; investigation, M.T.; data curation, M.T.; writing—original draft preparation, L.B.; writing—review and editing, L.B. and M.T.; supervision, L.B.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

No funding supported this work.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Properties of the reference beams.
Table A1. Properties of the reference beams.
Beam x
cm
y
cm
t
cm
x 1
cm
y 1
cm
A s t / s
cm2/m
A s l
cm2
ρ t
%
ρ l
%
f t y
MPa
f l y
MPa
f c
MPa
ε ο
%
B3 [35]P25.438.1-21.634.310.1611.361.171.1732032828.10.20
B4 [35]P25.438.1-21.634.314.0115.481.621.6032332029.20.20
B5 [35]P25.438.1-21.634.318.4720.392.132.1132133230.60.20
B6 [35]P25.438.1-21.634.322.5825.812.612.6732333228.80.20
B7 [35]P25.438.1-21.634.310.165.161.170.5331932026.00.19
B8 [35]P25.438.1-21.634.322.585.162.610.5332032226.80.19
B9 [35]P25.438.1-21.634.34.6611.360.541.1734331928.80.20
C4 [35]P25.425.4-21.621.613.1111.361.761.7632833727.20.20
C5 [35]P25.425.4-21.621.617.6715.482.372.4032932827.20.20
C6 [35]P25.425.4-21.621.623.9120.393.203.1632831627.60.20
G3 [35]P25.450.8-21.647.08.2911.360.880.8832833926.80.19
G4 [35]P25.450.8-21.647.011.2915.481.201.2032132628.30.20
G5 [35]P25.450.8-21.647.015.0520.391.601.5832833126.90.19
G7 [35]P25.450.8-21.647.08.8412.000.940.9332331931.00.20
G8 [35]P25.450.8-21.647.012.3217.031.311.3232932228.30.20
I3 [35]P25.438.1-21.634.310.1611.361.171.1733434344.80.23
I4 [35]P25.438.1-21.634.314.0115.481.621.6032631545.00.23
I5 [35]P25.438.1-21.634.318.4720.392.132.1132631045.00.23
I6 [35]P25.438.1-21.634.322.5825.812.612.6732932645.80.23
J1 [35]P25.438.1-21.634.34.665.160.540.5334632814.30.16
J2 [35]P25.438.1-21.634.37.218.000.830.8334132014.60.16
J3 [35]P25.438.1-21.634.310.1611.361.171.1733738916.90.17
J4 [35]P25.438.1-21.634.314.0115.481.621.6033232416.80.17
K2 [35]P15.249.5-11.445.76.777.741.031.0333833630.60.20
K3 [35]P15.249.5-11.445.710.4212.001.581.5932131629.00.20
K4 [35]P15.249.5-11.445.715.0517.032.282.2634034428.60.20
M1 [35]P25.438.1-21.634.34.768.000.550.8335332629.90.20
M2 [35]P25.438.1-21.634.36.7711.360.781.1735732930.60.20
M3 [35]P25.438.1-21.634.39.2415.481.071.6032632226.80.29
M4 [35]P25.438.1-21.634.312.3320.391.422.1132731926.60.19
M5 [35]P25.438.1-21.634.315.6325.811.812.6733133528.00.20
M6 [35]P25.438.1-21.634.315.6330.581.813.1634131829.40.20
N1 [35]P15.230.5-13.028.33.502.840.620.6134135229.50.20
N1a [35]P15.230.5-13.028.33.502.840.620.6134534628.70.20
N2 [35]P15.230.5-13.028.36.355.161.131.1133833130.40.20
N2a [35]P15.230.5-13.028.36.211.611.101.1136133328.40.20
N3 [35]P15.230.5-13.028.35.084.260.900.9235235227.30.20
N4 [35]P15.230.5-13.028.37.986.581.421.4235634127.30.20
A2 [36]P25.425.4-22.222.27.825.161.080.8028538038.20.22
A3 [36]P25.425.4-21.921.98.948.001.221.2436035239.40.22
A4 [36]P25.425.4-21.921.912.4211.361.691.7636035139.20.22
B3 [36]P17.835.6-14.332.18.608.001.261.2736035238.60.22
B4 [36]P17.835.6-14.332.111.7611.361.731.8036035138.50.22
B5UR1 [37]P20.330.5-16.526.76.565.160.920.8337338639.60.20
B9UR1 [37]P20.330.5-16.526.76.565.160.920.8337338675.00.27
B12UR1 [37]P20.330.5-16.526.76.565.160.920.8339938680.60.27
B14UR1 [37]P20.330.5-16.526.76.565.160.920.8338638693.90.29
B12UR2 [37]P20.330.5-16.526.76.955.160.970.8338638676.20.27
B12UR3 [37]P20.330.5-16.526.77.466.581.041.0638638072.90.26
B12UR4 [37]P20.330.5-16.526.77.887.741.101.2538637375.90.27
B12UR5 [37]P20.330.5-16.526.710.138.001.411.2938638076.70.27
H-06-12 [38]P35.050.0-30.045.07.1020.650.611.1844041078.50.27
H-07-10 [38]P35.050.0-30.045.07.8917.030.680.9742050068.40.26
H-07-16 [38]P35.050.0-30.045.07.8928.390.681.6242050068.40.26
H-12-12 [38]P35.050.0-30.045.014.1920.651.221.1844041078.50.27
H-12-16 [38]P35.050.0-30.045.014.1928.391.221.6244052078.50.27
H-14-10 [38]P35.050.0-30.045.016.1317.031.380.9736050068.40.26
H-20-20 [38]P35.050.0-30.045.023.4634.062.011.9544056078.50.27
N-06-06 [38]P35.050.0-30.045.07.1012.000.610.6944044035.50.21
N-06-12 [38]P35.050.0-30.045.07.1020.650.611.1844041035.50.21
N-07-10 [38]P35.050.0-30.045.07.8917.030.680.9742050033.50.21
N-07-16 [38]P35.050.0-30.045.07.8928.390.681.6242050033.50.21
N-12-12 [38]P35.050.0-30.045.014.1920.651.221.1844041035.50.21
N-12-16 [38]P35.050.0-30.045.014.1928.391.221.6244052035.50.21
N-14-10 [38]P35.050.0-30.045.016.1317.031.380.9736050033.50.21
N-20-20 [38]P35.050.0-30.045.023.4634.062.011.9544056035.50.21
SW12-1 [39]P15.0120.0-10.0115.03.9311.310.551.2645948044.20.23
SW10-1 [39]P15.0100.0-10.095.03.939.050.551.2145949929.50.20
SW10-2 [39]P15.0100.0-9.894.87.549.051.051.2148048044.20.23
SW10-3 [39]P15.0100.0-9.894.811.319.051.581.2149949929.50.20
SW10-4 [39]P15.0100.0-9.494.416.0816.082.232.1449749733.80.21
SW8-1 [39]P15.080.0-10.275.24.027.070.571.1843345929.50.20
SW8-2 [39]P15.080.0-9.874.811.317.071.591.1849945929.50.20
D3 [35]H25.438.16.421.634.310.1611.361.171.1733334128.40.20
D4 [35]H25.438.16.421.634.314.0115.481.621.6033333030.60.20
T0 [40]H50.050.08.043.043.010.2832.160.711.2935734545.10.23
T1 [40]H50.050.08.045.445.410.2818.100.750.7235735735.30.21
T2 [40]H50.050.08.043.043.010.2818.100.710.7235735735.30.21
T5 [40]H80.040.08.073.033.010.2810.000.680.3151352947.10.23
VH1 [41]H32.432.48.030.430.42.883.460.330.3344744717.20.17
VH2 [41]H32.432.48.030.430.45.766.910.670.6644744717.20.17
A2 [42]H60.060.010.753.853.16.2813.950.370.3969667247.30.23
A3 [42]H60.060.010.953.553.58.2718.100.490.5071567246.20.23
A4 [42]H60.060.010.452.052.511.2223.750.650.6671572454.80.24
A5 [42]H60.060.010.452.852.814.1430.660.830.8567272453.10.24
B2 [42]H60.060.010.853.353.46.7014.580.400.4169667269.80.26
B3 [42]H60.060.010.953.553.711.2223.750.670.6671572477.80.27
B4 [42]H60.060.011.252.353.615.0832.170.890.8967272479.80.27
B5 [42]H60.060.011.751.851.818.8540.211.091.1267272476.40.27
C2 [42]H60.060.010.053.253.36.2813.950.370.3969667294.80.28
C3 [42]H60.060.010.354.554.010.4723.750.630.6671572491.60.28
C4 [42]H60.060.010.354.654.514.1430.660.860.8567272491.40.28
C5 [42]H60.060.010.454.054.317.4036.691.051.0267272496.70.28
C6 [42]H60.060.010.453.352.922.6248.251.341.3467272487.50.28
A095c [26]H49.771.114.543.765.19.9313.160.610.3738137135.10.21
A120a [26]H50.271.918.444.265.97.5920.000.460.5538046427.60.20
B065b [26]H50.371.09.244.365.09.9350.970.611.4338045239.20.22
B080a [26]H50.072.111.244.066.112.9028.390.790.7939245446.50.23
B110a [26]H49.871.015.543.865.08.6020.000.530.5736945348.10.23
C065a [26]H49.578.18.543.572.19.9320.000.590.5237633878.80.27
C100a [26]H49.972.312.743.966.312.9028.390.790.7944746690.60.28
D075a [26]H49.873.48.743.867.412.9028.390.790.7838146994.90.29
D090a [26]H50.172.210.544.166.212.9028.390.790.79447466105.70.30
Table A2. Cracking torques and corresponding twists (smeared constitutive laws l1 to l3).
Table A2. Cracking torques and corresponding twists (smeared constitutive laws l1 to l3).
Beam M T c r e x p
kNm
θ cr exp
°/m
M T c r t h l 1
kNm
M T c r e x p M T c r t h l 1 θ cr thl 1
°/m
θ cr exp θ cr thl 1 M T c r t h l 2
kNm
M T c r e x p M T c r t h l 2 θ cr thl 2
°/m
θ cr exp θ cr thl 2 M T c r t h l 3
kNm
M T c r e x p M T c r t h l 3 θ cr thl 3
°/m
θ cr exp θ cr thl 3
B3 [35]20.10.1220.90.960.101.2122.00.910.111.1523.20.870.111.09
B4 [35]21.90.1221.01.050.101.2022.00.990.101.1523.10.950.111.09
B5 [35]22.60.1421.41.050.101.4222.21.020.101.3623.40.970.111.30
B6 [35]25.00.1620.61.210.091.7521.71.150.101.6722.81.090.101.58
B7 [35]20.20.1120.01.010.101.0721.00.960.111.0222.10.910.110.97
B8 [35]21.80.1320.31.070.101.2821.31.020.101.2222.30.980.111.17
B9 [35]19.60.1120.80.940.101.0422.00.890.110.9923.20.850.110.94
C4 [35]11.90.1311.31.050.111.1811.81.010.121.1212.40.960.131.07
C5 [35]14.00.1711.21.250.111.5111.91.170.121.4112.51.120.121.35
C6 [35]13.90.1711.31.230.111.6111.51.200.111.5712.01.150.111.51
G3 [35]27.10.1029.50.920.091.0531.00.870.101.0032.70.830.100.95
G4 [35]28.70.1230.10.950.091.2931.60.910.101.2333.40.860.101.16
G5 [35]29.50.1129.21.010.091.3030.70.960.091.2432.30.910.101.17
G7 [35]33.60.1331.71.060.091.4533.31.010.101.3835.10.960.101.31
G8 [35]33.60.1230.11.120.091.3731.61.060.091.3033.41.010.101.23
I3 [35]25.50.1125.51.000.110.9727.20.940.120.9128.70.890.120.86
I4 [35]28.00.1225.71.090.111.1527.31.030.111.0828.80.970.121.02
I5 [35]28.10.1526.01.080.111.4327.41.020.111.3628.90.970.121.29
I6 [35]27.50.1326.21.050.101.2227.70.990.111.1529.20.940.121.09
J1 [35]14.00.0915.30.920.090.9215.90.880.100.8816.50.850.100.85
J2 [35]17.10.1215.11.130.091.3815.71.090.091.3216.51.030.101.26
J3 [35]16.90.1015.91.060.091.0816.61.020.091.0317.50.970.100.98
J4 [35]18.00.1115.61.150.091.2816.31.100.091.2317.11.050.091.17
K2 [35]12.20.1812.01.020.141.3112.30.990.141.2713.10.930.151.20
K3 [35]12.40.1911.51.080.131.4911.91.050.131.4512.60.980.141.37
K4 [35]13.10.2111.11.190.121.7111.61.130.131.6312.41.060.131.53
M1 [35]19.20.1121.20.900.101.0322.50.850.110.9723.60.810.120.92
M2 [35]20.60.1121.50.960.101.0822.50.920.111.0323.80.860.110.97
M3 [35]20.70.1220.01.030.101.2421.00.980.101.1822.20.930.111.12
M4 [35]20.70.1319.91.040.101.4120.80.990.101.3422.00.940.111.27
M5 [35]21.70.1220.21.070.091.3021.31.020.101.2322.40.970.101.17
M6 [35]22.70.1520.71.100.091.5721.71.050.101.4922.80.990.101.42
N1 [35]7.60.136.71.140.160.817.01.080.170.777.41.020.180.73
N1a [35]7.00.116.61.060.160.696.91.010.170.667.30.960.170.62
N2 [35]7.40.226.81.100.151.407.11.050.161.347.50.990.171.27
N2a [35]7.50.216.61.140.151.376.91.090.161.317.31.030.171.24
N3 [35]7.40.216.41.150.151.396.71.100.161.337.11.040.171.25
N4 [35]7.60.216.41.190.151.436.71.130.161.367.11.070.161.29
A2 [36]11.30.1213.40.840.130.9414.00.810.130.8914.80.760.140.84
A3 [36]12.20.1213.50.900.130.9814.30.850.130.9215.10.810.140.88
A4 [36]12.50.1513.50.930.121.2014.30.880.131.1415.10.830.141.08
B3 [36]8.80.1512.00.730.141.0612.60.700.141.0113.30.660.150.96
B4 [36]10.20.1512.00.850.131.0912.60.810.141.0413.30.770.150.98
B5UR1 [37]11.60.0912.40.940.140.6313.10.890.140.6013.80.840.150.57
B9UR1 [37]13.00.1316.20.800.150.9117.30.750.160.8618.20.710.170.81
B12UR1 [37]16.20.0916.70.970.150.6117.80.910.160.5718.80.860.170.55
B14UR1 [37]19.30.1217.71.090.150.7818.91.020.160.7319.90.970.170.69
B12UR2 [37]17.80.1116.41.090.150.7517.41.020.160.7118.40.970.170.67
B12UR3 [37]16.00.1016.11.000.150.7017.30.930.160.6518.00.890.160.62
B12UR4 [37]16.90.1416.41.030.150.9617.50.960.160.8918.40.920.160.85
B12UR5 [37]13.60.0416.70.810.150.2417.80.760.160.2318.60.730.160.22
H-06-12 [38]75.00.0978.00.960.091.0083.50.900.090.9383.50.900.090.93
H-07-10 [38]70.50.0973.90.950.091.0879.00.890.091.0182.90.850.100.96
H-07-16 [38]65.30.0973.50.890.081.0379.20.820.090.9583.10.790.090.91
H-12-12 [38]77.10.0779.70.970.090.8585.00.910.090.8089.50.860.100.76
H-12-16 [38]79.30.0979.71.000.091.0685.30.930.090.9989.40.890.100.95
H-14-10 [38]61.80.0975.70.820.091.0080.60.770.090.9484.90.730.100.89
H-20-20 [38]76.00.0981.80.930.091.0587.10.870.090.9991.60.830.100.94
N-06-06 [38]43.20.0856.10.770.081.0259.30.730.080.9662.50.690.090.91
N-06-12 [38]51.80.1156.10.920.081.4759.10.880.081.3962.40.830.091.32
N-07-10 [38]41.60.1154.70.760.081.4057.60.720.081.3360.70.680.091.26
N-07-16 [38]40.00.1154.70.730.081.4357.50.700.081.3660.60.660.081.29
N-12-12 [38]49.30.0956.70.870.081.1859.20.830.081.1362.50.790.091.07
N-12-16 [38]57.10.1256.31.020.081.5859.20.960.081.5062.50.910.081.42
N-14-10 [38]41.80.1255.20.760.081.5657.90.720.081.4961.10.680.091.41
N-20-20 [38]55.00.1356.60.970.081.6858.90.930.081.6162.40.880.081.52
SW12-1 [39]32.30.1534.60.930.131.1636.40.890.141.1138.80.830.151.03
SW10-1 [39]24.60.1323.21.060.131.0024.71.000.140.9325.80.950.140.90
SW10-2 [39]29.60.2029.11.020.141.4731.10.950.151.3732.00.920.151.36
SW10-3 [39]26.60.1523.91.110.131.1625.31.050.141.1026.71.000.151.04
SW10-4 [39]27.70.1625.71.080.131.2427.11.020.141.1728.80.960.151.10
SW8-1 [39]19.70.1618.61.060.141.1320.00.980.151.0321.00.940.160.99
SW8-2 [39]22.50.1418.91.190.141.0620.11.120.150.9821.21.060.150.94
D3 [35]15.20.088.01.890.051.498.51.790.061.408.81.730.061.36
D4 [35]15.80.128.91.780.062.059.31.700.061.969.71.630.061.88
T0 [40]49.80.0638.81.280.031.9240.81.220.031.8142.51.170.041.75
T1 [40]48.00.0433.71.430.031.3535.31.360.031.2736.81.310.031.23
T2 [40]52.80.1033.71.570.033.0735.31.490.032.9036.81.440.032.81
T5 [40]62.50.0650.81.230.032.0753.71.160.031.8953.61.170.032.10
VH1 [41]12.00.129.81.220.071.6510.41.150.081.5510.91.100.081.48
VH2 [41]11.50.0710.41.100.080.9011.11.030.080.8511.70.990.090.81
A2 [42]109.50.0668.61.600.032.4471.61.530.032.3474.81.460.032.25
A3 [42]113.30.0669.21.640.032.1872.31.570.032.0975.51.500.032.02
A4 [42]120.90.0675.91.590.032.4279.81.510.032.2583.41.450.032.17
A5 [42]120.90.0476.11.590.031.6679.41.520.031.5982.91.460.031.53
B2 [42]116.70.0486.31.350.031.6990.21.290.031.6094.41.240.031.53
B3 [42]130.50.0594.21.390.031.7498.41.330.031.65103.11.260.031.57
B4 [42]142.90.0798.31.450.032.73102.71.390.032.58107.71.330.032.47
B5 [42]146.30.0698.01.490.032.44101.41.440.032.38106.31.380.032.28
C2 [42]124.50.0599.61.250.031.81104.11.200.031.70108.61.150.031.67
C3 [42]131.90.06100.81.310.032.35104.71.260.032.29109.91.200.032.18
C4 [42]132.60.05102.11.300.031.92106.81.240.031.82112.01.180.031.73
C5 [42]138.30.05107.41.290.031.91111.31.240.031.85116.91.180.031.76
C6 [42]139.10.05103.71.340.032.02108.31.280.031.91113.51.230.031.83
A095c [26]102.90.03101.01.020.040.82106.90.960.040.77112.00.920.050.74
A120a [26]89.80.0587.41.030.041.1492.80.970.041.0797.10.920.051.03
B065b [26]54.40.0359.10.920.031.2362.10.880.031.1664.70.840.031.12
B080a [26]65.20.0371.20.920.031.2474.20.880.031.1978.00.840.031.12
B110a [26]128.30.04128.61.000.040.99135.80.940.040.93141.80.900.050.90
C065a [26]91.70.0390.91.010.031.0695.50.960.030.9898.40.930.031.03
C100a [26]122.20.03131.60.930.030.85137.80.890.040.81145.30.840.040.76
D075a [26]90.10.0397.30.930.030.99101.80.880.030.94106.00.850.030.92
D090a [26]96.10.03110.00.870.031.08114.30.840.031.05120.20.800.030.99
Table A3. Cracking torques and corresponding twists (smeared constitutive laws l4 to l6).
Table A3. Cracking torques and corresponding twists (smeared constitutive laws l4 to l6).
Beam M T c r e x p
kNm
θ cr exp
°/m
M T c r t h l 4
kNm
M T c r e x p M T c r t h l 4 θ cr thl 4
°/m
θ cr exp θ cr thl 4 M T c r t h l 5
kNm
M T c r e x p M T c r t h l 5 θ cr thl 5
°/m
θ cr exp θ cr thl 5 M T c r t h l 6
kNm
M T c r e x p M T c r t h l 6 θ cr thl 6
°/m
θ cr exp θ cr thl 6
B3 [35]20.10.1221.30.940.101.1920.40.990.101.2422.00.910.111.15
B4 [35]21.90.1221.51.020.101.1720.41.070.101.2422.00.990.101.15
B5 [35]22.60.1422.01.020.101.3720.91.080.091.4522.21.020.101.36
B6 [35]25.00.1620.91.190.091.7320.11.240.091.8021.71.150.101.67
B7 [35]20.20.1120.70.980.101.0419.51.040.101.1021.00.960.111.02
B8 [35]21.80.1320.81.050.101.2519.71.100.101.3221.31.020.101.22
B9 [35]19.60.1120.00.980.101.0920.30.970.101.0722.00.890.110.99
C4 [35]11.90.1311.61.020.121.1511.01.080.111.2111.81.010.121.12
C5 [35]14.00.1711.61.210.111.4611.01.270.111.5311.91.170.121.41
C6 [35]13.90.1711.41.210.111.5810.91.270.101.6512.01.160.111.51
G3 [35]27.10.1030.50.890.091.0128.70.940.091.0831.00.870.101.00
G4 [35]28.70.1231.00.930.091.2529.40.980.091.3231.60.910.101.23
G5 [35]29.50.1129.80.990.091.2728.51.030.091.3330.70.960.091.24
G7 [35]33.60.1332.81.020.101.4030.91.090.091.4933.31.010.101.38
G8 [35]33.60.1231.21.080.091.3229.31.150.091.4031.51.070.091.30
I3 [35]25.50.1126.30.970.110.9425.11.020.110.9927.20.940.120.91
I4 [35]28.00.1226.51.060.111.1125.21.110.111.1727.31.030.111.08
I5 [35]28.10.1526.81.050.111.3925.41.110.101.4627.41.020.111.36
I6 [35]27.50.1326.91.020.111.1925.71.070.101.2427.70.990.111.15
J1 [35]14.00.0915.20.920.090.9214.80.950.090.9515.90.880.100.88
J2 [35]17.10.1215.41.100.091.3514.31.190.091.4515.71.090.091.32
J3 [35]16.90.1016.51.030.091.0415.41.100.091.1116.61.020.091.03
J4 [35]18.00.1115.81.130.091.2615.11.190.081.3316.31.100.091.23
K2 [35]12.20.1812.70.960.141.2411.81.040.131.3312.70.960.141.24
K3 [35]12.40.1912.31.010.141.4011.01.130.121.5612.21.020.141.42
K4 [35]13.10.2112.11.080.131.5610.81.210.121.7512.01.090.131.58
M1 [35]19.20.1119.70.970.101.1120.70.930.101.0522.50.850.110.97
M2 [35]20.60.1121.50.960.101.0820.90.980.101.1022.50.920.111.03
M3 [35]20.70.1220.71.000.101.1919.51.060.101.2721.00.980.101.18
M4 [35]20.70.1320.11.030.101.3919.31.070.091.4520.80.990.101.34
M5 [35]21.70.1220.61.050.101.2719.61.110.091.3421.31.020.101.23
M6 [35]22.70.1521.01.080.091.5420.01.130.091.6221.71.050.101.49
N1 [35]7.60.136.91.100.160.796.51.170.150.837.01.080.170.77
N1a [35]7.00.116.41.110.150.726.41.100.150.716.91.010.170.66
N2 [35]7.40.227.01.060.161.366.51.140.151.457.11.050.161.34
N2a [35]7.50.216.71.120.161.356.41.170.151.416.91.090.161.31
N3 [35]7.40.216.71.110.161.346.21.190.151.436.71.100.161.33
N4 [35]7.60.216.61.160.151.396.21.220.141.466.71.130.161.36
A2 [36]11.30.1213.60.830.130.9213.10.860.130.9614.00.810.130.89
A3 [36]12.20.1213.90.870.130.9513.20.920.121.0014.30.850.130.92
A4 [36]12.50.1514.00.900.131.1613.20.950.121.2214.30.880.131.14
B3 [36]8.80.1512.20.720.141.0511.60.760.131.1012.60.700.141.01
B4 [36]10.20.1512.30.830.141.0711.70.870.131.1212.60.810.141.04
B5UR1 [37]11.60.0912.40.930.140.6312.00.970.130.6513.10.890.140.60
B9UR1 [37]13.00.1316.40.790.150.9016.00.810.140.9217.30.750.160.86
B12UR1 [37]16.20.0916.90.960.150.6116.50.980.150.6217.80.910.160.57
B14UR1 [37]19.30.1217.91.080.150.7717.41.110.150.7918.91.020.160.73
B12UR2 [37]17.80.1116.61.070.150.7416.11.100.150.7617.41.020.160.71
B12UR3 [37]16.00.1015.91.010.140.7115.81.010.140.7117.30.930.160.65
B12UR4 [37]16.90.1416.11.050.140.9716.11.050.140.9717.50.960.160.89
B12UR5 [37]13.60.0416.80.810.150.2416.40.830.140.2517.80.760.160.23
H-06-12 [38]75.00.0965.21.150.071.1976.50.980.081.0283.50.900.090.93
H-07-10 [38]70.50.0967.21.050.081.1872.80.970.081.0979.00.890.091.01
H-07-16 [38]65.30.0969.80.930.081.0873.00.890.081.0379.20.820.090.95
H-12-12 [38]77.10.0778.90.980.090.8678.60.980.090.8785.00.910.090.80
H-12-16 [38]79.30.0979.21.000.091.0778.61.010.091.0885.30.930.090.99
H-14-10 [38]61.80.0976.90.800.090.9874.70.830.091.0180.60.770.090.94
H-20-20 [38]76.00.0983.50.910.091.0380.60.940.091.0787.10.870.090.99
N-06-06 [38]43.20.0853.30.810.071.0754.70.790.081.0459.30.730.080.96
N-06-12 [38]51.80.1154.50.950.081.5154.70.950.081.5159.10.880.081.39
N-07-10 [38]41.60.1155.20.750.081.3953.50.780.081.4457.60.720.081.33
N-07-16 [38]40.00.1152.50.760.071.4953.40.750.071.4657.50.700.081.36
N-12-12 [38]49.30.0957.50.860.081.1655.40.890.081.2159.20.830.081.13
N-12-16 [38]57.10.1257.60.990.081.5455.01.040.071.6159.20.960.081.50
N-14-10 [38]41.80.1256.80.740.081.5253.70.780.081.6057.90.720.081.49
N-20-20 [38]55.00.1358.50.940.081.6254.61.010.071.7458.90.930.081.61
SW12-1 [39]32.30.1536.10.890.131.1433.80.960.131.2035.70.910.160.98
SW10-1 [39]24.60.1324.51.000.140.9522.71.080.131.0324.71.000.190.70
SW10-2 [39]29.60.2030.10.980.141.4728.71.030.131.4931.50.940.151.33
SW10-3 [39]26.60.1525.11.060.141.1223.51.130.131.1827.60.960.151.01
SW10-4 [39]27.70.1627.01.020.141.1925.21.100.131.2629.40.940.151.08
SW8-1 [39]19.70.1619.21.030.141.1418.51.070.141.1319.41.020.190.84
SW8-2 [39]22.50.1419.81.140.141.0218.71.200.141.0621.71.040.160.92
D3 [35]15.20.087.91.920.051.557.91.920.051.509.31.620.061.27
D4 [35]15.80.128.71.830.062.148.71.820.062.1010.21.550.071.79
T0 [40]49.80.0638.11.310.032.0937.91.320.031.9943.21.150.031.79
T1 [40]48.00.0433.01.450.031.4632.81.460.031.3937.91.270.041.22
T2 [40]52.80.1033.01.600.033.3232.81.610.033.1637.91.390.042.78
T5 [40]62.50.0686.30.720.070.9149.91.250.032.0856.51.110.031.92
VH1 [41]12.00.129.71.240.071.669.71.240.071.669.91.210.101.23
VH2 [41]11.50.0710.21.120.080.9010.31.120.080.9111.01.050.100.73
A2 [42]109.50.06112.00.980.061.1366.91.640.032.5476.61.430.032.27
A3 [42]113.30.06128.40.880.041.3767.51.680.032.2777.71.460.031.98
A4 [42]120.90.0675.21.610.022.6074.51.620.032.4486.21.400.032.14
A5 [42]120.90.0474.71.620.021.8274.11.630.031.7285.61.410.031.50
B2 [42]116.70.04131.80.890.041.2584.51.380.031.7097.51.200.031.49
B3 [42]130.50.05134.10.970.031.3192.31.410.031.76105.31.240.031.57
B4 [42]142.90.0799.01.440.032.7696.41.480.032.76109.91.300.032.46
B5 [42]146.30.0697.81.500.032.5495.21.540.032.54109.41.340.032.21
C2 [42]124.50.05126.50.980.031.4997.41.280.031.8396.31.290.041.38
C3 [42]131.90.06129.71.020.031.9498.11.340.032.47112.41.170.032.18
C4 [42]132.60.05102.11.300.032.02100.11.320.031.95116.01.140.031.69
C5 [42]138.30.05106.41.300.022.06104.21.330.032.00119.51.160.031.75
C6 [42]139.10.05103.41.340.032.10101.71.370.032.04117.01.190.031.78
A095c [26]102.90.03101.61.010.040.8099.21.040.040.83102.91.000.050.64
A120a [26]89.80.0586.81.030.041.1585.71.050.041.1886.41.040.041.11
B065b [26]54.40.0358.00.940.031.3358.00.940.031.2467.40.810.031.09
B080a [26]65.20.0370.30.930.021.3269.90.930.031.2679.70.820.031.13
B110a [26]128.30.04128.51.000.040.96125.91.020.041.01127.11.010.050.80
C065a [26]91.70.03128.20.720.030.8389.01.030.031.07101.00.910.030.99
C100a [26]122.20.03134.30.910.030.85128.60.950.030.87134.80.910.040.67
D075a [26]90.10.03121.90.740.030.8495.30.950.031.00109.80.820.030.90
D090a [26]96.10.03110.30.870.031.14107.80.890.031.10122.80.780.030.98
Table A4. Cracking torques and corresponding twists (smeared constitutive laws l7 to l8).
Table A4. Cracking torques and corresponding twists (smeared constitutive laws l7 to l8).
Beam M T c r e x p
kNm
θ cr exp
°/m
M T c r t h l 7
kNm
M T c r e x p M T c r t h l 7 θ cr thl 7
°/m
θ cr exp θ cr thl 7 M T c r t h l 8
kNm
M T c r e x p M T c r t h l 8 θ cr thl 8
kNm
θ cr exp θ cr thl 8
B3 [35]20.10.1221.50.940.111.1824.60.820.121.03
B4 [35]21.90.1222.10.990.101.1424.30.900.111.04
B5 [35]22.60.1422.80.990.101.3324.70.910.111.23
B6 [35]25.00.1621.91.140.101.6523.71.050.111.53
B7 [35]20.20.1120.21.000.101.0623.90.840.120.90
B8 [35]21.80.1320.61.060.101.2624.20.900.121.07
B9 [35]19.60.1121.90.900.110.9924.70.790.120.88
C4 [35]11.90.1311.90.990.121.1113.10.900.131.01
C5 [35]14.00.1711.81.180.121.4212.81.100.131.32
C6 [35]13.90.1711.81.180.111.5412.81.090.121.42
G3 [35]27.10.1030.50.890.091.0235.00.770.110.88
G4 [35]28.70.1231.60.910.101.2335.50.810.111.09
G5 [35]29.50.1130.90.950.091.2334.20.860.101.11
G7 [35]33.60.1333.11.010.101.3837.50.900.111.22
G8 [35]33.60.1232.11.050.101.2835.30.950.111.16
I3 [35]25.50.1127.00.940.120.9230.40.840.130.81
I4 [35]28.00.1227.41.020.111.0830.30.920.130.97
I5 [35]28.10.1527.81.010.111.3430.20.930.121.23
I6 [35]27.50.1328.30.970.111.1329.90.920.121.07
J1 [35]14.00.0915.30.920.090.9218.10.770.110.77
J2 [35]17.10.1215.31.110.091.3617.60.970.111.18
J3 [35]16.90.1016.51.030.091.0418.60.910.100.92
J4 [35]18.00.1116.41.090.091.2218.10.990.101.10
K2 [35]12.20.1812.80.950.151.2214.00.870.161.12
K3 [35]12.40.1912.41.010.141.4013.10.950.151.32
K4 [35]13.10.2112.21.070.131.5512.51.050.141.51
M1 [35]19.20.1121.90.880.110.9925.40.760.120.86
M2 [35]20.60.1122.40.920.111.0325.30.810.120.92
M3 [35]20.70.1221.10.980.101.1723.40.880.111.06
M4 [35]20.70.1321.20.980.101.3222.90.900.111.22
M5 [35]21.70.1222.00.990.101.1923.10.940.111.13
M6 [35]22.70.1522.61.010.101.4323.40.970.111.38
N1 [35]7.60.137.11.070.170.778.00.950.190.68
N1a [35]7.00.116.91.010.160.667.90.890.190.58
N2 [35]7.40.227.31.020.171.308.00.930.181.19
N2a [35]7.50.217.01.080.161.297.60.980.181.18
N3 [35]7.40.217.01.060.171.287.60.970.181.18
N4 [35]7.60.217.01.080.161.307.51.010.171.22
A2 [36]11.30.1213.80.820.130.9115.90.710.150.79
A3 [36]12.20.1214.30.860.130.9316.00.760.150.83
A4 [36]12.50.1514.40.870.131.1315.80.790.151.03
B3 [36]8.80.1513.00.680.150.9914.20.620.160.90
B4 [36]10.20.1513.00.780.151.0114.00.730.160.93
B5UR1 [37]11.60.0913.00.890.140.6014.80.790.160.53
B9UR1 [37]13.00.1317.20.760.160.8619.70.660.180.75
B12UR1 [37]16.20.0917.80.910.160.5820.20.800.180.51
B14UR1 [37]19.30.1218.81.020.160.7321.50.900.180.64
B12UR2 [37]17.80.1117.41.030.160.7119.90.890.180.62
B12UR3 [37]16.00.1017.50.910.160.6419.50.820.180.58
B12UR4 [37]16.90.1418.00.940.160.8719.70.860.180.80
B12UR5 [37]13.60.0418.00.750.160.2220.00.680.180.20
H-06-12 [38]75.00.0985.00.880.090.9294.20.800.100.83
H-07-10 [38]70.50.0977.10.910.091.0389.50.790.100.89
H-07-16 [38]65.30.0980.30.810.090.9487.50.750.100.86
H-12-12 [38]77.10.0787.00.890.100.7896.30.800.110.71
H-12-16 [38]79.30.0986.50.920.090.9894.60.840.100.89
H-14-10 [38]61.80.0978.80.780.090.9690.50.680.100.83
H-20-20 [38]76.00.0989.70.850.100.9696.20.790.100.89
N-06-06 [38]43.20.0857.10.760.081.0067.40.640.090.85
N-06-12 [38]51.80.1160.50.860.081.3666.50.780.091.24
N-07-10 [38]41.60.1156.30.740.081.3664.90.640.091.18
N-07-16 [38]40.00.1158.40.680.081.3364.00.630.091.22
N-12-12 [38]49.30.0960.50.810.081.1066.80.740.091.00
N-12-16 [38]57.10.1259.90.950.081.4865.80.870.091.35
N-14-10 [38]41.80.1256.50.740.081.5264.10.650.091.34
N-20-20 [38]55.00.1361.20.900.081.5564.70.850.091.47
SW12-1 [39]32.30.1538.70.840.151.0441.30.780.160.97
SW10-1 [39]24.60.1326.10.940.150.8727.80.880.160.82
SW10-2 [39]29.60.2032.10.920.151.3434.60.860.161.24
SW10-3 [39]26.60.1526.61.000.151.0428.70.930.160.96
SW10-4 [39]27.70.1628.90.960.151.0930.30.920.151.04
SW8-1 [39]19.70.1621.10.930.160.9721.90.900.160.98
SW8-2 [39]22.50.1421.11.070.150.9422.70.990.170.87
D3 [35]15.20.088.41.810.061.429.11.670.061.32
D4 [35]15.80.129.41.690.061.9410.01.580.061.82
T0 [40]49.80.0641.21.210.031.7844.11.130.041.68
T1 [40]48.00.0434.91.380.031.2938.81.240.041.15
T2 [40]52.80.1034.91.510.032.9338.81.360.042.63
T5 [40]62.50.0653.11.180.031.9259.51.050.041.71
VH1 [41]12.00.1210.11.190.081.6011.81.020.091.37
VH2 [41]11.50.0711.41.010.090.8212.40.930.090.76
A2 [42]109.50.0667.71.620.032.4979.51.380.032.09
A3 [42]113.30.0669.11.640.032.1780.01.420.031.87
A4 [42]120.90.0677.91.550.032.3487.71.380.032.05
A5 [42]120.90.0478.41.540.031.6187.01.390.031.44
B2 [42]116.70.0486.41.350.031.6999.81.170.031.44
B3 [42]130.50.0596.61.350.031.66108.81.200.031.47
B4 [42]142.90.07100.71.420.032.60112.41.270.032.36
B5 [42]146.30.06100.01.460.032.42110.61.320.032.17
C2 [42]124.50.0599.01.260.031.79115.21.080.031.56
C3 [42]131.90.06102.91.280.032.33116.01.140.032.04
C4 [42]132.60.05105.41.260.031.86117.11.130.031.66
C5 [42]138.30.05109.51.260.031.88122.11.130.031.67
C6 [42]139.10.05109.51.270.031.87118.11.180.031.75
A095c [26]102.90.03100.21.030.040.82120.20.860.050.68
A120a [26]89.80.0587.61.030.041.15104.20.860.050.95
B065b [26]54.40.0362.00.880.031.1666.80.810.031.07
B080a [26]65.20.0372.00.910.031.2281.30.800.031.09
B110a [26]128.30.04128.61.000.040.99152.20.840.050.82
C065a [26]91.70.0392.80.990.031.01105.70.870.030.88
C100a [26]122.20.03133.10.920.030.84153.10.800.040.72
D075a [26]90.10.03100.10.900.030.95111.80.810.030.85
D090a [26]96.10.03110.60.870.031.09126.00.760.030.94

References

  1. Hsu, T.T.C.; Mo, Y.L. Unified Theory of Concrete Structures; John Wiley Sons Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 2010; p. 500. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bernardo, L.F.; Andrade, J.M. A unified softened truss model for RC and PC beams under torsion. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 32, 101467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hsu, T.T.C.; Mo, Y.L. Softening of concrete in torsional members—Theory and tests. J. Am. Concr. Inst. 1985, 82, 290–303. [Google Scholar]
  4. Hsu, T.; Belarbi, A.; Pang, X. A Universal panel tester. J. Test. Eval. 1995, 23, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bernardo, L.F.A.; Lopes, S.M.R. Behavior of concrete beams under torsion—NSC plain and hollow beams. Mater. Struct. 2008, 41, 1143–1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bernardo, L.F.A.; Lopes, S.M.R. Theoretical behavior of HSC sections under torsion. Eng. Struct. 2011, 33, 3702–3714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bairan Garcia, J.M.; Mari Bernat, A.R. Coupled model for the non-linear analysis of anisotropic sections subjected to general 3D loading. Part 1: Theoretical formulation. Comput. Struct. 2006, 84, 2254–2263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bairan Garcia, J.M.; Mari Bernat, A.R. Coupled model for the nonlinear analysis of sections made of anisotropic materials, subjected to general 3D loading. Part 2: Implementation and validation. Comput. Struct. 2006, 84, 2264–2276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Jeng, C.-H.; Hsu, T.T. A softened membrane model for torsion in reinforced concrete members. Eng. Struct. 2009, 31, 1944–1954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mostofinejad, D.; Behzad, T.S. Nonlinear modeling of RC beams subjected to torsion using smeared crack model. Procedia Eng. 2011, 14, 1447–1454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Valikhani, A.; Jahromi, A.J.; Mantawy, I.M.; Azizinamini, A. Numerical modelling of concrete-to-UHPC bond strength. Materials 2020, 13, 1379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Sucharda, O. Identification of fracture mechanic properties of concrete and analysis of shear capacity of reinforced concrete beams without transverse reinforcement. Materials 2020, 13, 2788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hsu, T.T.C.; Mo, Y.L. Softening of concrete in torsional members—Prestressed concrete. J. Am. Concr. Inst. 1985, 82, 603–615. [Google Scholar]
  14. Bernardo, L.F.; Taborda, C.S.; Andrade, J.M. Ultimate torsional behaviour of axially restrained RC beams. Comput. Concr. 2015, 16, 67–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Taborda, C.S.B.; Bernardo, L.F.B.; Gama, J.M.R. Effective torsional strength of axially restricted RC beams. Struct. Eng. Mech. 2018, 67, 465–479. [Google Scholar]
  16. Bernardo, L.F.A.; Andrade, J.M.A.; Nunes, N.C.G. Generalized softened variable angle truss-model for reinforced concrete beams under torsion. Mater. Struct. 2014, 48, 2169–2193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bernardo, L.F.A.; Taborda, C.S.B.; Andrade, J.M.A. Generalized softened variable angle truss model for PC Beams under torsion. Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 2018, 12, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bernardo, L. Generalized softened variable angle truss model for RC hollow beams under torsion. Materials 2019, 12, 2209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Bernardo, L. Modeling the full behavior of reinforced concrete flanged beams under torsion. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Bernardo, L.; Andrade, J.; Lopes, S. Softened truss model for reinforced NSC and HSC beams under torsion: A comparative study. Eng. Struct. 2012, 42, 278–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Teixeira, M.; Bernardo, L. Ductility of RC beams under torsion. Eng. Struct. 2018, 168, 759–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Belarbi, A.; Hsu, T.T.C. Constitutive laws of softened concrete in biaxial tension—Compression. Struct. J. Am. Concr. Inst. 1995, 92, 562–573. [Google Scholar]
  23. Zhang, L.X.; Hsu, T.C. Behaviour and analysis of 100 MPa concrete membrane elements. J. Struct. Eng. 1998, 124, 24–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Belarbi, A.; Hsu, T.C. Constitutive laws of concrete in tension and reinforcing bars stiffened by concrete. Struct. J. Am. Concr. Inst. 1994, 91, 465–474. [Google Scholar]
  25. Bernardo, L.F.A.; Andrade, J.M.A.; Oliveira, L.A.P. Reinforced and prestressed concrete hollow beams under torsion. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2013, 19, S141–S152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Jeng, C.H. Unified softened membrane model for torsion in hollow and solid reinforced concrete members: Modeling precracking and postcracking behavior. J. Struct. Eng. 2015, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Nobre, S.S. Evaluation of the Constitutive Law for Tensile Concrete for the Cracking of Reinforced Concrete Beams under Torsion. Master’s Thesis, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal, 2014; p. 150. (In Portuguese). [Google Scholar]
  28. Cervenka, V. Constitutive model for cracked reinforced concrete. J. Am. Concr. Inst. 1985, 82, 877–882. [Google Scholar]
  29. Vecchio, F.J.; Collins, M.P. The modified compression—Field theory for reinforced concrete elements subjected to shear. J. Am. Concr. Inst. 1986, 83, 219–231. [Google Scholar]
  30. Hsu, T.T.C. Nonlinear analysis of concrete membrane elements. Struct. J. Am. Concr. Inst. 1991, 88, 552–561. [Google Scholar]
  31. Collins, M.P.; Mitchell, D.; Adebar, P.; Vecchio, F.J. A General shear design method. Am. Concr. Inst. Struct. J. 1996, 93, 36–45. [Google Scholar]
  32. Vecchio, F.J. Disturbed Stress field model for reinforced concrete: Formulation. J. Struct. Eng. 2000, 126, 1070–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bentz, E.C. Explaining the riddle of tension stiffening models for shear panel experiments. J. Struct. Eng. 2005, 131, 1422–1425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Stramandinoli, R.S.B.; Rovere, H.L. An efficient tension-stiffening model for nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete members. Eng. Struct. 2008, 30, 2069–2080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hsu, T.T.C. Torsion of Structural Concrete-Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Rectangular Members; Torsion of Structural Concrete SP-18; American Concrete Institute: Detroit, MI, USA, 1968; pp. 261–306. [Google Scholar]
  36. McMullen, A.E.; Rangan, B.V. Pure torsion in rectangular sections—A re-examination. J. Am. Concr. Inst. 1978, 75, 511–519. [Google Scholar]
  37. Koutchoukali, N.E.; Belarbi, A. Torsion of high-strength reinforced concrete beams and minimum reinforcement requirement. Am. Concr. Inst. Struct. J. 2001, 98, 462–469. [Google Scholar]
  38. Fang, I.K.; Shiau, J.K. Torsional behavior of normal and high-strength concrete beams. Am. Concr. Inst. Struct. J. 2004, 101, 304–313. [Google Scholar]
  39. Peng, X.-N.; Wong, Y.-L. Behavior of reinforced concrete walls subjected to monotonic pure torsion—An experimental study. Eng. Struct. 2011, 33, 2495–2508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lampert, P.; Thürlimann, B. Essais de Poutre en Béton Armé sous Torsion Simple et Flexion Combinées (Torsionsversuche und Torsions-Biege-Versuche an Stahlbetonbalken). Comitée Européen du Béton B.I. 1969, 71, 177–207. [Google Scholar]
  41. Leonhardt, F.; Schelling, G. Torsionsversuche na Stahlbetonbalken; Bulletin No. 239; Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton: Berlin, Germany, 1974; 122p. [Google Scholar]
  42. Bernardo, L.F.A.; Lopes, S.M.R. Torsion in HSC hollow beams: Strength and ductility analysis. Am. Concr. Inst. Struct. J. 2009, 106, 39–48. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Reinforced concrete (RC) thin beam element [18].
Figure 1. Reinforced concrete (RC) thin beam element [18].
Materials 14 01260 g001
Figure 2. RC hollow beam element [18].
Figure 2. RC hollow beam element [18].
Materials 14 01260 g002
Figure 3. Curvatures and strain gradient in the walls [18].
Figure 3. Curvatures and strain gradient in the walls [18].
Materials 14 01260 g003
Figure 4. Flowchart.
Figure 4. Flowchart.
Materials 14 01260 g004
Figure 5. Comparison between the smeared constitutive laws.
Figure 5. Comparison between the smeared constitutive laws.
Materials 14 01260 g005
Figure 6. Location of the effective cracking point.
Figure 6. Location of the effective cracking point.
Materials 14 01260 g006
Figure 7. Example of M T θ curves for reference beam N-20-20.
Figure 7. Example of M T θ curves for reference beam N-20-20.
Materials 14 01260 g007
Figure 8. Experimental versos theoretical cracking torque.
Figure 8. Experimental versos theoretical cracking torque.
Materials 14 01260 g008
Table 1. Comparative analysis.
Table 1. Comparative analysis.
Cross-Section P H P + H
Constitutive law M T c r e x p M T c r t h l i θ cr exp θ cr thli M T c r e x p M T c r t h l i θ cr exp θ cr thli M T c r e x p M T c r t h l i θ cr exp θ cr thli
l1—Cervenka (1985) [28] x ¯ = 1.021.161.291.711.051.23
c v ( % ) = 12.1325.1921.4735.2221.2938.54
l2—Vecchio and Collins (1986) [29] x ¯ = 0.961.111.241.620.991.16
c v ( % ) = 12.4125.6821.4735.6121.7339.13
l3—Hsu (1991) [30] x ¯ = 0.911.041.181.550.941.10
c v ( % ) = 12.3825.8321.6636.1122.1340.05
l4—Belarbi and Hsu (1994) [24] x ¯ = 1.001.161.031.421.011.19
c v ( % ) = 11.3524.1032.1746.0521.4539.02
l5—Collins et al. (1996) [31] x ¯ = 1.041.201.331.741.071.24
c v ( % ) = 12.3125.2921.4935.9721.3639.23
l6—Vecchio (2000) [32] x ¯ = 0.961.081.181.501.001.15
c v ( % ) = 11.8226.2019.2237.8818.5637.43
l7—Bentz (2005) [33] x ¯ = 0.941.081.261.680.991.16
c v ( % ) = 12.2425.9121.2334.9022.7940.35
l8—Stramandinoli and Rovere (2008) [34] x ¯ = 0.860.981.131.460.891.06
c v ( % ) = 12.8426.7522.1136.0922.7239.36
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Teixeira, M.; Bernardo, L. Evaluation of Smeared Constitutive Laws for Tensile Concrete to Predict the Cracking of RC Beams under Torsion with Smeared Truss Model. Materials 2021, 14, 1260. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14051260

AMA Style

Teixeira M, Bernardo L. Evaluation of Smeared Constitutive Laws for Tensile Concrete to Predict the Cracking of RC Beams under Torsion with Smeared Truss Model. Materials. 2021; 14(5):1260. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14051260

Chicago/Turabian Style

Teixeira, Mafalda, and Luís Bernardo. 2021. "Evaluation of Smeared Constitutive Laws for Tensile Concrete to Predict the Cracking of RC Beams under Torsion with Smeared Truss Model" Materials 14, no. 5: 1260. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14051260

APA Style

Teixeira, M., & Bernardo, L. (2021). Evaluation of Smeared Constitutive Laws for Tensile Concrete to Predict the Cracking of RC Beams under Torsion with Smeared Truss Model. Materials, 14(5), 1260. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14051260

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop