See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/225417520

Comparison between solid and hollow reinforced concrete beams

Article  in  Materials and Structures · March 2008

DOI: 10.1617/s11527-007-9237-x

CITATIONS READS

11 4,986

3 authors:

Ali Said Al-Nuaimi Khalifa S. Al-Jabri

Sultan Qaboos University Sultan Qaboos University
62 PUBLICATIONS   485 CITATIONS    97 PUBLICATIONS   1,435 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Abdel Wahid Hago

Sultan Qaboos University
47 PUBLICATIONS   582 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Aldahdooh View project

Dimension stones of Oman View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ali Said Al-Nuaimi on 13 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Materials and Structures (2008) 41:269–286
DOI 10.1617/s11527-007-9237-x

O R I G I N A L A RT I C L E

Comparison between solid and hollow reinforced concrete

beams
Ali Said Alnuaimi Æ Khalifa S. Al-Jabri Æ
Abdelwahid Hago

Received: 17 July 2006 / Accepted: 20 February 2007 / Published online: 19 April 2007

RILEM 2007

Abstract Comparison between test results of stress due to shear force. All solid beams cracked
seven hollow and seven solid reinforced concrete and failed at higher loads than their counterpart
beams is presented. All of the fourteen beams were hollow beams. The smaller the ratio of torsion to
designed as hollow sections to resist combined bending the larger the differences in failure loads
load of bending, torsion and shear. Every pair (one between the hollow and solid beams. The longitu-
hollow and one solid) was designed for the same dinal steel yielded while the transverse steel
load combinations and received similar reinforce- experienced lower strain values.
ment. The beams were 300 · 300 mm cross-sec-
tion and 3,800 mm length. The internal hollow Keywords Reinforced concrete
Bending

core for the hollow beams was 200 · 200 mm Shear
Torsion
Direct design
Combined load
creating a peripheral wall thickness of 50 mm. The
main variables studied were the ratio of bending to
torsion which was varied between 0.19 and 2.62 Notations
and the ratio in the web of shear stress due to e/ey Ratio of applied strain at each
torsion to shear stress due to shear force which was increment to yield strain
varied between 0.59 and 6.84. It was found that the (e/ey)Lng Maximum strain ratio measured in
concrete core participates in the beams’ behaviour the longitudinal steel
and strength and cannot be ignored when com- (e/ey)Strp Maximum strain ratio measured in
bined load of bending, shear and torsion are the stirrups
present. Its participation depends partly on the Dif. F.L Percentage of the difference in
ratio of the torsion to bending moment and the failure load between the solid and
ratio of shear stress due to torsion to the shear hollow beams
f¢c Concrete cylinder compressive
strength
fcu Concrete cube compressive strength
A. S. Alnuaimi (&)
K. S. Al-Jabri
f¢t Concrete cylinder tensile split test
A. Hago fy Yield stress of the longitudinal steel
Department of Civil and Architectural, Engineering fyv Yield stress of the transverse steel
College of engineering, Sultan Qaboos University,
L.F Load factor (percentage of applied
P.O. Box 33, Al Khodh 123, Muscat, Sultanate of
Oman load to design load) = (Ti/Td + Mi/
e-mail: alnuaimi@squ.edu.om Md)/2 at any load increment i
270
Le/Ld Failure load ratio = (Te/Td + Me/
Md)/2 for the last (failure) load
increment
LFCR Load factor when first crack was
noticed
M d, T d, V d Design bending moment, torsion
and shear force respectively
M e, T e, V e Experimentally measured bending
moment, torsion and shear force at
failure respectively
Ti, Mi, Vi Experimentally measured torsion,
bending moment and shear force at
load increment i
ho Average angle of inclination of
cracks near failure load
D Maximum vertical displacement at
mid-span
ry Applied normal stress in the y
direction
sshr Applied shear stress due to shear
force
stor Applied shear stress due to torsion
sxy+ Net applied shear stress due to
torsion and shear where stresses are
added, (=sshr + stor)
sxy– Net applied shear stress due to
torsion and shear where stresses are
subtracted, (=sshr–stor)
Nx Applied in-plane force per unit
length in the x direction on a
element with thickness t, (=rxsert)
Ny Applied in-plane force per unit
length in the y direction on a
element with thickness t, (=ryt)
Nxy Applied in-plane shear force per
unit length on a element with
thickness t, (=sxyt)
Nsx Steel resisting force in x direction
Nsy Steel resisting force in y direction
r1 Concrete principle stress in
direction 1
r2 Concrete principle stress in
direction 2
N1 Concrete resisting force in the
principle direction 1, (=r1t)
N2 Concrete resisting force in the
principle direction 2, (=r2t)
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:269–286
Ao Area of concrete enclosed by the
centre line of the shear flow
Ac Concrete gross cross-sectional area
I Moment of inertia of the cross-
section
1 Introduction
Many research works showed that both hollow
and solid beams with same cross-section and same
reinforcement fail almost at the same load when
subjected to pure torsion with minimal effects of
the internal concrete core. However, fewer
reports were found in the literature comparing
the behaviour and failure loads in the case of
beams subjected to combined bending, torsion
and shear.
Experimental testing by Hsu [1] and measure-
ments by Mitchell and Collins [2] showed that
hollow and solid beams have a similar ultimate
torsional strength with almost no contribution of
the inside concrete core to the torsional capacity
of the section. Ojha [3] studied the behaviour of
reinforced concrete rectangular beams under
combined torsion, bending and shear and found
a sharp reduction in the torsional stiffness com-
pared to flexural stiffness after cracking of the
beam. The reduction depends on a number of
factors such as the loading combination, the
strength and distribution of the longitudinal and
transverse reinforcement and the form of the
cross section.
Tests conducted by Thurlimann [4] revealed
that, the torsional strength of beams relies on
the outer concrete shell of about 1/6 the diam-
eter of the largest circle inscribed into the
perimeter connecting the corner longitudinal
bars. Collins and Mitchell [5] described the
torsional shear stress as circulating in the periph-
ery of the section. Its intensity is distributed in a
parabolic shape with the maximum stress at the
outside fibre and zero at some distance from the
surface. Rahal and Collins [6] developed a three-
dimensional analytical model capable of analy-
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:269–286
sing rectangular sections subjected to combined
loading of biaxial bending, biaxial shear, torsion
and axial load. The model takes into account the
shear-torsion interaction and concrete spalling. It
idealizes the rectangular cross-section resisting
shear and torsion as made of four transversely
reinforced walls with varying thickness and
varying angle of principal compressive strains.
The vertical shear stress due to shear force is
uniformly resisted by the vertical walls and the
lateral shear stress is resisted by the horizontal
walls. They tested their model and concluded
that the model showed results agreement with
experimental behavioural and ultimate load
results. Rahal [7] developed an equation relating
the ultimate torsional moment and ultimate
shearing stress in the walls of the equivalent
tube. The walls of the section resisting the shear
stresses were idealized as reinforced concrete
membrane element subjected to pure in-plane
shearing stress. MacGregor and Ghoneim [8]
stated that ‘‘in a solid section, the shear stresses
due to direct shear are assumed to be distributed
uniformly across the width of the section, while
the torsional shears only exist in the walls of the
assumed thin-walled tube. For this reason, the
direct summation of the two terms tends to be
conservative and a root square summation is
used’’. They proposed design equations for
torsional resistance in which the outer skin alone
contributes to the torsional resistance of a solid
beam. They claimed that the thickness of the
wall resisting torsion in a solid member is on the
order of one-sixth to one-quarter of the lesser
dimension of a rectangular member.
Fouad et al. [9] conducted tests on normal
strength concrete NSC and high strength concrete
HSC beams and confirmed the established knowl-
edge that the concrete core does not contribute to
the torsional resistance of solid beams but affects
the cracking capacity. They found that the initial
responses of solid and hollow beams were similar,
the cracking torque of hollow sections were
approximately 52–69 percent of those of the solid
beams with same reinforcement, and the ultimate
strengths were approximately 95–98 percent of
the solid specimen.
Bhatt and Ebireri [10] conducted tests on
twelve hollow and solid beams subjected to
271
combined bending and torsion. The beams were
designed using the Direct Design Method which
is based on the Lower Bound Theorem of the
Theory of Plasticity. In this method, any stress
field which can maintain equilibrium with exter-
nal load can be used to calculate the required
reinforcement using ultimate limit state. In their
research, elastic stress field was used. The solid
beams were designed as hollow ones assuming
that the torsion is resisted by the outer 50 mm
thickness. From their results, it could be seen
that both solid and hollow beams with pure
torsion failed approximately 10% below the
design loads, and those with dominant bending
failed above the design loads.
It is clear that there is no general agreement on
the effect of combining bending, torsion and
shear on the behaviour and ultimate load of
beams. There is no globally accepted unified
model for design of beams subjected to combined
load of bending, shear and torsion. In the codes of
practice, calculation of reinforcement for each
load is done separately and then summed alge-
braically which leads to conservative design.
In this research, experimental results from
fourteen reinforced concrete beams, (seven
hollow and seven solid) are presented. The
beams were 300 · 300 mm cross-section and
3,800 mm length. The internal hollow core for
the hollow beams was 200 · 200 mm creating a
peripheral wall thickness of 50 mm. All of the
fourteen beams were designed as hollow sec-
tions for seven different load combinations of
bending, torsion and shear as shown in Table 1
using the Direct Design Method. Every pair was
reinforced with similar reinforcement. The main
variables studied were the ratio in design of
bending moment to torsion Td/Md which was
varied between 0.19 and 2.62 and the ratio, at
mid-depth of the web, of shear stress due to
torsion to shear stress due to shear force stor/sshr
which was varied between 0.59 and 6.84.
2 Research significance
Results on the effects of concrete core on
behaviour and ultimate load of reinforced con-
crete beams subjected to combined load of
272 Materials and Structures (2008) 41:269–286

Table 1 Beam design loads combination

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Beam No. Md (kN.m) Td (kN.m) Vd (kN) Td/Md ratio stor (N/mm2) sshr (N/mm2) stor/sshr ratio

BTV1-H/S 14.89 13 21.08 0.87 2.08 0.91 2.28

BTV2-H/S 32.89 13 41.08 0.4 2.08 1.78 1.17
BTV3-H/S 50.89 13 61.08 0.26 2.08 2.64 0.79
BTV4-H/S 68.89 13 81.08 0.19 2.08 3.51 0.59
BTV5-H/S 14.89 26 21.08 1.75 4.16 0.91 4.56
BTV6-H/S 32.89 26 41.08 0.79 4.16 1.78 2.34
BTV7-H/S 14.89 39 21.08 2.62 6.24 0.91 6.84

bending, torsion and shear are presented. The
beams were designed using the Direct Design
Method.
3 Design of beams
As stated above, all beams were designed as
hollow sections. The main stress conditions in the
thin-walled reinforced concrete beams, due to the
combined torsion, bending and shear loading are
the direct stresses as shown in Fig. 1. The forces
involved in out-of-plane bending are very small
and can be ignored. At any point in the cross-
section, a biaxial state of stress is maintained. At
the flanges, net normal stress due to bending is
combined with the shear stress due to torsion.
This can be used to calculate the required
longitudinal and transverse reinforcement in the
flanges. Similarly, in the webs, the net normal
stress due to bending is combined with the net
shear stress due to both the shear force and the
torsion. This can be used to calculate the required
longitudinal and transverse reinforcement in the
webs. This suggests that the design equations
derived by Nielsen [11–13] for in-plane forces,
based on the yield criterion given in Eq. 1, can be
used for the design of hollow reinforced beams.
ðNxs  Nx ÞðNys  Ny Þ  Nxy
2
¼0 ð1Þ
The yield criterion in Eq. 1 and the design
equations proposed by Nielsen (Fig. A3) satisfy
the ultimate limit state design as follows:
1 For each point in the structure calculate a set
of stress in equilibrium with the external
loads. The stress distribution can be derived
from elastic, plastic or any analysis as long as
it is in equilibrium with the external loads.
2 Calculate the required steel areas using Niel-
sen’s equations. Stresses will not violate the
yield criterion of the material because the
yield criterion has been used to determine the
steel areas.
3 Under ultimate load, the structure will devel-
op sufficient plastic hinges to transform it into
a mechanism because the resisting forces at
hinges exactly balance the applied loads and
therefore, theoretically, all points of the
structure will yield simultaneously. In prac-
tice, however, this is not possible because it is
difficult to provide exactly the required rein-
forcement for each point in the structure.
Unfortunately the theory of plasticity assumes
unlimited material ductility. This means that the
regions in the structure which yield early need to
continue to deform without any reduction in their
strength. Obviously, this is not the case with
reinforced concrete and even less so with pre-
stressed concrete. The direct design method,

Fig. 1 Stresses in a
hollow section

Bending Torsion Shear

Materials and Structures (2008) 41:269–286 273

reduces the ductility demand made by the theory
of plasticity because of the ‘simultaneous’ yield-
ing of all points in the structure as in point 3
above. In other words the difference between the
first yield load and ultimate load will be as small
as practicable.
In this research, elastic stress distribution was
used, because it is easy to compute. The stresses
resulting from the applied loads were used for
designing the reinforcement using the yield crite-
rion for in-plane forces. Concrete with sufficient
compressive strength will simply match the resis-
tance of steel in order to maintain equilibrium
until the steel yield.
This procedure is called the Direct Design
Method because the area of reinforcement is
directly calculated from the stress field using
Nielsen’s equations.
A design example is shown in Appendix A
while the concept of the Direct Design Method,
detailed derivation of design equations and com-
parison between the Direct Design Method and
the BSI and ACI codes can be found in Alnuaimi
and Bhatt [14–15].
4 Beam construction
The formwork for construction of the hollow
beams consisted of two parts: an internal core and
an open external box. The internal core was made
up of four steel hollow sections covered with
2 mm thick plywood with outer dimensions of
200 · 200 · 3800 mm. The external box was made
of 20 mm thick waterproof plywood with internal
clear dimensions of 300 · 300 · 3800 mm. The
initial preparation for construction of the speci-
men consisted of assembling the internal core,
erecting the longitudinal and transverse reinforc-
ing bars around the internal core and encasing the
internal core with the steel cage inside the external
box. For purpose of casting the solid beams, the
internal core was not used.
The concrete mix consisted of cement, uncru-
shed 10 mm gravel and sand with water/cement
ratio of 0.55. Three cubes, 100 · 100 · 100 mm,
and six cylinders, 150 · 300 mm, for each beam
were cast from the same concrete used for casting
each beam. The specimen and the samples were
kept under damp Hessian for about four days and
then under room condition. The samples were
tested on the day the beam was tested to
determine the cube and cylinder compressive
strengths and split cylinder tensile strength of
concrete.
Table 2 shows the average yield strengths of
reinforcement and compressive and tensile
strengths of concrete. The concrete cube and
cylinder compressive strengths shown for each
beam in Table 2 are the measured average
strengths of the three cubes and three cylinders
respectively and the concrete tensile strength
shown is the measured average strength of three
cylinders tested for split test. All results were
obtained from samples cured along side each
beam. The concrete cube compressive strengths

Table 2 Average material properties

Beam no. fcu (N/mm2) f¢c (N/mm2) f¢t (N/mm2) fy (N/mm2) fyv (N/mm2)

BTV1-H 39 33 3.57 495 516

BTV2-H 37 24 2.62 490 472
BTV3-H 38 27 2.73 490 472
BTV4-H 42 33 2.85 480 472
BTV5-H 35 27 2.49 490 472
BTV6-H 35 28 2.74 490 472
BTV7-H 54 34 3.61 500 472
BTV1-S 50 38 2.95 560 516
BTV2-S 52.5 39 4.10 560 516
BTV3-S 55 47 2.80 500 500
BTV4-S 53 49 3.32 560 516
BTV5-S 53 40.6 3.70 560 516
BTV6-S 50.7 47.5 3.20 560 516
BTV7-S 52 48.6 3.40 560 516
274
Fig. 2 Typical
arrangement of
reinforcement
Y8@60mm
1300mm
used were ranging between 35N/mm2 and 55N/
mm2 (normal strength concrete). Only high yield
deformed bars, 8, 10 and 12 mm diameter for
longitudinal and 8 mm diameter for transverse
were used as reinforcement. The longitudinal
steel yield strength fy for each beam is the
measured average of the average of three samples
of each bar type and transverse yield fyv strength
is the average measured strength of three sam-
ples. The calculated reinforcement was used in
the test span (middle 1200 mm). Between the test
span and the beam ends, more longitudinal and
transverse steel was used to resist negative
moment at the supports and to ensure failure
occurred in the test span (Fig. 2). Figure 3 shows
the reinforcement provided at the test span for
each beam. The solid circles in this figure repre-
sent the longitudinal bars which were strain
gauged while the hollow circles represent un-
instrumented reinforcement. If the areas of the
steel bars shown in Fig. 3 are multiplied by their
respective yield strengths from Table 2, each pair
of beams will have similar reinforcement for the
solid beam and the hollow beam as shown in
Table 3. Although in some cases the design
required no longitudinal reinforcement in the
top side, two 8 mm diameter bars were provided
for stirrup anchorage.
5 Test setup and instrumentation
Figure 4 shows typical load and support arrange-
ment and Fig. 5 shows a testing rig with typical
beam installed. The test rig is a three-dimensional
frame designed to allow application of torsion,
bending moment and shear force. The model was
mounted on two steel stools fixed to the concrete
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:269–286
Test span
-
See details in Fig. 3 Y8@60mm
1200mm 1300mm
3800mm
floor at a distance of 1.8 m a part. The test span
was 1.2 m long centred at mid-span. The beam
was simply supported by a set of two perpendic-
ular rollers at each support and a system of pin-
and-roller at the mid-span of the top face. At the
support, the lower roller allows axial displace-
ment and the upper one allows rotation about a
horizontal axis at the soffit level of the beam. The
diameter of each roller was 100 mm and the
length was 300 mm. The rollers were separated by
300 · 300 · 20 mm steel plates and a similar
plate was put between the upper roller and the
soffit of the beam. At the mid-span of the top
face, a 300 · 100 · 30 mm steel plate was placed
using cement plaster, and the pin-and-roller
system was installed between the steel plate and
the load cell. The pin prevented rigid body
motion and the roller allowed rotation about
horizontal beam axis. Torsion was applied by
means of a torsion arm fixed to each end of the
beam (Fig. 6) while bending moment and shear
force were a result of applied load at mid-span
across the beam width at the top face. This
support and loading arrangement allowed full
rotation (no torsion is resisted by the rollers)
about the centre line of the beam soffit and
displacement in the beam axial direction. It
produced constant torsional shear stress over
the entire length of the beam and maximum
normal stress due to bending and shear stress due
to shear force occurred near the mid-span. Tor-
sion, bending and shear loads were applied using
hydraulic pumps and load cells were used to
measure the load at each jack location. The load
cells were connected to a data logger for data
acquisition. Linear voltage displacement trans-
ducers (LVDT) were used to measure displace-
ment at various points within the test span by
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:269–286 275

Fig. 3 Provided 2Y8 2Y8

reinforcement 2Y8
Y8@170mm
2Y8 Y8@173mm 2Y8
3Y10 3Y10+1Y8

BTV1-H BTV1-S

2Y8 2Y8

Y8@120mm Y8@130mm
2Y10 2Y8
4Y10 4Y10

BTV2-H BTV2-S

2Y8 2Y8
2Y8
Y8@100mm
2Y10 Y8@93mm 2Y10
5Y10 4Y12

BTV3-H BTV3-S

2Y8 2Y8
2Y8 2Y8

2Y10 Y8@84mm 2Y10 Y8@92mm

5Y12+1Y8 5Y10+1Y8

BTV4-H BTV4-S

2Y8 2Y8
2Y8 2Y8

2Y10 Y8@92mm 2Y8 Y8@102mm

3Y10 3Y10

BTV5-H BTV5-S

2Y8 2Y8
2Y8 2Y8

2Y10 Y8@80mm 2Y8 Y8@88mm

4Y10+1Y8 5Y10

BTV6-H BTV6-S

2Y8 2Y8
2Y8 2Y8

2Y10 Y8@66mm 2Y10 Y8@70mm

4Y10 4Y10

BTV7-H BTV7-S

means connected to an automatic data storing on directly opposite faces of the bar and con-
and processing system. To measure strain in the nected to a data logger. Accordingly, the axial
bars, a pair of strain gauges, 6 mm long, was fixed strain recorded at each load stage was taken as
276 Materials and Structures (2008) 41:269–286

Table 3 Provided reinforcement in the hollow and solid beams

1 Longitudinal reinforcement Transverse reinforcement
2 3 4 5 6 7
Beam As (mm2) fy (N/mm2) Force at yield, kN Asv (mm2/m) fyv (N/mm2) Force at yield (kN/m)

BTV1-H 537.2 495 265.91 290.55 516 149.92

BTV1-S 486.95 560 272.69 295.68 516 152.57
BTV2-H 571.77 490 280.17 418.88 472 197.7
BTV2-S 515.22 560 288.52 386.65 516 199.51
BTV3-H 750.84 490 367.91 540.49 472 255.11
BTV3-S 710 500 355 502.65 500 251.32
BTV4-H 973.89 480 467.47 598.39 472 282.44
BTV4-S 801.1 560 448.62 546.36 516 281.92
BTV5-H 593.76 490 290.94 546.36 472 257.88
BTV5-S 537.21 560 300.83 492.79 516 254.28
BTV6-H 722.57 490 354.06 628.31 472 296.56
BTV6-S 694.29 560 388.8 571.19 516 294.73
BTV7-H 672.3 500 336.15 761.59 472 359.47
BTV7-S 672.3 560 376.48 718.08 516 370.52

Fig. 4 Typical load and 1200mm Test span

support arrangement
Pin and
roller Torsional arm

Torsional arm Perpendicular Perpendicular

rollers rollers

1000mm 900mm 900mm 1000m m

the average reading of both gauges. Crack width
and crack development were measured by means
of a crack width measuring microscope.
For each experiment, the design load was
divided into load increments. The value of each
of the first three increments was 10% of the
design load (10% of the design bending and 10%
of the design torsion) while for each of the rest

Fig. 5 Testing rig with a typical beam installed Fig. 6 Torsional arm
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:269–286 277

increments it was 5% of the design load until
failure. The point load applied at mid-span and
that applied at the trosional arms were exerted
simultaneously until failure. The beam was con-
sidered to have collapsed when it could resist no
more loads. In most cases, the failure mechanism
observed was a major crack spiralling around the
beam cross-section near the mid-span dividing the
beam into two parts connected by the longitudi-
nal reinforcement.
6 Experimental observation
This section presents a summary of a comparison
between observed behaviours in the test span
region of the hollow and solid beams at significant
stages. The quoted load factor is the experimen-
tally measured load at each increment i expressed
as a percentage of the design load, L.F. = (Mi/
Md + Ti/Td)/2 including the self-weight. The fail-
ure load is the experimentally measured failure
load as a percentage of the design load, Le/
Ld = (Me/Md + Te/Td)/2.
6.1 Crack development
Column 2 of Table 4 shows the load factor at
which the first crack was noticed in the beam and
column 3 shows the average angle of cracks just
before the failure load. It is clear that in all pairs,
the hollow beams cracked at significantly lower
loads than the solid ones. This indicates that the
concrete core in the solid beams participates in
increasing the cracking load. In general, the larger
the applied bending moment relative to applied
torsion, the larger the difference in the cracking
loads. In the case of hollow beams, when shear
stress due to torsion was dominant ðstor /sshr [ 1Þ,
the cracks start at a lower load factor than when
shear stress due shear force is dominant
ðstor /sshr \ 1Þ while there was no clear distinction
in the case of solid beams. It was noticed that in
the case of bending dominance (i.e., Td/Md <1)
almost vertical cracks start at the bottom side or
near the bottom of the side faces extending into
the upper sides with the increase of the load. With
the increase of load, the cracks change angle to be
more inclined depending on the ratio Td/Md (the
smaller the ratio the more vertical the cracks)
with 45o as the smallest and 60o as the largest
angles reported. These results are in line with the
known knowledge of vertical bending cracks and
inclined torsional cracks. The effect of torsion is
clear in reducing the angle of the cracks. It can be
seen from Table 4 and Fig. 7 that in most cases
the type of beam (solid or hollow) has no major
effect on the angle of inclination of the cracks. In
general, the number of cracks was larger in the
hollow sections than in the solid ones. The larger
the ratios Td/Md and stor/sshr the larger the
number and finer cracks and the earlier they

Table 4 Test results

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Beam no. LFCR ratio ho average D mm (e/ey)Lng. Max. (e/ey)Strp Max. Le/Ld ratio Dif. F. L. %

BTV1-H 0.3 45 1.7 0.84 1.3 1.04 +46.1

BTV1-S 0.7 55 2.2 1.03 1.31 1.52
BTV2-H 0.5 45 6.0 1.67 1.1 1.22 +38.5
BTV2-S 0.65 45 5.72 0.76 0.18 1.69
BTV3-H 0.4 50 8.3 1.34 0.93 1.26 +46.8
BTV3-S 0.55 60 19 1.98 0.96 1.85
BTV4-H 0.4 50 8.2 1.3 0.8 1.06 +41.5
BTV4-S 0.45 55 16.9 1.45 1.89 1.5
BTV5-H 0.3 50 11.8 0.83 1.25 1.02 +43.1
BTV5-S 0.6 45 18 1.48 1.36 1.46
BTV6-H 0.5 60 3.1 0.83 0.82 0.92 +50
BTV6-S 0.65 60 2.1 1.08 1.3 1.38
BTV7-H 0.3 45 11.0 0.88 0.9 1.01 +21.2
BTV7-S 0.55 50 4.59 1.13 0.54 1.23
278 Materials and Structures (2008) 41:269–286

Fig. 7 (a) Crack

development in BTV1-S/
H. (b) Crack development
in BTV2-S/H. (c) Crack
development in BTV3-S/
H. (d) Crack development
in BTV4-S/H. (e) Crack
development in BTV5-S/
H. (f) Crack development
in BTV6-S/H. (g) Crack
development in BTV7-S/H
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:269–286 279

develop. In all cases, major crack(s) propagate(s) 6.2 Displacement at mid-span

from the bottom face near failure load and
spiral(s) round the beam leading to failure when The displacement reported in column 4 of Table 4
reaching the top face. Less number of major is the maximum displacement measured at mid-
cracks was developed in the solid beams than in span near failure load. Figure 8 shows the com-
the hollow beams. All beams developed enough plete behaviour of displacement at that point. It is
cracks long before failure providing ductile mode clear from this figure that almost every pair of
of failure. beams has undergone similar trend of displace-

Displacement at mid-span Displacement at mid-span

(a) 1.8 (b) 1.8
1.6 1.6
1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
1.0
L.F.

L.F.
0.8
0.8
0.6
BTV1-H 0.6 BTV2-H
0.4
BTV1-S 0.4 BTV2-S
0.2
0.0 0.2

0.0 2.5 0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Disp. (mm)
Disp.(mm)

Displacment at mid-span Displacement at mid-span

(c) 2 (d) 1.6
1.8
1.4
1.6
1.4 1.2
1.2 1
L.F.

1
L.F.

0.8 0.8
0.6 BTV3-H
0.6
0.4 BTV3-S
0.2 0.4 BTV4-H
0 0.2 BTV4-S
0 5 10 15 20
0
disp.(mm) 0 5 10 15
Disp.(mm)
Displacement at mid-span Displacement at mid-span
(e) 1.6 (f) 1.6
1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
1 1
L.F.

L.F.

0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
BTV5-S
0.4
BTV5-H 0.4 BTV6-H
0.2
0.2 BTV6-S
0
14 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 16 18 20
0 1 2 3 4
Disp.(mm)
Disp.(mm)
Displacement at mid-span
1.4
(g)
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
L.F.

BTV7-H
0.4
BTV7-S
0.2
0
-3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13
-0.2
-0.4
Disp.(mm)

Fig. 8 (a) Displacement at mid-span (BTV1-H/S. (b) (BTV4-H/S). (e) Displacement at mid-span (BTV5-H/S).
Displacement at mid-span (BTV2-H/S). (c)Displacement (f) Displacement at mid-span (BTV6-H/S). Displacement
at mid-span (BTV3-H/S). (d) Displacement at mid-span at mid-span (BTV7-H/S)
280
ment although the values differ from solid to
hollow beam. In most cases, the hollow beams were
more flexible than the solid ones (i.e., more
displacement for the same load value). In general,
the maximum displacements measured were high-
er in the solid beams than the hollow beams due to
the fact that the solid beams resisted more loads
(Table 4). With exception to BTV7-H, larger
maximum displacement values were reported for
beams with small Td/Md and stor /sshr ratios.
6.3 Steel strain ratios nearest to mid-span
The steel strain ratios (strain due to applied load
to yield strain e/ey) were measured at different
locations in the test span region, the maximum
ratios reported in columns 5 and 6 of Table 4 are
the maximum ratios measured anywhere in the
test span, not necessarily at mid-span. The steel
strain ratios plotted in Figs. 9 and 10 are those for
the points closest to mid-span.
It is clear from Figs. 9 and 10 that similar curve
trends were followed for both beams of each pair
with higher strain ratios reported in the hollow
beams than in the solid beams for the same load.
With exception to BTV2-S all longitudinal steel in
the solid beams yielded. In most cases, the
longitudinal steel in the hollow beams yielded or
reached near yield strain. With exception to
BTV7-S, the smaller the Td/Md ratio the larger
the strain in the longitudinal steel for both types
of beams. In general, less strain ratios were
reported in the stirrups in both types of beams.
This might be due to the fact that all sections were
over reinforced in the transverse direction due to
the following reasons: (1) in contrary to the front
side, in the rear side of the section the shear
stresses due to torsion and those due to shear
force are subtractive, and yet the same stirrup
diameter, which was designed based on the front
side stresses, was used in the front and rear sides,
(2) the shear stress due to shear force is largest at
mid depth and decreases towards the upper and
lower sides while the stirrup diameter is constant,
(3) although the vertical shear stress due to shear
force is distributed across the whole width, the
resisting steel is fixed in the outer skin of the
section which may give additional resistance to
torsion due to a larger lever arm.
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:269–286
6.4 Failure loads and mode of failure
Column 7 of Table 4 shows the ratio of experi-
mental to design failure loads and column 8 shows
the percentage of difference in failure loads
between the solid and hollow pairs. It is clear
that all solid beams have resisted more load than
the hollow ones. Most of the hollow beams failed
near the design loads while the solid beams failed
much more than the design loads. This indicates
that the core contributes to the ultimate load
resistance of the section and cannot be ignored
for the case of combined load of bending, shear
and torsion. The difference between the failure
loads of solid and hollow beams varied between
21.2% (BTV7-S/H) and 50% BTV6-S/H). Fig-
ures 11 and 12 show the effects of stor /sshr and Td/
Md ratios on the differences in failure loads. It
was noticed that with very large Td/Md and
stor /sshr ratios the difference was less pronounced
while for small ratios the differences in failure
load values scatter about a horizontal plateau
until when the stor /sshr is about 2 or the Td/Md
about 1. The largest failure load in solid beams
was measured in BTV3-S with Td/Md = 0.26 and
stor/sshr = 0.79, the second largest was BTV4-S
with Td/Md = 0.19 and stor/sshr = 0.59 and the
least failure load was recorded in BTV7-S with
Td/Md = 2.62 and stor/sshr = 6.84. This indicates
that the presence of bending moment and shear
stress due shear force lead to increased failure
load while the presence of torsion reduces the
failure load.
Although all beams failed in a ductile manner
with steel yielding before concrete crushes, it was
noticed that: beams with bending dominance (Td/
Md <1), the mode of failure was flexural where
the beams experienced relatively large displace-
ment and the flexural steel yielded. A small
number of cracks caused failure at the time of
flexural steel yielding. In the case of torsion
dominance (Td/Md >1), most of the beams failed
by diagonal cracking due to high torsional shear
stress and the failure mode was less ductile with
small displacement, less longitudinal steel strain
and larger transverse steel strain. This clearly
reflects the effect of torsion on the concentration
of shear stress in the periphery of the cross-
section. The difference in failure loads versus stor/
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:269–286 281

Strain ratios in longitudinal steel Strain ratios in longitudinal steel

(a) 1.8
1.6
(b) 1.8
1.6
1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
1.0 1

L.F.
L.F.

0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4 BTV2-H
0.4 0.2
BTV1-H BTV2-S
0.2 0
BTV1-S
0.0 -0.2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
-0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 ε/εy
ε/εy

Strain ratios in longitudinal steel Strain ratios in longitudinal steel

(c) 2 (d) 1.6

1.8 1.4
1.6
1.2
1.4
1

L.F.
1.2
L.F.

1 0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6 BTV4-H
BTV3-H
0.4 0.4
BTV4-S
BTV3-S
0.2 0.2
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
ε/εy ε/εy

Strain ratios in longitudinal steel Strain ratios in longitudinal steel

1.6
(e) 1.6
(f) 1.4
1.4
1.2 1.2
1
1
L.F.
L.F.

0.8 BTV6-H
0.8
0.6 BTV6-S
0.6
0.4
0.4 BTV5-H
0.2
0.2 BTV5-S
0
0 -0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
ε/εy ε/εy

Strain ratios in longitudinal steel

(g) 1.4
1.2
1
0.8
L.F.

0.6
0.4 BTV7-H
0.2 BTV7-S
0
-0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
ε/εy

Fig. 9 (a) Strain ratios in longitudinal steel (BTV1-H/S). tudinal steel (BTV5-H/S). (e) Strain ratios in longitudinal
Strain ratios in longitudinal steel (BTV2-H/S). (b) Strain steel (BTV6-H/S). (f) Strain ratios in longitudinal steel
ratios in longitudinal steel (BTV3-H/S). (c) Strain ratios in (BTV7-H/S)
longitudinal steel (BTV4-H/S). (d) Strain ratios in longi-

sshr and Td/Md curves (Figs. 11, 12) show that 7 Remarks on the findings
both curves followed similar trend which indi-
cates that the large presence of torsion reduces From the above results it can be said that
the differences in failure loads which proves that although the core participates in the load resis-
in such cases, the solid beams behave like hollow tance, it is, however, difficult to quantitatively
beams with less participation of the core in load describe this resistance in a simple manner. One
resistance. reason for this difficulty is that the contribution of
282 Materials and Structures (2008) 41:269–286

Strain ratios in the stirrups Strain ratios in the stirrups

(a) 1.8 (b) 1.8
1.6 1.6
1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
L.F.

1.0 1

L.F.
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 BTV2-H
0.4 BTV1-H
0.2 0.2 BTV2-S
BTV1-S
0.0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 -0.2
ε/εy 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
ε/εy
Strain ratios in the stirrups
Strain ratios in the stirrups
(c) 2
(d) 1.6
1.8 1.4
1.6
1.2
1.4
1.2 1
L.F.

L.F.
1 0.8
0.8 BTV3-H 0.6 BTV4-H
0.6 0.4 BTV4-S
BTV3-S
0.4
0.2
0.2
0 0
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
ε/εy
ε/εy

Strain ratios in the stirrups Strain ratios in the stirrups

(e) 1.6 (f) 1.6
1.4 1.4
1.2 1.2
1
1
L.F.

0.8
L.F.

0.8
0.6 BT V6-H
0.6
0.4 BTV5-H BT V6-S
0.4
0.2 BTV5-S
0 0.2

-0.2 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
ε/εy ε/εy

Strain ratios in the stirrups

(g) 1.4
1.2
1
0.8
L.F.

0.6
0.4 BT V7-H
BT V7-S
0.2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
ε/εy

Fig. 10 (a) Strain ratios in the transverse steel (BTV1-H/ in the transverse steel (BTV5-H/S). (f) Strain ratios in the
S). (b) Strain ratios in the transverse steel (BTV2-H/S). transverse steel (BTV6-H/S). (g) Strain ratios in the
Strain ratios in the transverse steel (BTV3-H/S). (c) Strain transverse steel (BTV7-H/S)
ratios in the transverse steel (BTV4-H/S). (d) Strain ratios

the core is affected by the load combination. The experience loss in load resistance at later stages.
presence of large value of torsion leads to a solid Finally, the core resistance may be affected by
beam acting like a hollow one, while presence of some of the materials properties which were not
large bending moment activates the core resis- covered in this study i.e. tensile stress of the
tance. Another reason is that, not the whole core concrete in the core reduces the load on the steel
participates in the load resistance. It is possible which leads to a higher cracking load, and strain
that in the region where shear stresses due to hardening of steel when combined with core
torsion and those due to shear force add up, participation in compressive and shear stresses
cracks develop earlier causing the region to resistance gives extra strength at ultimate load.
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:269–286 283

55
Effect of the ratio of torsional shear stress to shear force stress Less, in number, major cracks have developed
50 in the solid beams than in the hollow beams. In
45 most cases, the hollow beams behaved softer
40 than the solid ones (i.e., more displacement and
D if.F.L.

35
more steel strain for the same load value) but
30
25
similar curve trend for both beams in each pair
20 was followed. All beams failed in a ductile
15 manner with steel yielding before concrete
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
crushes. In general, with same reinforcement, it
τtor /τshr
can be stated that when torsion is dominant it is
Fig. 11 Effect of the stor/sshr on the difference in failure advisable to construct the beam as hollow one
loads between solid and hollow beams as to save on concrete material while when the
bending is dominant the beam would be better
Effect of the ratio of torsion to bending constructed as solid to gain more on cracking
55 and ultimate loads.
50
45
40
D if.F.L.

35 Appendix A
30
25 Design example
20
15
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Use the Direct Design Method to design a
T d/M d reinforced concrete hollow beam for
Md = 50.9kN.m, Vd = 61.08 kN and
Fig. 12 Effect of the Td/Md ratio on the difference in Td = 13 kN.m. The cross-section is 300 mm with
failure loads between solid and hollow beams (a) Dimen-
sions and levels (b) Centre line of torsional shear flow 200 · 200 mm hollow core. The characteristic
material strengths are fy = 490N/mm2 for longi-
tudinal steel, fyv = 472N/mm2 for stirrups and
8 Conclusion fcu = 38N/mm2 for concrete.

Results from testing seven pairs of reinforced Solution

concrete beams (each pair constitutes of one
hollow and one solid beam with same outer The section is divided into six regions (levels) a–f
geometry and similar reinforcement) designed as shown in Fig. A1a.
for ultimate combined load of bending, torsion

and shear using the direct design method were 3003  200 2003  200
I=  = 5.42  108 mm4
compared. It was found that all solid beams 12 12
cracked at higher loads than the hollow beams.
The differences are more pronounced when the Ao = 250( · 250 = 6.25 · 104 mm2 (area en-
bending was dominant (Td/Md <1). Every solid closed by the dotted line of Fig. A1b)
beam resisted more load than its counterpart
hollow one. Most of the hollow beams failed Normal stresses due to bending
near the design loads while the solid beams
failed much more than the design loads. It was For elastic stress distribution, equation A1 can be
noticed that, for both types, large values of used.
bending moment and shear stress due shear
force lead to increased failure load while the My
rx ¼ 
presence of torsion reduces the failure load. I
284 Materials and Structures (2008) 41:269–286

Fig. A1 Cross section of 50 200 50 25 250 25

the hollow beam
Level a

25
50
Level b
Level c

4@50

250
Level d
Level e
Level f

50

25
(a) Dimensions and levels (b) Centre line of torsional shear flow

Table A1 Stress calculation at each region

Region (1) rx (N/mm2) (2) ry (N/mm2) (3) sshr (N/mm2) (4) stor (N/mm2) (5) sxy- (N/mm2) (6) sxy+ (N/mm2) (7)

a –11.74 0 0.7 2.08 1.38 2.78

b –7.05 0 2.54 2.08 0.46 4.62
c –2.35 0 2.68 2.08 0.6 4.76
d 2.35 0 2.68 2.08 0.6 4.76
e 7.05 0 2.54 2.08 0.46 4.62
f 11.74 0 0.7 2.08 1.38 2.78

The results are presented in column 2 of Shear stresses due to shear force
Table A1.
No out-of-plane bending is considered, ry = 0 Equation A2 is used for the calculation of shear
at all regions (column 3 of Table A1). stresses due to shear force.

2.78N/mm2
4.76N/mm2

a 11.74N/mm2 2.35N/mm2
d

4.62N/mm2
4.62N/mm2

b 7.05N/mm2 7.05N/mm2
e

4.76N/mm2 2.78N/mm2

2.35N/mm2 11.74N/mm2
c f

Fig. A2 schematic representation of element normal and shear stresses at each region
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:269–286 285

Table A2. Calculation of forces and reinforcement in the longitudinal and transverse directions
ry
Region t mm wmm rx
Case No. (Fig.A3) Nxs N/mm Nxs N/mm As mm2 Asv mm2/m
jsxy j jsxy j
a 50 300 –4.22 0 1 0 33 0 70
b 50 100 –1.53 0 1 0 151.3 0 320.5
c 50 100 –0.49 0 3 120.5 237.9 24.6 504
d 50 100 0.49 0 3 355.3 237.9 72.5 504
e 50 100 1.53 0 3 583.2 230.9 119.02 489.1
F 50 300 4.22 0 3 726.4 139.2 444.74 295

Fig. A3 Boundary graph N

for Nielsen’s design y
equations N xy
CASE 1 CASE 3

Y-steel only required X- and Y- steel required

N xs 0 N xs Nx N xy
2
N xy
N ys Ny N ys N y N xy
Nx

2
N xy N 2 N xy
2
N Nx
2 Nx
(0,0) Nx
N xy
(-1,-1)
CASE 4 CASE 2
No steel required X-steel only required

N xs 0 2
N xy
N xs Nx
Nx
N ys 0
N ys 0
N1
N2 2 2
N xy
2
2 y Ny
Nxy2
4
286
R in the top flange. However, for the purpose of
V yd
sshr ¼ ðA2Þ
It
The result is shown in column 4 of Table A1.
Shear stresses due to torsion
Shear flow is assumed to circulate in the outer
50 mm thick skin.
Equation A3 is used for the calculation of
shear stress due to torsion. The result is shown in
column 5 of Table A1.
T 3. Ojha Surendra K (1974) Deformation of reinforced
st ¼ ðA3Þ
2bAo
Resulting shear stresses at each region are
given in the last two columns of Table A1. sxy -
represents the net shear stress where the shear
stress due to torsion and the shear stress due to
shear force are subtractive while sxy þ represents
the net shear stress where the shear stresses are
additive. For practical reasons, sxy + was consid-
ered in the calculation of steel areas. Net design
normal and shear stresses at each level can be
schematically represented as shown in Fig. A2.
Calculation of forces per unit length and
selection of design equations
rx ry
The values of the ratios of and
jsxy j jsxy j
(columns 2, 3 and 7 of Table A1) were used to
select design equations from Fig. A3 (for equa-
tion derivations and boundary curves, see Alnu-
aimi and Bhatt 14–15). Accordingly, the required
reinforcement is calculated using Eqs. A4 and A5.
The results are shown in Table A2.
Nxs
As ¼ w ðA4Þ
fy
Nys
Asv ¼ 1000 ðA5Þ
fyv
NB. It should be noted that in this example
there was no need for longitudinal reinforcement
View publication stats
Materials and Structures (2008) 41:269–286
anchoring the stirrups, two bars of 8 mm diameter
have to be provided.
References
1. Hsu TTC (1968) Torsion of structural concrete-
behaviour of reinforced concrete rectangular mem-
bers. SP-18, American Concrete Institute, Detroit,
Michigan, pp 261–306
2. Mitchell, D, Collins MP (1974) Behaviour of structural
concrete beams in pure torsion, publication No. 74–06.
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Tor-
onto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
concrete rectangular beams under combined torsion,
bending and shea. ACI J 71–26:383–391
4. Thurlimann B (1979) Torsional strength of reinforced
and prestressed concrete beams-CEB approach. Insti-
tut fur Baustatik und konstruktion, ETH. Zurich,
(92):117–143
5. Collins MP, Mitchell D (1991) Pre-stressed concrete
structures. Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ
6. Rahal KN, Collins MP (1995) Analysis of sections
subjected to combined shear and torsion—a theoretical
model. ACI Struct J 92(4):459–469
7. Rahal KN (2000) Torsional strength of reinforced
concrete beams. Canadian J Civil Eng 27:445–453
8. MacGregor JG, Ghoneim MG (1995) Design for tor-
sion. ACI Struct J S92–S20:211–218
9. Fouad E, Ghoneim M, Issa M, Shaheen H (2000)
Combined shear and torsion In normal and high-
strength concrete beams (1): Experimental Study. J
Eng Appl Sci 47(6):1059–1078
10. Bhatt P, Ebireri JO (1989) Direct design of beams for
combined bending and torsion, Stavebnicky Casopis,
Building Journal (Bratislava), v 37, n 4 Apr., pp 249–
263, in English, ISSN: 0039-078X, Coden: STVCA2
11. Nielsen TB (1985) Optimization of reinforcement in
shells, folded plates, walls and slabs. ACI J 82–26:304–
309
12. Nielsen MP (1978) Some examples of lower-bound
design of reinforcement in plane stress problems.
IABSE colloquium, Copenhagen, Session V. Plasticity
in Reinforced Concrete, Final report 29:317–324 Aug
13. Nielsen MP (1974) Optimum design of reinforced
concrete shells and slabs. Structural research labora-
tory, Technical University of Denmark, Report
NR.R44, pp 190–200
14. Alnuaimi AS, Bhatt P (2004) Direct design of hollow
reinforced concrete beams, part I: design procedure.
Struct Concrete J 5(4):139–146
15. Alnuaimi AS, Bhatt P (2004) Direct design of hollow
reinforced concrete beams, part II: experimental
investigation. Struct Concrete J 5(4):147–160