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

net/publication/292985203

Improved Softened Membrane Model for Reinforced Concrete Circular Bridge

Columns under Torsional Loading

Article in Bridge Engineering · February 2016

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000907

CITATIONS READS

11 2,441

3 authors:

Anand golappa Ganganagoudar Tarutal Ghosh Mondal

Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad Missouri University of Science and Technology
3 PUBLICATIONS 79 CITATIONS 21 PUBLICATIONS 185 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Suriya Prakash Shanmugam

Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad
125 PUBLICATIONS 1,242 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

Innovative Fiber Reinforced Concrete Systems View project

Behaviour of Precast Prestressed Hollow core slabs with openings and their strengthening using FRP composites View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Suriya Prakash Shanmugam on 14 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Improved Softened Membrane Model for Reinforced Concrete
Circular Bridge Columns under Torsional Loading
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, HYDERABAD on 02/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Anand Ganganagoudar1; Tarutal Ghosh Mondal2; and S. Suriya Prakash, A.M.ASCE3

Abstract: This paper presents an improved softened membrane model for the analysis of reinforced concrete (RC) circular bridge columns
under torsion loading. Concrete exhibits higher tensile strength and stiffness due to the strain-gradient effect under torsional loading. Results
of previous studies suggest that the inclusion of strain-gradient and bidirectional stress effects improves prediction of the torsional behavior of
concrete members. However, the influence of strain-gradient and bidirectional effect stresses on the torsional response of circular columns has
never been investigated. With this paper, the authors aim to fill the existing knowledge gap in this important area of research by proposing a
modified softened membrane model for torsion (SMMT) for circular columns. The authors also recommend a new tension–stiffening relation-
ship of concrete for improved predictions. The estimated analytical response is compared with experimental data, and a good correlation can
be seen. Predictions from the proposed model are also compared with the classical rotating-angle softened truss model (RA-STM) to illustrate
the efficacy of the proposed model. Parameters such as postcracking stiffness, peak torque, and twist at peak torque are captured by the
improved SMMT better than with the existing RA-STM. The improved model can be used also for developing simplified design equations.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000907. © 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Softened membrane model for torsion; Strain-gradient effect; Circular bridge columns; Tension stiffening effect.

Introduction these conditions call for a deeper understanding of the torsional

Reinforced concrete (RC) circular columns are popular for use in
bridge-pier construction because of their simplicity, their similar
strength characteristics in all directions, and their cross-sectional
shape. In general, RC bridge columns are subjected to translational
and rotational motions during seismic events. The rotational motion
is generally triggered by irregular bridge configurations, such as in
skewed bridges, horizontally curved bridges, bridges with unequal
spans or column heights, and bridges with outrigger bents. As a
result, torsional moment is induced in the bridge columns in addi-
tion to flexure and axial compression. Moreover, torsional loading
might also be induced by deck rotation that results from eccentric
loading. The eccentricity arises when the center of gravity of the
deck does not coincide with the center of rigidity (as shown in
Fig. 1).
In typical design practices, this torsional moment is generally
ignored. However, previous investigations revealed that the pres-
ence of torsional loading significantly affects the strength and stiff-
ness of the columns under axial and lateral deformations (Otsuka
et al. 2004; Tirasit and Kawashima 2007; Hurtado 2009; Prakash
et al. 2012). Furthermore, torsional loading might result in brittle
shear failure and trigger catastrophic failure of the structure. All
1
Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology, Hyderabad 502205, India. E-mail: ce14mtech11010@iith
.ac.in
2
Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology, Hyderabad 502205, India. E-mail: ce13m1023@iith.ac.in
3
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology, Hyderabad 502205, India (corresponding author). E-mail:
suriyap@iith.ac.in
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 18, 2015;
approved on December 11, 2015; published online on February 12, 2016.
Discussion period open until July 12, 2016; separate discussions must be
submitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of
Bridge Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702.
response of RC bridge columns. Seismic torsion in bridges from
past earthquakes has been documented (Goel and Chopra 1994),
investigated analytically (Isakovic et al. 1998; Meng and Lui 2000;
Hurtado 2009; Huang and Liu 2007; Mondal and Prakash 2015b),
and measured experimentally (Johnson et al. 2009; Nelson et al.
2007) by different researchers. In addition, several investigations
were focused on the response of square (Ogata et al. 2000; Hsu and
Liang 2002; Nagata et al. 2004; Otsuka et al. 2004; Tirasit and
Kawashima 2007), oblong (McLean and Buckingham 1994;
Hurtado 2009), and circular (Hurtado 2009; Prakash et al. 2012)
columns subjected to cyclic and combined torsional loading.
Nevertheless, information on several issues relating the torsional
response of RC bridge columns is scarce. It is essential to expand
knowledge on the behavior of RC members so that the effect of tor-
sion can be clearly understood for developing rational design
provisions.
Because torsion is a three-dimensional problem, it involves
warping along with shear in two-dimensional membrane elements
(Collins and Mitchell 1991). Perhaps the complexity involved in
torsion problems explicates the difficulties in developing a rational
model for studying the torsional response of RC members analyti-
cally. Different analytical models evolved over a period, on the ba-
sis of principles of mechanics, with increasing sophistication. Two
such models are the softened truss model (STM), developed at the
University of Houston, and the modified compression field theory
(MCFT), developed at the University of Toronto for predicting the
torsional behavior of square RC sections. Mondal and Prakash
(2015a) showed that the inclusion of tension stiffening can signifi-
cantly improve predictions from the STM. However, bidirectional
states of stress and the strain-gradient effect were neglected in their
STM formulation for circular sections. Hsu and Zhu (2002) pro-
posed the softened membrane model (SMM), which includes the
effect of bidirectional stress states. Jeng and Hsu (2009) extended
the SMM to torsional problems and proposed the softened mem-
brane model for torsion (SMMT) for rectangular cross sections by

© ASCE 04016037-1 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016037

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, HYDERABAD on 02/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Torsion in bridge column due to deck rotation

Table 1. Comparison between RA-STM and SMMT

Details RA-STM for torsion SMMT

Theory Rotating-angle theory Fixed-angle theory
Crack direction Cracking assumed along principal coordinate of concrete Cracking assumed along principal coordinates of RC
element element
Poisson’s effect Not considered Included in the formulation
Strain-gradient effect Considered only for principal compression Considered for both principal compression and
principal tension
Postpeak behaviour Cannot predict accurately Predictions are better than RA-STM
Postcrack stiffness Cannot predict accurately Predictions are better than RA-STM
Contribution of concrete in shear Incapable of calculating the contribution of concrete Model can calculate contribution of concrete in
in shear shear
Tension–stiffening effect Tensile stress in concrete is ignored Smeared tensile stress–strain relationship is used

including the strain-gradient effect. They observed that the strain
gradient that arises from bending concrete struts under torsional
loading leads to higher tensile strength and stiffness than those
under shear state in a membrane element. The authors also proposed
a new tension–stiffening relation to take this effect into account,
which led to better predictions. The fundamental differences
between the rotating-angle softened truss model (RA-STM) and the
SMMT are summarized in Table 1. It can be seen clearly from the
comparisons that SMMT is more sophisticated than RA-STM for
torsional analysis and is thus the focus of this investigation.
the strain-gradient effect. The present study aims to fill this knowl-
edge gap by extending the SMMT to circular RC bridge columns. In
particular, the following advancements are made:
1. A new tension–stiffening model for concrete is proposed to
improve the predictions.
2. This proposed model includes the strain-gradient effect and the
effect of bidirectional stress in its formulation. The predictions
of the improved model are compared with those of the original
RA-STM, which ignored the effects of tension–stiffening,
strain-gradient, and bidirectional stresses.

Research Motivation and Objectives SMMT

SMMT was developed and validated through test data on rectangular
beams. Later, it was extended to other types of RC members such as
prestressed concrete box girders (Mo et al. 2000) and hollow RC sec-
tions (Jeng 2014). However, efficiency of the SMMT in predicting
the torsional response of circular sections has not been studied in
detail. It is widely known that the behavior of circular and noncircular
sections under torsion is very different because of changes in shear-
flow characteristics and warping. In the case of square/rectangular
columns, the strain-gradient effect is significant due to warping of
the cross section. However, the strain-gradient effect in circular sec-
tions is not very significant because of the absence of any warping.
Therefore, the tension–stiffening relationship proposed by Jeng and
Hsu (2009) for rectangular sections cannot be used directly for circu-
lar columns. The descending/postpeak part of the tensile constitutive
law for concrete must be modified to incorporate this correction for
The traditional truss concept is the underlying philosophy for the
SMM, in which compressive stresses are taken by the concrete
struts and tensile stresses are taken by the longitudinal and trans-
verse reinforcing bars after cracking. SMMT was proposed origi-
nally by Jeng and Hsu (2009) and was an extension of SMM for
shear. Formulations of SMMT are based on three basic principles of
mechanics, namely, equilibrium of stresses, compatibility of strains,
and constitutive laws of materials. The effect of bidirectional
stresses (Poison’s effect) and the tension–stiffening relationship of
concrete, which were already included in SMM, are modified in
SMMT to take the effect of strain gradient into account. SMMT
developed for rectangular sections is extended to circular bridge
columns in this study. The tension–stiffening relationship typically
used for square sections is modified to improve predictions for cir-
cular columns.

© ASCE 04016037-2 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016037

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, HYDERABAD on 02/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. RC section subjected to torque and shear element subjected to in-plane shear flow

Equilibrium of Stresses
Fig. 2 depicts a RC member subjected to torsional moment (T). It is
assumed that the applied torque is resisted only by the concrete until
the member cracks. The contribution of steel reinforcement is mini-
mal before cracking, and therefore it is generally ignored. Once the
applied torsional moment exceeds the cracking moment, helical di-
agonal cracks are developed on the walls of the member. Torsional
moment creates circulatory shear flow in the cross section of the
member. The shear stress varies radially and is nonexistent at the
center and maximum on the outer surface. An area of uniform shear
stress is assumed near the periphery of the section, which resists the
shear flow effectively. The thickness of this zone, known as the
shear-flow zone, is calculated with the help of additional equilib-
rium equations for torsion. A membrane element A aligned in the
longitudinal (l) and transverse (t) directions is subjected to pure
shear flow (q), as shown in Fig. 2. In addition, the element may be
subjected to normal stresses if the member is subjected to axial load
Fig. 3. RC membrane elements subjected to in-plane stresses under
in addition to torsion. It should satisfy stress equilibrium and com-
torsion: (a) RC element; (b) concrete element; (c) steel grid element; (d)
patibility conditions.
RC element coordinates 1 and 2; (e) concrete elements 1 and 2; (f) prin-
Fig. 3(a) represents the membrane element subjected to a set of
cipal coordinates 1 and 2 at cracking angle a
in-plane normal stresses ðs l Þ and ðs t Þ and shear stresses (t lt ) in the
l and t directions. Applied stresses are resisted by concrete and steel,
as shown in Figs. 3(b and c), respectively. The principal planes of Compatibility of Strains
the RC element oriented in Directions 1 and 2 make an angle, a,
with the l and t directions [Fig. 3(f)]. Once the principal tensile In-plane strain compatibility should be satisfied for all the mem-
stress in the RC element (s 1 ) reaches the cracking strength of the brane elements. The compatibility conditions that relate the strains
concrete, cracks will form in the direction perpendicular to major in steel and concrete are given by Eqs. (4)–(6).
principal plane (along Direction 2). It should be noted that principal
planes of the concrete element are different from those in the RC ɛl ¼ ɛ2c cos2 a þ ɛ1c sin2 a þ g 12c sin a cos a (4)
element, which explains why the concrete element in Fig. 3(e) is
subjected to shear stresses (t 12c ) along with normal stresses (s 1c ) ɛt ¼ ɛ2c cos2 a þ ɛ1c sin2 a  g 12c sin a cos a (5)
and (s 2c ) in Directions 1 and 2, which are the principal directions of
the RC element. Eqs. (1)–(3) represent the stress equilibrium of the
g lt
membrane element. ¼ ðɛ2c þ ɛ1c Þsin a cos a þ g 12c ð cos2 a  sin2 aÞ (6)
2
s l ¼ s 2c cos a þ s 1c sin a þ 2t 12c sin a cos a þ r l fl
2 2
(1)

s t ¼ s 2c cos2 a þ s 1c sin2 a  2t 12c sin a cos a þ r t ft (2) Constitutive Laws for Materials
Constitutive relationships used for concrete and steel are discussed
in the following sections. Various researchers proposed different
t lt ¼ ðs 2c þ s 1c Þsin a cos a þ t 12c ð cos2 a  sin2 aÞ (3) constitutive models for concrete and steel. It has been observed that

© ASCE 04016037-3 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016037

 ( " #)

stress–strain relationships suggested in the literature on the basis of z ɛ0 1 ðɛ2s  z ɛ0 Þ3 ɛ2s
results of tests on rectangular sections are not applicable directly to k2c ¼ 1  >1
3ɛ2s 3ɛ2s ð4ɛ0  z ɛ0 Þ2 z ɛ0
circular sections because of the absence of any out-of-plane defor-
mation under torsional loading. Therefore, a new tension–stiffening (10b)
relationship is proposed in this study to capture the torsional
response of circular RC columns accurately.
Strain-Gradient Effect
In a shear member, the principal compressive stress and the princi-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, HYDERABAD on 02/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Concrete in Compression pal tensile stress remain constant across the thickness of membrane
The presence of tensile cracks in the principal compression plane elements because of the absence of any out-of-plane deformation.
softens the stress–strain behavior of concrete struts. Robinson and However, in a torsional member, the angle of twist, u , produces
Demorieux (1968) illustrated the concept of softening for the first warping in the wall of the member, which in turn causes bending in
time but could not delineate the factors that lead to softening of con- the diagonal concrete struts. Circular RC members after cracking
crete. Later, Vecchio and Collins (1986) found that softening is a would be subjected to some warping stresses due to differences in
function of principal tensile strain. Zhang (1995) found that the soft- the ratios of longitudinal and transverse reinforcements and by vir-
ening coefficient ( z ) is also a function of the compressive strength tue of concrete being an inelastic material. However, the presence
of concrete (fc0 ). More recently, Wang (2006) investigated the influ- of warping in circular members would be lesser when compared to
ence of the deviation angle, b [Eq. (7)], on softening of concrete that in rectangular sections; nevertheless, it cannot be ignored. The
and proposed a modified softening coefficient. The softening coeffi- warped shape of a membrane element can be idealized as a hyper-
cient, which includes all three factors mentioned earlier, was used boloid surface (Fig. 5, OGDH). The diagonals OD and GH in Fig. 5
in SMMT by Jeng and Hsu (2009). The same softening coefficient, are aligned in principal tension and compression directions, respec-
as shown in Eq. (8), is used in this study without any modification. tively. Rectangles abcd and efgh in Figs. 6(a and b) represent the
Eqs. (9) and (10a)–(10b) represent the ascending and descending unit width of cross sections of the concrete strut perpendicular to
branches of the softened stress–strain curve in terms of stress block Directions 1 and 2. A strain gradient, which influences the behavior
parameter (k1c ), which is a mere extension of the conventional para- of the membrane element, can be seen in the principal directions.
bolic model for concrete under compression. Fig. 4 shows a soft- The constitutive relationship for concrete under compression was
ened compression stress–strain curve of concrete along with the modified to take strain-gradient effect into account. However, the
conventional one. influence of strain gradient was ignored in the tensile stress–strain
relationship.


1 g 12
b ¼ tan1 (7)
2 ɛ2  ɛ1 Improved Constitutive Law for Concrete in Tension
Belarbi and Hsu (1994) proposed a tension–stiffening relation for
  concrete, which was later modified by Jeng and Hsu (2009), who
5:8 0:9 ð1  b Þ considered the effect of strain gradient. The proposed model
z ¼ pffiffiffi0ffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (8)
fc 1 þ 400 ɛ2 240 worked well for rectangular beams. However, the strain-gradient
effect is not significant in the case of circular sections because of
the absence of any out-of-plane deformation such as warping. Thus,
s 2c ¼ k2c z fc0 (9) to extend the model to circular sections, the tension–stiffening rela-
tionship should be modified further to reduce the effect of the strain
" #
 gradient. Mondal and Prakash (2015a) used STM to investigate the
ɛ2s ðɛ2s Þ2 ɛ2s
k2c ¼  1 (10a) suitability of different tension–stiffening models in capturing the
z ɛ0 3ð z ɛ0 Þ2 z ɛ0 overall torsional behavior and concluded that an exponential soften-
ing curve fits best for circular columns. In the present study, a new
tension–stiffening relationship is proposed by combining the mod-
els put forward by Jeng and Hsu (2009) and Mondal and Prakash
(2015a). The cracking strength [Eq. (11)] and initial tangent modu-
lus [Eq. (12)] were adopted directly from the Jeng and Hsu (2009)
model. Eqs. (13) and (14a) represent the average stress factor for
tension and the ascending portion of the curve, respectively. The de-
scending part of the proposed model [Eq. (14b)] resembles the ex-
ponential softening scheme proposed by Mondal and Prakash
(2015a). Fig. 7 shows the tensile stress–strain relationship of con-
crete used in the present study.
pffiffiffiffiffi
fcr ¼ 0:652 fck (11)

pffiffiffiffiffi
Ec ¼ 5;620 fck (12)

ɛð1s
1
Fig. 4. Softened compression stress–strain curve of concrete
k1c ¼ s 1c ðɛ1 Þdɛ1 (13)
ɛ1s fcr
0

© ASCE 04016037-4 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016037

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, HYDERABAD on 02/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Warped hyperboloid parabolic surface along 1 to 2 directions

Fig. 7. Smeared tensile stress–strain curve for concrete

Fig. 6. Strain-gradient effect along the principal directions: (a)

Direction 2 (principal compression); (b) Direction 1 (principal tension)

ɛ1s
s 1c ¼ Ec ɛ1 when; 1 (14a)
ɛcr

ɛ1s
s 1c ¼ fcr e½350ðɛcr ɛ1 Þ when; >1 (14b) Fig. 8. Smeared stress–strain behavior for steel reinforcement
ɛcr

Stress–Strain Relationship of Steel longitudinal [Eqs. (15a)–(15d)] and transverse [Eqs. (16a)–
Fig. 8 shows the smeared stress–strain curve of steel embed- (16d)] steel. The behavior is assumed to be identical under
ded in concrete. The same material model was used for tension and compression.

© ASCE 04016037-5 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016037

 Longitudinal Steel Reinforcement. ðs 2c þ s 1c Þ
t 12c ¼ g 12c (21)
2 ðɛ1  ɛ2 Þ

f1 ¼ Esl ɛl ɛl < ɛln (15a)

Additional Equations for Torsion
 
ɛl
fl ¼ ð0:91  2BÞ þ ð0:02 þ 0:25BÞ ɛl  ɛln (15b) The expressions for the area (A0 ) and perimeter (p0 ) of shear flow
ɛly for a circular cross section are different from those used for square
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, HYDERABAD on 02/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

sections in the original SMMT. In this study, the expressions are

" 1:5 # modified and expressed in terms of shear-flow thickness (td ), as
fcr =fly shown in Eqs. (22) and (23), to fit to the problem of circular col-
B¼ (15c)
r umns. Torque (T) and twist (u ) in the member can be calculated
using the expressions given in Eqs. (24) and (25).
ɛln ¼ ɛly ð0:93  2BÞ (15d) pc td p 2
A0 ¼ Ac  þ td (22)
2 4
Transverse Steel Reinforcement.

ft ¼ Est ɛt ɛt < ɛtn (16a) P0 ¼ Pc  p td (23)

 
ɛt
ft ¼ ð0:91  2BÞ þ ð0:02 þ 0:25BÞ ɛt  ɛtn (16b) T ¼ 2A0 td t lt
ɛty (24)

" 1:5 #
fcr =fty
B¼ (16c) P0
r u ¼ g (25)
2A0 lt

ɛtn ¼ ɛty ð0:93  2BÞ (16d)

Poisson’s Effect in SMMT
Strain in a membrane element in any direction is a function of
Thickness of Shear-Flow Zone (td )
not only stress in that direction [Fig. 9(a)] but also stress in the
In the conventional RA-STM, the thickness of the shear-flow zone perpendicular direction [Fig. 9(b)]. This contribution of stress
is calculated in an iterative manner. It makes the algorithm compli- in the perpendicular direction was not taken into account in the
cated and time-consuming. However, in the SMMT, a simplified classical RA-STM. Later, the SMM for shear was developed
expression for td is proposed [Eq. (17)] to avoid the iterations. (Zhu and Hsu 2002) by taking this biaxial effect into considera-
Substitution in and manipulation of Eqs. (17) and (18) yield an tion. A new parameter called the Hsu/Zhu ratio [Eqs. (27a) and
explicit expression for td [Eq. (20)]. A variable, H, is used in the cal- (27b)], which characterizes the biaxial effect, was proposed.
culation of td , as shown in Eq. (19). The ratio was modified for torsion by Jeng and Hsu (2009) to
account for the strain-gradient effect. The Hsu/Zhu ratio for tor-
ɛ2s
td ¼ (17) sion was taken as 0.8 times the ratio used for shear [Eq. (27a)].
c Biaxial strains are related to uniaxial strains, as shown in
Eqs. (26a) and (26b).
c ¼ u sin 2a2 (18) s 1c s 2c
ɛ1 ¼  12 (26a)
E1c E2c
4ɛ2
H¼ (19)
g lt sin 2a2
s 2c s 1c
2 ffi3 ɛ2 ¼  21 (26b)

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 s
2 E2c E1c
1 4 H H 5
td ¼ Pc 1 þ  1þ  4H ðH þ 4ÞAc
2ðH þ 4Þ 2 2 where 12 is the ratio of the resulting strain increment in
(20) Direction 1 to the source strain increment in Direction 2 and can
be calculated as shown in Eq. (27a). Similarly, 21 is the ratio of
the resulting strain increment in Direction 2 to the source strain
increment in Direction 1 and is given by Eq. (27b). E1c and E2c
Constitutive Relationship of Concrete in Shear are moduli of concrete in Directions 1 and 2, respectively, when
Shear stress in concrete is related to the shear strain, as shown in the panel (Fig. 9) is subjected to uniaxial loading or when sub-
Eq. (21). The shear modulus can be expressed in terms of the nor- jected to biaxial loading but assuming the Hsu/Zhu ratios to be
mal stresses and strains in the concrete element. zero.

© ASCE 04016037-6 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016037

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, HYDERABAD on 02/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. State of strains: (a) Biaxial strains; (b) uniaxial strains

Fig. 10. Solution algorithm for softened membrane model for torsion for circular RC columns

© ASCE 04016037-7 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016037

 12 ¼ ð0:16 þ 680 ɛsf Þ ɛsf  ɛy (27a) Table 2. Details of Experimental Specimens

Specimen ID/parameter SP1(3)-1:32% SP2(6)-0.73% C4

12 ¼ 1:52 ɛsf > ɛy Section Circular Circular Circular
Diameter (mm) 610 610 610
21 ¼ 0 (27b) Clear cover (mm) 25 25 38.1
Total column height (m) 2.74 4.55 3.04
Defining ɛ1 ¼ s 1c =E1c and ɛ2 ¼ s 2c =E2c as the uniaxial strains, Effective column height (m) 1.83 3.65 2.43
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, HYDERABAD on 02/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Cylinder strength of 27.97 37.90 48

Eqs. 26(a) and 26(b) can rewritten as
concrete (MPa)
ɛ1 ¼ ɛ1  12 ɛ2 (28a) Longitudinal reinforcement (%) 2.1 2.1 1.5
Transverse reinforcement (%) 1.32 0.73 0.73
Longitudinal steel yield 462 462 503
ɛ2 ¼ ɛ2  21 ɛ1 (28b) strength (MPa)
Transverse steel yield 457 457 414
Because the compatibility equations are in terms of biaxial strength (MPa)
strains, the uniaxial strains in the constitutive laws must be Axial force (kN) 601 601 1,402
expressed in terms of biaxial strains, which requires that the uni- Young’s modulus of steel 200,000 200,000 200,000
axial strains be written in terms of biaxial strains and can be (MPa)
achieved by solving Eqs. (28a) and (28b), as shown in Eqs. (24a)
and (24b).
ɛ1 12 ɛ2 Test Setup and Instrumentation
ɛ1 ¼ þ (29a)
ð1  12 21 Þ ð1  12 21 Þ A brief description of test setup for torsion tests used for the
validation of the developed model is presented here. Cyclic tor-
21 ɛ1 ɛ2 sional loading was generated by controlling two horizontal
ɛ2 ¼ þ (29b) servo-controlled hydraulic actuators, shown schematically in
ð1  12 21 Þ ð1  12 21 Þ
Fig. 11. Pure torsion was created by applying equal but oppo-
site forces with the two actuators. The axial compressive load
These uniaxial strains should be used in the constitutive laws to
was applied by a hydraulic jack on top of the load stubs; this jack
obtain the stress components.
transferred the axial load to the column via seven unbonded high-
strength prestressed steel strands. A number of instruments were
used to measure the applied loads, deformations, and internal
Algorithm for SMMT strains. The axial load was measured by a load cell between the hy-
The load-controlled algorithm cannot be used for postpeak behav- draulic jack and the top of the load stub. Electrical strain gages
ior. Hence, a strain-controlled algorithm was implemented in a were attached to the surface of the longitudinal and transverse rein-
MATLAB code. A strain-controlled algorithm for SMMT, which forcements to measure strains, which permitted study of the defor-
includes the modified tension–stiffening model for concrete, is pre- mation of reinforcement under different loading conditions. It is
sented in this section. Fig. 10 shows the solution algorithm of worth mentioning that two specimens tested at Missouri S&T and a
SMMT for circular RC columns, which was implemented in a third specimen at the University of California at Berkeley under
MATLAB code. pure torsion were used for the validation of the model presented in
this study. Fig. 11 shows the experimental test setup of both the
Missouri specimens.

Experimental Corroboration Results and Discussion

Specimens used in this study for validation of the proposed
model are representative of typical bridge columns. They were
tested at the University of Missouri (Prakash et al. 2010) and
the University of California at Berkeley (Hurtado 2009).
Missouri columns, namely, SP-03-1.32% and SP-06-0.73%,
had a diameter of 610 mm and aspect ratios of 3 and 6, respec-
tively. The longitudinal reinforcement ratio for each specimen
was 2.1%. The transverse reinforcement ratios were 0.73 and
1.32%, respectively. For Specimen SP-03-1.32%, spiral ties
were used as transverse reinforcement; for Specimen SP-06-
0.73%, regular circular ties/hoops were used. Hurtado (2009)
investigated the effect of torsional loading on the flexural rigid-
ity of RC bridge columns. Column C4, tested by Hurtado
(2009) under torsion loading, had a diameter 610 mm and lon-
gitudinal and transverse reinforcement ratios of 1.5 and 0.73%,
respectively. The details of the test specimens are given in
Table 2.
Analytical predictions of the proposed model are compared
here with experimental observations. Overall torque–twist
behavior, peak torque, peak twist, and strains in longitudinal
and transverse reinforcements are used as the parameters for
comparison. Results obtained from the proposed model are
compared with those from the RA-STM to illustrate the efficacy
of the proposed SMMT for circular sections. Detailed discus-
sions on individual parameters are presented in the following
sections.
Torque–Twist Behavior
Overall torque–twist behavior of the columns predicted by dif-
ferent models investigated in this study is presented in Fig. 12. It
can be seen that the behavior is linear until cracking, and there-
after, the stiffness drops abruptly. The postcrack stiffness is cap-
tured closely by both the proposed model and the one proposed

© ASCE 04016037-8 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016037

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, HYDERABAD on 02/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Experimental test setup: (a) side view; (b) plan view

by Jeng and Hsu (2009). However, the RA-STM underpredicts
the postcrack stiffness significantly, which illustrates the role of
tension stiffening in the prediction of torsional response of RC
elements. The correlation between the observed and predicted
values of peak torque and peak twist are presented in Table 3. It
should be noted that RA-STM overpredicts the peak twist con-
siderably. However, it closely predicts the peak torsional
moment because the effect of tension stiffening is not significant
near the peak torque. However, the model proposed in this study
predicts both the peak torque and peak twist almost accurately.
In comparison with the original SMMT proposed by Jeng and
Hsu (2009), the model proposed here better predicts the post-
peak behavior, which is evident in Fig. 12. On the whole, it is
worth mentioning that the model proposed in this paper outper-
forms the existing model in capturing the overall torsional
response of circular RC bridge columns.

© ASCE 04016037-9 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016037

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, HYDERABAD on 02/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 12. Overall torque–twist behavior of the circular bridge columns: (a) SP-03-1.32%; (b) SP-06-0.73%; (c) C4 (Note: RA-STM = rotating-angle
softened truss model)

Table 3. Comparison of Predictions with Experimental Data

SP-03-1.32% SP-06-0.73% C4
Specimen ID/parameter Exp. RA-STM Proposed Exp. RA-STM Proposed Exp. RA-STM Proposed
Peak torque (kN·m) 327.5 346.2 364.2 281.2 294.6 296.2 293.4 269.0 270.0
Peak twist (°) 3.23 6.36 3.43 6.11 7.73 5.74 2.95 4.10 3.80
Tu,exp/Tu,anl NA 0.94 0.90 NA 0.96 0.95 NA 0.92 0.92
u u,exp/u u,anl NA 0.51 0.94 NA 0.79 1.06 NA 0.72 0.78
Note: Exp. = experiment; RA-STM = rotating-angle softened truss model.

Strain Variations in Reinforcement
It is important to make sure that the proposed model can predict
local behavior, such as strain variations, in reinforcement as accu-
rately as global torque–twist behavior. With this in view, the pre-
dicted variations of strain (smeared) in reinforcements (longitudinal
and transverse) with applied torsional moment are compared with
the measured values, shown in Figs. 13–15. It can be seen that the
proposed model closely predicts the strain variation in the reinforce-
ment. The torsional moment increases sharply till cracking, which
induces little strain in the reinforcement, which indicates that,
before cracking, the applied torsion is resisted mainly by concrete

© ASCE 04016037-10 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016037

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, HYDERABAD on 02/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 13. Strain variations in the reinforcement for Specimen SP-03-1.32%: (a) longitudinal reinforcement; (b) transverse reinforcement (Note:
RA-STM = rotating-angle softened truss model)

and that the contribution of steel is minimum at this stage. After
cracking, the stiffness decreases abruptly, and the strain in the rein-
forcement increases rapidly, which increases the contribution of
steel to the overall load resistance. It is observed from the graphs
that, for all three specimens considered in this study, the average
strain in the transverse reinforcement reached the yield strain some-
where between cracking and peak moment. However, the average
strain in the longitudinal reinforcement, even at the ultimate stage
of loading, was below the yield strain, which indicates that the lon-
gitudinal reinforcement did not yield at the failure of the specimens.
In other words, the specimens were underreinforced with respect to
transverse steel and overreinforced with respect to longitudinal
steel, which is because the longitudinal reinforcement ratio was
much higher than the transverse reinforcement ratio in all the
specimens under consideration. It can also be seen that the RA-
STM overpredicts the strain in both the longitudinal and transverse
reinforcements for a given torsional moment.
Conclusions
SMMT analysis of RC members with circular sections was devel-
oped in this study by proposing a new tension–stiffening relation-
ship for concrete. The proposed model was validated with the ex-
perimental data of three full-scale circular RC bridge columns.
Good agreement was found among experimental results and theo-
retical predictions. On the basis of the parameters investigated in
this study, the following major conclusions can be drawn:

© ASCE 04016037-11 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016037

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, HYDERABAD on 02/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 14. Strain variations in the reinforcement for Specimen SP-06-0.73%: (a) longitudinal reinforcement; (b) transverse reinforcement (Note:
RA-STM = rotating-angle softened truss model)

1. Torque–twist behavior of the circular RC bridge columns was
predicted closely by the proposed SMM, which included bidir-
ectional stress and strain-gradient effects.
2. Peak torque and the corresponding twists were estimated
closely by the proposed tension–stiffening model compared to
predictions by the original RA-STM. Postcrack and postpeak
behaviors were also captured better by the proposed model
than by the original RA-STM.
3. The influence of the tension–stiffening effect on postcrack stiff-
ness was significant according to the comparisons of predictions.
4. Poisson’s and strain-gradient effects played a major role in the
improved prediction of overall torque–twist and strain varia-
tions in the reinforcement. Discrepancies from ignoring
Poisson’s effect and the strain-gradient effect were evident in
the predictions of RA-STM when compared to those of the
SMMT proposed in this study.

© ASCE 04016037-12 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016037

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, HYDERABAD on 02/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 15. Strain variations in the reinforcement for Specimen C4: (a) Longitudinal reinforcement; (b) transverse reinforcement (Note: RA-STM =
rotating-angle softened truss model)

Acknowledgments and the Intelligent Systems Centre of Missouri S&T, Rolla,

This analytical research was sponsored by the Science and
Engineering Research Board of Department of Science and
Technology, India; the authors gratefully acknowledge their
generous support. Experimental data of two columns used in this
study were gathered as a part of a project funded by the Network
for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES)–National Science
Foundation (NSF), the National University Transportation Centers,
Missouri; their financial support during the Ph.D. work of the third
author is also gratefully acknowledged.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
Ac ¼ cross-sectional area bounded by the outer perime-
ter of the concrete;

© ASCE 04016037-13 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 04016037

 Al ¼ total cross-sectional area of longitudinal steel bars;
At ¼ cross-sectional area of one transverse steel
bar;
A0 ¼ area enclosed by the center line of shear flow;
B ¼ variable as defined in the constitutive relationship
of embedded mild steel;
Ec ¼ elastic modulus of concrete;
Es ¼ elastic modulus of the steel bars;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, HYDERABAD on 02/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
fc0 ¼ cylinder compressive strength of concrete;
fcr ¼ cracking stress of concrete;
fl ¼ smeared (average) steel stress in the longitudinal
direction;
fn ¼ smeared (average) yield stress of steel bars;
fp ¼ smeared (average) ultimate stress of steel bars;
fs ¼ smeared (average) stress of steel bars;
ft ¼ smeared (average) steel stress in the transverse
direction;
fy ¼ yield stress and strain of bare steel bars;
f0 ¼ projection of strain hardening of steel on y-axis;
H ¼ variable as defined to calculate the thickness of
shear-flow zone;
k1c ¼ ratio of average tensile stress to the peak tensile
stress in the concrete struts;
k2c ¼ ratio of the average compressive stress to the
peak compressive stress in the concrete struts;
Pc ¼ perimeter of outer concrete cross section;
P0 ¼ perimeter of centerline of shear-flow zone;
q ¼ shear flow;
s ¼ spacing of transverse bars;
T ¼ torque;
td ¼ thickness of shear-flow zone;
w ¼ out-of-plane displacement in the direction normal
to the membrane element;
a ¼ fixed angle, angle of applied principal compres-
sive stress (2-axis) with respect to longitudinal
steel bars;
b ¼ deviational angle;
g lt ¼ smeared (average) shear strain in the l–t coordi-
nates of the steel bars;
ɛl ¼ smeared (average) uniaxial strain in the l direction;
ɛl ¼ smeared (average) biaxial strain in the l direction;
ɛp ¼ smeared (average) ultimate strain;
ɛt ¼ smeared (average) uniaxial strain in the t
direction;
ɛt ¼ smeared (average) biaxial strain in the t direction;
ɛy ¼ smeared (average) uniaxial yield strain of the steel
bars;
ɛ0 ¼ concrete cylinder strain corresponding to peak
compressive strength fc;
ɛ1 ; ɛ2 ¼ smeared (average) biaxial strain in Directions 1
and 2, respectively;
ɛ1 ; ɛ2 ¼ smeared (average) uniaxial strain in Directions 1
and 2, respectively;
ɛ2s ¼ maximum strain in concrete strut along Direction 2;
u ¼ angle of twist per unit length;
12 ; 21 ¼ Hsu/Zhu ratios;
z ¼ softened coefficient of concrete in compression.
r l ¼ longitudinal steel ratio;
r t ¼ transverse steel ratio;
s l ¼ applied normal stress in the l direction of steel
bars;
s t ¼ applied normal stress in the t direction of steel
bars;
© ASCE 04016037-14
J. Bridge Eng., 04016037
s 1 ; s 2 ¼ smeared (average) normal stresses of concrete in
Directions 1 and 2, respectively;
t 12c ¼ smeared (average) shear stress of concrete in
Coordinates 1 and 2; and
c ¼ curvature of the concrete struts.
References
Belarbi, A., and Hsu, T. T. (1994). “Constitutive laws of concrete in ten-
sion and reinforcing bars stiffened by concrete.” ACI Struct. J., 91(4),
465–474.
Collins, M. P., and Mitchell, D. (1991). Prestressed concrete structures,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Goel, R. K., and Chopra, A. K. (1994). “Seismic response of the U.S. 101/
Painter Street overpassing using strong motion records.” Proc., SMIP94
Seminar on Seismological and Engineering Implications of Recent
Strong-Motion Data, M. Huang, Ed., California Div. of Mines and
Geology, Sacramento, CA, 75–88.
Hsu, H. L., and Liang, L. L. (2002). “Effect of torsion on seismic perform-
ance of composite members.” Proc., Seventh U.S. National Conf. on
Earthquake Engineering (7NCEE), Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, Oakland, CA.
Hsu, T. T., and Zhu, R. R. (2002). “Softened membrane model for
reinforced concrete elements in shear.” ACI Struct. J., 99(4),
460–469.
Huang, Z., and Liu, X. L. (2007). “Unified approach for analysis of box-
section members under combined actions.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061
/(ASCE)1084-0702(2007)12:4(494), 494–499.
Hurtado, G. (2009). “Effect of torsion on the flexural ductility of rein-
forced concrete bridge columns.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA.
Isakovic, T., Fischinger, M., and Fajfar, P. (1998). “Torsional behavior of
single column bent viaducts.” Proc., Sixth U.S. National Conf. on
Earthquake Engineering (6NCEE), Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute, Oakland, CA.
Jeng, C. H. (2014). “Unified softened membrane model for torsion in hol-
low and solid reinforced concrete members: Modeling precracking and
post cracking behavior.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943
-541X.0001212, 04014243.
Jeng, C. H., and Hsu, T. T. (2009). “A softened membrane model for torsion
in reinforced concrete members.” Eng. Struct., 31(9), 1944–1954.
Johnson, N., Saiidi, M. S., and Sanders, D. (2009). “System versus compo-
nent response of a two-span reinforced concrete bridge system.” Bull.
Earthquake Eng., 7(2), 503–517.
MATLAB. [Computer software]. MathWorks, Natick, MA.
McLean, D. L., and Buckingham, G. C. (1994). “Seismic performance
of bridge columns with interlocking spiral reinforcement.” Rep.
WA-RD 357.1, Washington State Dept. of Transportation, Olympia,
WA.
Meng, J. Y., and Lui, E. M. (2000). “Torsional effects on short-span high-
way bridges.” Comput. Struct., 75(6), 619–629.
Mo, Y. L., Jeng, C. H., and Chang, Y. S. (2000). “Torsional behavior of pre-
stressed concrete box-girder bridges with corrugated steel webs.” ACI
Struct. J., 97(6), 849–859.
Mondal, T. G., and Prakash, S. S. (2015a). “Effect of tension stiffening on
the behaviour of reinforced concrete circular columns under torsion.”
Eng. Struct. J., 92, 186–195.
Mondal, T. G., and Prakash, S. S. (2015b). “Nonlinear finite-element
analysis of RC bridge columns under torsion with and without
axial compression.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943
-5592.0000798, 04015037.
Nagata, S., Kawashima, K., and Watanabe, G. (2004). “Seismic perform-
ance of reinforced concrete C-bent columns based on a hybrid loading
test.” Proc., First Int. Conf. on Urban Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo
Institute of Technology, Tokyo, 409–416.
Nelson, R. B., Saiidi, M., and Zadeh, S. (2007). “Experimental evaluation
of performance of conventional bridge systems.” CCEER Rep. No. 07-
04, Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research, Univ. of
Nevada, Reno, NV.
J. Bridge Eng.
 Ogata, T., Suda, K., and Masukawa, J. (2000). “Transverse reinforcement
and ductility of reinforced concrete high pier with hollow section.”
Proc., 12th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering (12WCEE), New
Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New
Zealand.
Otsuka, H., Takeshita, E., Yabuki, W., Wang, Y., Yoshimura, T., and
Tsunomoto, M. (2004). “Study on the seismic performance of rein-
forced concrete columns subjected to torsional moment, bending
moment and axial Force.” Proc., 13th World Conf. on Earthquake
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, HYDERABAD on 02/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Engineering (13WCEE), International Association for Earthquake
Engineering, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Prakash, S. S., Belarbi, A., and You, Y. M. (2010). “Seismic performance
of circular RC columns subjected to axial, bending, and torsion with low
and moderate shear.” J. Eng. Struct., 32(1), 46–59.
Prakash, S. S., Li, Q., and Belarbi, A. (2012). Behavior of circular and
square RC bridge columns under combined loading including torsion.”
ACI Struct. J., 109(3), 317–328.
© ASCE 04016037-15
View publication stats J. Bridge Eng., 04016037
Robinson, J. R., and Demorieux, J. M. (1968). Tension-compression test on
model of reinforced concrete beams, Institute of Applied Research of
Reinforced Concrete, Paris.
Tirasit, P., and Kawashima, K. (2007). “Seismic performance of square re-
inforced concrete columns under combined cyclic flexural and torsional
loadings.” J. Earthquake Eng., 11(3), 425–452.
Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. (1986). “The modified compression-field
theory for reinforced concrete elements subjected to shear.” ACI Struct.
J., 83(2), 219–231.
Wang, J. (2006). “Constitutive relationships of prestressed concrete mem-
brane elements.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Univ. of Houston, Houston.
Zhang, L. X. (1995). “Constitutive laws of reinforced elements with high
strength concrete.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Univ. of Houston, Houston.
Zhu, R. R., and Hsu, T. T. (2002). “Poisson effect in reinforced concrete
membrane elements.” ACI Struct. J., 99(5), 631–640.
J. Bridge Eng.