C HAP T E R

INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
Design provisions for shear and torsion for reinforced and
prestressed concrete members and structures in both the AASHTO
Specifications (1) and the ACI Building Code (2) have evolved into
complex procedures in recent revisions. The complexi ty of such
procedures results from their highly empirical basis and the lack of a
unified treatment of shear and torsion. Ironically, such design
procedures seem better suited for analysis, since they become cumbersome
and obscure when used for design.
In the case of continuous bridges, the designer must consider
several different loading combinations to obtain maximum shear and
flexural effects. The use of different loading combinations in the
current design procedures is unclear and contradictory. This highly
complicates the design of such members.
Both current ACI recommendations and AASHTO specifications
superimpose reinforcement required for torsion to that required for
bending and shear without specific consideration of the interactions.
The practice of superimposing these effects is due to the lack of a
unified approach to design for shear and torsion which would permit the
correct evaluation of the combined actions. There is a total absence of
design regulations for the case of prestressed concrete members
subjected to torsion or combined torsion, shear, and bending. Current
1
2
American design practices do not emphasize the importance of adequate
detailing for members subjected to shear and torsion. Furthermore, due
to the empirical nature of such design procedures, it is not clear to
the designer how to adequately detail such members.
Such deficiencies could be overcome if the design procedures in
the shear and torsion areas were based on behavioral models rather than
on detailed empirical equations. The designer would be able to envision
the effects of the forces acting on the member, and then provide
structural systems capable of resisting those forces. Furthermore,
design provisions based on a conceptual model would become more simple
and would not require as much test verification.
1.2 Problem Statement
The June 1973 report of ACI-ASCE Committee 426, "The Shear
Strength of Reinforced Concrete Members" (3), indicated that for the
next decade the Committee
hoped that the design regulations for shear strength can be
integrated, simplified, and given a physical significance so that
designers can approach unusual design problems in a rational
manner.
Procedures for dimensioning cross sections for reinforced and
prestressed concrete members subjected to axial load, or moment, or
combined axial load and moment, are generally well established. These
procedures can be explained in a few pages of text, and are based on
rational, simple general design models which can be embod ied in a few
paragraphs of code or specification documents.
3
Such failure models provide the designer with means to evaluate
the ultimate moment capacity of quite irregular sections in both
reinforced and prestressed concrete. In addition, the same basic models
can be used to study the interaction between axial load and moment,
making the related design process relatively simple and straightforward.
Unfortunately, design provisions in the areas of shear and torsion are
not of the same level of rationality and general applicability. The
absence of rational models has resulted in highly empirical design
procedures characterized by large scatter when compared to test results.
The lack of fundamental behavioral models for concrete members
subjected to shear and torsional loading seems to be the prime reason
for the unsatisfactory nature of the current highly empirical design
procedures used in North American codes and standards.
In the late 1960's, researchers in Europe were working with the
idea of a conceptual model to properly represent the behavior of
concrete members subjected to torsion and shear. The main objectives
were to rationalize and at the same time simplify the design procedures
in these areas. In Switzerland, Lampert and Thurlimann (4) developed a
conceptual model based on theory of plasticity. The model was a Space
Truss with variable angle of inclination of the diagonal compression
members. This model was a refined version of the Truss Model with a
constant 45 degree angle of inclination of the diagonal compression
members originally introduced in Switzerland at the beginning of this
century by Ritter (5) for the case of shear in reinforced concrete
members. Thurlimann (6-9) refined the model and it has been used in the
4
Swiss Code (10). During the late 1970's, in Canada, Mitchell and
Collins (11-17) also proposed a generalized design approach based on a
theoretical compression field model. This was a major departure from
the highly empirical approach followed in American practice. Mitchell
and Collins were able to treat general problems of shear and torsion in
both prestressed and reinforced concrete members in a unified rational
fashion. However, the authors fell short of providing the designer with
a simple and easy to apply design method. The advantages of the
procedure proposed by Mitchell and Collins were obscured because of the
complex approach followed in the proposed design recommendations to
indirectly ensure suitable behavior at service load levels.
Designers are generally not eager to adopt complex new design
methods, even if accurate, when they previously have ignored effects
such as torsion without disastrous consequences. For this reason, a
rational and easy to apply approximate design approach based on a
simplified model which considers only the main variables is needed.
1.3 Objectives and Scope of the Study
The present study attempts to develop such a simplified approach
based on an acceptable model. An overall review of the current AASHTO
Specifications and the ACI Building Code in the areas of shear and
torsion was summarized in Report 248-2. This study showed that design
procedures have become more and more complex with every revision. The
highly empirical provisions are difficult to use in many design
situations.