Construction and Building Materials 28 (2012) 269275

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Torsional behavior of steel ber reinforced concrete beams

Fuad Okay , Serkan Engin
Kocaeli University, Department of Civil Engineering, 41380 Kocaeli, Turkey

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 1 February 2009
Received in revised form 10 December 2010
Accepted 16 August 2011
Available online 13 October 2011
Keywords:
Reinforced concrete
Torsion
Beam
Steel ber
Twist angle
Torsional model

a b s t r a c t
Torsion of structural members and the behavior of steel ber reinforced concrete became the area of
interest of many researchers in the past and it is still newsworthy. In this study, 12 reinforced concrete
(R/C) beams with Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete (SFRC) were tested to observe the failure under torsional moments. The volumetric steel ber content, ber aspect ratio, and the longitudinal reinforcement
were the variables of the investigation. Unit torsional angle of twist versus torsional moment (torque)
response of each specimen was monitored during the experiments, and the effect of above variables
on this response was critically investigated. It was observed that not only the torque capacity of R/C beam
is modied by the addition of Steel Fiber Reinforcement (SFR) but also the energy absorption capacity is
signicantly affected by the SFR addition. Besides, an empirical equation relating the torque to twist for
SFRC beams is proposed and tested against the test data.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Beams are the structural members, which mainly support the
transverse loading through the exural moment and the vertical
shear. However, in some cases torsional response of beams may
also control the overall structural behavior [1,2]. For this reason,
the torsional behavior of beams should be studied and comprehended as well as its shear or exural behavior. This is especially
important since the cracked torsional stiffness of a reinforced concrete beam may be much smaller than its uncracked stiffness.
Realizing the importance of the problem, many researches have
been conducted on torsional behavior of reinforced concrete
beams. The earliest experimental studies have investigated the effect of the presence of the reinforcement, both transverse and longitudinal, on torsional capacity and stiffness of the concrete beams.
Thus, the torsional behavior of reinforced concrete beams has been
compared with that of unreinforced (plain) concrete companions.
It has observed that the torsional behavior of concrete beams is linear until the rst cracking torque. It has also been observed that
the uncracked torsional stiffness of the beam, that is the slope
of linear part of the torque-twist (T  /) diagram, is independent
of the presence and amount of the reinforcement. In other words,
up to the cracking point, the torque-twist response of identical
concrete and reinforced concrete beams is comparable. Surely,
the reinforcement becomes effective after cracking, providing
additional ductility, and even additional capacity, if proper reinforcement detailing is supplied [3]. The behavior of high strength
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 262 303 32 74; fax: +90 262 303 30 03.
E-mail address: fuadokay@yahoo.com (F. Okay).
0950-0618/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.08.062

concrete beams is observed with reinforced and unreinforced specimens [4,5]. Since the torsional capacity, i.e., the cracking torque, of
an unreinforced concrete beam provides a limit state for torsional
behavior of reinforced concrete beams, many analytical studies
have also been conducted to dene the cracking torque. In these
studies, empirical expressions were proposed for the cracking torque level in terms of material and cross-sectional properties of the
beam [68].
Advances in the material technology have pointed out the addition of steel bers in concrete to improve the main characteristics
of concrete, such as, stiffness, toughness, and ductility. Some compression tests using normal strength concrete with ber reinforced
specimens show that the addition of bers may cause a decrease in
compressive strength. However, a considerable amount of increase
in the tensile strength of the ber reinforced specimens is observed
in split cylinder tests [9]. When steel bers are added to high
strength concrete, the increase in ber volumetric ratio also results
in an increase in the compressive strength of the concrete, as well.
However, when this addition exceeds a certain volumetric level,
the increase in the strength becomes less [10,11]. Energy absorption capacity of ber reinforced high strength concrete also increases linearly with the increasing volumetric ratio of steel
bers. This phenomenon shows that high strength concrete, which
is known as a brittle material, behaves sort of a ductile manner
with the addition of steel bers [12]. It is reported that energy
absorption of concrete in bending grows up with the increase in bers aspect ratio. Volumetric ratio of ber also increases energy
absorbing capacity in bending [13]. It should be noted that these
improvements closely affects the torsional capacity of a normal
strength concrete beam. Thus, researches started to investigate

270

F. Okay, S. Engin / Construction and Building Materials 28 (2012) 269275

Nomenclature
b
C1, C2
dl
dw
df
E
ETcr
ETf
ETu
EU
E/cr
fck
fctf
fcts
fyk
G
h
L
lf
T
Tcr
Tcr-eq
Tcr-test
Tf

small dimension of the cross section (m)

torsion coefcient depending of h/b ratio of the cross
section
diameter of the longitudinal reinforcement (mm)
diameter of the shear reinforcement (mm)
ber diameter (mm)
modulus of elasticity of concrete (N/mm2)
percent error between the cracking torques obtained
from test data and elastic theory
percent error between the nal torques obtained from
test data and proposed analytical model
percent error between the ultimate torques obtained
from test data and the proposed analytical model
percent error between the energies obtained from test
data and proposed analytical model
percent error between the unit angle of twist obtained
from experiment and elastic theory
characteristic compressive strength of concrete (N/mm2)
exural tensile strength of concrete (N/mm2)
split cylinder tensile strength of concrete (N/mm2)
the average yield strength for both longitudinal and web
reinforcement (N/mm2)
shear modulus of concrete (N/mm2)
longer dimension of the cross-section (m)
length of test region (m)
ber length (mm)
torque (kN m)
cracking torque (kN m)
cracking torque calculated by using the elastic theory
(kN m)
cracking torque obtained from the test data (kN m)
torque value when experiment is terminated (kN m)

whether the torsional capacity of a normal strength concrete beam

can be increased with the addition of steel bers in concrete, or
not. Researches adding steel ber into concrete in various aspect
ratios and volume content give the corresponding stress strain
curves relating to test specimens. As the volume content of the ber increases, ductility under constant load increases in the diagrams. In other words, no difference is observed up to crack, but
ductility increases afterwards with the increase in volume content
of steel bers [1416].
In pure torsion experiments performed with unreinforced high
strength concrete, the specimens fail with the formation of the rst
crack because of the lack of the reinforcement. Torsional capacity
increases according to the strength of concrete, but the failure is
observed to be more sudden and brittle. The data obtained from
the experiments are compared with the equations derived in theories of elasticity, plasticity, and skew bending, shows that tests
give comparable results with the theories based on split cylinder
strength of concrete [5]. Some differences in the values of cracking
torques are observed according to the compressive strength of concrete in the experiments using normal and high strength reinforced
concrete. However, the variation of the amount of stirrups and longitudinal reinforcement has no effect on these differences in cracking torques. But the change in the ratio of longitudinal
reinforcement to shear reinforcement results considerable differences in the cracked torsional capacities of elements. It increases
with the increase in ratio of longitudinal reinforcement to web
reinforcement [3]. The unreinforced normal strength concrete
beams reach their capacity when their unit angle of twist fall in
the range of 0.0020.003 rad/m. The unit angle of twist increases
up to 0.0060.007 rad/m when the concrete contains ber

Tf-eq
Tf-test
Tu
Tu-eq
Tu-test
Umodel
Utest
Vf
V0
b

m
ql
qw
/
/cr
/cr-eq
/cr-test
/f
/u

the nal torque that corresponds to /f calculated by

model (kN m)
the nal torque that corresponds to /f obtained from
experiment (kN m)
ultimate torque (kN m)
ultimate torque predicted by the proposed analytical
model (kN m)
ultimate torque carried by the sections in the experiments (kN m)
energy absorbed per unit length due to torsion as calculated by the proposed analytical model (kN m/m)
energy absorbed per unit length due to torsion as obtained from test data (kN m/m)
volumetric ber ratio (%)
coefcient used in the model, related to the amounts of
longitudinal and shear reinforcement
torsion coefcient depending of the dimensions of the
section
Poissons ratio of the concrete
volumetric longitudinal reinforcement ratio of the section
volumetric shear reinforcement ratio of the section
unit angle of twist (rad/m)
unit angle of twist at crack (rad/m)
unit angle of twist calculated by using the elastic theory
(rad/m)
unit angle of twist at the moment of cracking obtained
from the experiment (rad/m)
unit angle of twist at which the experiments are terminated, (120  103 rad/m)
unit angle of twist at ultimate torque (rad/m)

reinforcement [17]. Crack distribution of ber added reinforced

concrete beams show differences compared to beams without ber. As the ber content increases, the number of cracks increases
but the widths of the cracks decrease [14,18]. Various theoretical
and empirical equations are proposed for the torsional capacity
of ber added reinforced concrete beams. In those equations, the
total capacity is determined by the addition of the capacity of concrete, reinforcement, and steel ber separately [18]. Simple torsion
experiments have been conducted on normal strength reinforced
concrete beams with single type of ber reinforcement and its observed that the addition of ber reinforcement gives satisfactory
results on the mentioned specimens [19]. After the use of carbon
ber sheets as structural strengthening materials, in torsion tests
performed with the material mentioned above, increases in torsional capacities are observed [2022].
The present paper is about steel bers and torsion of reinforced
concrete beams, which are both still topical. It also focuses the
inuence of volumetric steel ber ratio and the aspect ratio of bers in relation to the variations. In the experiments in which four
different steel ber aspect ratios and two longitudinal reinforcement ratios were used, the torsional ductility and the torsional
capacity of reinforced concrete beams are investigated, with the
variation of test parameters except the web reinforcement.
2. Experimental study
2.1. Materials
Concrete mixtures are prepared by using crushed stone as coarse aggregate,
sand as ne aggregate, and cement with standard compressive strength of
42.5 MPa. In order to obtain the desired compressive strength, 30 MPa, superplast-

271

F. Okay, S. Engin / Construction and Building Materials 28 (2012) 269275

Table 1
Nomenclature and ber content of specimens.

df

lf
Fig. 1. Geometry of the steel bers used in the test.

icizer is also used in concrete mixtures. Bent ended steel bers having four different
aspect ratios lf/df = 40, 55, 67, and 80, corresponding to lf and df dimensions of 30/
0.75, 30/0.55, 60/0.90, and 60/0.75 were used. Where lf denotes ber length and
df denotes diameter of bers. Average yield strength for the steel bers given by
the manufacturer was fyf = 1200 MPa. Geometry for steel bers is given in Fig. 1.
dw = 8 mm deformed bars are used as web reinforcement, and dl = 8 mm and
dl = 12 mm diameter deformed bars are used as longitudinal reinforcement. The
average yield strength for both longitudinal and web reinforcement is found to
be fyk = 460 MPa.

Beam designation

Longitudinal reinforcement

lf/df

Vf (%)

L08F00V0
L08F40V3
L08F40V6
L08F55V3
L08F55V6
L08F67V3
L08F67V6
L08F80V3
L08F80V6
L12F00V0
L12F40V3
L12F80V3

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

40
40
55
55
67
67
80
80

40
80

0.3
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.6

0.3
0.3

No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.

of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of

8 mm dia.
8 mm dia.
8 mm dia.
8 mm dia.
8 mm dia.
8 mm dia.
8 mm dia.
8 mm dia.
8 mm dia
12 mm dia.
12 mm dia.
12 mm dia.

2.2. Test specimens

The cross-sectional dimension of the test specimens are 150  200 mm with a
length of 1900 mm. The rst variable is the longitudinal reinforcement ratio ql,
which is chosen as either 0.0067 (4U8) or 0.015 (4U12). Web reinforcement diameter is 8 mm and their center to center spacing is 200 mm, which corresponds to
shear reinforcement ratio of qw = 0.006 for all specimens. The shear reinforcement
is set to be constant, and the contribution of longitudinal reinforcement and the
other variables to capacity is investigated. The tie-bar spacing outside the test region is decreased in order to force the failure of specimen to the test region. In those
regions, the tie-bar spacing is 50 mm from center to center. The dimension of the
test specimen and reinforcement layout is given in Fig. 2.
The volumetric steel ber ratio Vf is set to 0.3% and 0.6% for all specimens. With
these two SFR ratios, it is aimed to observe the behavior of concrete with increasing
volumetric content of bers. It is seen that volumetric ratios that are higher than
the ratios chosen in this study are used in some existing studies. In order not to
have a settlement problem while preparing the specimens that have small distances
between the reinforcement bars, the volumetric ratio of steel bers is chosen to be
0.3% and 0.6%. For the designation of the specimens, the following procedure is followed: The rst character block starting with L designates the diameter of the longitudinal reinforcement of the beam. Thus, L08 is used for longitudinal
reinforcement with diameter dl = 8 mm and L12 for dl = 12 mm. Block F designates
for the ber aspect ratio F40, F55, F67, F80 designate for the aspect ratios 40, 55,
67, 80 respectively. Block V designates the volumetric content of the bers added,
where V3 shows 0.3% and V6 shows 0.6% volumetric content. F block is null and V is
0 while naming the specimens without SFR. Specimens designation is given in Table 1.
It should also be noted that for each test specimen, 12 standard cylindrical specimens with 150 mm diameter and 300 mm height are prepared and tested to obtain
the compressive strength, split tensile strength, and modulus of elasticity of concrete. In addition to the cylindrical specimens, ve prismatic specimens with the
dimensions 100  100  500 mm are prepared and tested to obtain exural tensile
strength of the concrete.

Fig. 3. Test setup, loading, and measurement systems.

the load that is applied to the specimen by a 300 kN capacity hydraulic cylinder
pump set ((7) in Fig. 3) is measured by a 100 kN capacity electronic load cell. In this
setup, the load that is applied by the hydraulic cylinder pump ((7) in Fig. 3) is
shared equally by the ends of short beams ((5) in Fig. 3) that make the lever arm
of the twisting moment. The unit angle measurements are read by an electronic
gauge ((4) in Fig. 3) with a 100 mm capacity and a 0.02 mm accuracy which touches
the arms ((8) in Fig. 3) which are located at the ends of the test region (Fig. 3).
Test data are collected to a computer with the help of a data acquisition system,
and torque versus unit angle of twist graph is obtained during the test. The data are
taken every 0.01 rad/m unit angle of twist intervals, and the corresponding torque
and crack widths are measured. Loading is terminated when the total unit angle of
rotation value is reached to 0.12 rad/m.

2.3. Test setup, loading, and measurement systems

Fig. 3 illustrates the test setup where the test specimens are subjected to uniform torsion. As shown in the gure, in order not to restrain the ends of the specimen from free rotation, extension or contraction, the specimen is placed on roller
supports aligned with the specimen. Roller supports ((2) in Fig. 3) are settled at two
ends of the specimen ((3) in Fig. 3) in order to maintain free rotation and elongation.
The specimen is joined to the upper arms ((5) in the Fig. 3) and plates ((1) in Fig. 3),
which are xed to the roller supports by the help of bolts. Torque is obtained by
applying a load to the center of the spreader beam ((6) in Fig. 3). The variation of

50

For each test specimens, cracking and ultimate torques, designated respectively as Tcr and Tu, and the corresponding unit angle
of twists, designated as /cr and /u, are determined and listed in

200

200

190

140

3. Test results and discussions

150

450

Test Region = 1000

450

Fig. 2. Dimensions of the test specimen and the reinforcement layout (all dimensions are in mm).

272

F. Okay, S. Engin / Construction and Building Materials 28 (2012) 269275

Table 2
Test data.
Beam designation

fck (MPa)

fcts (MPa)

fctf (MPa)

E (GPa)

Tcr (kN m)

/cr (rad/m)  103

Tu (kN m)

/u (rad/m)  103

L08F00V0
L08F40V3
L08F40V6
L08F55V3
L08F55V6
L08F67V3
L08F67V6
L08F80V3
L08F80V6
L12F00V0
L12F40V3
L12F80V3

34.8
33.4
31.3
31.0
30.9
32.7
29.5
31.9
30.0
34.8
31.7
31.6

3.51
3.55
3.35
3.08
3.41
3.42
3.12
3.46
3.10
3.51
3.58
3.56

4.54
4.96
5.02
4.82
4.57
4.39
4.39
4.56
4.82
4.54
4.46
4.87

31.4
30.0
29.9
27.9
29.9
31.2
28.5
27.9
28.7
31.4
29.6
27.5

4.93
4.58
4.62
4.93
5.10
4.85
4.91
4.80
4.51
4.45
4.61
4.47

3.20
3.22
3.52
3.80
3.95
3.56
3.60
3.36
3.60
3.16
3.68
3.60

4.93
4.58
5.68
4.94
5.87
4.92
5.88
4.85
5.49
5.07
6.01
6.25

3.20
3.22
64.80
3.87
59.27
5.63
65.94
4.09
63.41
34.60
89.74
93.45

3.1. Crack patterns

Number of cracks observed in reference specimens is less than
the number of cracks in ber reinforced beams when test is terminated; and failure becomes with the excessive widening of one of
these cracks. When the unit angle of twist value reaches /
= 0.06 rad/m, crushing of concrete in perpendicular direction to
cracks is observed and this crushing is increase to unit angle of
twist becomes 0.12 rad/m. The failure of the specimens whose volumetric content Vf = 0.3% is very similar to the reference specimens. Compressive crushing starts with the value from 0.06 to
0.07 rad/m of unit angle of twist and it is intensied toward the
end of the experiment. Number of cracks is considerably increased
while crack widths are decreased in the specimens whose volumetric content is Vf = 0.6%. Photographs of the specimens that
show the above-mentioned behavior are given in Fig. 4.

3.2. Torsional strength

The torsional strength of the test specimens without bers is observed to be (i.e., Tu = Tcr) equal to the cracking torque of the specimens. The torque carried by the section decreases while the angle
of twist increases, beyond /cr. On the other hand, the torque capacity continues to increase after cracking up to a certain value (i.e.,
Tu > Tcr) in specimens that contain steel bers. This behavioral
change is more apparent in the specimens with Vf = 0.6% compared
to those with Vf = 0.3% (Fig. 5).
L12 specimens, i.e., the specimens that have longitudinal
reinforcement with dl = 12 mm, give more satisfactory results with
the addition of Vf = 0.3% bers compared to the specimens with
longitudinal reinforcement with dl = 8 mm (Figs. 5 and 6). Test
8
7

Torque (kN.m)

designated. Table 2 also summarizes the average values of 28th

day compressive strength fck, split cylinder tensile strength fcts
and exural tensile strength fctf of each test specimen. There is
no considerable increase in split cylinder tensile strength fcts and
exural tensile strength fctf values in material tests, but remarkable
increases in ultimate twisting moment Tu and corresponding unit
angle of twist /u are observed in torsion tests with the increase
in volumetric ber ratio. In the material tests, reference specimens
rupture with the rst crack while the ber reinforced specimens
continue to sustain the load. This phenomenon conrms the increase in energy absorption of reinforced concrete beams under
torsion.

6
5
4
3
2

L08F00V0
L08F40V3
L08F40V6

1
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Unit Angle of Twist (rad/m) x10

140

-3

Fig. 5. The effect of volume content with ber lf/df = 40.

Torque (kN.m)

7
6
5
4
3
2

L12F40V3
L12F80V3
L12F00V0

1
0

20

40

60

80

100

Unit Angle of Twist (rad/m) *10

Fig. 4. Crack patterns for (a) L08F00V0, (b) L08F40V3, (c) L08F40V6.

120
-3

Fig. 6. Torque-twist variation in specimens with dl = 12 mm.

140

273

4. Model proposed for torsional behavior

A model is proposed using the data obtained in the tests.
Twisting moment versus unit angle of twist graphics behave linearly up to cracking of the section and then this relationship is not
seen. Cracking torque and cracking unit angle of rotation of all test
specimens generally attain the same value regardless of the
amount of longitudinal reinforcement. Torsional stiffness of the
beams is signicantly reduced after cracking. Since the specimens
behave linearly elastic before cracking, cracking torque of the specimens can be computed from the following expression Eq. (4.1) derived by using elasticity theory [23]. Test results clearly show that
the torsional behavior of test specimens is linear in the region up to
cracking, in which Saint Venant equation is valid, beyond which
the linear behavior is lost [19]. This type of behavior is consistent
with the studies in the literature [3]. The fact that the cracking values (i.e., Tcr and /cr) of all specimens are almost the same indicates
that the cracking characteristics of test specimens are affected neither from the amount of longitudinal reinforcement nor from the
presence of steel bers.
2

T cr C 1 hb fctf

T cr L
3

C 2 hb G

4:2

where L is the length of testing region, C2 is a coefcient that takes

values between 0.1406 and 0.333 depending on the dimensions of
the section. In this study, C2 is taken to be 0.179 according to the
dimensions of the specimens used. G is the shear modulus of the
concrete and is obtained by Eq. (4.3), using the well-known relation,

E
21 m

4:3

where E is the modulus of elasticity of concrete, which can be obtained from material tests. Poissons ratio of concrete m can be taken
as 0.2 [24].
Ultimate torque and the corresponding unit angle of rotation of
the sections take different values depending on the amount of the
longitudinal reinforcement of specimens. For the specimens with
dl = 8 mm and Vf = 0.6%, the ultimate torque values are observed
to be around 6 kN m and the corresponding unit angle of rotation
value is /u = 60  103 rad/m. The cracking torque Tcr, ultimate torque Tu, and the torque value at the termination of the experiments
Tf and the corresponding values of the unit angle of rotations /cr,
/u, and /f, respectively, are plotted in Fig. 7. In this gure, triangular dots stand for Tcr, rectangular dots for Tu, and diamond ones
stand for Tf values.
As it is shown from Fig. 7, the ultimate torque values are equal
to the cracking torque values of the specimens whose longitudinal
reinforcement diameter is dl = 8 mm and volumetric ber ratio is
Vf = 0.3%; whereas torque values of the specimens with Vf = 0.6% increase after cracking and reach their capacities approximately at
the same value irrespective of aspect ratio. When the terminating
unit angle of rotation value is reached, the specimens that have
no bers and having a volumetric ber ratio of 0.3% posses the

Tu

Tcr

20

Tf

40

60

80

100

120

140

-3

Fig. 7. Tcr, Tu, and Tf values of the specimens with dl = 8 mm.

7
6

Tu

Tcr

Tf

4
3
2
1
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Unit Angle of Twist (rad/mx10 -3 )

4:1

where h and b are longer and shorter sizes of the rectangular concrete section, respectively, fctf is the exural tensile strength of the
concrete, and C1 is a coefcient taking values between 0.208 and
0.333 depending on h/b ratio of the section. In this study, C1 is taken
to be 0.224 based on the dimensions of the specimens used. Similarly, elasticity theory provides the following Eq. (4.2) expression
for the unit angle of rotation at cracking:

/cr

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Unit Angle of Twist (rad/m) x10

Torque (kN.m)

results show that the aspect ratio of the steel ber has no signicant effect on the capacity and ductility of the beam.

Torque (kN.m)

F. Okay, S. Engin / Construction and Building Materials 28 (2012) 269275

Fig. 8. Tcr, Tu, and Tf values of the specimens with db = 12 mm.

Table 3
V0, /u, and b coefcient according to longitudinal reinforcement ratio.

V0
/u (rad/m)  103
b

0.85ql < qw

0.85ql > qw

0.005
60

0.002
90
7410Vf + 2.62

635; 278V 2f  450:83V f 2:56

same Tf values. Similarly, there are no signicant differences

among the Tf values of specimens having a volumetric ratio of 0.6%.
Tu values are observed to be approximately 6 kN m, and /u values are observed to be 90  103 rad/m when dl = 12 mm and
Vf = 0.3% as it is seen Fig. 8.
Cracking torque values of the specimen having dl = 12 mm are
observed to be identical irrespective of the volumetric ratio
whereas Tu and Tf values differ. Behavior of the specimens after
cracking can be expressed by the following empirical relationship
Eq. (4.4) between the torque and the unit angle of rotation:

Fig. 9. Proposed torsional behavior model for reinforced concrete beams with/
without steel bers.

274

F. Okay, S. Engin / Construction and Building Materials 28 (2012) 269275

Table 4
Comparison of the Tcr and /cr values obtained from model and test results.
Beam designation

Tcr-test

Tcr-eq (kN m)

ETcra (%)

/cr-test (rad/m)  103

/cr-eq (rad/m)  103

E/cr b (%)

L08F00V0
L08F40V3
L08F40V6
L08F55V3
L08F55V6
L08F67V3
L08F67V6
L08F80V3
L08F80V6
L12F00V0
L12F40V3
L12F80V3

4.93
4.58
4.62
4.93
5.10
4.85
4.91
4.80
4.51
4.45
4.61
4.47

4.58
5.00
5.06
4.86
4.61
4.43
4.43
4.60
4.86
4.58
4.50
4.91

7.2
9.2
9.5
1.4
9.7
8.8
9.9
4.2
7.7
2.8
2.5
9.8

3.20
3.22
3.30
3.58
3.75
3.56
3.60
3.36
3.34
3.18
3.28
3.37

3.13
2.91
2.94
3.13
3.24
3.08
3.12
3.05
2.87
2.83
2.93
2.84

2.1
9.6
11.0
12.4
13.5
13.4
13.3
9.2
14.2
11.0
10.6
15.7

ET cr

E/cr

T cr-eq T cr-test
.
T cr-test
/cr-eq /cr-test

/cr-test

100.

Table 5
Comparison of the Tu and /u values obtained from model and test results.
Beam designation

Tu-test (kN m)

Tu-eq (kN m)

ETua (%)

Tf-test (kN m)

Tf-eq (kN m)

L08F00V0
L08F40V3
L08F40V6
L08F55V3
L08F55V6
L08F67V3
L08F67V6
L08F80V3
L08F80V6
L12F00V0
L12F40V3
L12F80V3

4.93
4.58
5.68
4.94
5.87
4.92
5.88
4.85
5.49
5.07
6.01
6.25

4.58
5.00
6.42
4.86
5.97
4.43
5.79
4.60
6.22
4.58
6.74
7.15

7.2
9.2
13.1
1.6
1.7
10.1
1.5
5.2
13.3
9.7
12.1
14.4

2.74
3.12
3.90
2.96
4.02
2.42
3.54
3.05
3.86
3.45
4.75
5.61

3.08
3.38
3.83
3.24
3.39
2.81
3.18
2.98
3.63
3.97
5.39
5.80

12.4
8.4
1.8
9.5
15.7
15.9
10.2
2.3
6.0
15.1
13.5
3.4

ET u

ET f

(%)

T u-eq T u-test
 100.
T u-test
T f -eq T f -test
 100.
T f -test

Table 6
Comparison of the absorbed energy obtained from model and test results.

Tf

Beam designation

Utest (N m/m)

Umodel (N m/m)

EUa (%)

L08F00V0
L08F40V3
L08F40V6
L08F55V3
L08F55V6
L08F67V3
L08F67V6
L08F80V3
L08F80V6
L12F00V0
L12F40V3
L12F80V3

454.57
497.92
644.79
480.83
607.32
429.53
577.32
450.25
625.84
507.38
707.01
762.72

424.08
442.84
598.55
460.18
524.69
377.12
593.53
458.14
596.03
484.72
631.53
660.85

7.2
12.4
7.7
4.5
15.7
13.9
2.7
1.7
5.0
4.7
12.0
15.4

U test
EU U model
 100.
U test

T T cr b/  /cr V f  V 0  103  3bh/  /u ihV f  V 0 i

 103

4:4

where of relevant V0, /u, and b values are given Table 3.

The V0, /u, and b coefcient in Eq. (4.4) is obtained from a
regression analysis. The brackets h i in Eq. (4.4) are used to designate singularity functions. Thus, if the value inside the brackets is
greater than zero, the brackets behave as regular parenthesis; if not
the value becomes zero [23].
The torsional model expressed by Eq. (4.4) is plotted in Fig. 9. In
this model, Eq. (4.1) is valued in the initial elastic region (Region I)
and Eq. (4.4) can be used in the following plastic regions (Regions II
and Regions III). According to this model, the test specimens show

the same behavior up to cracking regardless of the amount of

longitudinal reinforcement and presence, amount, size of steel bers observed during the tests. After cracking, the specimens with
no bers and those with ber volumetric ratio of 0.3% follow the
dashed path if 0.85ql < qw, while the specimens with Vf = 0.6% follow the solid path in Fig. 9. If 0.85ql > qw, the specimens with no
bers follow the dashed line; while those with 0.3 percent ber ratio follow the solid line. For all the specimens that follow the
dashed line, the ultimate torque Tu equals to the cracking torque
Tcr.
In Tables 4 and 5, the results obtained from the model compared to the values of the test and the differences between those
values are accepted to be errors. As it is seen from the tables, the
largest difference percent between the models and the test result
is less than 16%.
The energy per unit length absorbed by the element during the
test is obtained from the area under the unit angle of rotation versus torque plots of both the tests and models are given and compared in Table 6.
5. Conclusions
Based on the limited experiments results in which different aspect ratios of steel bers are used in pure torsion test of reinforced
concrete beams, the following conclusions have been obtained:
 It is observed that torsional behavior of normal strength concrete beams is changed positively with the addition of steel
bers. Although 0.3% volumetric content ber addition does

F. Okay, S. Engin / Construction and Building Materials 28 (2012) 269275

not make signicant effect on this behavior, 0.6% volumetric

content ber addition increases the torsional strength of the
test specimens with an amount of 1060%.
 The specimens having insufcient longitudinal reinforcement
do not show any increase in torsional strength with the addition
of volumetric content steel bers in 0.3%.
 Sufcient addition of steel bers to concrete causes a decrease
in the widths of cracks, whereas an increase in the number of
cracks.
 The simple model proposed in this study yielded comparative
results with the data produced in this study.

Acknowledgements
Authors gratefully acknowledge the funding from Kocaeli University Research Fund and Beksa-Turkey.
References
[1] Ersoy U. Reinforced concrete. Middle East Technical University Press; 1999.
[2] Nilson AH, Winter G. Design of concrete structures. 11th ed. McGraw-Hill;
1991.
[3] Hsu TTC. Torsion of structural concrete behavior of reinforced concrete
rectangular
members.
Torsion
of
structural
concrete,
SP

18. Detroit: American Concrete Institute; 1968. p. 261306.

[4] Fang I-K, Shaiu J-K. Torsional behaviour of normal and high strength concrete
beams. ACI Struct J 2004;101(3):30413.
[5] Atef HB, Faisal FW, Ali AA. Torsional behavior of plain high-strength concrete
beams. ACI Struct J 1990;87(5):5838.
[6] MacGregor JG, Ghoneim MG. Design for torsion. ACI Struct J 1995;92(2):2118.
[7] Bhatti MA, Almughrabi A. Rened model to estimate torsional strength of
reinforced concrete beams. ACI Struct J 1996;93(5):61422.

275

[8] Rasmussen LJ, Baker G. Torsion in reinforced normal and high-strength

concrete beams Part 2: theory and design. ACI Struct J 1995;92(2):14956.
[9] El-Niema EI. Fiber reinforced beams under torsion. ACI Struct J
1993;90(50):48995.
[10] Song PS, Hwang S. Mechanical properties of high-strength steel berreinforced concrete. Constr Build Mater 2004;18(9):66973.
[11] Mohammadi Y, Singh SP, Kaushik SK. Properties of steel brous concrete
containing mixed bres in fresh and hardened state. Constr Build Mater
2008;22:95665.
[12] Faisal FW, Samir AA. Mechanical properties of high-strength ber reinforced
concrete. ACI Mater J 1992;89(5):44955.
[13] Jianming G, Wei S, Keiji M. Mechanical properties of steel ber-reinforced,
high-strength,
lightweight
concrete.
Cement
Concr
Compos
1997;19(4):30713.
[14] Rao TDG, Seshu DR. Analytical model for the torsional response of steel ber
reinforced concrete members under pure torsion. Cement Concr Compos
2005;27(4):493501.
[15] Craig RJ, James AP, Germain E, Mosquera V, Kamilares S. Fiber reinforced
beams in torsion. ACI Struct J 1986;83(6):93442.
[16] Engin S. Torsional behaviour of steel ber reinforced concrete beams. MSc
thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Kocaeli
University; 2005 [in Turkish].
[17] Rao TDG, Seshu DR. Torsion of steel ber reinforced concrete members. Cem
Concr Res 2003;33(11):17838.
[18] Narayanan R, Karem-Palanjian AS. Torsion in beams reinforced with bars and
bers. J Struct Eng 1986;112(1):5366.
[19] Rao TDG, Seshu DR. Torsional response of brous reinforced concrete
members: effect of single type of reinforcement. Constr Build Mater
2006;20:18792.
[20] Jing M, Raongjant W, Li Z. Torsional strengthening of reinforced concrete box
beams using carbon ber reinforced polymer. Compos Struct 2007;78:26470.
[21] Chalioris CE. Torsional strengthening of rectangular and anged beams using
carbon bre-reinforced-polymers experimental study. Constr Build Mater
2008;22:219.
[22] Chalioris CE, Karayannis CG. Effectiveness of the use of steel bres on the
torsional behaviour of anged concrete beams. Cement Concr Compos
2009;31:33141.
[23] Beer FP, Johston ER. Mechanics of materials. McGraw-Hill; 1992. p. 11482.
[24] Neville AM. Properties of concrete. Prentice Hill; 2000. p. 42142.