Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 10241039

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Seismic behaviour of steel coupling beams linking reinforced concrete

shear walls
Wan-Shin Park, Hyun-Do Yun
School of Architecture, Chungnam National University, Daejeon 305-764, Republic of Korea
Received 3 November 2004; received in revised form 26 January 2005; accepted 15 February 2005
Available online 9 April 2005

Abstract
Due to lack of information, current design methods to calculate embedment length for steel coupling beams linking concrete shear walls
are tacit about cases in which the beams have connection details to the walls that include stud bolts and horizontal ties. In this study,
analyses were carried out to develop a model for calculating the embedment lengths of embedded steel sections. Five models for calculating
embedment lengths in hybrid coupled walls are developed as variations of the Prestressed Concrete Institute guidelines for steel brackets
attached to reinforced concrete columns. In addition, experimental studies on the steel coupling beam were carried out. The main test
variables were the ratios of the coupling beam strength to the connection strength. Based on the test results, it is more advantageous to design
the coupling beams as shear-yielding members since a shear-critical coupling beam exhibits a more desirable mode of energy dissipation
than a flexure-critical coupling beam.
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Steel coupling beams; Embedment lengths; Connection failure; Shear critical; Flexure critical

1. Introduction
Properly designed hybrid coupled shear walls have
many desirable earthquake-resistant design features. Great
lateral stiffness and strength can be achieved. By coupling
individual walls, the lateral load resisting behaviour changes
to one in which overturning moments are resisted partially
by an axial compressiontension couple across the wall
system rather than by the individual flexural action of the
walls. The beams that connect individual wall piers are
referred to as coupling beams. During major earthquakes
large seismic forces are transferred between individual wall
piers through the coupling beams. In order for the hybrid
coupled shear walls to behave desirably the coupling beams
should be stiff and strong and possess stable hysteresis.
Structural steel coupling beams provide a viable alternative to reinforced concrete coupling beams, particularly
where height restrictions do not permit the use of deep
Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 42 821 6281; fax: +82 42 823 9467.

E-mail address: salshin@hanmail.net (H.-D. Yun).

0141-0296/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.02.013

reinforced concrete or composite coupling beams, or where

the required capacity and stiffness cannot be developed
economically by conventional reinforced concrete coupling
beams. Previous researchers [13] have shown that the lateral stiffness and strength of concrete shear walls can be significantly increased by coupling the shear walls using embedded steel beams. The critical design issues for a hybrid
coupled shear walls are: (1) how to develop the model for
calculating the embedment lengths of steel coupling beams,
taking into account the connection details; and (2) how to
design the steel coupling beams for the desired behaviour of
the hybrid coupled shear wall system. No design methods
are currently available for computing the required embedment length of steel coupling beams, taking into account the
contribution of the auxiliary bars and the horizontal ties on
the top and bottom flanges of an embedded steel section. The
reliability of the model proposed in this study for computing
the required embedment length of steel coupling beams is
evaluated. A flow chart of this research is shown in Fig. 1.
This research develops a model for computing the
required embedment length of steel coupling beams, taking

W.-S. Park, H.-D. Yun / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 10241039

1025

2. Prototype structure
Notation
a
A1
A2

be
bf
Cb

Cf

d
e
fb
f c

f cc
l
le
L clear
L
Mp
tf
tw
twall
Vf
Vn
Vr
Vu

distance from beam shear to face of wall

(in mm)
the area within the hysteresis loop of one half
cycle
the area of the triangle defined by an
equivalent elastic stiffness to the peak load and
corresponding deflection at each half cycle
effective bearing width (in mm)
beam flange width (in mm)
resultant concrete compressive force acting on
top and at the back of embedded steel section,
(in N)
resultant concrete compressive force acting
below and at the front of embedded steel
section, (in N)
beam overall depth (in mm)
distance from face of wall to effective fixed
point of beam (in mm)
bearing strength (in MPa)
concrete compressive strength (in MPa)
compressive strength of confined concrete
(in MPa)
distance from ram on beam to face of wall
(in mm)
embedment length (in mm)
clear span of steel coupling beams (in mm)
effective clear span of steel coupling beams
(in mm)
plastic moment (in N mm)
beam flange thickness (in mm)
beam web thickness (in mm)
thickness of wall (in mm)
shear corresponding to the moment capacities
(in N)
nominal shear capacities (in N)
connection strength (in N)
ultimate beam shear force (in N)
equivalent elastic damping coefficient (=
A1 /2 A2 )

into account the effects of the auxiliary bars and horizontal

ties. In addition, it investigates the seismic behaviour of the
steel coupling beams in terms of the failure mechanism,
hysteretic response, strength, stiffness, effective embedment
length, dissipated energy characteristics, and the equivalent
elastic damping coefficient. The test results and discussions
presented in this paper provide background for design
guidelines of a hybrid coupled shear walls.

2.1. Design of walls and coupling beams

The test specimens represented a subassembly at the
37th floor of an imaginary prototype structure, a 50-storey,
three-bay by eight-bay office assumed to be located in
Uniform Building Code seismic zone 4 [4]. The structure
is comprised of five reinforced concrete walls linked to
form the central core, flat slab system, and perimeter steel
frames. The typical floor plan is shown in Fig. 2. The
coupling beams are assumed to be structural steel members
embedded in concrete door lintels over doors into the
boundary element and interfacing them with the boundary
element vertical bars and hoops. The design moment and
shear in the 37th floor coupling beam are the largest of those
of any floor. Hence, the interface between the steel coupling
beams and reinforced concrete walls is more important at
this location. The prototype structure was designed for the
combined effects of gravity and earthquake load according
to the UBC provisions for concrete structures [4]. The walls
were proportioned and detailed following the UBC and
seismic provisions of ACI 318-02 [5]. The steel coupling
beams were designed in accordance with the seismic design
requirements for link beams in eccentrically braced frames
of the Canadian steel design standard [6].
2.2. Required embedment length
Additional auxiliary bars and horizontal ties attached
to the beam flanges in the embedment can contribute to
the capacity of the connection. No specific guidelines are
provided for computing the required embedment length,
taking into account the contribution of the auxiliary bars
and the horizontal ties on the top and bottom flange in
the embedment regions, but previous studies have shown
the adequacy of four models proposed by Marcakis and
Mitchell [7], Mattock and Gaafar [8], Kent and Park [9], and
Minami [10], respectively. The required embedment length
of the steel coupling beams in hybrid coupled shear walls
was evaluated using five methods that are variations of the
Prestressed Concrete Institute guidelines for the design of
steel beams used as brackets [11], as shown in Fig. 3. In all
cases, the concrete strain was assumed to vary linearly, with
the maximum concrete strain taken as 0.003 at the face of
the wall.
The first model (model A) was that proposed by Marcakis
and Mitchell [7]. Using a slightly different assumed stress
distribution shown in Fig. 4(a) and assuming a rigidbody motion of the embedded steel section, the following
expression may be used for determining the required
embedment length.
Vu =

0.85 f c b (le c)
1+

3.6e
(le c)

(N).

(1)

1026

W.-S. Park, H.-D. Yun / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 10241039

Fig. 1. Flow chart of this research.

This model accounts for spreading of the compression

forces within the wall. As a result, the width of the effective
compression zone b may be greater than the width of the
beam b (or the beam flange b f ).
The second model (model B) was that proposed by
Mattock and Gaafar [8]. Using the distribution of bearing
stresses shown in Fig. 4(b), the required embedment length
le can be computed from:



0.58 0.221
(N).
(2)
Vu = 0.9 f b 1 b f le
0.88 + lae
The required embedment length to develop a vertical
shear at a distance from the face of the wall is computed
from this equation.

In the third method (model C), the concrete stress

distribution was modified to reflect the larger strength
and stiffness due to the confinement provided by large
amounts of transverse reinforcement in typical boundary
elements. The modified Kent and Park model [9] was used
to represent the concrete stressstrain relationship, and the
assumed stress distribution was changed accordingly, as
illustrated in Fig. 4(c). The effective bearing width was taken
as b f (twall /b f )0.66 , similar to the derivation of the model
proposed by Mattock and Gaafar. A closed-form expression
for computing the required embedment length le could not
be derived. The necessary le for developing the computed
shear and moment of the coupling beam at the 37th floor was
calculated for a number of different levels of confinement
 / f .
expressed in terms of K = f cc
c

W.-S. Park, H.-D. Yun / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 10241039

1027

Fig. 2. Typical plan of prototype structure (dimension: mm).

following expression can be derived.


3Vu2
Vu
aVu

(N).
le =
2 +

2
4be f c
be fc
16be f c

(a) Actual stresses.

(b) Assumed stresses and strains.

Fig. 3. Stresses and strains of steel coupling beamwall connection.

In model D, a uniform concrete bearing stress equal to

2 f c was assumed over the embedment length, as shown
in Fig. 4(d). This value was proposed by Minami [10] for
bearing stress in cases that are similar to the stresses that
develop on the beam flanges. Using this assumption, the

(3)

Using the effective bearing width be as for model C, the

required embedment length using model D becomes 161 mm
for specimen SBVRT, which is significantly less than the
values calculated using models A, B, or C. This can be
attributed to the assumed size of the concrete bearing stress
above and below the embedded steel section. The value by
model D was deemed to be too small and model D was not
followed for the final design.
The fifth model (model E) was that proposed in this
study. Based on the observation of the test results from a
previous study [12], stud bolts and horizontal ties on the
top and bottom flange of an embedded steel coupling beam
section were specified in an effort to improve the stiffness
and to improve the transfer of the flange-bearing force to the
surrounding concrete. The contribution of the auxiliary bars
and the horizontal ties are not considered in the previous four
models. Model E was used to calculate embedment lengths,
taking into account the contribution of the auxiliary bars and
the horizontal ties, as shown in Fig. 4(e). Taking moments
about the centre of action of Cb , the required embedment
length le can be computed from:


0.58 0.221
Vu(proposed) = f b 1 ble
0.88 + a/le
n

2(0.88 a/le )
Asi f si
i=1
+
(N), (4a)
0.88 + a/le

1028

W.-S. Park, H.-D. Yun / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 10241039

(a) Model A (Marcakis and Mitchell 1980).

(b) Model B (Mattock and Gaafar

1982).

(d) Model D (Minami 1985).

(c) Model C (Kent and Park 1982).

(e) Model E proposed by this study.

Fig. 4. Proposed models for calculating embedment length.

3. Experimental program

where:
f b = 4.5

f c

 0.60
t
b

(MPa).

(4b)

The variation of le in terms of K is plotted in Fig. 5. The

required embedment clearly increases as the confinement is
reduced. As shown in Fig. 5(a), for the amount of transverse
reinforcement in the boundary element (specimen SBVRT)
at the 37th floor, the value of le computed by model E
proposed in this study is 396 mm, which is slightly more
than 369 mm, the value computed by model C (K =
1.20). As shown in Fig. 5(b), for shear-critical steel beams
(specimen SCF), the required embedment lengths calculated
using the models A, B, C (K = 1.0), D, and E are found
to be 527 mm, 294 mm, 306 mm, 117 mm, and 286 mm,
respectively. As shown in Fig. 5(c), for flexure-critical steel
beams (specimen FCF), the required embedment lengths
calculated using the models A, B, C, D, and E range between
84% and 115% of those for shear-critical steel beams. The
embedment lengths were calculated based on the Model E
proposed in this study that considered the contribution of the
auxiliary bars and horizontal ties.

Standard similitude concepts were followed to establish

the size and dimensions of reinforcing bars for the test
specimens. The overall wall and beam dimensions of
specimens are summarized in Fig. 6. The test subassemblies
consisted of one half of the length of the coupling beam
at the 37th floor. The test variables and details used in this
study are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. The specimens were
cast vertically, and typical construction joints in the wall
around the connection were not reproduced. Ready-mixed
concrete with a specified 28-day compressive strength of
30.0 MPa was used for each of the three specimens. The
maximum size of concrete aggregate chosen was 15 mm,
to ensure good compaction of the concrete in the test
specimens. The slump of the concrete was 145 mm. For
each batch, 100 200 mm cylinders were constructed to
measure the compressive strength of the concrete. Concrete
strength and elastic modulus were tested using the method
defined in the ASTM standards. The horizontal and vertical
reinforcement consisted of 13 mm diameter deformed bars.
The reinforcing steel used for all walls was obtained from
a single batch of steel for each bar diameter, and three
specimens were tested from each diameter of reinforcing bar

W.-S. Park, H.-D. Yun / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 10241039

(a) SBVRT specimen (Connection failure).

1029

and a 2000 kN ram to load the steel coupling beam. Both

actuators were controlled using a computer-based controller.
The displacement of all specimens was controlled to follow
similar displacement histories with progressively increasing
amplitude. The loading history for connection failure, shear-,
and flexure-critical specimens are shown in Fig. 8(a)(c),
respectively. The data were acquired from the load on the
actuators, the deflection and rotation of the steel coupling
beams, the strain in the longitudinal reinforcing bars and
stud bolts in the embedment region, and the strain on
the flanges and web of the steel coupling beams. A total
of 36 data channels of instrumentation were used. The
instruments monitored loads in the actuators, deflections and
rotation of the coupling beam, shear distortion of the steel
coupling beam, strains on selected longitudinal reinforcing
bars in the boundary element, strains in the flanges and
web of the coupling beam, overall wall curvature, and local
wall distortion in the vicinity of the embedded beam. The
experimental results are used to evaluate the performance
of structural steel coupling beams compared with other test
data.
4. Experimental results
4.1. Damage and crack pattern

(b) SCF specimen (Shear critical).

(c) FCF specimen (Flexural critical).

Fig. 5. Comparisons of computed embedment length.

used. Tension tests were conducted on full-sized bar samples

in accordance with ASTM Standard A370 to determine the
yield strength, ultimate strength, and total elongation. The
observed material properties are reported in Tables 3 and
4. A schematic diagram of the test apparatus is shown in
Fig. 7. The test specimens were loaded with two servocontrolled actuators, a 1000 kN ram to apply load to the wall,

Fig. 9 shows the failure modes for specimens SBVRT,

SCF, and FCF. In specimen SBVRT, initial vertical cracking
at the steel coupling beam flangeconcrete interface below
the embedded bottom flange was observed at a rotational
angle of about 0.017 rad. Inclined cracks located at the
flangeconcrete interface extended from the flange across
the inner face of the wall to the side faces of the wall at a
rotational angle of about 0.019 rad. Localized spalling and
crushing of the concrete along the top and bottom flanges of
the coupling beam at the front of the compression zone was
initially observed at a rotational angle of 0.043 rad, as shown
in Fig. 9(a). In specimen SCF, severe web buckling in the
clear span of the steel coupling beam led to its final rupture,
as shown in Fig. 9(b). Specimen FCF, having a clear span
of 1200 mm, was designed and detailed as a flexure-critical
coupling beam. The response of specimen FCF was notably
less stiff than that of specimen SCF. In addition, the steel
beam remained elastic in shear throughout the test. Unlike
shear yielding, which occurs uniformly over the entire length
of a coupling beam, the flexural hinge propagates away from
the region of critical moment, as shown in Fig. 9(c). From
the observed failure modes, shear critical failure was more
reasonable for rehabilitation or retrofitting when considering
the degree of building damage.
4.2. Hysteresis response
The hysteretic responses of specimens SBVRT, SCF, and
FCF are presented in Fig. 10. Specimen SBVRT did not
exhibit stable spindle-type hysteretic loops due to premature

1030

W.-S. Park, H.-D. Yun / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 10241039

Fig. 6. Details of steel coupling beams (unit: mm).

embedment region failure before the web and flange of the

steel coupling beam yielded. As shown in Fig. 10(a), the
hysteretic behaviour of specimen SBVRT shows a moderate
level of pinching, which is attributed to bearing failure in
the beamwall connection region. In addition, specimen
SBVRT showed a sudden decrease in strength between the
first and second cycles at the rotational angle of 0.043 rad.

However, specimen SCF exhibited very large, stable loops

throughout the test with little strength or stiffness decay
evident, as shown in Fig. 10(b). Compared with specimen
SCF, specimen FCF exhibited a more unstable and pinched
response, as shown in Fig. 10(c). This is attributed to local
concrete bearing failure by buckling of the compression
flange, near the shear wall face.

Researcher

Detail

tf
(mm)

l
(mm)

le
(mm)

l/H

f c
(MPa)

fh
(MPa)

fv
(MPa)

f yw
(MPa)

fyf
(MPa)

Loading
history

Predicted
failure mode

7
7
7

11
11
11

800
600
1200

300
300
300

3.43
3.43
3.43

30.0
30.0
30.0

398
398
398

398
398
398

219.5
219.5
219.5

225.4
225.4
225.4

C
C
C

CF
SCF
FCF

203
203
203

25
25
25

25
25
25

534
534
534

864
762
508

1.17
1.17
1.17

35.0
35.0
35.0

475
475
475

475
475
475

234
234
234

234
234
234

C
C
C

FCF
FCF
FCF

135
135
127
127

5
8
6
8

19
19
8
8

1200
1200
450
1200

600
600
500
600

3.46
3.46
1.29
3.46

25.9
43.1
32.9
35.0

458
458
447
447

410
410
437
437

320
309/276
403
403

372
295
378
378

C
C
C
C

CF
SCF
SCF
FCF

Specimen
name

H
(mm)

B
(mm)

This study

SBVRF
SCF
FCF

350
244
244

175
175
175

Shahrooz [13]

Wall 1
Wall 2
Wall 3

457
457
457

Harries [14]

S1
S2
S3
S4

347
347
349
349

tw
(mm)

CF: Connection failure; FCF: Flexural critical failure; SCF: Shear critical failure.

W.-S. Park, H.-D. Yun / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 10241039

Table 1
Test variables

1031

1032

W.-S. Park, H.-D. Yun / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 10241039

Table 2
Details of test specimens
Specimens

Item
Wall reinforcements
In wall
In connections

Eccentricity of vertical load

e (mm)

4-HD10

HD13@230

HD13@230

+150

Connection failure
l/(Mn / Vn ) = 1.8

12-19

4-HD10

HD13@230

HD13@230

+150

Shear critical
l/(Mn / Vn ) = 1.4

12-19

4-HD10

HD13@230

HD19@100

+150

Flexure critical
l/(Mn / Vn ) = 2.8

Stud bolts

Horizontal ties

SBVRT

12-19

SCF
FCF

Remark

Table 3
Average concrete compressive strengths
Compressive strength
(MPa)

Ultimate strain
()

Slump
(mm)

Elastic modulus
(GPa)

Poissons
ratio

30.0

2340

150

26.2

0.11

At the time of testing.

The relationship between normalized measured load and

rotational angle is shown in Fig. 11. Specimens SBVRT,
SCF, and FCF developed maximum capacities equal to
402.1, 283.1, and 211.8 kN, respectively at the ultimate load
in the compression cycles (beam pushed down). Fig. 11(a)
shows values of Vn (test) /Vn (anal.) for specimens SBVRT,
SCF, and FCF of 1.07, 1.27, and 1.06, respectively. The
reserved strength of specimen SCF is 17% and 20% larger
than that of SBVRT and FCF, respectively. This can be
attributed to the full shear yielding occurring in the clear
span of the steel coupling beam without significant distress
in the embedded region. In particular, specimen FCF did not
develop a substantially larger strength than the theoretical
value because of premature lateral buckling. Compared with
the test results of Shahrooz [13] and Harries [14], rotational
angles greater than those corresponding to ultimate load
for the shear critical steel coupling beams showed more
stable response, without significant strength degradation,
than connection failure and flexure critical beams, as shown
in Fig. 11(b).
4.3. Stiffness characteristics
Fig. 12 shows the degradation of peak-to-peak stiffness
plotted against rotation angle. The initial peak-to-peak
stiffness of specimens SBVRT, SCF, and FCF ranged
between 19.81 and 49.82 kN/mm, but at a rotation angle
of 0.063 rad, the stiffness values of all specimens were
similar, with values within the range 3.516.29 kN/mm, as
shown in Fig. 12(a). For the rotation angle of 0.014 rad,
the stiffness degradation of specimens SBVRT, SCF, and
FCF were 74.7%, 93.9%, and 94.3% of the initial stiffness,
respectively. The overall stiffness degradation was also
smaller for specimen FCF compared to specimens SBVRT

and SCF. Stiffness decay was more evident in specimen

SBVRT. Compared with the test result of Shahrooz [13]
and Harries [14], the rate of stiffness degradation of shear
critical steel coupling beams, having a shorter clear span
than flexure critical beam, is larger than that for connection
failure and flexure critical beams. However, the rate of
stiffness degradation for shear critical steel coupling beams
is smaller than that of connection failure and flexure critical
beams as the rotation angle increases, as shown in Fig. 12(b).
4.4. Effective fixed point
Accounting for flexural and shearing deformations, and
assuming that the steel coupling beam is fixed at the face
of wall, the initial stiffness values of specimens SBVRT,
SCF, and FCF are 154.30 kN/mm, 83.22 kN/mm, and
52.54 kN/mm, respectively. The measured initial stiffness
values range between 32.3% and 38.5% of the theoretically
calculated values. Hence, the steel coupling beams were
clearly not fixed at the face of the walls. The apparent lack
of fixity may also be seen from the deflection profiles in
Fig. 13(a), in which profiles corresponding to a rotational
angle at yield load are shown. It should be noted that as the
yield rotational angles are different for each specimen, the
tip displacements are not identical when a certain rotation
angle is reached. For specimen SBVRT at point D, which
was approximately 5 mm outside the face of the wall, a
maximum deflection of 1.68 mm can be seen from Fig. 13(a)
(beam push down). This amount of deflection, which is
approximately two-fifths of the corresponding value at the
tip, is substantial for a point that is typically assumed to
have negligible deformation. For specimens SCF and FCF,
additional strain gauges were installed to detect the beam
movement along the embedment length (inside the wall).

W.-S. Park, H.-D. Yun / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 10241039

1033

Table 4
Mechanical properties of steel
Type
Yield strength
f y (MPa)

Yield strain
y (106 )

Item
Elastic modulus
E s (GPa)

Ultimate strength
f su (MPa)

Reinforcement

10 mm diameter deformed bar

13 mm diameter deformed bar

398
400

2325
2533

171.2
157.9

566
555

Steel

Beam flange
Beam web

339
352

1682
1827

201.2
192.7

461
489

Stud bolts

19 mm diameter deformed bar

362

1701

215.8

449

(a) Load history 1 (Specimen SBVRT).

(b) Load history 2 (Specimen SCF).

Fig. 7. Test setup.

At the yield rotational angle, beam vertical deflections as

great as 0.002 mm were recorded at a point 50 mm inside
the wall from the face (point C). Movement at point A,
almost 300 mm from the face of the wall, was also recorded
after the beams yielded. Fig. 13(a) shows that the steel
coupling beam clearly displaced vertically by as much as
0.002 mm at point C. Based on three test results, the effective
fixed point of steel coupling beams with auxiliary bars is
inside the wall at about 1/61/5 of the embedment length.
These values are substantially smaller than those (1/41/3)
found in Shahrooz [13] without auxiliary bars, as shown
in Fig. 13(b). This can be attributed to the increased fixity
degree of steel coupling beam at the face of the shear wall
due to the presence of the auxiliary bars.
4.5. Energy absorption and dissipation
A graph of the cumulative dissipated energy is plotted
in Fig. 14(a). The real energy absorptions of specimens
SBVRT and FCF were virtually identical until a rotational
angle of 0.052 rad was reached. Specimens SBVRT and FCF
were able to dissipate about 8.5 and 10 times their yield
energy through a rotational angle of 0.060 rad, respectively.
The change in failure mode from flexural to shear hinging

(c) Load history 3 (Specimen FCF).

Fig. 8. Displacement history.

resulting from the improvements made to specimen SCF

results in a significant increase in energy absorption capacity
to about 28 times the specimens yielding energy. At a
rotational angle of 0.051, 0.052, and 0.051 rad, cumulative
energy values were equal to 33.98, 226.9, and 37.4 kJ for
specimens SBVRT, SCF, and FCF, respectively.
Fig. 15 shows the equivalent elastic damping coefficient
for specimens SBVRT, SCF, and FCF, and for those
tested by Shiu [15]. A larger damping coefficient reflects a
greater ability to dissipate energy. The maximum value of
, representing elasto-plastic hysteretic behaviour, is about
2/2 = 31.8%. The short shear span of specimen SCF also
showed greater energy absorption ability than specimens
SBVRT and FCF, as shown in Fig. 15(a). Two specimens,
tested by Shiu [15], were chosen as representative of

1034

W.-S. Park, H.-D. Yun / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 10241039

(a) Specimen SBVRT.

(a) Specimen SBVRT.

(b) Specimen SCF.

(b) Specimen SCF.

(c) Specimen FCF.

Fig. 9. Cracking pattern.

the response of conventionally and diagonally reinforced

concrete coupling beams with a span-to-depth ratio of 2.5.
Compared with the test result of Shiu [15], specimen SCF
exhibited greater energy absorption capability than either the
diagonally or conventionally reinforced concrete specimens.
The response of diagonally reinforced concrete coupling

(c) Specimen FCF.

Fig. 10. Loadrotational angle hysteretic loops.

W.-S. Park, H.-D. Yun / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 10241039

(a) Specimens SBVRT, SCF, and FCF.

(a) Specimens SBVRT, SCF, and FCF.

(b) Comparisons of test results and other data.

(b) Comparisons of test results and other data.

Fig. 11. Strength characteristics.

beams conducted by Paulay [16] with smaller span-to-depth

ratios showed little improvement in hysteretic damping
over those with larger ratios. The damping coefficients of
Paulays beams, whose span-to-depth ratios were 1.29 and
1.02, are only marginally higher than Shius (l/d = 2.5)
beams shown in Fig. 15(a). Specimen SCF, with a spanto-depth ratio of 2.3 exhibited significantly greater energy
absorption ability than the comparable diagonally reinforced
specimens.
Fig. 15(b) shows the equivalent elastic damping coefficient of all specimens, that of Harries [11], and that of the
steel shear link with a span-to-depth ratio of 3.7 tested by
Malley and Popov [17]. It is clear that in terms of rotation
angle and energy absorption, the response of specimens SBVRT and FCF is poorer than the response of the steel shear
link. However, the response of specimen SCF exceeds the
response of the shear link at a rotation angle of 0.041 rad, although it has a shorter shear link, giving it a significantly better response than the one tested by Popov [17]. However, the
response of specimen S2 of Harries [14] closely approaches

1035

Fig. 12. Stiffness characteristics.

the response of the steel shear link. Based on the test

results, if steel coupling beams are designed and detailed to
yield in shear, they are able to dissipate greater amounts of
energy and are more ductile than flexure critical steel coupling beams, conventionally and diagonally reinforced concrete coupling beams.
4.6. Strains and stresses
(1) Concrete strain in the connection region
Fig. 16 shows the compressive strain in the connection
region for specimens SBVRT, SCF, and FCF. Three gages
were located below the embedded steel coupling beam. In
addition, two gages were located within the beam flange
width and one gage outside the beam width. In all cases,
the maximum concrete compressive strain occurred below
the center of the embedded steel coupling beam. At a
rotational angle corresponding to the ultimate load, the
concrete strain below the outer edge (point B) of the section
varied from about 29% of the centerline strain (point C)

1036

W.-S. Park, H.-D. Yun / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 10241039

(a) Displacement profile.

(a) Specimens SBVRT, SCF, and FCF.

(b) Comparisons of test results and other data.

(b) Model of effective fixed point.

Fig. 14. Cumulative dissipated energy.

Fig. 13. Beam displacement profile (outside and inside wall).

for specimen SBVRT to about 20% of the centerline strain

for specimen SCF, as shown in Fig. 16(a) and (b). This
difference must have resulted from the behaviour of the
steel coupling beams. However, as the load increased further,
the strain below the outer edge of the embedded sections
increased more rapidly for specimen SBVRT, as may be
seen in Fig. 16(a). In the case of specimen SCF, the concrete
compressive strains at ultimate are estimated to vary from
about 2469 micro strains below the center to about 329
micro strains below the outer edge of the bottom flange,
as shown in Fig. 16(b). This increase in strain below the
center of the flange relative to that below the edge of the
flange is probably due to diagonal strutting action occurring
in the concrete between the upper face of the bottom flange
and the face of the web of embedded steel coupling beam.
Since specimens FCF had FBPs to mobilize the concrete
strut between the flanges, the inner concrete gage (point F)
at ultimate picked up compressive strain at almost four times
the rate of the outer gage (point D), as shown in Fig. 16(c).

(2) Embedded steel web stresses

Fig. 17 shows the distribution of stresses in the steel web
of specimens SBVRT, SCF, and FCF. The strains in the steel
web were measured at three different locations by means of
rosette strain gauges in order to determine the distribution of
stresses. It can be seen that the distribution of stresses does
not follow a symmetrical pattern, with the higher stresses
recorded in the front half of the embedment length. It is
noted that, in specimen SBVRT, significant deterioration
of the connection started to take place although yielding
of the steel web had not occurred. That deterioration was
characterized by a rapid increase in the width of diagonal
cracks and spalling of the concrete. In specimen SCF, the
shear stresses near the back face (point A) of the connection
were approximately 15% lower than those measured at the
front face (point C), as shown in Fig. 17(b). Compared
with specimen FCF, the web strains of specimen SCF were
sensitive to the changes in the failure mode, as shown in
Fig. 17(b) and (c). Based on the measured strains, shear
yielding of the embedded steel web in all specimens did not
occur during the test. This can be attributed to the fact that

W.-S. Park, H.-D. Yun / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 10241039

(a) Comparisons of test results and RC coupling beams.

(a) Specimen SBVRT.

(b) Comparisons of test result and steel coupling beams.

Fig. 15. Equivalent elastic damping coefficient ().

concrete compressive struts due to the face bearing plates

helped to reduce the participation of the embedded steelweb.
(3) Stud bolts stresses
Strain gage readings for stud bolts adjacent to the
connection are shown in Fig. 18. In a steel coupling
beamwall connection, because of the change in load
through the connection, high bond stresses are imposed on
the vertical stud bolts passing through the connection. If no
slippage takes place in these bars, the longitudinal strains
should change from tension at the top (or bottom) of the
connection to compression at the bottom (or top). When
the connection was loaded as shown in Fig. 18, the upper
gage recorded tension and the lower recorded compression.
In specimen SBVRT, the measured stresses of stud bolts
below the bottom flange were slightly less than those above
the top flange, probably because of tension in the concrete
and an unequal stress distribution of force between all the
stud bolts, as shown in Fig. 18(a). It is worth emphasizing
that the measured stud bolt strains indicate that slippage of
vertical stud bolts below the bottom flange can occur after

(b) Specimen SCF.

(c) Specimen FCF.

Fig. 16. Strains of concrete.

1037

1038

W.-S. Park, H.-D. Yun / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 10241039

(a) Specimen SBVRT.

(a) Specimen SBVRT.

(b) Specimen SCF.

(b) Specimen SCF.

(c) Specimen FCF.

Fig. 17. Stresses in embedded steel web.

a very few cycles and before the yield strength of the stud
bolts is reached. Similar behaviour has been reported for
column and beam bars in composite joints [18] due to a loss
of bond transfer along vertical bars through the connection
region. In specimens SCF and FCF, the measured stresses
of stud bolts below the bottom flange showed similar values

(c) Specimen FCF.

Fig. 18. Stresses in stud bolts.

in comparison to those above the top flange, as shown in

Fig. 18(b) and (c).

W.-S. Park, H.-D. Yun / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 10241039

5. Conclusions
The following conclusions were derived from the results
of the analysis and experiments in this study on the steel
coupling beams in a hybrid wall system:
1. Existing models for calculating the embedment lengths
do not adequately consider the effect of connection details.
Model E proposed in this study can be reliably used to
compute the required embedment length of steel coupling
beams considering the effects of connection details of
auxiliary bars and horizontal ties in a hybrid coupled shear
wall system.
2. In specimen SBVRT, localized spalling and crushing
of the concrete along the top and bottom flanges of the
coupling beam, at the front of the compression zone, was
observed at failure. In specimen SCF, severe web buckling
in the clear span of the steel coupling beam led to its final
rupture. Specimen FCF remained elastic in shear throughout
the test, and failure occurred uniformly over the entire length
of the coupling beam, with the flexural hinge propagating
away from the region of critical moment with increasing
rotational angles.
3. Specimen SBVRT did not exhibit stable spindle-type
hysteretic loops due to premature embedment region failure
before the web and flange of the steel coupling beam
yielded. However, specimens SCF and FCF exhibited more
large, stable loops throughout the test with little strength or
stiffness decay evident.
4. Accounting for flexural and shearing deformations, and
assuming that the steel coupling beam is fixed at the face of
wall, the initial stiffness values computed for specimens SBVRT, SCF, and FCF were significantly larger than the measured initial stiffness. The effective point of fixity of the steel
coupling beam with the auxiliary bars and horizontal ties is
inside the wall at about 1/5 to 1/6 of the embedment length.
5. Specimen SCF showed greater energy absorption
ability than specimens SBVRT, FCF, and diagonally and the
conventionally reinforced concrete coupling beams tested by
others. Therefore, in order for the desired behaviour of the
hybrid coupled shear wall system to be attained, it is more
advantageous to design the coupling beams as shear-yielding
members since a shear-critical coupling beam exhibits a
more desirable mode of energy dissipation than a flexurecritical coupling beam.
Acknowledgements
The authors are thankful to the Ministry of Construction

1039

and Transportation (Project No. C104A1020001-04A020200210) for sponsoring this project.

References
[1] El-Tawil S, Kuenzli C. Pushover of hybrid coupled walls. II: Analysis
and behaviour. Journal of the Structural Division ASCE 2002;128(10):
12829.
[2] Harries KA. Ductility and deformability of coupling beams in
reinforced concrete shear walls. Earthquake Spectra 2001;17(3):
45778.
[3] Gong B, Harries KA, Shahrooz BM. Behaviour and design of
reinforced concrete, steel, and steelconcrete coupling beams.
Earthquake Spectra 2000;16(4):77599.
[4] Uniform Building Code, Volume 2. Structural engineering design
provisions. Whittier (CA): International Conference of Building
Officials; 1994.
[5] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for reinforced
concrete (ACI 31802) and commentary (ACI 318R02). Farmington
Hills (MI): American Concrete Institute; 2002.
[6] Design of Concrete Structures (CSA A 23.394). Rexdale (Canada):
Canadian Standards Association; 1994.
[7] Marcakis K, Mitchell D. Precast concrete connections with embedded
steel members. Journal Prestressed Concrete Institute 1980;25(4):
86116.
[8] Mattock AH, Gaafar GH. Strength of embedded steel sections as
brackets. ACI Journal 1982;79(9):8393.
[9] Park R, Priestly MJN, Grill WD. Ductility of square confined concrete
columns. Journal of the Structural Division ASCE 1982;108(4):
92950.
[10] Minami K. Beam to column stress transfer in composite structures;
composite and mixed construction. In: Roeder C, editor. New York
(NY): ASCE; 1985.
[11] Manual on design of connections for precast prestressed concrete.
Chicago (IL): Prestressed Concrete Institute; 2004.
[12] Yun HD, Park WS, Han BC, Hwang SK. Shear strength of steel
coupling beam connections embedded in reinforced concrete shear
walls. Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea 2004;20(5):
4350.
[13] Shahrooz BM, Remmetter MA, Quin F. Seismic design and
performance of composite coupled walls. Journal of the Structural
Division ASCE 1993;19(11):3291309.
[14] Harries KA. Seismic design and retrofit of coupled walls using
structural steel. Ph.D. thesis. Montreal: McGill University; 1995,
p. 229.
[15] Shiu KN, Barney GB, Fiorato AE, Corley WG. Reversed load tests of
reinforced concrete coupling beams. In: Central American conference
on earthquake engineering. 1978, p. 23949.
[16] Paulay T. Coupling beams of reinforced concrete shear walls. Journal
of the Structural Division ASCE 1971;97(ST3):84362.
[17] Malley JO, Popov EP. Design considerations for shear links
in eccentrically braced frames. Report No. UCB/EERC83/24.
Berkeley: Earthquake Engineering Research Center; 1983, p. 62.
[18] ASCE Task Committee on Design Criteria for Composite Structures
in Steel and Concrete. Guidelines for design of joints between steel
beams and reinforced concrete columns. Journal of the Structural
Engineering ASCE 1994;120(8):233057.