ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

TECHNICAL PAPER

MS No. S-2014-274.R3

An Investigation on the Seismic Behavior of Deep

Reinforced Concrete Coupling Beams
by Erwin Lim, Shyh-Jiann Hwang, Ting-Wei Wang, and Yu-Hsuan Chang
The ACI 318-14 design procedure for a diagonally reinforced
coupling beam is questioned because it proportions the amount
of diagonal reinforcement to meet shear demands by completely
neglecting the participation of concrete and failing to recognize
any flexural strength that may be developed. This ACI 318-14
design procedure might introduce unnecessary additional forces
to the entire coupled wall system. This study proposes that the
amount of diagonal reinforcement should be determined using
beam flexural theory to satisfy the design moment at the Design
Based Earthquake level. Test results of diagonally reinforced deep
coupling beam specimens showed that they can preserve ductile
flexural behavior up to the Maximum Considered Earthquake level,
and part of the shear strength was contributed from concrete in
addition to diagonal bars. Finally, a strut-and-tie model to illustrate the involved mechanism is also proposed.
Keywords: design procedure; diagonally reinforced deep coupling beam;
seismic behavior; shear strength.

INTRODUCTION
The ACI 318-141 design procedure determines the
amount of longitudinal flexural reinforcement of a beam in a
moment-resisting frame based on the code bending moment
at the Design Based Earthquake (DBE) level. According
to the capacity design approach, the shear strength is then
increased accordingly by neglecting the concrete shear
contribution to satisfy the plastic shear demand at the
Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) level. However,
the design procedure for a diagonally reinforced coupling
beam requires engineers to proportion the amount of diagonal reinforcement according to the beam shear demand at
the DBE level and neglects the check of flexural strength.
This different design approach for diagonally reinforced
coupling beams is questionable and requires evaluation.
In the traditional ductile frame beam design, engineers
proportion a sufficient amount of longitudinal flexural
reinforcement to satisfy the bending moment calculated at
the DBE level. Using the capacity design, adequate shear
strength must be provided at the MCE level. At beam ends
where plastic hinges and concrete degradation might occur,
the plastic shear corresponding to the probable plastic
moment Mpr is assigned solely to the stirrups by neglecting
the concrete shear contribution. Because the roles of longitudinal flexural reinforcement bars and stirrups are clearly
distinguished and independent of each other, the overdesign
of shear reinforcement (in this case, stirrups) is acceptable
and does not affect the flexural strength of the beam.
In a coupled wall system, the yielding of coupling beams
along the building height is also expected and becomes the
fuse to limit the input earthquake force. Because coupling
ACI Structural Journal

beams are subjected to very large displacement reversals

and high force demands, especially for deep coupling beams
(n/h < 2.0), the ACI 318-14 seismic design requires the use
of diagonal reinforcements. The ACI 318-14 design equation for a diagonally reinforced coupling beam is based on
the recommendation from pioneering research2 and relies
solely on the shear strength provided by diagonal reinforcement bars, as shown by Eq. (1)

Vn _ ACI = 2 Avd f y sin

Vu
(1)

where Avd is the total area of one group of diagonal bars; fy

represents the yielding strength of steel, denotes the inclination angle of the diagonal bars with respect to the longitudinal axis of the beam; Vu represents the shear demand
at the DBE level; and is the shear reduction factor for a
diagonally reinforced coupling beam. By neglecting the
concrete contribution, previous research2-5 showed satisfactory seismic performance, as sufficient shear strength at the
MCE level was ensured. However, no check on its flexural
moment strength was performed.6 This design check on
flexure is important because the role of diagonal bars as the
shear reinforcement is coupled with its role as the flexural
reinforcement. Hence, an overdesign of diagonal reinforcement may cause an increase in the flexural strength as well.
This study proposes that the amount of diagonal reinforcement should be determined using beam flexural theory to
satisfy the code moment at the DBE level. Four deep-beam
coupling beam specimens with clear span-depth ratios of 1.0
(n/h = 1.0) and 2.0 (n/h = 2.0) were tested. For each clear
span-depth ratio, one specimen was reinforced traditionally
while the other specimen was diagonally reinforced. Test
results showed that the beam flexural theory, which assumes
compatibility between concrete and steel (both longitudinal
and diagonal) bars, gives good estimations of the flexural
strength. In addition, due to the strict confinement regulation
of ACI 318-14 for a coupling beam, the presence of stirrups
and crossties assisted in maintaining the integrity of concrete
under large displacement reversals. This research also shows
that the shear strength can be estimated by properly considering the shear resistance contributed by diagonal concrete
struts and diagonal reinforcement.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 112, No. 1-6, January-December 2015.
MS No. S-2014-274.R3, doi: 10.14359/51687939, received April 22, 2015, and
reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2015, American Concrete
Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including authors
closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journals date if the discussion
is received within four months of the papers print publication.

Fig. 1Test specimens. (Note: Cover thickness: 40 mm (1.5 in.) for top and bottom; 20 mm (0.75 in.) for left and right of
section. 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
This study investigates the ACI 318-14 design procedure
of a diagonally reinforced coupling beam, which neglects the
check of flexural moment strength that might develop at the
DBE level. Using the test results of four deep coupling beams,
this study shows the importance of considering both concrete
and diagonal reinforcement when predicting bending and
shear capacities at the DBE and MCE levels, respectively.
This research also shows that a properly confined coupling
beam would maintain the integrity of concrete and allow
the applicability of a strut-and-tie model for shear strength
prediction at the MCE level. Finally, a design concept based
on the beam flexural demand to proportion the amount of
diagonal reinforcement and a shear strength model based on
strut-and-tie are proposed accordingly.
TEST PROGRAM
Two test series using coupling beams with clear spandepth ratios of 1.0 (n/h = 1.0) and 2.0 (n/h = 2.0) were
carried out in two different time periods. In each test series,
one specimen was detailed according to the ACI 318-14
diagonal reinforcement layout while another specimen was
detailed using the traditional layout of a beam. The first test
series of coupling beams with n/h = 1.0 (CB10 series) was
carried out in 2011.7 The cross-sectional dimensions were
250 x 500 x 500 mm (9.8 x 19.7 x 19.7 in.) (width x depth
x length). Specimen CB10-1 was designed using four D25
(No. 8) bars for each group of diagonal bars, as shown
in Fig. 1(a). Using Eq. (1), the calculated nominal shear
strength was 746 kN (167.7 kip). Meanwhile, using conventional bending analysis and considering a concrete strain
at the extreme compression fiber equals 0.003, the shear
corresponding to the nominal flexural strength was 1220 kN
(274.3 kip). To provide a direct comparison, a counterpart
specimen labeled CB10-2 was designed using a traditional
beam layout (without diagonal bars). To maintain a similar
nominal flexural strength, two D25 (No. 8) and one D29
2

(No. 9) bars were used as both tension and compression reinforcement, as shown in Fig. 1(b). These two specimens were
confined using D13 (No. 4) bars that were equally spaced at
100 mm (3.94 in.) intervals as the stirrups. Ten D10 (No. 3) and
four D13 (No. 4) bars were used as horizontal shear reinforcement in CB10-1 and CB10-2, respectively.
The second test series of coupling beams with n/h = 2.0
(CB20 series) was carried out in 2012.8 The cross-sectional
dimensions were 300 x 500 x 1000 mm (11.8 x 19.7 x 39.4 in).
Specimen CB20-1 was designed using four D29 (No. 9) bars
for each group of diagonal bars, as shown in Fig. 1(c). The
nominal shear strength calculated using Eq. (1) was 599 kN
(134.7 kip); meanwhile, the shear corresponding to nominal
flexural strength calculated using a conventional bending
analysis was 982 kN (220.8 kip). The counterpart of Specimen CB20-1, Specimen CB20-2, used a traditional beam
layout with two D32 (No. 10) bars and one D36 (No. 11) bar
as the main longitudinal flexural reinforcement to maintain
a similar flexural strength (Fig. 1(d)). Similar to the CB10
series, these two specimens were also confined using the
ACI 318-14 confinement requirement. Ten D13 (No. 4) and
four D13 (No. 4) bars were used as horizontal shear reinforcement in CB20-1 and CB20-2, respectively.
It is noteworthy that for specimens with a diagonal reinforcement layout (CB10-1 and CB20-1), the diagonal bars
were bent at a distance of 50 mm (1.97 in.) from the beam-reaction block interface. This construction detailing was introduced in 20059 for an easier handling process. All the reinforcement bars, including the horizontal reinforcement bars
(D13 [No. 4]), were extended to the far end of the concrete
block and enough development length was provided.
In the laboratory, the specimens were oriented vertically
and tested using a stiff L-shaped steel frame and four actuators, as illustrated in Fig. 2(a). The lateral load was applied
through two horizontal actuators fixed on the reaction wall.
One of these two actuators was displacement-controlled
using the loading protocol recommended by ACI 374.1-0510
ACI Structural Journal

Table 1Material properties

Yielding strength of bars, MPa
Specimen ID Concrete fc, MPa
(1)

(2)

CB10-1

34.5

CB10-2

36.1

CB20-1

52.1

CB20-2

52.2

D13

D25

D29

D32

D36

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

468.4 485.7 439.6

502.0

466.3 450.3 447.8

Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi.

deflection of a specimen measured from the linear variable

displacement transducer (LVDT) divided by the beam clear
span n. To better illustrate the force transfer mechanism
within a coupling beam, Fig. 4 shows the crack patterns for
all the specimens along with the maximum width of the shear
cracks at different drift ratios. Overall, specimens with diagonal reinforcement bars possessed better seismic behavior,
indicated by a robust hysteretic loop and good toughness. A
summary of peak points of the load-deflection curves, shear
stress corresponding to the maximum lateral force attained,
and failure modes are presented in Table 2.

Fig. 2Test arrangement.

(Fig. 2(b)). Meanwhile, the other actuator was force-controlled
in such a manner that the resulting force passed through the
midheight of the beam. Two actuators were also used in the
vertical direction. The first actuator was force-controlled
to ensure that no axial load was exerted on the specimens.
Meanwhile, the second one was set as a displacement-controlled actuator to ensure that double-curvature bending with
no rotation at the top concrete block was produced. Strain
gauges were also attached at the main reinforcement (both
diagonal and longitudinal bars) and stirrups. Details of the
measurement can be found elsewhere.7,8
TEST RESULTS
Material properties
The concrete and steel material properties for all four
specimens are presented in Table 1. The concrete strength
fc of each specimen was obtained from the average value of
three concrete cylinders tested on the same day as the test
of the coupling beam specimens. Meanwhile, for the steel
properties, because these four specimens were constructed
and tested at two different time periods, for the same reinforcing sizes there were two different values of steel yielding
strength. For each reinforcing bar size, three samples of reinforcing bar were tested under a tensile strength test and the
average yielding strengths were reported.
Hysteretic behaviors and crack patterns
The load-deflection curves for all specimens are presented
in Fig. 3, where the drift ratio (DR) is defined as the lateral
ACI Structural Journal

CB10 series
In Specimen CB10-1, which was detailed using a diagonal reinforcement layout, no major diagonal cracks were
observed at early drift ratios (DR < 2.1%), as indicated
in Fig. 4(a). At a DR of 2.1%, the shear crack width was
measured to be 0.35 mm (0.01 in.). The formation of a mature
diagonal strut was observed at a DR of 5.8%, where a peak
lateral strength Vmax of 1443.8 kN (324.6 kip) was reached,
as shown in Fig. 3(a). At this drift level, although the width
of the shear crack widened up to 1.3 mm (0.05 in.), no significant concrete crushing was apparent. The inclination angle
of the major cracks was approximately coincident with the
inclination of the diagonal bars. The specimen began to lose
its strength at the second cycle and the test was terminated at
the third cycle when the drift level reached 7.2%. At the final
stage, crushing of concrete occurred near the end of the strut
and buckling of the diagonal reinforcement was observed.
The failure mode for this specimen (CB10-1) was flexural-shear failure. Figure 3(a) also shows that, at a DR of 2%,
the lateral load corresponding to the first yielding strength
of the diagonal bar (that is, 1308 kN [294.1 kip]) can be
preserved up to a DR of 5.8%, where Vmax was reached.
This force level can be reached because the shear capacity
is contributed by concrete in addition to the diagonal bars.
The shear failure of CB10-2 was clearly observed through
its load-deflection curve in Fig. 3(b). At an early DR of
0.8%, the width of the diagonal shear crack was 0.55 mm
(0.02 in.). The crack then continued to widen up to 2.50 mm
(0.1 in.) as its peak lateral strength Vmax of 873.6 kN (196.4 kip)
at a DR of 1.7% was reached. At that corresponding DR, the
crack pattern in Fig. 4(b) indicates the occurrence of major
diagonal cracks. Crushing of the concrete, which was also
observed, caused a drastic drop of the lateral load to less than
50% of the peak lateral strength at the third cycle. At the next

Fig. 3Load-deflection curves.

Fig. 4Crack patterns at different drift ratios (DR). (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
4

ACI Structural Journal

DR of 3.6%, even more concrete crushing and spalling of the

concrete cover were obvious.
CB20 series
In the CB20 series, the load-deflection curves of both
CB20-1 and CB20-2 showed elastic behavior up to a DR
of 1%. The strain gauge measurement of longitudinal reinforcement indicated that the first yielding occurred at a
lateral load Vy of approximately 1000 kN (224.8 kip). The
crack width measurement suggested that shear cracks were
not dominant at this deformation level. Specimens CB20-1
and CB20-2 reached a maximum lateral load Vmax of 1073.0
and 1098.0 kN (241.2 and 246.8 kip), respectively, at a DR
of approximately 2%. At this DR, the maximum width of
the shear crack of CB20-1 was only 0.25 mm (0.01 in.), as
shown in Fig. 4(c), while that of CB20-2 was 0.5 mm
(Fig. 4(d)). Up to this deformation level, both specimens
were able to develop their flexural behavior.
With the presence of diagonal bars, Specimen CB20-1
developed and maintained its flexural behavior well. At a
DR of 4.3%, few regions with crushing of concrete, espeTable 2Test results
Peak point
Specimen
ID

Load
(Vmax),
kN

DR
(max),
%

Vmax
f cbd

MPa ( psi)

Failure mode

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

CB10-1

1443.8

5.8

2.6 (31.8)

Flexure-shear (FS)

CB10-2

873.6

1.7

1.3 (16.2)

Shear (S)

CB20-1

1073.0

2.2

1.3 (16.2)

Flexure (F)

CB20-2

1098.0

2.3

1.2 (14.2)

Flexure-shear (FS)

Note: 1 kN = 0.2248 kip.

cially at the corner of the beam, were noted. This crushing

was most likely due to flexural compression. No significant
drop of lateral strength was observed, and Specimen CB20-1
still preserved its flexural behavior for the next two drift
ratios (Fig. 3(c)). A more distinct drop of lateral strength of
Specimen CB20-1 began to occur at a DR of 7.3%, where a
larger portion of concrete crushing and spalling occurred at
both ends. Buckling of diagonal bars was also observed at
this deformation level. The test was terminated at the first
cycle at a DR of 9.4% and was determined to have failed
from flexural failure. Figure 3(c) shows that the Vmax attained
at a DR of 2.2% can be preserved up to a DR of 7.3%.
Similar to the argument in CB10-1, this force level can be
maintained because the shear capacity is a contribution of
both the concrete and the diagonal bars.
The shear cracks that occurred in CB20-2 widened up
quickly and caused a large crushing and spalling of concrete
at the first cycle of DR of 4.5% (Fig. 4(d)). Because no
diagonal reinforcing bars were provided for this specimen,
concrete crushing caused a significant loss of shear resistance. This was reflected in the significant drop of lateral
load at the second and third cycle of the same DR (Fig. 3(d)).
As a result, this specimen could not maintain its flexural
strength to a higher drift level. The test was terminated after
the completion of the third cycle of DR of 5.7%. This mechanism was recognized as flexural shear failure.
Strain gauge measurement
Strain gauge readings of diagonal bars could provide
helpful reference values to identify the roles of diagonal
bars. Figure 5 plots the strain gauge measurements of the
diagonal bars in Specimen CB10-1. The strain gauge readings of D1 and D2 (in tension for positive displacement) as
well as D3 and D4 (in tension for negative displacement)
indicated yielding of the diagonal bars during tension. Strain

Fig. 5Strain gauge measurements of diagonal bars for CB10-1.

ACI Structural Journal

Fig. 6Strain gauge measurements of stirrups for CB10-1.

(Note: Diagonal bars not shown.)
gauge readings for the diagonal bars in compression also
suggested that they reached yielding strain as indicated by
D3 and D4. Meanwhile, readings from D1 and D2 suggested
that the diagonal bars barely yielded.
In addition to the observation of the crack pattern, the
elastic behavior of the stirrups is one of the essential parameters to justify the integrity of concrete. Three of four strain
gauges attached on the CB10-1 stirrups (Fig. 6) indicated that
they were in the elastic range along the loading history. This
observation shows that although abundant cracks developed
in Specimen CB10-1 at Vmax (Fig. 4(a)), the concrete still
maintained its integrity. Identical strain gauge readings for
stirrups were also obtained from a test of Specimen CB20-1.8
Pinching mechanism
The presence of diagonal bars also contributed significantly to the energy dissipation capacity of a coupling beam,
generally indicated by the absence of pinching. Specimens
CB10-2 and CB20-2 displayed severe pinching in their
hysteretic loops, while Specimens CB10-1 and CB20-1
showed a well-rounded shape (Fig. 3). This pinching
behavior was explained well by Mansour et al.11 and is
briefly discussed and illustrated in Fig. 7. Figures 7(a) and
7(b) plot the load-deflection curve of the first cycle at a DR
of 3.3% for Specimens CB20-2 and CB20-1, respectively.
As more displacement was imposed on Specimen CB20-2,
the cracks continued to grow and open up. During reversed
loading, the cracks that had opened, closed up, but were not
necessarily perfectly in contact and left gaps. Due to these
gaps, little resistance was expected from concrete under the
reloading (from Point B to C). Examination of a small shear
element in its principal direction also indicated a small resistance contribution from the orthogonally placed steel bars.
Due to the principal compression stress, the orthogonally
placed steel bars were subjected to compression; meanwhile, in the perpendicular principal direction, the steel bars
were subjected to tensile stress and, therefore, cancelled
one another (Fig. 7(a)). Because neither the steel bars nor
concrete provided shear resistance, severe pinching was
observed near the origin.
When a coupling beam with diagonal bars (CB20-1)
was reloaded (point B to C), although little resistance was
6

Fig. 7Illustration of pinching behavior.

contributed by the concrete due to the gap, the diagonally
placed steel bars did provide resistance, as illustrated in the
shear element of Fig. 7(b). In the principle directions, the
resistance from these steel bars did not cancel one another,
resulting in the absence of pinching.
DISCUSSION
In general, the test results of this study reconfirm the superiority of coupling beams with a diagonal reinforcement
layout. The presence of diagonal bars ensures a good deformation capacity and energy absorption through its robust
hysteretic loop.
Evaluation of ACI 318-14 shear design equation
The shear strengths of CB10-1 and CB20-1 calculated
using Eq. (1) are presented in Column (4) of Table 3. It
shows that there is a large discrepancy between the shear
strength predicted using Eq. (1) and the maximum attained
lateral force Vmax. In other words, if Eq. (1) is used as a design
tool to proportion the required amount of diagonal reinforcement, overstrength factors of 1.67 and 1.61 for CB10-1 and
CB20-1 can be expected, respectively. The main reason
for this overstrength is due to the fact that Eq. (1) neglects
the concrete and leaves out the examination of any flexural
strength that may have developed at the DBE level. Because
the roles of diagonal bars as flexural and shear reinforceACI Structural Journal

Table 3Strength prediction of test specimens

Shear strength at a high deformation level
Specimen ID

d, mm

Vmax, kN

Vn_ACI, kN

Vmn, kN

a, mm

VSTM, kN

VSTM/Vmax

FM*

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

CB10-1

372.0

1443.8

862.7

1411.6

142.1

1.27

1376.6

0.95

FS

CB10-2

433.0

873.6

1614.4

114.2

1.24

405.1

0.46

CB20-1

371.0

1073.0

664.8

1087.6

111.3

1.67

1185.3

1.10

CB20-2

429.0

1098.0

1009.2

97.7

1.67

441.0

0.40

FS

FM indicates failure mode predicted by strut-and-tie model.

Notes: 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.2248 kip.

ment are coupled, this overly provided shear strength would

further increase the flexural strength, which might cause the
yielding mechanisms of the coupling beam to occur at a much
higher force level. This overstrength would later contribute
as a larger axial load to the wall and, ultimately, increase the
wall flexural capacity and its corresponding shear demand.
This phenomenon needs further investigation.
The maximum lateral load Vmax attained by the test specimens can be more reasonably estimated using flexural
strength. Column (5) of Table 3 shows the shear corresponding to the nominal flexural strength of a beam (Vmn),
which is given by

Vmn =

2 Mn
(2)
n

where Mn denotes the flexural moment strength defined when

the extreme compression fiber of concrete reaches 0.003.
The strength ratios Vmax/Vmn were 1.02 and 0.99 for CB10-1
and CB20-1, respectively. A similar analysis can also be
easily carried out for conventionally reinforced coupling
beams that failed from flexural shear (CB20-2). This result
implies that a conventional bending analysis that considers
the strain compatibility between concrete and flexural (both
diagonal and longitudinal) reinforcement bars provides a
good strength estimation for flexure.
Based on the aforementioned discussion and test results,
this study recommends that the design procedure of a diagonally reinforced coupling beam should adopt the traditional
beam seismic design approach. The required amount of
diagonal reinforcement should be proportioned based on the
flexural analysis to satisfy the design moment at the DBE
level. It should be noted that because the bars are in a diagonal layout, only the horizontal component of the diagonal
bars contributes to the flexural strength. For example, as an
illustration purpose, the flexural design equation for a singly
reinforced section is given by Eq. (3) as follows

a M

M n = Avd f y cos d u (3)

where d represents the effective beam depth; a denotes the

depth of plastic compression zone calculated using Whitneys
stress block of a singly reinforced beam section; Mu is the
moment demand at the DBE level; and denotes the strength
ACI Structural Journal

reduction factor for flexure. In the design practice, the amount

of diagonal reinforcement can be determined using a doubly
reinforced section. Based on previous experimental studies,2-5
engineers need not worry about the shear strength at the
MCE level if a diagonal layout is adopted. Moreover, this
study also shows that, although the acting shear of the two
diagonally reinforced specimens (CB10-1 and CB20-1) far
exceeded the ACI 318-14 maximum shear limitation (that is,
0.83 f c (MPa)bd [10 f c (psi)bd ] ), these two specimens
still possessed good deformation behavior. Column (4) of
Table 2 indicates that, although the acting shear of CB10-1 was
2.6 f c (MPa)bd ( 31.8 f c (psi)bd ), it still could maintain
a good deformation capacity up to a DR of 6%. Meanwhile,
CB20-1 could develop its flexural behavior up to a DR of 7%
despite its acting shear reaching as high as 1.3 f c (MPa)bd
(16.2 f c (psi)bd ).
Shear strength at MCE level
As discussed in the previous sections, a large difference
was observed when comparing the shear strengths calculated
based solely on the contribution of diagonal bars using Eq. (1)
and Vmax (862.7 kN [193.9 kip] compared to 1443.8 kN
[324.6 kip] for CB10-1, and 664.8 kN [149.4 kip] compared
to 1073.0 kN [241.2 kip] for CB20-1). However, the
hysteretic loops of CB10-1 and CB20-1 (Fig. 3(a) and 3(c))
indicated that they can preserve those force levels up to a
very large displacement level. This observation suggests that
the shear capacity was not only contributed by the diagonal bars.
In addition, CB10-2 and CB20-2 also showed that a certain
amount of shear capacity is reserved at a high displacement
level in the absence of diagonal bars (Fig. 3(b) and 3(d)). It
implies that the shear strength is contributed from both the
diagonal bars and concrete. In the following section, a shear
strength model at a high displacement level is developed.
ANALYTICAL FORMULATION FOR SHEAR
STRENGTH
The previous discussion addressed that the total shear
strength of a coupling beam is contributed by both concrete
and diagonal bars (Fig. 8(a)). A close examination of the
failure conditions of each specimen suggested that the
major distress arises from the compressive failure of a diagonal concrete strut. Hence, the concrete shear resistance is
assumed to be contributed by the diagonal concrete strut.
This study proposes a strut-and-tie model as a tool to esti7

Fig. 8Macro model for a coupling beam.

mate the compressive strength of a diagonal concrete strut
of a coupling beam. Under an elastic shear reinforcement
condition at a high displacement level, the strut-and-tie model
allows the consideration of both concrete and diagonal bars
(if any).
Coupling beams as well as beam-column joint subassemblages are structural members in which the interactions between
bending- and shear-controlled failures dominate. In the
research of a beam-column joint subassemblage, the softened strut-and-tie (SST) model was shown to provide a
conservative shear strength estimation.12,13 Similarly, this
study also adopts an SST model to estimate the shear strength
of a coupling beam. The SST model, which satisfies force
equilibrium, strain compatibility, and softened behavior
of cracked reinforced concrete, is modified to include the
structural behavior observed in the coupling beam tests at
the MCE level. This model assumes that the main diagonal
compression strut was formed from the end where a loading
was applied to the other end of beam.
The shear capacity at the MCE level can be estimated
from the compressive strength of a diagonal concrete strut
and diagonal bars, as given by Eq. (4)

VSTM = Cdsin + (1.0 + 1.1)Avdfysin

(4)

where Cd and represent the compressive strength of a

diagonal concrete strut and the inclination angle of the
main diagonal strut at the MCE level calculated from the
simplified SST algorithm,12 respectively, by considering the
nonlinearity of concrete behavior.
Because it is assumed that the main diagonal strut is
formed from one end of the beam to the other end, the
inclination angle of the concrete strut and diagonal bars
would not highly deviate. Hence, based on the argument

from ACI 318-14, compression reinforcement bars that are

properly anchored, parallel to and located within a diagonal
strut, and enclosed in ties shall be permitted to increase the
compressive strength of a diagonal strut through yielding
strength. Yielding of diagonal bars in compression was also
confirmed through the strain gauge measurement of CB10-1
(Fig. 5). Meanwhile, the resistance from diagonal bars under
tension needs to include the strain hardening effect due to
the flexural deformation. In this paper, because the actual
yielding strength of steel was used, the strain hardening of
steel was taken as 1.1fy, as shown in Eq. (4).
At the MCE level, the shear capacity would decay due to
the cracking of concrete, especially in regions with plastic
hinges. Hence, the nonlinear behavior of concrete must be
properly considered in the macro model of the strut-and-tie.
One simple yet rational assumption to represent the nonlinearity of concrete is to model the depth of concrete compression zone using the plastic compression zone a (Fig. 8(b)).
Consequently, the inclination angle of the diagonal strut is

h 2 a/2
= tan 1
(5)
n

where h denotes the depth of a coupling beam.

The SST model assumes that the contribution of a concrete
strut arises not only from the main diagonal strut, but also
from the concrete sub-struts. These additional sub-struts are
provided by the presence of vertical and horizontal shear
reinforcement, represented as the vertical and horizontal ties
(Fig. 8(b)). Hence, the compressive strength of a diagonal
concrete strut at the high ductility demand Cd is estimated as

Cd = KfcAstr (6)

ACI Structural Journal

where K represents the strut-and-tie index; indicates the

softening coefficient of cracked reinforced concrete taken
as 3.35/ f c (MPa) 0.52 , and fc denotes the compressive
strength of the concrete cylinder specimen. Meanwhile, the
strut area accounting for concrete nonlinearity, Astr, is given as
Astr = a b (7)

where b denotes the width of a coupling beam.

The strut-and-tie index K represents the beneficial effect
of the presence of vertical and horizontal shear reinforcement. The assumed force transfer mechanism in the SST
model regards these shear reinforcement bars as tension
ties, which allow an additional load path, known as substruts
(Fig. 8(b)) in addition to the main diagonal strut. In the
design of a coupling beam, ACI 318-14 requires full confinement on the entire beam section. This code provision would
ensure that the tension ties remain elastic in the SST formulation. Therefore, the strut-and-tie index can be determined
mainly from the geometry of a beam as follows12

1 0.2 h +

2
h

1 0.2 v + v2

1 (8)

where h and v denote the fraction of diagonal compression

transferred by the horizontal or vertical tie in the absence
of a vertical or horizontal tie, respectively, as suggested in
the CEB-FIP Model Code 1990.14 The terms h and v are
expressed as follows

v =

2 cot 1
for 0 v 1 (9)
3

h =

2 tan 1
for 0 h 1 (10)
3

A summary of the strength calculations is presented in

Column (8) of Table 3 with the shear capacity-to-demand
ratios (VSTM/Vmax) in Column (9). A coupling beam with a
shear capacity-to-demand ratio larger than unity implies
that its shear capacity can fully support the development
of flexural behavior at a high displacement level and therefore possesses a good deformation capacity. Meanwhile, a
ratio less than unity suggests that the coupling beam cannot
preserve its shear strength and might have a limited deformation capacity.
The shear strength calculation shows that, without the presence of diagonal bars and solely depending on the diagonal
concrete strut, the shear capacity-to-demand ratios (VSTM/
Vmax) for CB10-2 and CB20-2 are 0.46 and 0.40, respectively. These two values strongly suggest that the deformation capacities of these two specimens are very poor, which
agree well with the test results. The proposed shear strength
model can also reasonably capture the enhanced deformation capacity due to the presence of diagonal bars by estimating shear capacity-to-demand ratios approaching unity.

ACI Structural Journal

The predicted capacity-to-demand ratio for CB20-1 is 1.10,

indicating ductile flexural failure and agreeing well with the
test results. Furthermore, the flexural shear failure mode of
Specimen CB10-1 can be reasonably well predicted by the
proposed model with a capacity-to-demand ratio of CB10-1
equal to 0.95, which is slightly less than unity.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the cyclic loading tests of four deep coupling
beam specimens with n/h 2.0, several conclusions can be
drawn from this study, and are given as follows:
1. Test results confirm the superiority of the seismic
behavior of a diagonally reinforced coupling beam. The
presence of diagonal bars ensures sufficient shear strength
at the maximum considered earthquake level, which would
allow for a large deformation capacity. In addition, they
also provide good energy absorption properties through the
absence of pinching.
2. By neglecting the examination of the flexural strength,
the current ACI 318-14 design procedure for a diagonally
reinforced coupling beam might result in a larger flexural
strength. This larger flexural strength would cause unexpected forces to the coupled wall system and need to be
investigated further.
3. Because the flexural strength can accurately capture
the maximum force developed at a diagonally reinforced
coupling beam, this study proposes that the amount of
diagonal reinforcement be proportioned using the conventional flexural analysis based on the flexural demand at the
Design Based Earthquake (DBE) level. By adopting a diagonal reinforcement layout, experimental results showed that
a coupling beam would have a good deformation capacity
during the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) level.
4. Test observations showed that the shear strength is
contributed by the compressive strength of diagonal concrete
struts and diagonal bars. The compressive strength of a diagonal concrete strut can be evaluated using the strut-and-tie
model, provided that the shear reinforcement is maintained
in an elastic stage. The current ACI 318-14 confinement
requirement for a coupling beam is sufficient to ensure
elastic behavior of stirrups in this study.
AUTHOR BIOS

Erwin Lim is an Academic Assistant at Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia, where he received his B.Eng in 2005. He received his MS and PhD
from the Department of Civil Engineering at the National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, in 2009 and 2015, respectively. His research interests
include seismic behavior of reinforced concrete (RC) beam-column joints,
shear strength of deep RC members, and RC coupling beams.
ACI fellow Shyh-Jiann Hwang is a Professor of Civil Engineering at the
National Taiwan University. He received his PhD from the University of
California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, in 1989. He is a member of Joint
ACI-ASCE Committee 352, Joints and Connections in Monolithic Concrete
Structures. His research interests include the seismic behavior of beamcolumn joints, shear strength of reinforced concrete members, and seismic
retrofitting of reinforced concrete structures.
Ting-Wei Wang is an Engineer at CECI Engineering Consultants, Inc.,
Taiwan. He received his MS from the National Taiwan University in 2011.
Yu-Hsuan Chang received his MS from the National Taiwan University
in 2012.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to extend their gratitude to the Ministry of

Science and Technology of Taiwan and the National Center for Research on
Earthquake Engineering of Taiwan for the funding and the testing facilities.

REFERENCES

1. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural

Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary (ACI 318R-14), American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2014, 520 pp.
2. Paulay, T., and Binney, J. R., Diagonally Reinforced Coupling Beams
of Shear Walls, Shear in Reinforced Concrete, SP-42, American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1974, pp. 579-598.
3. Tassios, T. P.; Moretti, M.; and Bezas, A., On the Behavior and
Ductility of Reinforced Concrete Coupling Beams of Shear Walls, ACI
Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1996, pp. 711-720.
4. Tegos, I. A., and Penelis, G., Seismic Resistance of Short Columns
and Coupling Beams Reinforced with Inclined Bars, ACI Structural
Journal, V. 85, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1988, pp. 82-88.
5. Naish, D.; Fry, A.; Klemencic, R.; and Wallace, J., Reinforced
Concrete Coupling BeamsPart I: Testing, ACI Structural Journal, V. 110,
No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2013, pp. 1057-1066.
6. Moehle, J., Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings,
McGraw-Hill Education, 2015, 782 pp.
7. Wang, T. W., Seismic Details of Reinforced Concrete Coupling
Beams for Shear Walls, master thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, 2011, 234 pp. (in Chinese)

10

8. Chang, Y. H., Study on Detailing for Reinforced Concrete Coupling

Beams of Shear Walls, master thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, 2012, 246 pp. (in Chinese)
9. Canbolat, B. A.; Parra-Montesinos, G. J.; and Wight, J. K., Experimental Study on Seismic Behavior of High-Performance Fiber-Reinforced
Cement Composite Coupling Beams, ACI Structural Journal, V. 102, No. 1,
Jan.-Feb. 2005, pp. 159-166.
10. ACI Committee 374, Acceptance Criteria for Moment Frames
Based on Structural Testing (ACI 374.1-05) and Commentary, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005, 9 pp.
11. Mansour, M.; Hsu, T. T. C.; and Lee, J. Y., Pinching Effect in Hysteretic Loops of R/C Shear Elements, Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced
Concrete Structures, SP-205, American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI, 2001, pp. 293-321.
12. Hwang, S. J., and Lee, H. J., Strength Prediction for Discontinuity Regions by Softened Strut-and-Tie Model, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, V. 128, No. 12, 2002, pp. 1519-1526. doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:12(1519)
13. Lima, C.; Martinelli, E.; and Faella, C., Capacity Models for Shear
Strength of Exterior Joints in RC Frames: Experimental Assessment and
Recalibration, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, V. 10, No. 3, 2012,
pp. 985-1007. doi: 10.1007/s10518-012-9342-2
14. CEB-FIP, CEB-FIP Model Code for Concrete Structures, Comite
Euro-International du Beton, Federation International de la Precontrainte,
1993.

ACI Structural Journal

Copyright of ACI Structural Journal is the property of American Concrete Institute and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.