You are on page 1of 12

Engineering Structures 82 (2015) 214225

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Experimental study of reinforced concrete and hybrid coupled shear wall


systems
Min-Yuan Cheng , Rijalul Fikri, Cheng-Cheng Chen
Department of Construction Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, No. 43, Sec. 4, Keelung Rd., Taipei, Taiwan

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 3 May 2014
Revised 15 October 2014
Accepted 17 October 2014

Keywords:
Coupling beam
Coupling ratio
Low yield point steel
Diagonal reinforcement

a b s t r a c t
Two approximately half-scale four-story coupled shear wall specimens were tested under both gravity
and lateral displacement reversals. Specimen CW-RC, featuring traditional reinforced concrete (RC) shear
walls and RC coupling beams, sustained ductile hysteretic response up to 3.00% drift. Specimen CW-S,
featuring RC shear walls and steel coupling beam with low yield point steel (LYP) web, failed after completion of 2.00% drift cycles. The proposed connection detailing between the steel coupling beam and RC
shear wall worked well in Specimen CW-S. Research results indicate that a ductile coupling beam design
does not guarantee a ductile behavior of a coupled shear wall system. RC shear walls should be proportioned for axial and shear based on the provided coupling beam capacities. Design recommendations are
provided.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
A reinforced concrete shear wall is often selected as the major
lateral-force-resistant system due to its large in-plane stiffness.
In practice, openings in a shear wall are often inevitable because
of architectural or practical needs. These openings are generally
provided along the story height in a regular pattern and divide
the original shear wall into two or more slender walls which are
interconnected by beams. These interconnecting beams are
referred to as coupling beams while the whole system is referred
to as a coupled shear wall system.
The coupled shear wall system provides several advantages in
seismic response. First, the moment demand of each individual
wall can be reduced due to coupled action. Second, the seismic
energy can be dissipated through coupling beams over entire stories. Last but not least, the coupled shear wall system has a lateral
stiffness that is signicantly greater than the sum of its component
wall piers [1]. To maintain designed lateral-resisting mechanism of
the coupled shear wall system, both shear walls and coupling
beams must be sufciently ductile when subjected to earthquake-type loadings.
For RC coupling beams with height to length
q ratio less
qthan
two
0

and shear stress demand greater than 0:33 f c MPa (4 f c psi), a


special diagonal reinforcement layout is necessary in addition to
the connement requirements according to the current ACI Building
Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 2 2737 6564.
E-mail address: minyuancheng@mail.ntust.edu.tw (M.-Y. Cheng).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.10.039
0141-0296/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Code [2]. In which, f c is the specied concrete strength. Although


effective, this reinforcement layout creates signicant construction
challenges.
One of the alternatives is the use of a hybrid coupled shear wall
system with steel coupling beams and reinforced concrete shear
walls [37]. A comprehensive review of relevant research is well
documented elsewhere [1]. The existing research indicates that
steel coupling beams governed by shear are generally more ductile
than those governed by exure. Also, the performance of steel
coupling beam under cyclic loading is signicantly affected by
the connection between the steel coupling beam and the reinforced concrete shear wall.
Low yield point (LYP) steel, with specied yield strength around
100 MPa (15 ksi), has been recently studied in shear dominated
structural component by Chen and Jhang [8]. The inherent
stressstrain characteristics of LYP steel such as (1) large fracture
strain, (2) large peak to yield stress ratio, (3) low width to thickness
ratio and large value of its limit to prevent local buckling, make
this material ideal to develop better ductility and energy dissipation on the structural components. In this research, the potential
of using LYP steel as the web panel in the central part of steel coupling beam is evaluated. A test program consisting of two approximately half-scale four-story coupled shear wall systems was
conducted. The rst specimen, labeled as Specimen CW-RC, represents the control specimen using diagonally RC coupling beams
and RC shear walls. The second specimen, labeled as CW-S, features the proposed hybrid coupled shear wall system with LYP
steel web coupling beams and RC shear walls.

215

M.-Y. Cheng et al. / Engineering Structures 82 (2015) 214225

The objectives of this research aim to (1) investigate the cyclic


behaviors of RC and hybrid coupled shear wall systems that
features diagonally reinforced and LYP steel coupling beam,
respectively; and (2) evaluate the proposed detailing used for force
transfer between the steel coupling beams and wall piers.
2. Research signicance
This study investigates the cyclic behaviors of RC and hybrid
coupled shear wall systems. Two large-scaled coupled shear wall
systems were tested. Design specications of the current ACI
Building Code [2] for the RC coupled shear wall system are
evaluated. Test results provide valuable information of RC/Hybrid
coupled shear wall systems subjected to cyclic displacement
reversals and may be used to improve the relevant building code
provisions in the future.
3. Test specimens
Coupling ratio (CR), dened as the proportion of the overturning
moment resisted by the coupling action, is generally taken as an
index to measure the efciency of the coupled shear wall system.
For a system having a coupling ratio equal to 0%, it means that
the coupling beams develop no end moment. For a system having
a coupling ratio equal to 100%, the wall piers behave as a single
pier. Based on nite element analysis of a 12-storied hybrid coupled shear wall system, El-Tawil et al. [9] recommended a CR range
between 30% and 45% as an efcient structural design. For RC coupled shear wall systems, the typical coupling ratio varies between
20% and 55% [10]. A low CR results in inefcient lateral resistance
and a high CR leads to reduction of deformation capacity of a coupled shear wall system.
Considering the maximum test capacity of the Architecture and
Building Research Institute (ABRI) laboratory in Taiwan, test specimens were designed to represent a half-scale four-story coupled
shear wall system. Two external loads, 294 kN (66 kips) and
588 kN (132 kips) applied at the 3rd oor and the roof oor,
respectively, are taken as the ultimate design forces for both specimens. The clear length to height ratio, also known as aspect ratio,
of the RC and the LYP steel coupling beams is 1.5. The specimen
was designed to achieve the mechanism in which yielding is
assumed to develop over the coupling beams and at bases of the
walls. A moderate CR of 35% is selected for the test specimens.
As a result, design forces of the shear walls and the coupling beams
can be determined, as shown in Fig. 1. The average shear demand
of each RC shear wall and coupling beam is 445 kN (100 kips)
q
q
0
0
equivalent to 0:33 f c MPa (4 f c psi) and 214 kN (48 kips) equivq
q
0
0
alent to 0:75 f c MPa (9 f c psi) shear stress, respectively. In

CR =

(C

or T )l o
= 35 %
M ot

Fig. 1. Design forces of the test specimen.

which, the specied concrete strength (f c ) is 4 ksi (28 MPa) for


both shear walls and coupling beams.
3.1. RC coupling beam
The RC coupling beam is 450 mm (18 in.) long, 300 mm (12 in.)
high and 180 mm (7 in.) wide. Two groups of four No. 5 (diameter = 15.9 mm/0.63 in.) Grade 60 diagonal rebars are provided with
an angle of approximately 19 deg. The detailed reinforcement layout of the RC coupling beam is presented in Fig. 2. Based on Eq. (1)
per the ACI Building Code [2], the ultimate shear capacity of the RC
coupling beam is approximately 214 kN (48 kips). In which, As is
the area of diagonal rebars, fy is the specied yield strength of
the diagonal reinforcing rebar and a is the angle of diagonal rebar
with respect to the horizontal plane. Connement of the RC

Fig. 2. Detailed reinforcement layout of the RC coupling beams.

coupling beam is provided per Section 21.6.4 of the Code [2]. The
specied fy of the reinforcing rebar is 420 MPa (60 ksi).

V n;cb 2As f y sin a

3.2. LYP steel coupling beam


The LYP steel coupling beam is a built-up section consisting of
three regions: the mid-span region and the two end regions. A
300 mm (12 in.) square LYP steel panel is used in the mid-span
region of the steel coupling beam with thickness of 12 mm

M.-Y. Cheng et al. / Engineering Structures 82 (2015) 214225

(0.5 in.) to provide a shear capacity of 240 kN (54 kips) according


to Eq. (2) [11]. In which, fy,LYP of 100 MPa (15 ksi) is assumed as
the specied yield strength of LYP steel and Aw is the cross
sectional area of the web. The LYP steel web panel has a widthto-thickness ratio of 25, less than the recommended value of 150
from the previous research [8]. The two end regions of the steel
coupling beam use A572 Grade 50 structural steel with 12 mm
(0.5 in.) thickness. Between the mid-span and end region, a piece
of 12 mm (0.5 in.) thick A572 Grade 50 steel stiffener is provided.
The ange of the steel coupling beam, also A572 Grade 50 steel,
is designed to have a nominal moment capacity more than 1.5
times the nominal shear capacity of the LYP steel web and ensure
a shear-governed response of the steel coupling beams. The nal
design of the LYP steel coupling beam is presented in Fig. 3.

V n;LYP 0:6f y;LYP Aw

3.3. RC shear wall


The shear wall is designed based on an axial force-moment
(PM) interaction diagram. The gravity force at the base of the wall
including the self-weight of the specimen; the experimental setups
and an additional gravity load of 245 kN (55 kips) accounts for
0
approximately 4%Ag f c , where Ag is the cross section area of the
0
shear wall and f c is the specied concrete strength.
A 260 mm (10 in.) long special boundary element at both ends
of the wall is reinforced by a total of eight No. 7 (diameter = 22.2 mm/0.875 in.) Grade 60 reinforcing bars at 60 mm
(2.5 in.) spacing. Two curtains of No. 3 (diameter = 9.5 mm/
0.375 in.) Grade 60 reinforcing bars at 150 mm (6 in.) spacing are
provided for shear resistance. The average shear demand of each
wall is approximately 445 kN (100 kips) and the provided shear
q
0
capacity of each shear wall is 734 kN (165 kips) or 0:54 f c MPa
q
0
0
(6:5 f c psi) in terms of shear stress where f c is the specied concrete strength. The reinforcement layouts of RC shear walls in
Specimen CW-RC and CW-S are presented in Fig. 4.
3.4. Connection detailing of specimen CW-S
In Specimen CW-S, a new type of connection detailing between
the steel coupling beam and the RC shear wall is proposed and
illustrated in Fig. 5. This detailing aims to provide separate
mechanism for exural and shear transfer. A half-cut of the

H400  200  8  13 structural steel is welded (complete joint


penetration, CJP) to the left and right ends of the steel coupling
beam. This prolonged steel H-section serves three major functions:
First, the welded rivets at the end of ange facilitate the precision
of placement of steel coupling beams. Second, the pre-drilled holes
along the web of H-section not only allow transverse steels to pass
through but also serve as a series of shear keys which transfer
shear force evenly through concrete bearing and steel dowel
action. The shear capacity of each hole, Vhole, is conservatively calculated using the rst term of Eq. (3) without considering steel
dowel action. In this equation, Ahole is half of the sum of surface
areas of all the pre-drilled holes on each coupling beam. Finally,
the ange of H-section is taken as the side formwork for RC shear
wall. A 26 mm (1 in.) gap is intentionally provided between the
two pieces of the half-cut H400  200  8  13 sections to prevent
extra axial load, induced by the prolonged H-steel section, on the
RC shear wall.
In Specimen CW-S, shear wall transverse reinforcement at the
special boundary element is replaced by two pieces of C-shape
reinforcing bars which are overlapped and welded. This replacement is implemented only at the connection region while standard
135 deg seismic hoops are still provided at the other end of the
wall. The two C-shape rebars can be connected using couplers in
practice.
It is assumed that the exural force of the LYP steel coupling
beam is transferred to the shear wall through tension and
compression couples at the connection and only tension force is
of concern. Tension force is transferred using four No. 5 Grade 60
reinforcing bars embedded into the RC shear wall with 900 mm
(36 in.) embedment length. The size and number of the rebars
are determined based on the ultimate tension force that can be
developed from the ange of the steel coupling beam. Those rebars
were welded to a 12 mm (0.5 in.) thick transfer plate. In practice,
rebars can be installed later using couplers which are welded to
the transfer plate in the prefabrication process. Each transfer plate
is welded to the ange and web of the H400  200  8  13 section at position right next to the ange of the steel coupling beam.
The transfer plates also provide shear capacity, Vplate, which can be
determined using the second term of Eq. (3). The overall shear
capacity at the connection is the summation of shear capacity from
each hole and from each transfer plate. The provided Vn,transfer is
about 1.5 times higher than the nominal shear capacity of the
LYP steel coupling beam.

V n;transfer

LYP web 300x300x12mm


(12x12x0.5in.)

Flange
Stiffener

A
312mm
(13in.)

300mm
(12in.)

312mm
(13in.)

63mm
(2.5in.)


0
V hole V plate 0:85f c Ahole Aplate

A572 Gr. 50 flange


80x450x12mm (3x18x0.5in.)

A572 Gr. 50 exterior web


63x300x12mm (2.5x12x0.5in.)

A572 Gr. 50 Stiffener


80x300x12mm (3x12x0.5in.)

300mm
(12in.)

63mm
(2.5in.)
450mm
(18in.)

Fig. 3. LYP steel coupling beam.

300mm
(12in.)

216

LYP web

80mm
(3in.)
Section A - A

M.-Y. Cheng et al. / Engineering Structures 82 (2015) 214225

through sixteen 50 mm (2 in.) diameter prestressed rods. Lateral


supports are provided using two steel frames and a reaction wall
to prevent out-of-plan movement of the shear wall.
The 245 kN (55 kips) additional gravity load is applied to the
top of each RC shear wall using four hydraulic jacks which pulled
four 15 mm (0.6 in.) 7-wire prestress strands at the same time
before applying lateral displacement. For both specimens, this
additional gravity load was applied on the south wall rst. Once
the desired gravity load was attained, the hydraulic pressure in
the hydraulic jacks was locked and then the four hydraulic jacks
were moved to the north wall following the same procedure.
Forces in 6 of the 8 strands were monitored through load cells.
Because of the hinge support in the middle of the steel beam, the
two strand forces anchored at each end of the steel beam should
be approximately equal. During the test, it is conrmed by comparing the two strand loads (both have load cells underneath) on the
same steel beam.

300mm
(12in.)
1500mm
(59in.)

Roof

Coupling
Beam

1500mm
(59in.)

4th Floor

1500mm
(59in.)

3rd Floor

217

1500mm
(59in.)

2nd Floor

825mm
(32.5in.)

1st Floor

1080mm
(43in.)

1300mm
(51in.)

1300mm
(51in.)

1080mm
(43in.)

Reinforcement layout of shear walls

200mm
(8in.)

8#7 Longitudinal reinforcement


#3 @ 60mm (2.5in.) transverse reinforcement
#3 @ 150mm (6in.) web reinforcement both directions

150mm
(6in.)
1300mm
(51in.)

450mm
(18in.)

260mm
(10in.)
1300mm
(51in.)

Specimen CW-RC cross section

200mm
(8in.)

8#7 Longitudinal reinforcement


#3 @ 60mm (2.5in.) transverse reinforcement
#3 @ 150mm (6in.) web reinforcement both directions

150mm
(6in.)
1300mm
(51in.)

450mm
(18in.)

260mm
(10in.)
1300mm
(51in.)

Specimen CW-RC cross section


Fig. 4. Detailed reinforcement layout of shear walls.

4. Experimental setup and test procedure


Specimens were loaded horizontally with two 1960 kN
(440 kips) hydraulic actuators; each was installed at the roof and
the 3rd oor, respectively. A detailed illustration of the experimental setup is presented in Fig. 6. The roof-oor actuator is displacement-controlled with loading history shown in Fig. 7. In which,
positive drift is dened as the specimen moves toward the north
direction. The 3rd-oor actuator is load-controlled and the force
magnitude is half of the roof-oor actuator. This setup provides a
rst-mode dominant loading prole for the test specimen. RC slabs
at the roof and 3rd oors are designed to transfer lateral load from
the actuators to the specimen. Along the slab edges, two C-channels are attached from both the top and bottom slab surfaces
through a series of heavy duty bolts. The xed boundary condition
at the bottom of the specimens was provided through a heavily
reinforced concrete block which was anchored on the strong oor

5. Test results
5.1. Material properties
Each specimen was cast in 3 lifts. The 1st concrete pour was
complete up to the top of the bottom concrete block, the 2nd pour
was complete up to the 3rd-oor level and the last concrete pour
was for the rest of the specimens. The same concrete material
was used for the same part of both specimens. Concrete compressive strength, as shown in Table 1, is determined based on the
average value of compressive strength of three 100 mm  200 mm
(4 in.  8 in.) concrete cylinders that were tested 3 days after the
test of Specimen CW-RC and 6 days before the test of Specimen
CW-S.
Tensile properties of steel reinforcements and structural steel
were determined by direct tensile tests and test results of 3 coupon
samples are presented in Fig. 8. For LYP steel, the stressstrain does
not exhibit a well-dened yield point and thus, yield stress/strain
was determined by the 0.2% offset method. The fracture strain
was dened at the point corresponding to 10% drop from peak
stress [12]. The average values of steel tensile properties are summarized in Tables 2 and 3.

5.2. General behaviors


Hysteretic response between the drift and the overall overturning moment of Specimen CW-RC and Specimen CW-S is presented
in Fig. 9(a) and (b), respectively. The overall overturning moment
was obtained from forces of the 3rd-oor and roof-oor actuators
multiplied by their corresponding moment arms. It should be
noted that moments due to horizontal and vertical components
of the strand forces cancel out each other and have no effect on
the overall overturning moment.
Crack development was traced at base of the north wall and the
2nd-oor coupling beam for Specimen CW-RC and only at the base
of the north wall for Specimen CW-S. Before 1.00% drift cycles, both
specimens exhibited stable hysteretic responses and similar crack
developments. Hairline inclined cracks at middle and horizontal
cracks at the edge of shear walls were observed during the 0.25%
drift cycles. From 0.50% to 1.00% drift cycles, inclined cracks propagated and merged with the horizontal cracks at the edge. Meanwhile, the existing crack widths grew wider. At 1.00% drift, the
measured maximum inclined cracks width was 0.80 mm
(0.03 in.) and 1.70 mm (0.07 in.) in Specimen CW-RC and CW-S,
respectively. For the 2nd-oor RC coupling beam, inclined cracks
were rst observed at the end of 0.50% drift cycle. At 1.00% drift,

218

M.-Y. Cheng et al. / Engineering Structures 82 (2015) 214225

Fig. 5. Connection detailing of LYP steel coupling beam.

South

North
Hydraulic
jacks

Hydraulic
jacks
Reaction
wall

Coupling
beams

Reaction
Wall

Slab
Roof

Roof

Shear walls

3000mm
(118in.)

Shear walls

4th Floor

West

East

4th Floor
Slab
3rd Floor

3rd Floor

Bottom block

1st Floor

3750mm
(148in.)

Prestress strands

2nd Floor

2nd Floor
Bottom block

1st Floor

5210mm
(205in.)
North South elevation view

East West elevation view

Fig. 6. Experimental test setup.

the measured maximum inclined crack width at the 2nd-oor RC


coupling beam is around 0.30 mm (0.01 in.).
After 1.00% drift cycle, Specimen CW-RC revealed damage from
both shear walls and RC coupling beams. Concrete cover starts to
spall off from the 4th- and roof-oor RC coupling beams during
the 1.25% drift cycles. The peak overturning moment of Specimen
CW-RC was observed in the rst cycle of 1.25% drift. At peak,
q the
0
average
shear
stress
at
base
of
the
RC
shear
wall
is
0:48
f c MPa
q
(5:8

f c psi) where f c is the cylinder strength. Pushing the speci-

men to 1.50% drift level caused concrete cover to spall off from
the RC coupling beam at the 3rd oor as well. As the drift increased
further, the concrete debris continued to drop from all the RC coupling beams. Concrete cover crushed at exterior corners of the RC

shear walls during the 1.75% drift cycles. In the rst cycle of
3.00% drift, the diagonal concrete strut of the north RC shear wall
crushed suddenly followed by buckling of several web reinforcements in the north wall before reaching the target drift level. Lateral force dropped moderately at that instant. As the loading
reversed from positive to negative direction in the same cycle,
diagonal strut of the south wall crushed accompanied by a significant drop of lateral load. The test ended without completion of
the rst cycle of 3.00% drift level.
At the end of the test, RC coupling beams at different stories
exhibited different levels of damage. The roof-oor coupling beams
lost a large portion of the concrete core and some diagonal
reinforcements buckled. The 3rd-oor coupling beam also lost a
portion of the concrete core but not as signicant as the one at

219

M.-Y. Cheng et al. / Engineering Structures 82 (2015) 214225

highest strain gauges were installed in the wall. The majority of


diagonal rebars at both ends of all coupling beams yielded after
completion of 1.00% drift cycles as well. The yield progression supports the visual observation during the test that Specimen CW-RC
achieved the prescribed mechanism.
For Specimen CW-S, the corner concrete cover started to spall
off at bases of the RC shear walls during the 1.25% drift. At the
end of 1.50% drift cycle, the concrete at the corner of south wall

4.0
3.0

1.0
0.0
-1.0

was severely crushed. The overturning moment continued to

-2.0

increase and reached peak at 1.75% drift. The peak average


q shear
0
at base
of
the
RC
shear
wall
is
equivalent
to
0:51
f c MPa
q

-4.0

10

15

20

25

30

Number of Cycle
Fig. 7. Loading history of the top actuator.

Table 1
Concrete cylinder strength.
0

Location

f c MPa (ksi)

Bottom concrete block


Up to 3rd oor
3rd to Roof oor

30 (4.3)
35 (5.1)
37 (5.3)

9% higher than that of Specimen CW-RC. During the rst cycle of


2.00% drift, the diagonal concrete strut of the north wall crushed
when the specimen was loaded to the north. In the same cycle,
the reverse loading crushed the diagonal concrete strut of the
south wall before reaching the negative 2.00% drift cycle. The overturning moment dropped more than 20% from the peak at both
positive and negative 2.00% drift and the test was terminated after
the completion of the rst cycle of 2.00% drift. Before failure, it is
noticed that Specimen CW-S sustained the overturning moment
better in the repeated cycle than Specimen CW-RC at the same
drift level.
The connection between the steel coupling beams and the RC
shear walls in Specimen CW-S appeared to be intact during and
after the test. The proposed connection detailing seems effective
based on the experimental evidence. Steel coupling beams, on
the other hand, revealed no sign of cracking or buckling throughout the test. The nal damage state of Specimen CW-S is presented
in Fig. 12. The observed failure mode suggests that the RC shear
walls of Specimen CW-S experienced combined axial and shear
failure before achieving the prescribed mechanism. It is believed
that the excessive axial and shear demands in RC shear wall of

600

87.0

600

87.0

500

72.5

500

72.5

400

58.0

400

58.0

300

43.5

300

43.5

200

29.0

200

29.0

100

14.5

100

14.5

0
0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

Stress (ksi)

Stress (MPa)

the roof oor. The diagonal rebars in the 3rd-oor coupling beam
buckled slightly. The concrete core of the 2nd- and 4th-oor coupling beams remained but the spalling of concrete cover and shear
cracks were obvious. The nal state of all coupling beams and RC
shear wall in Specimen CW-RC is presented in Figs. 10 and 11,
respectively. After completion of 1.00% drift cycles, strain gauge
readings indicate that longitudinal rebars in the special boundary
region of the wall yielded up to the 2nd-oor level, where the

f c psi), f c cylinder strength. This shear stress level is about

(6:2
5

0
0.00

0.0
0.50

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

Strain

Strain

(a) LYP steel

(b) A572 steel

Stress (ksi)

-3.0

Stress (MPa)

Drift (%)

2.0

0.0
0.50

Fig. 8. The direct tensile test of LYP steel and A572 steel.

Table 2
Tensile properties of steel reinforcement.
Bar size

No.
No.
No.
No.
a

3
5
7 1st lifta
7 2nd lifta

Yield

Peak

Fracture

Strain %

Stress MPa (ksi)

Strain %

Stress MPa (ksi)

Strain %

Stress MPa (ksi)

0.26
0.20
0.22
0.17

454
475
455
457

12.5
11.7
13.3
11.9

684 (99.2)
691 (100.3)
656 (95.2)
658 (95.4)

15.52
15.55
19.17
18.11

616
609
591
593

(65.8)
(68.8)
(66.0)
(66.3)

No. 7 rebar is connected using coupler at location near the 3rd oor level.

(89.4)
(88.3)
(85.8)
(86.0)

220

M.-Y. Cheng et al. / Engineering Structures 82 (2015) 214225

Table 3
Tensile properties of structural steel.
Location

LYP Steel t = 12 mm
A572 t = 12 mm
A572 t = 8 mm
A572 t = 13 mm
a

Yield

Steel coupling beam (web at middle)


Steel coupling beam (parts except middle web)
Web of H-section
Flange of H-section

Peak

Fracture

Strain %

Stress MPa (ksi)

Strain %

Stress MPa (ksi)

Strain %

Stress MPa (ksi)

0.23a
0.16
0.21
0.17

64 (9.3)
385 (55.8)
422 (61.2)
364 (52.8)

28.3
16.5
15.0
17.8

225
516
516
477

44.5
24.4
21.5
25.3

203
464
465
429

(32.7)
(74.8)
(74.9)
(69.2)

(29.4)
(67.3)
(67.4)
(62.3)

Determined using 0.2% offset method.

(a) Specimen CW-RC

(b) Specimen CW-S


Fig. 9. Hysteretic responses.

(a) Roof-floor coupling beam

(b) 4th-floor coupling beam

(c) 3rd-floor coupling beam

(d) 2nd-floor coupling beam

Fig. 10. Final state of RC coupling beams.

Specimen CW-S were caused by the over-designed LYP steel coupling beams. The strain gauge readings show that yielding region
of shear walls in Specimen CW-S is less extensive than that of
Specimen CW-RC at the same drift level, especially at the inner
sides of the walls.
5.3. Energy dissipation
Energy dissipation of each cycle for both specimens was evaluated through equivalent viscous damping ratio (EVDR). The EVDR
is determined by the energy dissipation, area enclosed by hysteretic loops, divided by 4p times linear strain energy from origin to

maximum deformation point at each cycle. The evaluation method


and analysis results of each cycle are presented in Fig. 13.
According to that gure, Specimen CW-S shows more robust
hysteric responses at the same drift level. It should be noted that
Specimen CW-RC exhibited more extensive yielding of longitudinal
rebars. As a result, the better energy dissipation in Specimen CW-S
is mostly attributed to the steel coupling beams.
5.4. Stiffness and displacement ductility
A bilinear overturning moment-drift model was developed for
each specimen in order to evaluate lateral stiffness and

221

M.-Y. Cheng et al. / Engineering Structures 82 (2015) 214225

Drift (%)
0.0
25

1.0

1.5

2.0

Specimen CW-RC
Specimen CW-S

20

South
EVDR (%)

North

0.5

15
10
5

EVDR =

1 AI
4 AII

0
0
Fig. 11. Final state of shear walls in Specimen CW-RC.

12

15

18

21

24

27

Number of Cycle

displacement ductility. This idealized bilinear curve was developed


in the following way: First, an envelope curve was created by linearly connecting the peak value of the rst cycle at each target drift
level in the positive direction. Second, the ultimate drift ratio, du,
was selected as the point corresponding to the moment with a 20%
drop from the peak. Finally, the yield moment, My, is determined
such that the linear ascending portion intersects the experimental
envelope at 60% My, and areas under the idealized bilinear curve
and the experimental envelope curve are equivalent up to the ultimate drift. The idealized bilinear moment-drift responses of the
two specimens are presented in Fig. 9 and the numerical values of
the curves are summarized in Table 4.
The idealized bilinear response indicates that Specimen CW-S
exhibits lower displacement ductility. The elastic stiffness of
Specimen CW-S is 6% lower despite the exural and shear rigidity,
EI and GA, of the steel coupling beam being approximately two
times greater than and equivalent to that of RC coupling beam,
respectively. Considering the general concept of using cracking
properties for a RC component in the structural analysis, elastic
analysis of a RC coupled shear wall may lead to remarkable errors
and, a more accurate estimation of exural and shear stiffness of
diagonally reinforced concrete coupling beams is needed in
the future. Specimen CW-RC also shows higher displacement
ductility.
Stiffness deterioration at each drift cycle for both specimens is
presented in Fig. 14. The stiffness ratio for the vertical axis is determined by the peak-to-peak secant stiffness at each cycle divided by
the initial stiffness from the idealized curve. It shows that
Specimen CW-S sustains better stiffness both in the repeated
cycles at a given drift level and in between different drift levels.

North

Fig. 13. Equivalent viscous damping ratio.

5.5. Shear of LYP coupling beams


Moment and shear forces in each LYP steel coupling beam can
be determined based on the readings of strain gauges which were
installed at both ends of the ange and mid-height of the web, as
shown in Fig. 15(a). According to the strain gauge readings, most
of the steel anges yielded in tension during the 0.75% drift cycles
although the designed exural strength was 1.5 times higher than
the shear. This exural yielding pattern is observed because the
shear capacity of the LYP steel coupling beam is evaluated using
the specied yield stress of LYP steel during the design phase. Since
strain gauge readings are similar in all steel coupling beams, a typical time history steel strain at anges of the roof-oor steel coupling beam is presented in Fig. 15(b). The strain gauges readings
indicate that the inelastic strains are very limited on all coupling
beams at larger drift levels, consistent with visual observations of
the test. The tri-axial strain gauge reading at mid-height of the
steel web, as shown in Fig. 15(c) for the roof-oor steel coupling
beam, exhibited signicant steel strain from the 45-deg strain
gauge only (D1). The dominated 45-deg strain was mostly reliable
in all steel coupling beams up to 1.50% drift level without exceeding yielding limit.
Shear forces of all steel coupling beams are evaluated based on
the D1 strain gauge reading. Shear forces of all steel coupling
beams are approximately the same at each drift level. The combined shear force represented as percentage of the wall axial
0
capacity (Ag f c ); and the coupling ratio at rst cycle of each drift
level is presented in Fig. 16(a) and (b), respectively. In which, Ag
0
is the cross section area of the RC shear wall and f c is the cylinder

South

(a) Shear walls


Fig. 12. Final state of specimen CW-S.

(b) Connection

222

M.-Y. Cheng et al. / Engineering Structures 82 (2015) 214225

Table 4
Bilinear response properties of Specimens CW-RC and CW-S.
Specimen

Yielding moment
kN-m (kips-ft)

Yielding drift
(dy) (%)

Ultimate drift
(du) (%)

Ductility

CW-RC
CW-S

6840 (5050)
7280 (5370)

0.63
0.71

2.78
1.95

4.41
2.75

Drift (%)
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

140

Specimen CW-RC
Specimen CW-S

Stiffness Ratio (%)

120

shown in Fig. 17. For both specimens, the average chord rotations
of the 2nd-oor coupling beams at the peak of each drift level are
presented in Fig. 18. The chord rotational data was recorded up to
the 2.00% and 1.75% drift cycles for Specimen CW-RC and CW-S,
respectively. Chord rotations of the RC coupling beam increase proportionally with the lateral drift of the system. The chord rotation
to system drift ratio is approximately 1.6 in both positive and negative directions. Deformation demands of the LYP steel coupling
beam also increased with increasing of the system lateral drift up
to 1.5% drift but with a lower rate of approximately 1.3. At the
1.75% drift cycle, chord rotations of the LYP steel coupling beam
at the rst, second and third cycle were 1.91%, 1.44% and 0.92%,
respectively, and lead to a decrease of the average rotational
demand from 1.50% drift cycle.

100

5.7. Deformation of the wall

80
60
40
20
0

12

15

18

21

24

27

Number of Cycle
Fig. 14. Stiffness deterioration.
0

strength. The largest combined shear force results in 22% Ag f c at


1.50% drift that is equivalent to a 47% coupling ratio. This axial
force level is considered moderate. According to the design guideline [1], the suggested maximum net compression force of a wall
pier in a hybrid coupled shear wall system shall not exceed 35%
0
Ag f c similar to the limit given by FEMA-356 [13].

5.6. Deformation of coupling beam


The coupling beam chord rotations were determined using an
optical system with three markers at each end of the beams, as

The interstory drift ratio of each specimen is dened as the difference in lateral displacements between two adjacent oors
divided by the story height. Four LVDTs were positioned at the
top of each oor and at the north side of the north wall to record
the change of displacements during the test. Due to stroke limitations, LVDTs at the 4th- and roof-oors were removed after completion of the 2.00% drift cycles. The interstory drifts at 1st cycle
of each drift level for both specimens are presented in Fig. 19.
For Specimen CW-RC, the interstory drift between each oor and
the overall story drift are approximately the same before the
1.50% drift. Deformation starts to concentrate at lower oors
beginning with the 2.00% drift. The 1st story of the north shear wall
experienced the largest interstory drift demand of 4.00% during the
3.00% drift cycle. For Specimen CW-S, interstory drift between each
oor is also approximately equal to the overall story drift up to
1.50% drift. The largest recorded interstory drift at the 1st story
is over 4.00% in the negative 2.00% drift cycle.
The curvature distributions at the base of south wall for both
specimens are evaluated using an optical system with the layout
of markers as shown in Fig. 17. The rst row of markers were
attached on the bottom concrete block while the 7th row markers
were attached 1650 mm (66 in.) above the top of bottom concrete

(a) Strain gauge locations at LYP steel coupling beam

(b) Strain gauge readings at flanges of the


roof-floor coupling beam

(c) Strain gauge readings at exterior web of


the roof-floor coupling beam

Fig. 15. Strain gauge locations and strain gauge readings of LYP steel coupling beam.

223

60

60

50

50

Coupling Ratio (%)

Axial Force Level (%)

M.-Y. Cheng et al. / Engineering Structures 82 (2015) 214225

40
30
20
10
0
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

40
30
20
10
0-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Drift (%)

Drift (%)

(b) Coupling ratio

(a) Axial force level

Fig. 16. Axial force level and coupling ratio of Specimen CW-S.

begins to have opposite curvature at the peak of rst -1.75% drift


cycle. The double curvature observed in the south RC shear wall
of Specimen CW-S below the 2nd-oor reduces the rotational
demand of the LYP steel coupling beam. The development of negative curvature is likely due to the stiffness deterioration of the RC
shear wall and it is not observed in Specimen CW-RC.
6. Design recommendation

Fig. 17. Layout of markers.

Chord Rotation x 10-2 (rad)

4.0

Specimen CW-RC
Specimen CW-S
3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Drift (%)
Fig. 18. Chord Rotation of the 2nd-oor coupling beams.

block. In between, six strips with a uniform vertical height of


approximately 300 mm (12 in.) were used to for curvature evaluation. The average curvatures at the peak of a few selected drift levels are presented in Fig. 20, assuming constant curvature within
each strip. For both specimens, the curvature distributions at the
base of the south wall exhibit similar magnitude up to the 1.00%
drift level. After that, the 1st strip curvature becomes larger when
the wall is subjected to compression likely due to the concrete
crushed at the corner and larger moment demand. Although not
shown in the gure due to the removal of several markers after
1.50% in Specimen CW-S, the rest of markers indicate that strip 2

Specimens CW-RC and CW-S were designed to have similar


component capacities using strength-based design concept.
However, the two systems exhibited quite different deformation
capacities. Test results of Specimen CW-S suggest that a ductile
coupling beam may not necessarily guarantee a ductile behavior
of a coupled shear wall system even with a moderate designed
coupling ratio.
It can be seen from Fig. 1 that both axial and shear forces
induced into the wall piers increase as shear capacities of the coupling beams increase. In other words, the axial and shear demands
of RC wall piers based on the design forces are not conservative
without considering the provided shear capacities of the coupling
beams. A magnication factor, Xcb, from Eq. (4) is suggested for
the coupling beams to modify axial and shear demands of the RC
wall piers. In which, Vu,cb refers to the shear demand of coupling
beam from design forces. Vn,cb, is the nominal shear capacity of a
coupling beam according to Eq. (1). Finally, Vex,cb is the expected
shear capacity that may be developed in the coupling beam. The
Vex,cb-to-Vn,cb ratio is essential to account for the signicant underestimation of shear capacity using Eq. (1) [10,14]. This magnication factor needs to be evaluated and applied to each wall
P
segment between two consecutive oors. Summation, , is performed for all coupling beams above the considered wall segment.

Xcb P

P
P
V n;cb
V ex;cb
V ex;cb
P
P
V u;cb
V n;cb
V u;cb

A better estimation of the expected-to-nominal shear capacity ratio,


Vex,cb/Vn,cb, of either RC or steel coupling beam is critical. For a diagonally RC coupling beam, Vex,cb/Vn,cb = 2.0 is suggested based on test
results of 25 diagonally RC coupling beam specimens collected in
the previous literature [10] and evaluated with tested material
properties. Steel coupling beams, on the other hand, may be more
rational to use the peak tensile stress instead of the yield stress to
evaluate Vex,cb, considering that coupling beams are likely to experience large inelastic deformation under earthquakes. To ensure
exural yielding pattern of steel coupling beams is prohibited,
the ange capacity is suggested to be greater than that developed
by Vex,cb.

224

M.-Y. Cheng et al. / Engineering Structures 82 (2015) 214225

Roof

0.50% Drift
1.00% Drift
1.50% Drift
2.00% Drift
3.00% Drift

3rd

2nd

1st

0.50% Drift
1.00% Drift
1.50% Drift
2.00% Drift

4th

Floor Level

Floor Level

4th

Roof

3rd

2nd

-4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0

1st
0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

-4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Interstory Drift (%)

Interstory Drift (%)

(a) Specimen CW-RC

(b) Specimen CW-S


Fig. 19. Interstory drift.

Average Curvature (rad/in. x 10-3 )

Average Curvature (rad/in. x 10-3 )


-0.80 -0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

0.50% Drift
1.00% Drift
1.50% Drift
2.00% Drift

Strip 6
Strip 5

-0.80 -0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00

Strip 4

Strip 3

Strip 3

Strip 2

Strip 2

Strip 1

Strip 1
0.08

0.16

Average Curvature (rad/cm x

0.24

0.32

0.40

0.60

0.80

0.50% Drift
1.00% Drift
1.50% Drift

Strip 5

Strip 4

-0.32 -0.24 -0.16 -0.08 0.00

0.20

Strip 6

-0.32 -0.24 -0.16 -0.08 0.00

0.08

0.16

0.24

0.32

Average Curvature (rad/cm x 10-3 )

10-3)

(b) Specimen CW-S

(a) Specimen CW -RC


Fig. 20. Curvature distribution.

Axial tension/compression applied to the wall piers due to coupling action should be modied with the expected shear capacities
of coupling beams, Vex,cb. To avoid compressive failure, the
modied axial compression and original moment demand below
balance point of the walls PM interaction curve is suggested.
Modication of shear demands of RC wall piers, however, is not
that straightforward. As shown in Fig. 1, shear induced into a coupled shear wall system is associated with both moment capacities
of the wall piers and shear capacities of the coupling beams. An
attempt was made in this study to provide a preliminary suggestion. The shear magnication factor, cv, is the ratio between the
provided overturning moment capacities of the coupled shear wall
system divided by the required overturning moment capacity from
design forces, i.e., Provided_Mot/Required_Mot. As shown in Eq. (5),
both Provided_Mot and Required_Mot can be determined accordingly. In which, Mn,max is the provided wall maximum moment
capacities within the range of modied axial force on the
nominal PM interaction curves, as shown in Fig. 21. The
Required_Mot is determined based on design forces. According to
Fig. 21, each wall has its own moment amplication factor, Xw. A
representative Xw is conservatively selected as the largest value
among all walls and applies to each wall. As a result, cv can be
determined using Eq. (6).

Provided M ot
Required M ot

P
P

P
M n;max V ex;cb 
P
M u V u;cb 

P
P
M n;max V ex;cb 
Provided M ot
P
P
M u V u;cb 
Required M ot
P
P
Xw  Mu Xcb  V u;cb 
P
P
Xw 1  CR Xcb  CR

Mu V u;cb 

cm

It should be noted that Specimen CW-RC has cv 1.93 including


Xw and Xcb approximately equal to 1.76, and 2.24, respectively,
exhibited acceptable cyclic behaviors with the provided shear
capacity to design shear demand ratio of 1.65 (734/445 kN). However, the same shear capacity does not provide a good performance
for Specimen CW-S.
Several researchers indicated that shear force in a coupled shear
wall system is not uniformly distributed between compression
wall and tension wall [10,15]. The amplication factor in Eq. (5)
would be more ideal to include the shear distribution factor. Unfortunately, there is no available test result in literature to quantify
this effect at this moment.
Another factor that may lead to the different behaviors of the
two specimens might be the relative stiffness and its retention
between the coupling beams and RC wall piers under cyclic
loadings. Typically, stiffness degradation of the steel structural
components is negligible. In Specimen CW-S, double curvature
deformation of the wall segment below the 2nd-oor coupling
beam was observed during the test. It is likely caused by the relative stiff beam and exible wall when the system is subjected to
large deformation demand. The system drift of Specimen CW-S
was contributed mostly from the wall segment below 2nd-oor

M.-Y. Cheng et al. / Engineering Structures 82 (2015) 214225

=
+

,
u

Under balance point

Balance
, (
,

1)

1)

: Moment demand from design force


: Axial force demand from design force
-3000
: Maximum moment capacity within the range
: Modified axial force

225

CW-S sustained better overturning moment in the repeated


cycle, better stiffness deterioration and better energy dissipation ability.
(3) The proposed connection detailing that separates the shear
and moment transfer mechanism between the RC shear wall
and steel coupling beam is effective.
(4) The over-designed coupling beams induce both higher shear
and axial demands into the coupled shear wall system. RC
shear walls should be proportioned for axial and shear based
on the provided coupling beam capacities. Design recommendations to modify axial and shear demands of RC wall
piers are provided.

Acknowledgements

Fig. 21. Illustration of preliminary design suggestion.

as shown in Fig. 19(b). Compared to single curvature deformation,


shear demand may be increased by the existence of inection point
within a wall segment when reaching moment capacities at both
ends. It may be overly conservative to provide shear capacity based
on double-curvature scenario in a wall segment. A better control of
relative stiffness in hybrid coupled shear wall system seems
needed. The limited test result from this study is not able to provide suggestions on the aforementioned issues and future research
is needed.
7. Conclusion
Two half-scale four-story coupled shear wall specimens were
tested in this research. Specimen CW-RC consisted of two RC shear
walls and four diagonally reinforced concrete coupling beams
while Specimen CW-S consisted of two RC shear walls and four
steel coupling beams featuring LYP steel web in the middle. Based
on the experiments results, the following conclusions can be
drawn:
(1) Specimen CW-RC failed without completion of the rst cycle
q
0
of 3.00% drift. The average peak shear stress of 0:48 f c MPa
q
0
(5:8 f c psi) in the RC shear wall was observed at rst cycle
of 1.25% drift. The observed failure mode suggests that Specimen CW-RC achieved the prescribed mechanism.
(2) Specimen CW-S failed after completion of the rst cycle of
2.00% drift because of the over-designed LYP steel coupling
which induces excessive shear and causes combined axial
and shear failures of the RC shear walls. The average peak
shear
stress of the
q
qRC shear wall in Specimen CW-S is
0
0
0:51 f c MPa (6:2 f c psi). At the same drift level, specimen

This research with project No. 101301070000G0023 was sponsored by the Architecture and Building Research Institute (ABRI) of
Taiwan. Any opinions, ndings or conclusions written in this paper
are those of the authors and do not necessarily reect the views of
the sponsors.
References
[1] El-Tawil S, Fortney PJ, Harries KA, Hassan M, Kurama Y, Shahrooz BM, Tong X.
Recommendation for seismic design of hybrid coupled walls. SEI/American
Society of Civil Engineer; 2010.
[2] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for structural concrete and
commentary (ACI 31811). Farmington Hills, Michigan: American Concrete
Institute; 2011.
[3] Harries KA, Mitchell D, Cook WD, Redwood RG. Seismic response of steel
beams coupling concrete walls. J Struct Eng 1993;119(12):361129.
[4] Shahrooz BM, Remmetter ME, Qin F. Seismic design and performance of
composite coupled walls. J Struct Eng 1993;119(11):3291309.
[5] Harries KA. Ductility and deformability of coupling beams in reinforced
concrete coupled walls. Earthq. Spectra 2001;17(3):45778.
[6] Gong B, Shahrooz BM. Steel-concrete composite coupling beams behavior
and design. Eng Struct 2001;23(11):148090.
[7] Park W-S, Yun H-D. Seismic behaviour of steel coupling beams linking
reinforced concrete shear walls. Eng Struct 2005;27(7):102439.
[8] Chen S-J, Jhang C. Seismic behavior of low-yield point steel plate shear walls.
Proc Struct Congress 2008:110.
[9] El-Tawil S, Harries KA, Fortney PJ, Shahrooz BM, Kurama Y. Seismic design of
hybrid coupled wall systems: state of the art. J Struct Eng 2010;136(7):75569.
[10] Lequesne RD. Behavior and design of high-performance ber-reinforced
concrete coupling beams and coupled-wall systems, Ph.D. thesis,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, the University of
Michigan-Ann Arbor; 2011.
[11] AISC. Specication for Structural Steel Buildings, AISC 360-10. Chicago, IL:
American Institute of Steel Construction; 2010.
[12] ASTM. Standard Test Methods and Denitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel
Products, A370-12. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International; 2012.
[13] FEMA-356. Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings. Washington, DC: Building Seismic Safety Council; FEMA-356; 2000.
[14] Hindi RA, Hassan MA. Shear capacity of diagonally reinforced coupling beams.
Eng Struct 2004;26(10):143746.
[15] Aktan AE, Bertero VV. Seismic response of R/C frame-wall structures. J Struct
Eng 1984;110(8):180321.

You might also like