Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
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
215
CR =
(C
or T )l o
= 35 %
M ot
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;transfer
Flange
Stiffener
A
312mm
(13in.)
300mm
(12in.)
312mm
(13in.)
63mm
(2.5in.)
0
V hole V plate 0:85f c Ahole Aplate
300mm
(12in.)
63mm
(2.5in.)
450mm
(18in.)
300mm
(12in.)
216
LYP web
80mm
(3in.)
Section A - A
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.)
200mm
(8in.)
150mm
(6in.)
1300mm
(51in.)
450mm
(18in.)
260mm
(10in.)
1300mm
(51in.)
200mm
(8in.)
150mm
(6in.)
1300mm
(51in.)
450mm
(18in.)
260mm
(10in.)
1300mm
(51in.)
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.
218
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
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
4.0
3.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-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)
30 (4.3)
35 (5.1)
37 (5.3)
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
(6:2
5
0
0.00
0.0
0.50
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
Strain
Strain
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 %
Strain %
Strain %
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
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
Peak
Fracture
Strain %
Strain %
Strain %
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)
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
221
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
North
South
(b) Connection
222
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
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
80
60
40
20
0
12
15
18
21
24
27
Number of Cycle
Fig. 14. Stiffness deterioration.
0
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
Fig. 15. Strain gauge locations and strain gauge readings of LYP steel coupling beam.
223
60
60
50
50
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 (%)
Fig. 16. Axial force level and coupling ratio of Specimen CW-S.
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.
Xcb P
P
P
V n;cb
V ex;cb
V ex;cb
P
P
V u;cb
V n;cb
V u;cb
224
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
1st
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
0.50% Drift
1.00% Drift
1.50% Drift
2.00% Drift
Strip 6
Strip 5
Strip 4
Strip 3
Strip 3
Strip 2
Strip 2
Strip 1
Strip 1
0.08
0.16
0.24
0.32
0.40
0.60
0.80
0.50% Drift
1.00% Drift
1.50% Drift
Strip 5
Strip 4
0.20
Strip 6
0.08
0.16
0.24
0.32
10-3)
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
=
+
,
u
Balance
, (
,
1)
1)
225
Acknowledgements
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.