Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14801490

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Steel-concrete composite coupling beams behavior and design
Binginan Gong
a
, Bahram M. Shahrooz
b,*
a
S&B Infrastructure, Ltd., 3535 Sage Road, Houston, TX 77056-7011, USA
b
University of Cincinnati, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 741 Baldwin Hall, PO Box 210071, Cincinnati,
OH 45221-00171, USA
Received 12 September 2000; received in revised form 16 January 2001; accepted 10 April 2001
Abstract
Structural steel/composite beams provide a viable alternative for coupling individual reinforced concrete wall piers. Well-estab-
lished guidelines for shear links in eccentrically braced steel frames form the basis of current design guidelines. However, these
provisions ignore the effects of nominally reinforced concrete encasement which typically surrounds the coupling beam, and are
based on overly conservative assumed deformation demands. A coordinated analytical and experimental research program at the
University of Cincinnati has focused on cyclic response of steel/composite coupling beams, their connections to reinforced concrete
walls, and overall behavior of composite coupled wall systems. Using the results from this study, guidelines for proper design and
detailing of steel/composite coupling beams and beam-wall connections have been developed. This paper summarizes the research
program, and highlights the basic concepts, important ndings, and recommendations. 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights
reserved.
Keywords: Composite construction; Coupling beams; Coupled walls; Cyclic testing; Mixed construction; Seismic design
1. Introduction
An efcient structural system can be achieved if the
openings in structural walls are arranged in a regular
pattern. In this manner, a number of individual wall piers
can be coupled together to produce a system with large
lateral stiffness and strength. The structural performance
at or near ultimate state can also be optimized by proper
detailing of the coupling beams (i.e., the beams that con-
nect the individual walls). Coupling beams should be
proportioned to avoid over coupling (i.e., a system that
acts as a single pierced wall) and light coupling (i.e.,
a system that performs as a number of isolated walls).
Extensive past research [18] has led to well established
seismic resistant design guidelines for reinforced con-
crete coupling beams. Current design provisions [9] typi-
cally result into diagonally reinforced deep beams in
order to satisfy the stiffness, strength, and energy dissi-
pation demands. The diagonal reinforcement consists of
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-513-556-3677; fax: +1-513-556-
2599.
E-mail address: bahram.shahrooz@uc.edu (B.M. Shahrooz).
0141-0296/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0141- 0296( 01) 00042- 6
relatively large diameter bars which have to be
adequately conned to avoid buckling at advanced limit
states. Anchorage of the reinforcing bars in wall piers
can pose difculties.
Structural steel or steelconcrete composite beams
provide a viable alternative, particularly for cases with
oor height restrictions. In contrast to conventionally
reinforced concrete members, steel/composite coupling
beams can be designed as a exural-yielding or shear-
yielding member. Therefore, a desirable mode of energy
dissipation is achieved depending on the particular case.
The main design issues are (a) proportioning and
detailing of steel/composite coupling beams, and (b)
beamwall connections. Depending on whether the wall
boundary element consists of structural steel columns or
reinforced concrete elements, the coupling beamwall
connection is different. In the former case, the connec-
tion is similar to steel beamcolumn connections. The
connection in the latter case, which is the focus of this
paper, is achieved by embedding the coupling beam
inside the wall piers and interfacing it with the wall
boundary element. The embedment length will clearly
have a major inuence on the performance of
steel/composite coupling beams.
1481 B. Gong, B.M. Shahrooz / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14801490
A number of recent studies at the University of Cin-
cinnati have been focused on examining seismic
response of such composite systems. An overview of the
research program is provided herein. Current design
guidelines [10] are evaluated, and a number of changes
are recommended.
2. Summary of current design guidelines
Steel coupling beams are designed according to the
provisions outlined in the 1997 NEHRP Recommended
Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations
for New Buildings [10]. These provisions are based on
seismic detailing of steel links in eccentrically braced
frames. The coupling beam rotation angle is arbitrarily
set equal to 0.09 rad. Note that for link beams this angle
is computed. The assumed coupling beam rotation is
rather conservative. For example, if the beam length is
less than 1.6 M
p
/V
p
(M
p
=plastic moment capacity;
V
p
=plastic shear capacity, i.e., 0.6 F
y
(d2t
f
)t
w
in which
F
y
=yield strength, d=beam depth, t
f
=ange thickness,
t
w
=web thickness), web stiffeners at (30 t
w
d/5) will
have to be provided. Considering that most coupling
beams are typically short, current design leads to closely
spaced web stiffeners. Steel coupling beams are often
encased inside nominally reinforced concrete elements,
e.g., in door lintels. However, due to lack of information
about the effects of concrete encasement, current design
guidelines are tacit about cases in which the coupling
beam is encased. Accordingly, most engineers ignore the
inuence of encasement apparently on the basis that (a)
the encasement is nominally reinforced and hence not
expected to signicantly contribute towards strength and
stiffness, and (b) the design will be more conservative
by not including the contribution of the encasing element
around the steel coupling beam. As a result, details for
preventing ange and web buckling are identical to those
used for unencased coupling beams, and the embedment
length is calculated to develop the design capacity of the
steel beam only.
No specic guidelines are provided for computing the
required embedment length, but references are made to
previous studies [1114] for further information. These
studies examined the applicability of two models pro-
posed by Marcakis and Mitchell [15] and Mattock and
Gaafar [16]. In Fig. 1, Mattock and Gaafars model is
illustrated. The applied shear (V
u
) is resisted by mobiliz-
ing an internal moment arm between bearing forces C
f
and C
b
. A parabolic distribution of bearing stresses is
assumed for C
b
, and C
f
is computed by using a uniform
stress equal to 0.85 f
c
where f
c
=concrete compressive
strength in MPa. The bearing stresses are assumed to be
distributed uniformly over the beam ange width. Fol-
lowing these assumptions and calibration against experi-
mental data for steel corbels subjected to monotonic
Fig. 1. Mattock and Gaafars model for computing embedment
length.
loading, this model calculates the required embedment
length (L
e
) according to Eq. (1) in which t
wall
=thickness
of wall pier, b
f
=beam ange width, and b
1
=ratio of the
average concrete compressive strength to the
maximum stress.
V
u
4.05f
c
t
wall
b
f

0.66
b
1
b
f
L
e

0.580.22b
1
0.88+
a
L
e

(1)
In this equation, the inection point is assumed to be
at the midspan; hence, the value of a is taken as one
half of the coupling beam span. The model proposed by
Marcakis and Mitchel generally results in a slightly
longer embedment length; however, the difference
between the two models is negligible [13,14]. Although
Marcakis and Mitchell [15] and Mattock and Gaafar [16]
originally developed their respective equations for
design of steel brackets attached to reinforced concrete
columns, previous studies at the University of Cincinnati
and elsewhere [1114] have shown that these models
result in acceptable performance for steel coupling
beams which are subjected to cyclic shear. Moreover,
the calculated embedment length from either model is
adequate to ensure a desirable mode of energy dissi-
pation for steel, unencased coupling beams by forming
the plastic hinges in the beam rather in the connection
region. Note that the value of V
u
in Eq. (1) should be
taken as the plastic shear capacity of the steel beam (i.e.,
V
p
=0.6 F
y
(d2t
f
)t
w
) to ensure adequate performance.
1482 B. Gong, B.M. Shahrooz / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14801490
Fig. 2. Plan view of selected prototype structure.
3. Response of steelconcrete composite coupling
beams
A recent study [17,18] has examined the effects of
concrete encasement. The test specimens were extracted
from a 20-story prototype building shown in Fig. 2. For
the chosen span length of the steel/composite coupling
beams, current design guidelines [10] require stiffener
plates to be placed at (30t
w
d/5) on one side of the web.
As part of the experimental phase of this study, which
was conducted in two phases, seven specimens were
tested. The main test variables, summarized in Table 1,
were (a) presence or lack of encasement, (b) the amount
of web stiffener in the steel beam, (c) presence or lack
of face bearing plates at the wallbeam interface, (d) the
level of shear force for which the beamwall connection
is designed, and (e) oor slab around the coupling beam.
The encasement was nominally reinforced with four 4.9
mm longitudinal bars and 4.9 mm transverse reinforce-
ment placed at one-half depth of the encasing element,
Table 1
Test specimens and test variables
Specimen I.D. Encasement Spacing of web stiffeners Force for connection design Face bearing plate Floor slab
Phase I
1 No L V
steel section
No No
2 Yes L V
steel section
No No
3 Yes 2L V
steel section
No No
4 Yes N/A
a
V
steel section
No No
Phase II
5 Yes N/A
a
V
composite section
No No
6 Yes N/A
a
V
composite section
Yes No
7 Yes N/A
a
V
composite section
Yes Yes
a
No web stiffeners were provided.
see Fig. 3. A low-strength concrete (f
c
=12 MPa) was
used for the encasement in order to accentuate nominal
connement around the steel coupling beam. In all the
specimens, auxiliary transfer bars had been attached
(through the use of mechanical half couplers) to the top
and bottom anges at two locations (Fig. 3) in an effort
to aid in the transfer of bearing forces to the surrounding
concrete [13,14]. Face bearing plates in specimens 6 and
7 consisted of a pair of 4.75 mm thick stiffeners welded
on both sides of the web. The face bearing plates were
located inside the wall boundary element transverse
reinforcement. Another pair of stiffeners were also added
at 125 mm from the face bearing plates under the auxili-
ary bars. The resulting concrete struts between these
plates (shown schematically in Fig. 3) are expected to
enhance the performance by reducing the contribution
of bearing stresses against the top and bottom anges.
The benets of face bearing plates have been demon-
strated in past studies on steel beam-reinforced concrete
column connections [19], and as part of testing of speci-
men No. 6. Additional details regarding the test speci-
mens and other aspects of the experimental program are
provided elsewhere [18]. The focus of this paper is on
specimens No. 1, 4, 5, and 7.
3.1. (a) Strength characteristics
The load-deection responses of the unencased speci-
men No. 1 and encased specimen No. 4 are plotted in
Fig. 4. The hysteresis loops are stable, and exhibit a sig-
nicant level of energy dissipation. Sudden drops during
the last cycles are primarily due to fracture of wall trans-
verse reinforcement passing through the steel beam web,
and fracture of the weld around the mechanical half
couplers which were used to attach the auxiliary bars to
the beam anges [18]. Both specimens could develop
and exceed the capacity computed based on the meas-
ured material properties [18]. For specimen No. 1, the
capacity is equal to the plastic shear capacity, i.e., 0.6
F
y
(d2t
f
)t
w
. The shear capacity of specimen No. 4 was
1483 B. Gong, B.M. Shahrooz / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14801490
Fig. 3. Specimen details.
computed by (a) superposition of the shear capacities of
the steel section and concrete beam, or (b) a ber cross
section analysis incorporating exure as well as shear.
The average value from these two analyses is plotted in
Fig. 4.
The nominally reinforced encasement around the steel
coupling beam is apparently adequate to prevent web
and ange buckling at advanced yielding. Note that
specimen No. 4 could develop 107 kN at a shear angle
of 0.057 rad. At this shear deformation, current NEHRP
provisions [10] require web stiffener plates at 1.5 times
the spacing used for specimen No. 2. Despite having no
stiffeners, specimen No. 4 could develop shears corre-
sponding to 1.10 V
p
. Hence, nominally reinforced
encasement around steel coupling beams is sufcient to
prevent web and ange buckling; and web stiffeners are
not needed.
3.2. (b) Energy dissipation characteristics
The dissipated energies are compared in Fig. 5. In an
effort to examine the performance of the specimens, the
dissipated energy was separated into two parts: (a) the
energy dissipated by plastic hinges in the beam
(Beam), and (b) the energy dissipated by inelastic
deformations in the connection region (Connection)
[18]. For specimen No. 1, the participation of beam
towards energy dissipation was more signicant than
that for specimen No. 4. Although the beam capacities
could be developed, the performance of the encased
specimen was not as desirable because inelastic action in
the connection region contributed more than the plastic
hinges in the beam. This behavior is attributed to the
provided embedment length.
3.3. (c) Revised embedment length
As indicated in Table 1, the required embedment
length for specimen No. 1 and No. 4 was, according
to current design guidelines and practice, computed to
develop the shear capacity of the steel coupling beam
only, i.e., 0.6 F
y
(d2t
f
)t
w
. The experimental data shown
in Fig. 4 suggest that nominally reinforced encasement
can increase the capacity by as much as 23%. Clearly,
if the provided embedment length is calculated to
develop a smaller shear, plastic hinges form in the con-
nection region before fully mobilizing the full capacity
of the composite beam. This performance is not desir-
able. A capacity design methodology, in which the
embedment length is computed to develop the capacity
of the composite beam and not the steel beam alone, is
proposed. This method requires that the contribution of
concrete encasement towards shear capacity is taken
into account.
In lieu of detailed techniques such as ber based mod-
els [18], a simple method based on combining the shear
capacity of the steel beam (V
steel
) and encasement (V
RC
)
appears to be a reasonable alternative, i.e., V
n
=V
steel
+V
RC
in which V
steel
=0.6 F
y
(d2t
f
)t
w
and V
RC
is computed
based on standard methods for reinforced concrete mem-
bers (e.g., [20:31899]), i.e., V
RC
=0.166f
c
bd+
A
v
f
y
d
s
where b=width of the encasement, d=effective depth of
the encasement, A
v
=total area of transverse reinforce-
1484 B. Gong, B.M. Shahrooz / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14801490
Fig. 4. Hysteresis responses of encased and unencased coupling
beams.
ment, and s=spacing of the transverse steel. In this sim-
plied approach, the constitutive models for concrete
and steel are idealized, and factors such as strain harden-
ing of the longitudinal and transverse steel are ignored;
the shear capacity of the reinforced concrete encasement
is based on the ACI method in which the concrete contri-
butions towards shear capacity from aggregate interlock,
dowel action of the longitudinal bars, and the uncracked
concrete are lumped together [21]; and the contribution
of the concrete beyond cracking is not included [22].
Therefore, this simple model needs to be calibrated so
that the computed capacity would be comparable to that
obtained from a more detailed analysis such as ber
modeling. A correction factor was determined by com-
paring the capacity computed from detailed ber section
analysis based on the modied compression eld theory
[22] and the capacity from the superposition method, i.e.,
V
n
=V
steel
+V
RC
. The parametric study included 24 cases
in which the concrete compressive and the steel yield
Fig. 5. Distribution of dissipated energy.
as well as the ultimate strength, dimensions of the steel
sections, and the overall encasement dimensions were
changed systematically. The ratio between the two com-
puted capacities ranges between 1.31 to 1.85 with an
average of 1.61 and a standard deviation of 0.075 [18].
Within the limitations of this parametric study, a cor-
rection factor of 1.6 is recommended and hence the
shear capacity of composite coupling beams is taken as
V
n
=1.6 (V
steel
+V
RC
). Additional studies covering a wider
range of parameters is necessary to further rene the rec-
ommended correction factor.
3.4. (d) Evaluation of revised embedment length
In an effort to evaluate the performance of coupling
beams for which the embedment length is calculated
based on the proposed capacity design method, strength
1485 B. Gong, B.M. Shahrooz / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14801490
and energy dissipation characteristics of specimens No.
4 and 5 are compared. Specimen No. 5 was generally
similar to those tested in the rst phase, except for a
longer embedment length that the revised procedure
would require, and the testing method which included
wall overturning moment in contrast to the rst four
specimens for which the wall overturning was not simu-
lated.
Normalized load-shear angle envelope curves of
specimens No. 4 and 5 are compared in Fig. 6. The verti-
cal axis is normalized with respect to the shear at the
onset of web yielding (V
y
). Shear angle at this stage (g
y
),
was used to normalize the measured shear angles. Prior
to yielding, the two specimens exhibit almost identical
load-deformation relationships. The response of speci-
men No. 5 shows a remarkable improvement in terms
of achieving higher ductilities and reduced strength
deterioration beyond the maximum load. For example,
at shear angle of 0.0885 radians, the load had dropped
only to 96% of the peak value. Specimen No. 5 also
developed a larger capacity in the positive direction
when the wall overturning moment produced compress-
ive stresses around the connection. Under negative bend-
ing, the two specimens developed rather similar loads,
although specimen No. 5 reached a slightly lower load
than specimen No. 4. This difference is attributed to the
presence or lack of wall overturning moment. The wall
overturning moment in specimen No. 5 resulted in ten-
sile stresses that reduced the level of bearing stress trans-
fer between the beam anges and the surrounding con-
crete in the connection region. Despite these stresses, the
load carrying capacity did not drop signicantly below
that for specimen No. 4 in which the connection region
was kept under a constant gravity compressive stress.
The longer embedment length in specimen No. 5, which
is the result of using the revised design methodology,
Fig. 6. Normalized load-deection curves.
Fig. 7. Distribution of dissipated energy for specimen No. 5.
delayed the connection failure until a higher capacity
could be developed, and hence the enhanced behavior.
A similar observation is made by evaluating the
energy dissipation characteristics of specimen No. 5
shown in Fig. 7 in which the total dissipated energy
(Total) is divided as discussed previously. The input
energy was predominately dissipated by inelastic defor-
mations in the coupling beam. Beyond shear angle of
0.05 rad., the participation of the connection was gradu-
ally increased although the plastic hinges in the beam
outside the connection continued to dissipate a reason-
able portion of the total energy. This trend is different
from that observed for specimen No. 4 (see Fig. 5). The
longer embedment length in specimen No. 5 evidently
enhanced the energy dissipation characteristics by reduc-
ing the contribution of the connection region.
Note that the contribution of oor slab is not included
in the proposed design method because (a) as seen in
Fig. 8 the contribution of slab is relatively negligible
because the additional tensile forces from the slab bars
Fig. 8. Moment-curvature response of composite coupling beam in
prototype structure.
1486 B. Gong, B.M. Shahrooz / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14801490
Fig. 9. Distribution of dissipated energy for specimen No. 7.
are relatively small in comparison to the tensile force in
the anges of a typical steel beam, and (b) the oor slab
wraps the connection region and reduces its participation
as illustrated in Fig. 9 [18]. The distribution of dissipated
energy clearly indicates that the slab and beam dissipated
the majority of the input energy, and the connection
essentially did not participate. Therefore, the contri-
bution of oor slab is neglected, and the embedment
length needs to be calculated to develop only 1.6
(V
steel
+V
RC
).
3.5. (e) Stiffness of composite coupling beams
The variation of peak-to-peak stiffness against shear
angle is plotted in Fig. 10. The initial stiffness of speci-
men No. 4 is 25% larger than that for specimen No. 1.
The initial stiffness for specimen No. 5 is less than the
stiffness of specimen No. 4 because this specimen was
accidentally loaded due to difculties in the computer-
based control of one of the actuators used for loading.
Specimen No. 5 had apparently experienced some minor
cracks before the testing program was started.
Fig. 10. Stiffness degradation of various composite coupling beam
specimens.
The oor slab clearly increases the initial stiffness of
specimen No. 7. However, at shear angle of about 0.005
rad., the signicance of slab is effectively lost. Beyond
this small level of deformation the stiffness of specimen
No. 7 drops to a level comparable to the initial stiffness
of the specimens without slab. When specimens were
loaded up to a shear angle of about 0.06 rad., all the
three specimens had reached about the same stiffness.
Therefore, although oor slabs increase the initial stiff-
ness of coupling beams, the contribution of the slab
deteriorates under small deformations and may be
ignored in seismic design and analysis.
4. Evaluation of impact of encasement on overall
structural response
The effects of the additional stiffness due to nominally
reinforced encasement around steel coupling beams,
which is ignored in current design guidelines, were
evaluated analytically by examining the overall response
of the prototype structure (Fig. 2). The larger stiffness
obviously results in smaller vibration periods. Such a
shift could inuence the dynamic behavior if the fre-
quencies coincide with the frequency band of the design
ground motion with high input energy content.
The demands in the walls and coupling beams are
affected by the changes in the coupling beam stiffness.
The concrete encasement increases the coupling beam
stiffness which in turn increases the level of coupling
action between the individual wall piers. For instance,
the wall axial load in the rst oor of the prototype struc-
ture increases by 40% when the inuence of encasement
is taken into account [17]. Such a large increase could
pose stability problems if the wall boundary elements
are designed for forces calculated based on ignoring the
encasement. In addition, the foundation system needs to
be designed for the increased demands in the walls. The
increase in wall shear force, which is about 10%, is not
perhaps as critical. The increases in beam design forces
are offset by the corresponding additional capacity due
to encasement. Therefore, design of walls and foun-
dation systems needs to incorporate the effects of
encasement around steel coupling beams. The numerical
values stated above are particular to the prototype struc-
ture, and are based on elastic analysis. For other struc-
tures with different geometries and stiffness character-
istics, the increase in the stiffness and hence the changes
in the design forces may be more or less. Moreover,
cracking of the encasement around the steel coupling
beam will reduce the stiffness of the composite coupling
beam, and hence the increased coupling action will be
less than that predicted from a simple elastic analysis.
Nevertheless, in view of the potential higher design
forces, the engineer should consider the increased stiff-
ness of composite coupling beams as one of the variables
in the design model.
1487 B. Gong, B.M. Shahrooz / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14801490
5. Evaluation of shear angle
Well established guidelines for shear links in eccentri-
cally-braced frames [23] form the basis of current guide-
lines [10] for design and detailing of steel/composite
coupling beams. The expected coupling beam rotation
angle plays an important role in the required beam
details such as the provision of stiffeners. Current design
guidelines [10] arbitrarily set the coupling beam shear
angle equal to 0.09 rad., and the beam is detailed accord-
ingly. Such a large angle results in closely spaced web
stiffeners. Note that the shear angle is computed for steel
link beams in eccentrically braced frames.
In order to examine whether this level of shear angle
(0.09 rad.) is reasonable and to understand the maximum
expected range of shear angle, the response of the proto-
type structure was evaluated. A pseudo three-dimen-
sional model of the prototype structure was constructed
(Fig. 11(a)). The torsional and vertical springs used in
the model are intended to simulate the outrigger action
of the transverse members. The walls were modeled by
an element (Fig. 11(b)) that incorporates axial, exural,
and shear deformations in the elastic and inelastic range
[24]. Both dynamic and static push-over analyses were
conduced [18]. For static analyses, the lateral loads were
Fig. 11. Analytical modeling of prototype structure.
assumed to be distributed uniformly or triangularly, and
three ground motion records (1940 El Centro NS, 1989
Loma Preita, and 1994 Northridge N60E) were used for
the dynamic analyses. Three different analyses were
conduced in which (a) the coupling beams were unen-
cased steel members, (b) the inuence of encasement
around the steel coupling beams was taken into account,
and (c) exibility at the foundation level was approxi-
mately taken into account by placing vertical and
rotational elastic springs under the column and wall
elements as shown in Fig. 11(c). The spring coefcients
were computed based on basic principles by assuming a
modulus of sub-grade of 54,260 kN/m
3
.
The maximum computed coupling beam shear angles
for various analyses are summarized in Table 2. The
level of shear angle for encased and unencased coupling
beams is considerably less than 0.09 rad. Only when the
foundation exibility was taken into account and lateral
loads were assumed to be distributed triangularly did the
coupling beam shear angle approach the value of 0.09
rad. stipulated in NHERP provisions [10]. However, at
this shear angle the roof lateral drift exceeds 10% of the
building height, which is well above acceptable levels,
and the base shear approaches 40% of the building
weight. For other cases with reasonable drifts, the com-
1488 B. Gong, B.M. Shahrooz / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14801490
Table 2
Maximum coupling beam shear angle (rad.)
a
Analysis Unencased xed base Encased xed base Encased exible base
Static push over: Rectangular lateral loads 0.0177 0.0198 0.0269
(1.2%) (1.3%) (2.0%)
Static push over: Triangular lateral loads 0.0328 0.0378 0.0884
(2.7%) (3.2%) (10.2%)
Dynamic:1940 El Centro NS 0.00391 0.00355 0.00388
Dynamic:1989 Loma Prieta 0.00709 0.0075 0.00673
Dynamic:1994 Northridge N60E 0.00208 0.0188 0.00209
a
The values in the parentheses are calculated roof drifts at maximum reported shear angle.
puted shear angles are signicantly less than 0.09 rad.
It is deemed that similar observations are made for other
well-proportioned buildings employing coupled walls.
Despite an effort to perform a reasonably complete
analysis of the prototype structure, major simplications
had to be made, e.g., (a) the three-dimensional behavior
of the structure is modeled rather crudely, (b) simulation
of the soil-structure action is very approximate, and (c)
the parameters in the wall and beam hysteretic models
were established based on subassembly tests with bound-
ary conditions different from those in an actual building.
The main reason behind the reported analytical study
was to explore the rationality of the assumed coupling
beam shear angle of 0.09 rad., in current design codes.
Additional detailed studies that overcome the stated limi-
tations of the current study are necessary.
Despite the simplicity of the analytical studies used
here, the current assumed shear angle of 0.09 rad.,
appears to be questionable and can lead to unnecessary
conservative detailing of steel coupling beams. Note that
the reported test results (Fig. 4) show that stiffeners can
be eliminated for steelconcrete composite coupling
beams; therefore, the focus of this discussion is on steel
coupling beams. More rational techniques for computing
the value of shear angle are needed.
The coupling beam shear angle is computed with ref-
erence to the collapse mechanism shown in Fig. 12
which corresponds to the expected behavior of coupled
wall systems, i.e., plastic hinges at the base of walls and
at the ends of coupling beams. The value of plastic
interstory drift angle (q
p
) is taken as C
d
q
e
(C
d
=deection
amplication factor dened by NEHRP [10]), where the
elastic interstory drift angle, q
e
, is computed under code
level lateral loads (e.g., [9,10]). Knowing the value of
q
p
, shear angle, g
p
, is calculated as g
P
=q
P
L
wall
L
in which
L
wall
is the distance between center lines of the wall piers
and L is the clear span of the coupling beam. Previous
experimental data suggest that the effective xed point
of steel or steelconcrete composite coupling beams is
about 1/3 of the embedment length from the face of the
wall [13,14,18]. Therefore, for consistency with experi-
mental observations it is recommended to take L
wall
as
Fig. 12. Analytical model for computing shear angle of coupling
beams.
L+0.6 L
e
in which L
e
is the embedment length of the
coupling beam inside each wall pier. Note that with the
exception of the assumed collapse mechanism and the
relationship between the shear angle and drift angle, the
proposed method is similar to that used for steel shear
links in eccentrically braced frames.
6. Summary and conclusions
Seismic behavior of steel and steelconcrete com-
posite coupling beams was evaluated through a coordi-
nated experimental and analytical research study. One of
the main objectives of the reported study was to scrutin-
ize current design guidelines, and to recommend modi-
cations if necessary. Based on the reported study, the
following conclusions are drawn. These conclusions are
clearly based on a relatively limited number of tests and
analytical studies. Additional test data from more com-
plete subassemblies and more detailed analytical studies
are recommended to supplement the results reported her-
ein.
1489 B. Gong, B.M. Shahrooz / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14801490
1. Nominal encasement around steel coupling beams
provides an effective means for preventing web buck-
ling. Hence, web stiffeners can be eliminated. Current
design codes need to be re-evaluated and relaxed for
the cases where the steel coupling beam is encased.
Available provisions appear to be overly conserva-
tive.
2. Although current design procedures result in a con-
servative design and detailing of encased steel coup-
ling beams, the increased strength and stiffness due
to the surrounding concrete encasement could have
detrimental effects on the overall performance if they
are not taken into account as part of the design.
3. Nominally reinforced encasement around steel coup-
ling beams is expected to increase the stiffness. The
additional stiffness increases the level of coupling
between walls, which in turn affects the distribution
of design forces. Most importantly, the wall axial load
at the base could substantially increase. The increased
stiffness of encased coupling beams has to be incor-
porated in design of coupled walls as well as foun-
dation systems.
4. Unless design calculations consider the contribution
of encasement towards shear capacity of composite
coupling beams, a signicant portion of the input
energy will be dissipated by inelastic deformations in
the connection region, which is not desirable. There-
fore, the embedment length has to be computed to
develop the expected shear capacity of the composite
section. In lieu of rened ber analyses, the shear
capacity may be taken as 1.6 times the sum of the
shear capacity of the steel beam and encasement. The
energy dissipation characteristics, ductility, and load-
carrying capacity of composite coupling beams are
substantially improved by using the proposed meth-
odology which leads into a longer embedment length.
5. The contribution of oor slab towards stiffness and
strength of composite coupling beams may be
ignored. The additional stiffness due to oor slab is
lost after rather small deformations. Contribution of
oor slab is less than that expected for reinforced con-
crete beams because the area of slab reinforcing bars
within the effective slab width is small in comparison
to the ange area of the coupling beam. The
additional strength may be ignored when the
embedment length is computed as the slab prevents
the formation of plastic hinges in the connection
region.
6. Relatively detailed inelastic static and dynamic analy-
ses suggest that the maximum expected coupling
beam shear angle in reasonably proportioned coupled
walls is probably less than the value assumed by cur-
rent design provisions. Until the availability of further
data, a simple procedure, similar to a well established
method for link beams in eccentrically braced frames,
is proposed to compute a more reliable estimate of
the expected coupling beam shear angle demands, and
hence the amount of stiffeners, if necessary, can be
established more rationally.
Acknowledgements
The research presented herein is based on an investi-
gation sponsored by the National Science Foundation
under grant no. BCS-9319838, with Dr. Shih Chi Liu as
the program director. Any opinions, ndings, and con-
clusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are
of those of the writers and do not necessarily reect the
views of the sponsors.
References
[1] Aktan AE, Bertero VV. The seismic resistant design of R/C
coupled structural walls. Report No. UCB/EERC-81/07, Univer-
sity of California, Berkeley: Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, 1981.
[2] Aristizabal-Ochoa JD. Dynamic response of coupled wall sys-
tems. ASCE J Struct Div 1982;108(8):184657.
[3] Aristizabal-Ochoa JD. Seismic behavior of slender coupled wall
systems. ASCE J Struct Div 1987;113(10):222134.
[4] Paulay T. The design of ductile reinforced concrete structural
walls for earthquake resistance. Earthquake Spectra
1986;2(4):783823.
[5] Paulay T. Coupling beams of reinforced concrete shear walls.
ASCE J Struct Div 1971;97(3):84362.
[6] Paulay T, Santhakumar AR. Ductile behavior of coupled shear
walls. ASCE J Struct Div 1976;102(1):93108.
[7] Shiu NK, Takayangi T, Corley WG. Seismic behavior of coupled
wall systems. ASCE J Struct Div 1984;110(5):105166.
[8] Shiu NK, Barney GB, Fiorato AE, Corley WG. Earthquake resist-
ant walls coupled wall test. Report to NSF submitted by Portland
Cement Association, Research and Development, Skokie, Illi-
nois, 1981.
[9] International Council of Building Ofcials (ICBO). Uniform
building code, vol. 2. Whitier, CA: Structural Engineering Design
Provisions, 1994.
[10] Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC). NEHRP Rec-
ommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings
and other structures (FEMA 302) and Commentary (FEMA 303),
1997 edition. Washington, DC, 1998.
[11] Harries KA. Ductility and deformability of coupling beams in
reinforced concrete coupled walls. Proceedings of the Eighth
Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver,
June 1999, 1998:475481.
[12] Harries KA. Seismic design and retrot of coupled walls using
structural steel. PhD thesis, McGill University, 1995.
[13] Shahrooz BM, Remmetter MA, Qin F. Seismic response of com-
posite coupled walls. Composite Construction in Steel and Con-
crete II, ASCE, 1992:429441.
[14] Shahrooz BM, Remmetter MA, Qin F. Seismic design and per-
formance of composite coupled walls. ASCE J Struct Div
1993;119(11):3291309.
[15] Marcakis K, Mitchell D. Precast concrete connections with
embedded steel members. Prestressed Concrete Inst J
1980;25(4):88116.
1490 B. Gong, B.M. Shahrooz / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14801490
[16] Mattock AH, Gaafar GH. Strength of embedded steel sections as
brackets. ACI J 1982;79(2):8393.
[17] Gong B, Shahrooz BM, Gillum AJ. Cyclic response of composite
coupling beams. ACI Special Publication 174 Hybrid and
Composite Structures, Farmington Hills, MI, 1998:89112.
[18] Gong B, Shahrooz BM. Seismic behavior and design of com-
posite coupled wall systems. Report No. UC-CII 98/01, Cincin-
nati Infrastructure Institute, Cincinnati, OH, 1998.
[19] ASCE Task Committee on Design Criteria for Composite Struc-
tures in Steel and Concrete. Guidelines for design of joints
between steel beams and reinforced concrete columns. J Struct
Div, ASCE 1994;120(8):233057.
[20] American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 318. Building
code requirements for reinforced concrete and commentary (ACI
318-99/ACI 318R-99), Farmington Hills, MI, 1999.
[21] MacGregor JG. Reinforced concrete mechanics and design.
Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1992.
[22] Collins MP, Mitchell D. Prestressed concrete structures. Engle-
wood, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1991.
[23] American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). Seismic pro-
visions for structural steel buildings, Chicago, IL, 1997.
[24] Kunnath SK, Reinhorn AM. IDARC-2D Version 3.1: Inelastic
damage analysis of reinforced concrete building structures. State
University of New York at Buffalo, 1994.