Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(KAH) Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208
(BG) CBM Engineers, Inc., 1700 W. Loop So., Suite 830, Houston, TX 77027
(BMS) Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0071
Behavior and Design of Reinforced Concrete,
Steel, and Steel-Concrete Coupling Beams
INTRODUCTION
An efficient structural system for seismic resistance can be achieved if openings in
structural walls can be arranged in a regular pattern as shown in Figure 1. In this manner, a
number of individual wall piers are coupled together to produce a system having large lateral
stiffness and strength. By coupling individual flexural walls, the lateral load resisting
behavior changes to one where overturning moments are resisted partially by an axial
compression-tension couple across the wall system rather than by the individual flexural
action of the walls. As a result, a significantly stiffer lateral load resisting system is achieved.
The beams that connect individual wall piers are referred to as coupling beams. Coupling
beams are analogous to and serve the same structural role as link beams in eccentrically
braced frames. Well-proportioned coupling beams above the second floor generally develop
plastic hinges simultaneously, and are subjected to similar end rotations over the height of the
structure (Aktan and Bertero 1981, Aristizabal-Ochoa 1982, Shiu et al. 1981). Hence,
dissipation of input energy can be distributed over the height of the building in the coupling
beams rather than concentrating it predominantly in the first-story wall piers (Aktan and
Bertero 1984, Fintel and Ghosh 1982, Park and Paulay 1975). For optimum performance, the
energy dissipating mechanism should involve formation of plastic hinges in most of the
coupling beams and at the base of each wall. This mechanism is similar to the strong
column-weak girder design philosophy for ductile moment resisting frames (Paulay 1971,
Park and Paulay 1975). In order for the desired behavior of the coupled wall system to be
attained, the coupling beams must be sufficiently strong and stiff. The coupling beams,
however, must also yield before the wall piers, behave in a ductile manner, and exhibit
significant energy absorbing characteristics.
(KAH) Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208
(BG) CBM Engineers, Inc., 1700 W. Loop So., Suite 830, Houston, TX 77027
(BMS) Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0071
Coupling
Beams
The degree of coupling of a coupled wall system is defined as the ratio of the total
overturning moment resisted by the coupling action (i.e., the axial load couple formed in the
walls) to the total overturning moment. The coupling action between wall piers is developed
through shears in the coupling beams. The hysteretic characteristics of coupling beams,
therefore, may substantially affect the overall response of a coupled wall system particularly
for structures having a high degree of coupling (Aktan and Bertero 1981, Harries 1999,
Paulay 1986, Paulay and Taylor 1981, Paulay 1980). Coupling beams should be designed to
avoid over coupling, which causes the system to act as a single pierced wall with little frame
action. Similarly, light coupling should also be avoided as it causes the system to behave like
two isolated walls (Aktan and Bertero 1987, 1984, 1981, Aristizabal-Ochoa 1987, 1982,
Aristizabal-Ochoa et al. 1979, Lybas and Sozen 1977, Shiu et al. 1981, 1984).
Reinforced concrete coupling beams may have conventional longitudinal reinforcement,
diagonal reinforcement or a hybrid reinforcing steel arrangement. Coupling beams may also
be fabricated from rolled or built-up steel shapes, or have a composite steel-concrete design.
Additionally, recent investigations have proposed alternative hybrid designs.
8 - No 25
No 10 hoops
700 mm
@ 90 mm
2 - No 15
midside
wall steel 3000 mm 1.3ld =
8 - No 25 not shown 1200 mm
400 mm
(a) Conventionally reinforced coupling beam
4 - No 30 in
No 10 hoops
@ 100 mm
700 mm
Conventional reinforcement, i.e., longitudinal bars with transverse steel (see Figure 2a),
performs satisfactorily at nominal shear stresses of 0.25 fc ' ( 3 f c ' ) or less when the
flexural mode controls the failure mechanism (Aktan and Bertero 1981, Aristizabal-Ochoa
1987). Sliding shear at the face of the wall begins to affect the response of the beams in the
range of 0.3 f c ' ( 3.5 fc ' ) to 0.5 fc ' ( 6 f c ' ). By providing intermediate midheight
longitudinal bars, the hysteretic response is improved and strength deterioration due to shear
is delayed (Aktan and Bertero 1984, Scriber and Wight 1978, Tassios et al. 1996). Beams
with intermediate bars do not perform well when the shear stress is greater than 0.5 fc '
( 6 f c ' ). Providing cranked diagonal reinforcement near the beam ends has been shown to
improve the hysteretic behavior by preventing sliding shear, and by spreading the hinging
regions away from the wall face (Paparoni 1972, Aristizabal-Ochoa 1987). This detail,
however, poses construction difficulties and results in extra cost.
Full-length diagonal reinforcement, as shown in Figure 2b, is a relatively simpler
detailing alternative, and has been found to maintain stable hysteretic behavior provided the
bars are adequately confined by spirals or hoops, and sufficient concrete cover is provided
(Aktan and Bertero 1981, Paulay and Binney 1974). This confinement provides resistance
against buckling to the individual bars and the bundled diagonal bar group. Such diagonal
reinforcement is perhaps the only successful solution for reducing the potential for sliding
shear, and enhancing the hysteretic characteristics of coupling beams having a/d ratios as
large as 3.33 (Aktan and Bertero 1981).
Considering that higher modes contribute to the response of coupling beams more than to
walls (Aktan and Bertero 1981, Mahin and Bertero 1975), these elements are subjected to
large inelastic end rotations and reversals. As a result, adequate anchorage of the coupling
beam reinforcement in the walls is necessary. The possibility of buckling of compression bars
at the beam-wall interface (where large cracks are anticipated) is also minimized by
providing effective confinement (Aktan and Bertero 1981, Barney et al. 1978, Paulay 1980,
Paulay and Santhakumar 1976, Paulay and Binney 1974). It is noted that anchorage and
confinement requirements often make these diagonally reinforced coupling beams very
difficult to construct due to congestion at the center of the beam and at the wall faces. (Recall
that there will often be concentrated vertical wall steel at these interfaces.) Figure 3 shows a
typical example of a diagonally reinforced coupling beam and its wall anchorage.
concentrated vertical
reinforcing at face
of wall
diagonal
primary
reinforcement
Figure 3. Diagonally reinforced concrete coupling beam (photo courtesy of Reinforcing Steel
Institute of Canada).
Table 1 summarizes the guidelines for the selection and detailing of reinforced concrete
coupling beams for seismic design given by the ACI 318-95 and ACI 318-99 Building Code
Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 1995, 1999), CSA A23.3-94 Design of Concrete
Structures (CSA 1994), and NZS 3101 Concrete Structures Standard (NZS 1995). When no
seismic design is required, coupling beams may be detailed as regular reinforced concrete
beams. It is noted, nonetheless, that these beams do typically exhibit very high shear to
moment ratios requiring special attention.
Table 1. Guidelines for selecting reinforced concrete coupling beams
Governing Limits Type of Design Criteria
Coupling
L/d shear stress, v
Beam
(psi)
ACI 318-95 Clause 21.6
L/d ≥ 2
v ≤ 0.167 f ' + ? f
c n y ACI 318-95 does not have provisions for diagonally
L/d ≤ 2 reinforced concrete members
v ≤ a f ' + ? f
c c n y
where 0.167 < αc ≤ 0.25
ACI 318-99 Clause 21.6.7
v ≤ a f ' + ? f
conventionally beams may be designed as flexural
c c n y reinforced members according to Clause 21.3,
L/d ≥ 4 however the commentary appears to
where 0.167 < αc ≤ 0.25 invoke Clause 21.6.4
L
Figure 4. Two dimensional equivalent frame model of coupled wall system.
steel
coupling beam
face of wall
Figure 5. Coupling beam connection to embedded steel column.
If the wall boundary element is reinforced with longitudinal and transverse reinforcing
bars, a typical connection involves embedding the coupling beam into the wall and
interfacing it with the boundary element, as shown in Figure 6. In addition to boundary
element reinforcing, embedded steel members may also be provided with welded vertical
reinforcing passing through their flanges or shear studs to resist horizontal loads (PCI 1992).
The vertical bars may be attached to the flanges through mechanical half couplers which are
welded to the flanges. These bars must have adequate development length, and must be large
enough to provide enough stiffness to the coupling beam. Shahrooz et al. (1992, 1993) have
found 25.4 mm diameter (#8) bars to be sufficient for this purpose. Such details result in
greater congestion in the boundary element. It has been shown that these additional welded
appendages are not necessary provided that the embedment region is sufficiently long and
that there is adequate boundary element reinforcing to control cracking at the beam-wall
interface (Harries 1995, Harries et al. 1997, Shahrooz et al. 1993). Harries et al. recommend
that two-thirds of the required vertical boundary element steel be located within a distance of
one half the embedment length from the face of the wall. Furthermore, the width of the
boundary element steel should not exceed 2.5 times the coupling beam flange width.
Satisfying these requirements will provide adequate control of the gap that opens at the beam
flanges upon cycling. With typical boundary element designs, these requirements are easily
met.
A A A A
B B B B
900
12 - No. 25
14 - No. 35 No. 10 hoops @ 150
No. 10 hoops @ 200
No. 10 @ 150 vertical e.f. No. 10 @ 150 vertical e.f.
No. 10 @ 100 horizontal e.f. No. 10 @ 100 horizontal e.f.
SECTION B-B SECTION B-B
(a) flexure critical steel coupling beam (b) shear critical steel coupling beam
Figure 6. Steel coupling beam embedment details (Harries et al. 1998).
As is illustrated in Figure 6a, lighter “flexure critical” coupling beams require more
boundary element steel in the wall since a greater proportion of the overturning moment is
carried by the wall. This may also result in the need to provide “barbells” at the toes of the
walls, further complicating construction.
It is not necessary, nor is it practical, to pass boundary element reinforcing through the
web of the embedded coupling beam. It is however necessary to provide good confinement in
the region of the embedded web. This may be accomplished using hairpins and cross ties
parallel to the web as shown in Figure 6 (section A-A). Additionally, vertical boundary
element reinforcement in this region may also be relied upon to provide significant
confinement to the embedded region (Harries et al. 1997).
Geometric Modeling
Previous studies (Shahrooz et al. 1992, 1993, Gong et al. 1997, 1998, Harries et al. 1997)
suggest that steel or steel-concrete composite coupling beams are not fixed at the face of the
wall. As part of design calculations, the additional flexibility needs to be taken into account
to ensure that wall forces and lateral deflections are computed with reasonable accuracy.
Based on experimental data (Shahrooz et al. 1992, 1993, Gong et al. 1997, 1998), the
“effective fixed point” of steel or steel-concrete composite coupling beams may be taken as
approximately one-third of the embedment length from the face of the wall. Thus, the
effective clear span, L of the frame element representing the coupling beam in the model
shown in Figure 4 is:
L = Lclear + 0.6 Le (2)
The aforementioned method assumes that the walls have been modeled by column
elements located at the centroid of wall piers as shown in Figure 4. Finite element modeling
of structures have become more common in recent years where shell elements are used to
model the wall piers. These elements are typically connected to nodes along fictitious
column lines which are placed at the wall boundaries. One may attempt to account for the
additional flexibility of steel/steel-concrete composite coupling beams by shifting the column
lines, which define the walls, to a distance equal to 1/3 of the embedment length from the
face of the wall. However, this approach will alter the wall properties, and other methods are
necessary. A possible approach is to obtain equivalent values for the coupling beam axial
area and moment of inertia in order to incorporate the additional beam flexibility. Equations
to obtain the lower and upper bound values of the equivalent area and moment of inertia have
been derived (Tunc et al. 2000). Another alternative is to use an effective stiffness.
Approaching the same decrease in stiffness from another point of view, Harries et al.
(1998) propose the use of an effective stiffness of the steel coupling beam of 0.60kEI. The
factor k represents the reduction in flexural stiffness due to shear deformations:
−1
12 EIλ
k = 1 + 2 (3)
L GAw
If the modeling technique used includes shear deformations, k = 1.
With this approach, the effective length of the beam in increased only to account for
spalling at the face of the wall:
L = L clear + 2 c (4)
This approach does not require a preliminary design to determine the coupling beam
embedment length. The effective stiffness of 0.60kEI has been observed to agree very well
with experimental observations of beams having significantly different embedment details
(Harries 1995)
DESIGN
Steel Coupling Beams
Well established guidelines for shear links in eccentrically-braced frames (AISC 1997)
may be used to design and detail steel coupling beams. The expected coupling beam rotation
angle plays an important role in the required beam details such as the provision of stiffeners.
This angle is computed with reference to the collapse mechanism shown in Figure 7 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 θp is taken as Cd θe, where the
elastic interstory drift angle, θe, is computed under code level lateral loads (e.g., ICBO 1994;
NEHRP 1997). Knowing the value of θp, shear angle, γp is calculated as:
θ p Lwall
γp = (5)
L
Note that in this equation the additional flexibility of the steel or composite coupling
beams may be taken into account by increasing the length of coupling beam as indicated in
Equations 2 or 4. This approach provides a reasonable approximation even if shell elements
have been used to model wall piers.
plastic hinges
θp
γp
L
γp = θp Lwall
L
Lwa ll
Figure 7. Determination of coupling beam angle of rotation.
e
Le - c c L/2 = a Le - c c L/2 = a
2
spalled cover spalled cover
Cb concrete Cb concrete load spreading
Vu V bf
u
Cf Cf
Le CL Le CL b < 2.5bf
εb assumed εb xf
ε f = 0.003 strain xb εf = 0.003
distribution
Cb
1/3(L e-c) assumed αfc β1x f
0.85f c stress βxb 0.85fc
distribution
3/4(L e -c)
(a) Mattock and Gaafar (1982) (b) Marcakis and Mitchell (1980)
For “flexure critical” steel beams, the shear capacity may be taken as the shear
corresponding to the development of the plastic moment capacity:
2M r 2M r
Vu = 1.35 = 1.5 (9)
Lφs L
The contribution of concrete encasement to the shear capacity of composite coupling
beams needs to be taken into account when the embedment length is calculated (Gong et al.,
1997 and 1998):
A f d
Vu = 1.56(V p + VRC ) = 1.56(0.6 Fy ( h − 2t f )tw ) + 0.167 fc 'bw d + s y (10)
s
Additional “transfer bars” attached to the beam flanges (as discussed above) can
contribute to the capacity of the embedment. The embedment length computed by Mattock
and Gaafar (1982) or Marcakis and Mitchell (1980) can be modified to account for the
additional strength. To ensure that the calculated embedment length is sufficiently large to
avoid excessive inelastic damage in the connection region, it is recommended that the
contribution of “transfer bars” be neglected.
DESIGN EXAMPLES
Examples included in Appendix A illustrate the designs of coupling beams discussed in
this paper. Details of the beam and wall designs contained in Appendix A may be found in
Harries (1996) and Harries et al. (1998). These examples are intended for illustrative
purposes.
CONCLUSIONS
The efficiency of coupled wall systems to resist lateral loads is well known. In order for
the desired behavior of the coupled wall system to be attained, the coupling beams must be
sufficiently strong and stiff. The coupling beams, however, must also yield before the wall
piers, behave in a ductile manner and exhibit significant energy absorbing characteristics.
This paper reviews the current state of the art for the design of conventional reinforced
concrete, diagonally reinforced concrete, steel and composite steel-concrete coupling beams.
Although not exhaustive, critical aspects of the design of these systems are presented.
In the case of diagonally reinforced concrete coupling beams, only included in ACI
provisions for the first time in ACI 318-99, considerable additional guidance in design and
detailing may be found in following Canadian (CSA) or New Zealand Standards (NZS).
Steel coupling beams may be efficiently designed and detailed as link beams in
eccentrically braced frames. When encased in concrete, considerable stability is imparted to
the beam allowing simplified details to be used.
The proper design of any coupled system must ensure the desired hierarchy of hinging. In
addition it is critical that hinges in the coupling beam remain in their clear span and do not
propagate into the walls. As such proper design of the embedment region is critical. There are
a number of methods of determining the required embedment length and details of steel or
composite coupling beams. All of these methods are based on an assumed rigid body rotation
of the embedment region of the coupling beam.
APPENDIX A – COUPLING BEAM DESIGN EXAMPLES
Salient points of the design of four types of coupling beam are presented. The beams are
located in eighteen storey prototype structures located in Vancouver, Canada. The plan of
these prototype structures is shown in Figure A1. Seismic design forces were determined
using the 1995 National Building Code of Canada equivalent lateral force method. Base
shears were determined to be in the range of 0.036W to 0.041W depending on the prototype
structure. These same base shears would be found by applying the NEHRP equivalent lateral
force method using R=5.8 to 6.7. NEHRP recommends a value of R=6 for either prototype
structure.
900 mm x 900 mm "barbells"
(storys 1 to 5)
800 mm x 800 mm "barbells"
(storys 6 to 18)
Note: wall thickness = 500 mm (storys 1 to 5)
= 400 mm (storys 6 to 18)
500 9000
550 x 550 column (typ.)
6000 (typ.)
30 000 5500 3000 5500
N 14 000
Partially (lightly) coupled
base shear = 0.041W
Vn 770000
As = = = 2783mm 2 (A1)
2φ s f y sin α 2 x 0.85 x 400 x sin 24°
therefore use 4 - No. 30 bars in each diagonal (As = 2800 mm2)
t
0.66
0.58 − 0.22 β 1
Vu = 4.05 f c ' wall β 1b f Le (A5)
b 0.88 + a
f
Le
If the bearing area width, twall, is assumed to be equal to the entire 900 mm width of the
“barbell,” the required embedment length is found to be 725 mm. It is noted that if the width
of the effective bearing area is limited to 2.5bf (Marcakis and Mitchell 1980), the required
embedment length is increased to 870 mm.
3000 mm
d = 617 mm
b = 230 mm
t f = 22 mm
t w = 13 mm 335 mm
915 mm
W610 x 140
(a) “flexure critical” prototype
1200 mm
50 mm
d = 600 mm
b = 225 mm
t f = 25 mm
t w = 9 mm 300 mm typ.
1000 mm
built-up section
(b) “shear critical” prototype
No. 10 corner
and midside bars
760 mm
No. 10 closed hoops
or hairpins @ 390 mm
390 mm
The overall dimensions for both the 3000 mm and 1200 mm long coupling beams are h =
780 mm and bw = 390 mm. These dimensions were obtained based on assuming that the
longitudinal bars would be at about 25 mm from the corners of the flanges, and by providing
40 mm of cover to the transverse reinforcement. The concrete compressive strength is taken
as 35 MPa, and the yield strength of the longitudinal bars is taken as 420 MPa. The required
embedment length for the flexural and shear critical beam is calculated in the following.
A f d
Vu = 1.56(V p + VRC ) = 1.56(0.6 Fy ( h − 2t f )tw ) + 0.167 fc 'bw d + s y (A6)
s
Using an effective depth, d = 780 – 81.5 = 698.5 mm, the ultimate shear capacity of the
coupling beam is found to be 2747 kN.
The required embedment length may be calculated using Equation A5 (Mattock and
Gaafar 1982). Similar to the previous example, twall is taken as 900 mm. The value of bf is
taken as the flange width of the steel coupling beam. The value of “a” is taken as half of the
3000 mm span. By applying Equation A5, the required embedment length, Le, is found to be
1285 mm.
The required embedment length determined using the method proposed by Marcakis and
Mitchell (1980), given in Equation A3 is found to be 1690 mm. Similar to the previous
example, this assumes that b’ is taken as 2.5b = 2.5 (230) = 575 and e = 0.5L + c+ 0.5(Le-c) =
1520 + 0.5Le (see Figure 8).
It is suggested that since the beam is “flexure critical” the value of Vp may be replaced
with the value of the shear required to achieve the ultimate flexural capacity of the beam,
shown above to be equal to 1.35 x 2Mr/Lφs = 1.35 x 727 / 0.9 = 1090 kN. In this case, the
required shear capacity of the embedment becomes:
2M r 2M r As f y d
Vu = 1.35 + 1.56VRC = 1.5 + 1.56 0.167 f c 'bw d + (A7)
Lφ s L s
For the “flexure critical” beam designed above, the required shear capacity of the
embedment region is Vu = 1090 + 1.56(420) = 1745 kN. The require embedment length is
found to be 970 mm (Equation A5) or 1280 mm (Equation A3).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the input and support of members of
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 335 – Composite and Hybrid Structures and
Professor Denis Mitchell of McGill University. The design methods and recommendations
are based on several projects funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation (Grants No.
BCS-8922777 and BCS-9319838 with Dr. Shih Chi Liu as the program director) and the
Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Any opinions, findings, and
conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors.
NOTATION
a = shear span of coupling beam, typically taken as L/2
A = cross sectional area of wall pier
As = area of transverse reinforcement in concrete encasement
Asc = area of concentrated reinforcement in boundary element of wall pier
Avd = area of reinforcement in each group of diagonal bars
Aw = area of web of steel beam
b' = effective width of the concrete compression block
bf = coupling beam flange width, also the bearing width of the embedment
bw = web width of concrete beam or concrete encasement
c = depth of concrete cover
Cd = deflection amplification factor defined by NEHRP (BSSC 1997)
Cf = resultant bearing (compressive) force in embedment
d = distance from the extreme compression fiber to centroid of longitudinal tension
reinforcement in concrete section
e = eccentricity from midspan of beam to center of embedment
E = Young’s modulus of coupling beam or wall pier
fc’ = specified concrete compressive strength
fy = yield strength of reinforcing steel
Fy = yield strength of steel beam
G = shear modulus
h = overall depth of coupling beam
I = moment of inertia of coupling beam or wall pier
k = stiffness factor accounting for shear deformations in flexural members
L = effective length of coupling beam
Lclear = length of coupling beam measured from face of wall piers
Le = embedment length of the steel coupling beams inside the wall piers
Lwall = distance between centroidal axes of the wall piers
Mr = moment capacity of steel beam
s = spacing of transverse reinforcement
tf = flange thickness of steel beam
tw = web thickness of steel beam
twall = thickness of wall pier
v = shear stress
vu = factored shear stress
Vc = factored shear force resisted by concrete
Vn = nominal shear capacity of coupling beam
Vp = plastic shear capacity of coupling beam
Vr = factored shear capacity of coupling beam
VRC = shear force resisted by reinforced concrete encasement
Vu = factored shear force on section
xb = length of compression block at back of embedment
xf = length of compression block at front of embedment
α = angle of inclination between diagonal reinforcement and longitudinal reinforcement
αc = coefficient defining relative contribution of concrete strength to wall strength
β or β1= ratio of the average concrete compressive strength to the maximum stress
γp = shear angle
λ = shape factor
θp = plastic interstory drift angle
θe = elastic interstory drift angle computed under code level lateral loads
ρn = ratio of area of distributed reinforcement parallel to plane of shear resistance to the
concrete area perpendicular to that plane
φc = material resistance factor for concrete = 0.60
φs = strength reduction factor for steel = 0.90
REFERENCES CITED
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 318, 1995, Building Code Requirements for
Reinforced Concrete and Commentary (ACI 318-95/ACI 318R-95), Farmington Hills, MI, 353 pp.
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 318, 1999, Building Code Requirements for
Reinforced Concrete and Commentary (ACI 318-99/ACI 318R-99), Farmington Hills, MI.
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), 1995, Manual of Steel Construction, Load and
Resistance Factor Design, Chicago, IL.
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), 1997, Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel
Buildings, Chicago, IL.
Aktan, A. E. and Bertero, V. V., 1981, The seismic resistant design of R/C coupled structural walls,
Report No. UCB/EERC-81/07, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California, Berkeley.
Aktan, A. E. and Bertero, V. V., 1984, Seismic response of R/C frame-wall structures, ASCE Journal
of the Structural Division, 110 (ST 8), 1803-1821.
Aktan, A. E. and Bertero, V. V., 1987, Evaluation of seismic response of RC building loaded to
failure, ASCE Journal of the Structural Division, 113 (ST 5), 1092- 1108.
Aristizabal-Ochoa, J. D., 1982, Dynamic response of coupled wall systems, ASCE Journal of the
Structural Division, 108 (ST 8), 1846-1857.
Aristizabal-Ochoa, J. D., 1987, Seismic behavior of slender coupled wall systems, ASCE Journal of
the Structural Division, 113 (ST 10), 2221-2234.
Barney, G. B. et al., 1978, Earthquake Resistant Structural Walls - Test of Coupling Beams, Report to
NSF, submitted by Portland Cement Association, Research and Development, Skokie, IL.
Bertero, V. V., 1980, Seismic behavior of R/C structural walls, Proceedings of the Seventh World
Conference of Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey, 1980.
Bertero, V. V., et al., 1974, Hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete flexural members with web
reinforcement, Report No. UCB/EERC 74-9, Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California, Berkeley.
Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) 1998, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic
Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA 302) and Commentary (FEMA 303),
1997 edition, Washington, DC.
Canadian Standards Association (CSA), 1994, CSA A23.3-94 Design of Concrete Structures, Rexdale,
Canada.
Fintel, M. and Ghosh, S. K., 1982, Case study of aseismic design of a 16-story coupled wall using
inelastic dynamic analysis, ACI Journal, 79 (3), 171-179.
Gong B., Shahrooz B. M., 1998, Seismic behavior and design of composite coupled wall systems,
Report No. UC-CII 98/01, Cincinnati Infrastructure Institute, Cincinnati, OH.
Gong B. Shahrooz B. M., and Gillum A. J., 1997, Seismic behavior and design of composite coupling
beams, Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete III, ASCE, New York, 258-271.
Gong B., Shahrooz B. M., and Gillum A. J., 1998, Cyclic response of composite coupling beams, ACI
Special Publication 174 – Hybrid and Composite Structures, Farmington Hills, MI, 89-112.
Harries, K. A., 1995, Seismic Design and Retrofit of Coupled Walls Using Structural Steel, Ph.D.
Thesis, McGill University, 229 pp.
Harries, K. A., 1996, Design and analysis of four prototype eighteen storey coupled wall structures,
McGill University Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics Structural
Engineering Series Report No. 96-01, 122 pp.
Harries, K. A., 1998, Ductility and deformability of coupling beams in reinforced concrete coupled
walls, Proceedings of the Eighth Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver,
June 1999, 475-481.
Harries, K. A., Mitchell, D., Redwood, R. G. and Cook, W. D., 1997, Seismic design of coupling
beams - A case for mixed construction, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 24(3), 448-459.
Harries, K. A., Mitchell, D., Redwood, R. G. and Cook, W. D., 1998, Seismic design and analysis of
prototype coupled wall structures, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 25 (5), 808-818.
International Council of Building Officials (ICBO), 1994, Uniform Building Code, Volume 2,
Structural Engineering Design Provisions, Whitier, CA.
Kabeyasawa T., Shiohara H., Otani S., and Aoyama H., 1983, Analysis of the full-scale seven-story
reinforced concrete test structure, Journal of the Faculty of Engineering, University of Tokyo,
XXXVII (2), 431-478.
Kunnath, S. K. and Reinhorn, A. M., 1994, IDARC-2D Version 3.1: Inelastic Damage Analysis of
Reinforced Concrete Building Structures, State University of New York at Buffalo.
Lybas, J. M. and Sozen, M. A., 1977, Effect of beam strength and stiffness on dynamic behavior of
reinforced concrete walls, SRS No. 444, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Mahin, S. A. and Bertero, V. V., 1975, An evaluation of some methods for predicting seismic
behavior of reinforced concrete buildings, Report No. UCB/EERC 75-15, Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
Marcakis K. and Mitchell D., 1980, Precast concrete connections with embedded steel members.
Prestressed Concrete Institute Journal, 25 (4), 88-116.
Mattock A. H. and Gaafar G. H., 1982, Strength of embedded steel sections as brackets. ACI Journal,
79 (2).
Milev J. I. and Kabeyasawa T., 1996, Modeling of reinforced concrete shear walls in RC frame-wall
structures, personal communication, Tokyo.
New Zealand Standards Association (NZS), 1995, NZS 3101:1995 Concrete Structures Standard.
Paparoni, M., 1972, Model studies of coupling beams, Proceedings of the International Conference
on Tall Concrete and Masonry Buildings, 3, 671-681.
Park, R. and Paulay, T., 1975 Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
Paulay, T., 1971, Coupling beams of reinforced concrete shear walls, ASCE Journal of the Structural
Division, 97 (ST 3), 843-862.
Paulay, T., 1977, Coupling beams of reinforced concrete shear walls, Proceeding of a Workshop on
Earthquake-Resistant Reinforced Concrete Building Construction, University of California,
Berkeley, July 11-15, 1977, 1452-1462.
Paulay, T., 1980, Earthquake resisting shear walls - New Zealand design trends, ACI Journal, 77 (3),
144-152.
Paulay, T., 1986, The design of ductile reinforced concrete structural walls for earthquake resistance,
Earthquake Spectra, 2 (4), 783-823.
Paulay, T. and Binney, J. R., 1974, Diagonally reinforced concrete beams for shear walls, ACI Special
Publication SP 42 - Shear in Reinforced Concrete, 579-598.
Paulay, T. and Santhakumar, A. R., 1976 Ductile behavior of coupled shear walls, ASCE Journal of
the Structural Division, 102 (ST 1), 93-108.
Paulay, T. and Taylor, R. G., 1981, Slab coupling of earthquake-resisting shear walls, ACI Journal,
78 (2), 130-140.
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI), 1992, PCI Design Handbook, fourth edition.
Saatcioglu, M., Derecho, A. T. and Corley, W. G., 1987, Parametric study of earthquake-resistant
coupled walls, ASCE Journal of the Structural Division, 113 (1), 141-157.
Scriber, C. F. and Wight, J. K., 1978, Delaying shear strength decay in reinforced concrete flexural
members under large load reversals, Report UMEE 78 R2, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Michigan.
Shahrooz B. M. and Gong, B., 1998, Steel-concrete coupling beams: a critical overview of design
guidelines, Structural Engineers World Wide 1998, paper T186-3.
Shahrooz B. M., Remmetter M. A. and Qin F., 1992, Seismic response of composite coupled walls,
Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete II, ASCE, 429-441.
Shahrooz B. M., Remmetter M. A. and Qin F., 1993, Seismic design and performance of composite
coupled walls, ASCE Journal of the Structural Division, 119 (11), 3291-3309.
Shiu, N. K., Barney, G. B., Fiorato, A. E. and Corley, W. G., 1978, Reversed load tests of reinforced
concrete coupling beams, Proceedings of the Central American Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, El Salvador, 239-249.
Shiu, N. K., Barney, G. B., Fiorato, A. E. and Corley, W. G., 1981, Earthquake Resistant Walls -
Coupled Wall Test, Report to NSF submitted by Portland Cement Association, Research and
Development, Skokie, Illinois.
Shiu, N. K., Takayangi, T. and Corley, W.G., 1984, Seismic behavior of coupled wall systems, ASCE
Journal of the Structural Division, 110 (ST 5), 1051-1066.
Stafford-Smith, B. and Coull, A., 1991, Tall Building Structures, Wiley Interscience.
Tassios, T. P., Moretti, M., and Bezas, A., 1996, On the coupling behavior and ductility of reinforced
concrete coupling beams of shear walls, ACI Structural Journal 93 (6), 711-720.
Teshigawara M., Kato M., Sugaya K.I., 1996, Seismic test on 12-story T-shaped coupled shear wall,
Proceedings of the Third Joint Technical Coordinating Committee Meeting, Hong Kong,
December 12-14, 1996.
Tunc G., Deason J., and Shahrooz B. M., 2000, Seismic response of R.C. core wall-steel frame hybrid
structures, Report No. UC-CII 00/01, Cincinnati Infrastructure Institute, Cincinnati, OH.
Vulcano A. and Bertero V. V., 1987, Analytical models for predicting the lateral response of RC
shear walls, Report No. UCB/EERC-87/19, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University
of California, Berkeley.