2-07-631-Xuan.

qxd 12/06/08 8:25 am Page 253

A Performance-Based Design Approach for Coupled

Core Wall Systems with Diagonally Reinforced
Concrete Coupling Beams

Gang Xuan1, Bahram M. Shahrooz2,*, Kent A. Harries3 and Gian A. Rassati2

1ChristieEngineering LLC, Bedminster, New Jersey, USA
2University of Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
3University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

(Received: 16 October 2007; Received revised form: 18 March 2008; Accepted: 20 March 2008)

Abstract: Coupled core wall systems (CCWs) are lateral force resisting systems that
can provide remarkable lateral stiffness for mid- to high-rise buildings, exceeding the
lateral stiffness of isolated walls while providing the redundancy and force
redistribution capabilities of framed systems. The lateral stiffness provided by CCWs
largely depends on the type of coupling beams used to transfer forces between wall
piers. Diagonally-reinforced concrete coupling beams are one of the more common
details although composite alternatives (e.g., those using structural steel W-shapes,
hollow structural steel sections, or embedded steel plates) or beams with rhombic
reinforcement are increasingly being selected as viable alternatives. Despite the
favorable behavior exhibited by diagonally-reinforced coupling beams in experimental
studies, designing and constructing diagonally-reinforced coupling beams having
practical span-to-depth ratios presents significant difficulties, impacting the use of
CCWs as a viable lateral force resisting system. This paper presents a performance-
based design (PBD) approach that allows the designer to successfully proportion a
code-compliant CCW system that addresses the shortcomings related to the traditional
strength-based design approach. A prototype building is designed following both
approaches, and is analyzed both statically and dynamically. Results show that the
PBD approach produces a code-compliant structure that satisfies the most pressing
constructability constraints.

Key words: coupled walls, reinforced concrete, performance-based design, seismic design, design criteria.

1. INTRODUCTION form of core walls, containing elevator shafts, stairwells,

Coupled core wall systems (CCWs) are lateral force
resisting systems that have the potential to provide very
large lateral stiffness without compromising commercially
valuable horizontal and vertical space, while at the same
time providing structural redundancy and resistance to
catastrophic loading and fire (FEMA 2003). The
combination of concrete flat slab floor systems with
reinforced concrete walls is ideal in minimizing floor-to-
floor heights in mid- to high-rise residential, office, and
hospitality structures. Often, structural walls take the
and service space. The most efficient system for resisting
lateral loads, particularly those caused by earthquakes, is
obtained when individual wall piers are connected by
means of coupling beams distributed over their height.
The resulting lateral force resisting system is stiffer and
stronger than the sum of the individual isolated walls.
CCWs resist lateral forces through a combination of
flexural behavior of the wall piers (isolated cantilever
wall pier flexure) and frame action imparted by the
coupling beams (accumulation of shear forces in

*Corresponding author. Email address: Bahram.Shahrooz@uc.edu; Fax: +1-513-556-2599; Tel: +1-513-556-3667.

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 11 No. 3 2008 253

2-07-631-Xuan.qxd 12/06/08 8:25 am Page 254
A Performance-Based Design Approach for Coupled Core Wall Systems with Diagonally Reinforced Concrete Coupling Beams
coupling beams resulting in an axial couple across
multiple wall piers). A measure of this behavior is given
by the so-called degree of coupling. The degree of
coupling (DOC) of a CCW system is defined as the ratio
of the total overturning moment resisted by the axial
couple resulting from frame action to the total
overturning moment resisted by the system:
NLw
DOC = (1)
∑ M w + NLw
in which, Lw = Lever arm between centroids of the
individual wall piers, Mw = Overturning moments
resisted by the individual wall piers, N = Wall axial
load due to the accumulation of the coupling beam shear
forces. A DOC equal to zero implies that the wall piers
behave as isolated walls (i.e., the walls are connected by
pinned links). A DOC value of unity implies that the
structure behaves as a single cantilever wall pier
spanning the footprint of the coupled system. A number
of studies have indicated that there is little structural
advantage in providing DOC values less than 0.3 and
that structurally efficient CCWs are realized for DOC
values ranging from 0.6 to 0.8. In this context, earlier
Canadian practice (NBCC 1995) designated those walls
having a DOC less than 0.66 as being “partially
coupled” while those having a DOC greater than 0.66
are “fully coupled”. Seismic force reduction factors
were increased for fully coupled systems reflecting their
superior structural performance.
The foundation of current building codes and provisions
is the strength-based design (SBD) method. This
method requires that all individual members in a
structural system be provided sufficient capacity to
resist forces induced by some prescribed set of loads.
The application of the SBD method to the design of
CCW systems presents some difficulties. In particular,
design shear stresses in coupling beams will invariably
exceed the ACI 318-prescribed limits (Harries et al.
2004; Harries and McNeice 2006). The large shear
demands in coupling beams result from the assumption
implicit to SBD that wall piers and beams will yield
practically simultaneously at the code-specified base
shear. However, field observations in the aftermath of
the 1964 Alaska earthquake (Berg and Stratta 1964)
indicate that all or most coupling beams in CCW
structures yielded well before the strength of the
coupled walls was attained. In support of this
observation, theoretical studies (Park and Paulay 1975)
also verify that most coupling beams will yield before
the wall capacity is reached. As an alternative to SBD
methods, approaches for the “design and engineering of
buildings for targeted performance objectives” (Bertero
254
1997) have been proposed. Such methods are commonly
referred to as Performance-Based Design (PBD)
approaches, and entail a preliminary choice of performance
objectives followed by the design of the structural
members to meet these objectives. By employing a PBD
method for the design of a CCW system, it is possible to
directly recognize the preferred yielding mechanisms of
such systems, and to take full advantage of their
ductility and redundancy characteristics. By doing so,
the coupling beams may be permitted to yield at a base
shear sensibly lower than the code-prescribed design
base shear, while the wall piers are still detailed to yield
at the prescribed level of base shear provided the
performance objectives (typically drift-related) are met.
Hence, distinct behaviors of the system can be attained
at different performance levels. A structure, for
instance, can be designed to behave as a CCW system
for a “life safety” (LS) performance level (as defined in
FEMA 356 2000b), and as a collection of isolated wall
piers at a “collapse prevention” (CP) level (Harries and
McNeice 2006). This design approach allows for a more
rational use of the favorable characteristics of all
structural elements, and has the potential of resulting in
more economical and easily constructed structures. In
the following, the coupling beams and the wall piers of
a prototype structure are designed based on both the
code-prescribed SBD method and the proposed PBD
methods. Static and dynamic analyses of the resulting
designs are presented and discussed to demonstrate how
the PBD method is capable of resulting in a structure
that meets the performance objectives and current code-
prescribed constraints.
2. COUPLING BEAM SHEAR AND
ROTATION CAPACITY
The response of CCWs is greatly affected by load and
deformation characteristics of coupling beams, and an
accurate assessment of yield and ultimate strengths and
rotational capacities of the beams is important from a
design as well as modeling point of view. In an effort to
estimate the expected strength and rotational capacities of
diagonally reinforced concrete coupling beams, a database
containing experimental data from 16 reported tests,
which were deemed to represent the most reliable set of
data, was compiled. A number of available theoretical
models of behavior were evaluated against the
experimental results contained in the database. The
analytical models examined were Paulay’s model (Paulay
2002), Hindi’s model (Hindi 2001), and the FEMA
356 acceptance criteria (FEMA 2000b). As evident from
Table 1, these models, by various degrees, either
underestimate or overestimate yield and ultimate strengths
and chord rotations. In order to more reasonably predict
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 11 No. 3 2008
 2-07-631-Xuan.qxd
12/06/08
8:25 am

Table 1. Ratios of computed to measured values

Specimen Vy/Vy,e θy/θy,e Vu/Vu,e θu/θu,e

Page 255

Source I.D. L/h Paulay Hindi FEMA Proposed Paulay Hindi FEMA Proposed Paulay Hindi FEMA Proposed Paulay Hindi FEMA Proposed
Paulay & 316 1.29 0.91 1.28 0.91 0.91 0.65 0.77 0.13 0.88 0.75 1.08 0.75 0.94 0.90 0.07 0.53 0.36
Binney, 317 1.29 1.04 1.64 1.04 1.04 0.75 0.88 0.12 1.01 0.88 1.48 0.88 1.10 2.05 0.20 1.19 0.83
1974 395 1.03 1.15 1.65 1.15 1.15 0.65 0.78 0.08 0.87 0.88 1.34 0.88 1.10 1.01 0.11 0.67 0.40
Tassios CB-2A 1.00 0.90 1.67 0.90 0.90 0.29 0.35 0.02 0.38 0.68 1.44 0.68 0.85 2.57 0.33 1.06 1.17
et al., CB-2B 1.66 0.93 1.68 0.93 0.93 0.39 0.47 0.04 0.53 0.63 1.30 0.63 0.79 3.67 0.47 0.98 1.73
1996

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 11 No. 3 2008

Galano & P05, b1 1.50 0.64 1.27 0.64 0.64 0.70 0.87 0.05 0.90 0.66 1.20 0.66 0.82 2.68 0.17 1.01 1.52
Vignoli, P06, b1 1.50 0.69 1.44 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.85 0.04 0.89 0.64 1.27 0.64 0.80 — — — —
2000 P07, b1 1.50 0.72 1.55 0.72 0.72 0.81 1.01 0.05 1.05 0.66 1.46 0.66 0.82 3.02 0.19 1.14 1.71
P08, b1 1.50 0.72 1.56 0.72 0.72 0.86 1.06 0.05 1.11 0.67 1.48 0.67 0.84 — — — —
P10, b2 1.50 0.64 1.33 0.64 0.64 0.76 0.94 0.05 0.98 0.66 1.96 0.66 0.82 2.90 0.67 1.10 1.65
P11, b2 1.50 0.79 1.57 0.79 0.79 0.75 0.93 0.05 0.97 0.65 1.81 0.65 0.82 — — — —
P12, b2 1.50 0.77 1.55 0.77 0.77 0.60 0.75 0.04 0.78 0.64 1.82 0.64 0.80 3.21 0.79 1.22 1.82
PCA, C6 2.50 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.00 1.10 0.22 1.42 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.84 2.21 0.14 0.59 1.05
1978 C8 5.00 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.86 2.37 0.46 2.33 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.88 2.38 0.17 0.38 1.01
Hindi et al. 1 2.74 0.85 1.08 0.85 0.85 1.21 1.35 0.27 1.72 0.62 0.81 0.62 0.77 3.11 0.35 0.66 1.72
Santha B 1.25 0.31 0.36 0.31 0.31 1.18 1.43 0.17 1.56 — — — — 1.28 0.30 0.87 0.64
kumar,
1974
Average 0.84 1.38 0.84 0.84 0.82 0.99 0.11 1.09 0.69 1.32 0.69 0.86 2.38 0.31 0.88 1.20
Standard Deviation 0.23 0.33 0.23 0.23 0.37 0.46 0.12 0.48 0.08 0.39 0.08 0.10 0.87 0.22 0.28 0.53
Coefficient of Variation 27.8% 24.3% 27.8% 27.8% 44.6% 46.0% 104.6% 43.9% 11.9% 29.6% 11.9% 11.9% 36.5% 71.7% 32.0% 43.9%

Vy = Yield strength; θy = Yield rotation

Vu = Ultimate strength; θu = Ultimate rotation
Subscripts “e” refers to the measured values.
L = Span; h = Depth

255
2-07-631-Xuan.qxd 12/06/08 8:25 am Page 256

A Performance-Based Design Approach for Coupled Core Wall Systems with Diagonally Reinforced Concrete Coupling Beams

∆y
As = Area of diagonal reinforcement

Asfy

∆y
Asfy

Horizontal deformation (elongation) of coupling beam is ignored.

Figure 1. Coupling beam deformation

the expected yield and ultimate strengths and rotations, a
modified version of Paulay’s model is proposed. Similar
to ACI 318 (2005) provisions, the contribution of concrete
confined in the diagonal cores is ignored and the diagonal
steel reinforcement is assumed to govern the strength.
Hence, the yield shear capacity (Vy) and yield moment
capacity (My) are:
this deformation is restrained by the floor diaphragm,
and also because its contribution will be small for coupling
beams with the most commonly used span-to-depth
ratios of around 2.5 to 4.
The yield chord rotation (θby) is:
θ by = ∆ y / s = 0.65ε y ( s /cos α + 40 d b ) / s (sin α ) (6)

Vy = 2 As f y sin α (2) Assuming a 25% increase in capacity due to strain

M y = Vy s 2
The parameters are defined in Figure 1. The yield chord
rotation is calculated as a function of the axial
deformations of the diagonal tension and compression
chords at yielding (∆T and ∆C, respectively). The
elongation of the compression chord is taken as 30% of
that of the tension chord, based on experimental results
hardening, the ultimate yield shear capacity (Vu) and
moment capacity (Mu) are Vu = 1.25Vy and Mu =
(3) 1.25My. The ultimate chord rotation (θbu) is calculated
assuming a bi-linear force-rotation relationship with
post-elastic stiffness Er equal to 5% of the elastic
stiffness E, in accordance with FEMA 365 (2000b), as
follows:
( )
θ bu = θ by + Vu − Vy / Er (7)

(Paulay 2002): Table 1 summarizes the resulting averages and standard

 s 
∆T = ε y  + 40 d b  ; ∆ C = 0.3∆ T
 cos α  that the proposed model reproduces the experimental
The coefficient 40 in Eqn 4 is based on the assumption
of having 20db (db = bar diameter) of development
length, as recommended by ACI-ASCE (2002), into
each wall pier. Hence, the vertical component of the
average diagonal deformation (∆y) is:
∆ y = ( ∆ T + ∆ C ) / ( 2 sin α ) = (1.3∆ T ) / ( 2 sin α )
= 0.65ε y ( s / cos α + 40 d b ) / sin α
Note that in the aforementioned derivation, the contribution
of horizontal deformation has been neglected because
deviations of the calculated versus experimental ratios
(4) for all the models considered in this study. It is evident
data with appreciably better accuracy than the existing
models examined.
3. THE PROTOTYPE STRUCTURE
A typical 15-story reinforced concrete CCW office
building was chosen as the prototype structure for this
study. The initial layout of the structure was based on a
(5) similar research project focusing on a 10-story CCW
structure (Harries et al. 2004). The two governing
requirements driving the design are: (1) the maximum
interstory drift should be less than 2% at the design load
level as required by NEHRP (FEMA 2000a); and (2)

256 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 11 No. 3 2008

2-07-631-Xuan.qxd 12/06/08 8:25 am Page 257
Gang Xuan, Bahram M. Shahrooz, Kent A. Harries and Gian A. Rassati
N factor at all stories was used in the design (Brienen
Dw = 3.05 m, s = 1.83 m
b = 7.6 m, t = 508 mm
t
5@6.1m = 30.5m
b ETABS column elements and pinned at each end to
Dw s Dw
5@6.1m = 30.5m
Figure 2. Plan view of prototype structure
the DOC of the CCW should be at least 0.66. The
prototype structure shown in Figure 2 is assumed to be
located in San Francisco, CA and is situated on a Class
C site, and thus falls into seismic design category D. For
the chosen site, the parameters defining the design
spectrum are: Ss = 1.5g and S1 = 0.65g (FEMA 2000a).
The ground story is 3.71m high and stories 2 through 15
are 2.80m high, for a total height of 42.9m. The floors
are 30.5m square having 20cm thick post-tensioned
reinforced concrete slabs. Two load resisting systems
are identified: (a) columns uniformly spaced in the floor
plan and (b) a CCW at the center of the floor plan,
consisting of two C-shaped wall piers, connected by
coupling beams at the ends of both flanges at every floor
level. Considering that the lateral stiffness of the CCW
is significantly larger than that provided by the columns,
it is assumed that the CCW carries 100% of the lateral
forces and its tributary share of gravity loads (self
weights of structural components, 480N/m2 for partition
load, 240N/m2 mechanical load and 720N/m2 cladding
load on external surfaces), while the columns carry only
their tributary share of gravity loads. For the sake of
simplicity, since the columns do not affect the lateral
force response of the system, it is assumed that all
columns in a floor have the same size as a generic
interio column. The response modification factor, R, is
selected as 6 in accordance with Table 5.2.2 of NEHRP
(FEMA 2000a). The occupancy importance factor, I,
was chosen as unity considering the anticipated use of
the building. Accidental torsional effects were included
in the analysis, corresponding to the lateral force level
multiplied by 5% of the transverse lateral dimension of
the building considered. Furthermore, for seismic category
D, the accidental torsion at each story is amplified by a
torsion amplification factor depending on the ratio of the
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 11 No. 3 2008
displacement at the corner of the building to that at the
centroid. An average value of the torsion amplification
2002). The dimensions of the core walls and beams
were chosen after a preliminary equivalent lateral force
(ELF) analysis performed using the analysis program
ETABS (CSI 1997). The columns were modeled using
ensure no contribution to lateral resistance. The post-
tensioned slabs were modeled as rigid diaphragms. The
flanges and webs of the C-shaped core walls were
modeled by means of ETABS panel elements and fixed
at the base of the building. Coupling beams were
modeled with ETABS beam elements and rigidly
connected to the wall panels. The effective flexural
stiffness (“cracked” stiffness) of the core wall in the
ground story was taken as 0.35EcIg, and 0.70EcIg for the
other stories (Ec = concrete modulus of elasticity and Ig
= gross moment of inertia). As per ACI 318 (2005)
recommendations, the stiffness of the coupling beams
was taken as 0.35EcIg. The design concrete compressive
strength (fc’) was 41.4MPa and Grade 60 reinforcement
(yield strength, fy = 414MPa) was assumed for all the
members. The dimensions for the CCW of the prototype
structure resulting from this preliminary analysis are
shown in Figure 2. With these dimensions, the ELF
analysis predicts the greatest story drifts to be 1.97%
and 1.73% in the coupled (EW) and uncoupled (NS)
directions, respectively. The DOC was determined from
ELF analysis to be equal to 0.80.
4. TRADITIONAL STRENGTH-BASED
DESIGN
Once a prototype structure was identified through ELF
analysis, modal response spectrum analysis (MRSA)
was used to evaluate the structural response and the
earthquake-induced forces in the CCW system. Using
the first two flexural modes of the structure in the
coupled EW direction, 91% of the mass was excited,
complying with NEHRP (FEMA 2000a) requirements
that at least 90% of the structural mass be represented in
a MRSA.
In order to obtain the shear demands in the coupling
beams, in accordance to NEHRP (FEMA 2000a), the
results of the elastic modal analyses were multiplied by
three magnification factors: (1) redundancy factor ρ,
dependent on the ratio of shear demand in one element
and total story shear demand, and applied to the
horizontal component of earthquake forces; (2) strength
reduction factor φ, taken as 0.75 for coupling beams;
and (3) base shear amplification factor Cb, dependent on
the ratio of the base shear obtained using an ELF
analysis and the square root of the sum of the squares
(SRSS) of the base shear forces for all modes
257
2-07-631-Xuan.qxd 12/06/08 8:25 am Page 258

A Performance-Based Design Approach for Coupled Core Wall Systems with Diagonally Reinforced Concrete Coupling Beams

15
0.27 f′c 0.59 f′c ACI Limit(0.83 f′c)
14

13

12

11
0.91 f′c
10 0.42 f′c

9
Story

8
1.09 f′c
7 0.50 f′c

6 From SBD Method

5 Average Values from SBD Method

4 Proportionally Scaled Values

3 Proportionally Scaled Design Values

2
1
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.42 f′c 0.6 0.8 0.91 f′c 1.0 1.2
Coupling Beam Shear Stress ( f′c)

Figure 3. Selection of coupling beam design shear stress

considered. Shears resulting from accidental torsion, C1 Lines through C2

magnified by the torsion magnification factor Ax the N.A.
(FEMA 2000a), were then added to the results of the
two-dimensional modal analysis. Wall pier B Wall pier
The resulting shear demands and in particular the
θw θb θw
maximum shear stresses for all the coupling beams were
calculated. It is worth mentioning that section 21.7.7.4 A
of ACI 318 (2005) specifies a maximum value for shear Coupling
Beam
stress in a diagonally reinforced coupling beam equal to
0.83 fc′ (in MPa). Figure 3 indicates that the largest Dw s Dw
calculated value of coupling beam shear stress occurs at
the 4th story, with a shear stress equal to 1.15 fc′ . In Figure 4. Deformation relationship between coupling beam
addition, the coupling beam shear stresses for the first and wall piers
10 stories exceed the maximum value allowed by ACI
318. Previous studies (Harries et al. 2005; Fortney deformation relationship between the wall piers and the
2005) suggest an even lower limit on the shear stresses coupling beams, however, is incompatible with this
of a coupling beam in order that they are practically assumption, as discussed in Paulay (2002). With
constructible. A maximum value of shear stress equal to reference to Figure 4, it is possible to calculate the
0.5 fc′ is recommended as a practical upper limit in vertical distance between points A and B due to wall
order to avoid reinforcement congestion problems in rotation (assuming that the floor diaphragm is rigid in
reasonably proportioned beams. As show in Figure 3, plane, and thus both walls rotate by the same amount):
none of the coupling beams of the prototype structure
can be practically constructed, based on this criteria ∆ AB = θ w × c1 + θ w × ( Dw − c2 )
(8)
even if their stresses were within the acceptable code- = θ w × ( Dw + c1 − c2 )
prescribed limit.
The large shear stresses obtained are the result of the In the simple case of rectangular wall piers in which c1
implausible assumption used in the SBD method, is equal to c2, Eqn 8 becomes:
according to which the wall piers and the beams will
yield approximately at the same level of base shear. The ∆ AB = θ w × Dw (9)

258 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 11 No. 3 2008

2-07-631-Xuan.qxd 12/06/08 8:25 am Page 259
Gang Xuan, Bahram M. Shahrooz, Kent A. Harries and Gian A. Rassati
Alternatively, the same vertical distance between points
A and B can be expressed in terms of the beam chord
rotation as follows:
∆ AB = θ b × s (10)
For compatibility, Eqns 9 and 10 must be equal:
θb Dw
θw = s (11)
Eqn 11 indicates that the ratio of beam chord rotation to
wall pier rotation is equal to the ratio of the wall length
to the span of the beam. For the selected prototype, this
ratio is equal to 1.67. Considering the toe-to-toe channel-
shaped wall pier arrangement of the prototype structure,
in Eqn 8 c1 > c2 (see Figure 4); thus, Eqn 11 will
underestimate the beam rotation based on the wall
rotation. The yield rotation of one wall pier (θwy) can be
approximated as φwyhe/2 (Paulay 2002) where he is the
distance from the base of the wall to the point of
inflection taken as 3/4 of the building height based on
ETABS elastic model of the prototype structure. The
yield curvature, φwy, may be taken as 1.55εy/Dw where εy
= the yield strain (Paulay 2002). The value of θwy is
calculated to be 0.0167 rad. for the prototype. Based on
the approximation made by Eqn 11, when the wall pier
yields, the chord rotation of the coupling beam is θb
= 0.0280rad. Using the proposed model (Eqn 6), the
yield chord rotation capacity of a coupling beam of the
prototype structure is estimated to be θby = 0.0065rad.
A comparison of this rotation with the rotational demand
on coupling beams at wall yielding suggests that
simultaneous yielding of coupling beams and wall piers
is an unrealistic expectation for practical structures.
Practitioners invariably find themselves in the difficult
position of having to forego the use of CCW systems on
account of the unrealistically high shear stress demands on
the coupling beams, due to the SBD method promulgated
in current codes. Alternatively, practitioners report
arbitrarily reducing the assumed coupling beam cracked
stiffness to lower the shear forces in the beam and/or
unrealistically increasing the concrete shear strength –
clearly neither approach has a sound basis. A more
rational approach is, therefore, needed in order to take full
advantage of the favorable behavior of CCW systems.
5. PROPOSED PERFORMANCE-BASED
DESIGN APPROACH
Since the traditional SBD does not appear to be capable
of addressing the expected seismic performance of CCW
systems, a PBD approach has been proposed (Harries
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 11 No. 3 2008
Vu Vu
Vwy
Vwy
VB VB
Vby
Vby
T T
(a) SBD (b) PBD
Figure 5. Comparison of design demands on CCW elements
et al. 2004). This proposed PBD method identifies three
stages for the seismic response of a CCW system, in
terms of the yielding sequence of the structural
members. The first stage is the elastic stage, in which all
structural members are elastic. The second stage is the
transition stage, in which the coupling beams yield
progressively and the wall piers remain elastic. The final
stage is the global yielding stage, in which wall piers
yield and the coupling beams continue to rotate in a
plastic manner and may reach their ultimate
deformation capacities. Note that this final stage does
not correspond to the formation of a mechanism,
considering that the wall piers, albeit yielded, have not
yet reached their ultimate capacity and can still provide
lateral resistance. In order to meet this three-stage
behavior objective, the following CCW performance
requirements are proposed: (a) at the life-safety (LS)
performance level, the beams are allowed to yield, but
the wall piers are required to remain elastic. The
maximum drift of the structure should remain below 2%
(FEMA 2000a); and (b) at the collapse prevention (CP)
performance level the wall piers are allowed to yield,
and the beams may reach their ultimate deformation
capacities. These criteria are consistent with the
definitions of structural performance at LS and CP
levels found in FEMA 356 (FEMA 2000b) and are
consistent with the intent of SBD provisions. With these
performance objectives in mind, the design demands for
coupling beams and wall piers differ from those
obtained through a SBD approach. Figure 5 qualitatively
illustrates the spectral response of the SBD and
proposed PBD approaches for a CCW system. Using the
former approach, the yielding shear forces Vby and Vwy
for beams and walls, respectively, are very close to the
design base shear value VB (corresponding to LS
performance level). It is worth pointing out that a design
check at the ultimate base shear Vu (corresponding to CP
performance level) is not required, because it is assumed
that the detailing provisions provided in the codes are
adequate to ensure development of sufficient deformation
capacity to reach Vu. A review of analytical studies of
259
2-07-631-Xuan.qxd 12/06/08 8:25 am Page 260
A Performance-Based Design Approach for Coupled Core Wall Systems with Diagonally Reinforced Concrete Coupling Beams
CCWs suggest that this implicit assumption of the SBD
method may not be appropriate for CCW structures due
to the significant disparity between frame and wall
action component stiffnesses (Harries 2001). The PBD
approach, on the other hand, allows the coupling beams
to yield well before VB is reached. This allowance implies
that design forces in coupling beams may be reduced
and that at the same time the demand on the wall piers
be increased. In this case, the ultimate base shear Vu is
related to the onset of the collapse mechanism for the
structure, corresponding either to the formation of plastic
hinges at the base of the wall piers, or to the maximum
interstory drift exceeding some assigned value, taken as
2.5% (the maximum code specified value) in this work.
Finally, as a result of the desired three-stage behavior,
the structural period will elongate (shifting the period to
the right in Figure 5), effectively reducing seismic
demands on the wall piers, as the beams progressively
yield. If this effect is considered, the theoretical increase
in wall pier demand noted above may be mitigated.
Such an analysis, however, is not presented here.
In order to design the coupling beams based on the
above-mentioned performance requirements, two design
criteria are selected. First, to ensure constructability of
beams having practical dimensions, the maximum shear
stress in a coupling beam should not exceed 0.50 fc ' .
Second, the vertical distribution of shear stresses in
coupling beams (Figure 3), as obtained in SBD
approach, is retained. The second criterion is intended to
enforce simultaneous yielding of most beams.
Additionally, to simplify design, coupling beams with
similar shear demands are grouped as follows: beams
from levels 2 to 7 are classified as group I; beams in
level 1 and from levels 8 to 10 are classified as group II;
and beams from levels 11 to 15 are classified as group
III. This grouping is based on the following guidelines:
a) beam shear stress redistribution required for grouping
should not exceed 20% of the calculated stresses prior to
grouping; and b) the sum of the resulting shear
capacities of the grouped beams should be not be less
than the sum of the calculated stresses prior to grouping.
Based on the SBD analysis, beams in group I, II, and III
have average shear stresses of 1.09 fc′ , 0.91 fc′ , and
0.59 fc′ , respectively as shown in Figure 3. In order to
meet the first design criterion, for group I, the design
shear stress is reduced to 0.50 fc ' . To maintain the
second design criterion, the shear stresses in the other
groups are proportionally reduced by the ratio 0.50/1.09.
Hen ce, the design shear stresses for groups I, II, and III
are, respectively, 0.50 fc ' , 0.42 fc′ , and 0.27 fc′ .
The resulting shear stress distribution and beam grouping
is shown in Figure 3. The coupling beams for each
group are designed and detailed according to ACI 318-05
260
(ACI 2005) provisions. In order to ensure the desired
structural behavior, it is important that regardless of
shear demand, diagonally reinforced coupling beams be
used at each level if they are required at any level.
(Unless beams having span-to-depth ratios greater than
4 are used, the largest design shear of 0.50 fc ' will
require the use of diagonal reinforcement.) This
requirement will generally lead to providing beams having
the same dimensions at each level but with different
reinforcing details. Coupling beam details for the
prototype structure are illustrated in Figure 6.
The design of wall piers follows the same
performance requirements outlined above. It is assumed
that a) the internal forces in the wall piers are calculated
considering all of the coupling beams have yielded,
thereby transferring a higher demand onto the walls; and
b) the tension and compression walls exhibit different
stiffness characteristics because of the presence of axial
forces produced by coupling action. The stiffness ratio
between the tension and compression walls is taken as
0.3/0.7 (Paulay 2002). Hence, the flexure and shear
forces are not distributed equally between the wall piers.
For the first assumption, the shear force at each level can
be considered equal to the yield capacity Vy of the beams.
Based on the free-body diagram in Figure 7, the moment
in the tension wall is taken as 30% of the effective
moment ME, which is equal to the overturning moment
less the moment due to coupling action (ΣVbyL); that is:
for the two wall system considered, ME is the ΣMw term
from Eqn 1. Correspondingly, the moment in the
compression wall at each story is taken as 70% of ME.
Horizontal shear forces for the tension (Vtx) and
compression (Vcx) walls are also assumed to be 30% and
70% of the total story shear Vstr, respectively. In the
coupled direction, the story shears in the C-shaped
compression and tension walls are distributed equally to
the two parallel flange walls. The web of the C-shaped
wall pier is not assumed to carry any story shear in the
coupled direction as shown in Section A-A in Figure 7.
A modal response spectrum analysis is performed in the
two orthogonal directions (coupled (EW) and uncoupled
(NS) directions), and the demand is assessed
considering the effects of 100% of lateral forces in one
direction plus 30% of those in the orthogonal direction
(FEMA 2000a). The wall shears resulting from the
effects of accidental torsion are distributed in a manner
consistent with the expected torsional behavior of the
core wall sections, neglecting warping. Like story shear
forces, torsion-induced shear forces are distributed in
proportion, 30%-70% to the tension and compression
wall piers, respectively. Axial and bending effects in
both directions are combined to verify biaxial axial-
flexural demands. Shear forces are considered separately
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 11 No. 3 2008
2-07-631-Xuan.qxd 12/06/08 8:25 am Page 261

Gang Xuan, Bahram M. Shahrooz, Kent A. Harries and Gian A. Rassati

# 11 Wall #4 distributed bars

Longitudinal bars @ 132mm o.c.
Group III Beams U #4 ties @ 152mm o.c.
#4 ties @ 100mm o.c.

Group II Beams See Note 1

#4 distributed bars
below.
U @ 127mm o.c.
Note 1 : Diagonal core
Group I Beams out-to-out dimensions:
124 mm 280 mm (wide) ×
98 mm 152 mm (high)
Group II Beams
A-A B-B 118 mm

A B

Note 1:
Group I: 6 # 11
Group II: 6 # 10
Group III: 6 # 8

A B
Coupling Beam Dimensions:
508 mm wide × 762 mm deep

Figure 6. Coupling beam details

Lines through beam

X Modal inflection points
lateral load F.B.D.
Beam shear capacity

Beam shear capacity

Y
0.15Vstr 0.35Vstr
Compression wall
Tension wall

Vstr

Beam X
axial
force
0.15Vstr 0.35Vstr
A-A

A A

Vtx = 0.3Vstr Vcx = 0.7Vstr

0.3ME 0.7ME
T P

Figure 7. Analysis in the coupled direction

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 11 No. 3 2008 261

2-07-631-Xuan.qxd 12/06/08 8:25 am Page 262

A Performance-Based Design Approach for Coupled Core Wall Systems with Diagonally Reinforced Concrete Coupling Beams

Distributed web steel:

Two curtains of vertical steel: #7 @ 254 mm
Two curtains of horizontal steel: #7 @ 254 mm

Distributed flange steel:

Two curtains of vertical steel: #7 @ 203 mm
Two curtains of horizontal steel: #7 @ 203 mm

Wall thickness = 508 mm

Boundary elements:
longitudinal steel : #11
Transverse steel: #7 @ 127 mm

8@137

2@173 2@173

7@137
2@173 2@137

Figure 8. Typical wall details (floors 1 through 3)

to assess the shear demand. Boundary reinforcing
elements are provided at the ends of the wall flanges, per
ACI 318 requirements. A typical design of a C-shaped
wall pier is shown in Figure 8. Additional details
regarding design of the walls are provided by Xuan
(2005).
6. NONLINEAR STATIC AND DYNAMIC
ANALYSES
The response of the 15-story prototype structure designed
following the proposed PBD methodology was evaluated
by means of static pushover and dynamic nonlinear
analyses conducted in the coupled (EW) direction. The NS
direction was found to have adequate behavior and is not
of interest in the present context. The nonlinear finite
element program Ruaumoko (Carr 2000) was used for this
purpose. For the sake of simplicity, a two-dimensional
frame model of the structure was used with beam-column
elements for the wall piers, and cubic-interpolated beam
elements with rigid offsets for the coupling beams (see
Figure 9). The mass of the CCW system is equally
distributed among the nodes at each level.
6.1. Modeling of Coupling Beams
Accurate modeling of coupling beams is necessary to
assess beam behavior ensuring that at LS level the
beams have yielded, but still maintain enough ductility
to reach the CP level, at which point the loss of some or
all beams is acceptable. A bilinear moment-curvature
relationship was used to represent the behavior of the
coupling beams. The yield curvature of the beams (φy)
6∆ y
is φ y = 2 in which ∆y is computed based on Eqn 5.
s
The yield moment (M y ) corresponds to the nominal

262 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 11 No. 3 2008

2-07-631-Xuan.qxd 12/06/08 8:25 am Page 263

Gang Xuan, Bahram M. Shahrooz, Kent A. Harries and Gian A. Rassati

Rigid links

dp
βdp
rK

K K(dy/dm)α
dy dm

Parameter Walls Beams

α 0 0.1
β 0.60 0.5
0.015 (Floors 1 − 3)
P r 0.007 (Floors 4 − 7) 0.02
Parabolic 0.003 (Floors 8 − 15)
surfaces

Hysteresis model for coupling beam and wall elements

Balanced conditions
M
Multiplier on yield moment

Beams: δ1 = 4.5, δ2 = 8, Residual = 0.6

Walls: δ1 = 8, δ2 = 14, Residual = 0.6
1.0

P-M Interaction surface

for wall elements
Residual

δ1 δ2

Displacement ductility

Strength reduction factors for

coupling beam and wall elements

Figure 9. Analytical model and elements for pushover and dynamic analyses

capacity of the coupling beam, and the effective moment
My
of inertia (Ie) is I e = which is calculated based on
E cφ y
elastic analysis hypothesizing a linear distribution of
curvature along the beam. The value of the ratio of post-
yield residual stiffness to initial stiffness is taken as 0.02,
which is an empirical value generally accepted for
reinforced concrete structures. Considering that the model
is two-dimensional, each beam in the model represents the
two beams at each level in the three-dimensional
prototype structure.
6.2. Modeling of Wall Piers
The wall piers were modeled with quadratic beam-column
elements, taking into account axial-flexure interaction.
A cross-sectional nonlinear fiber-analysis program,
XTRACT (Imbsen 2002), was used to produce the
nonsymmetric (i.e., tension and compression behavior)
axial-flexure interaction curves needed for generating
the necessary input parameters for the RUAMOKO
model. The effective moment of inertia was taken as the
effective stiffness as calculated by XTRACT, divided
by the ACI (2005) specified Young’s Modulus for
concrete. The residual stiffness ratio was taken as the
value calculated by XTRACT. Two pushover analyses
were conducted: a) appropriately incorporating tension
and compression pier properties (as obtained from
separate XTRACT analyses), and b) using average
values of tension and compression pier properties for
both walls. While it is easy to establish which wall pier

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 11 No. 3 2008 263

2-07-631-Xuan.qxd 12/06/08 8:25 am Page 264
A Performance-Based Design Approach for Coupled Core Wall Systems with Diagonally Reinforced Concrete Coupling Beams
1.6 Range of yielding
1.36 of wall piers
Normalized base shear (V/Vt)
1.4
1.19
1.2
1.15
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.6
Range of yielding
of coupling beams
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0% 0.5% 1.0%
Roof drift ratio
(a) Different tension and compression wall pier properties
is in tension and which is in compression for a pushover
analysis, during a dynamic analysis these conditions
alternate. Similar to the second procedure for pushover
analyses, the average properties were used for the
dynamic analyses.
7. RESULTS OF PUSHOVER ANALYSIS
The applied load pattern corresponding to the shape of
the fundamental mode obtained from a modal analysis
was used for the pushover analysis (FEMA 2000a),
which was terminated once any interstory drift exceeded
2.5%. Figure 10 shows the roof drift ratio as a function
of the non-dimensional lateral loads, normalized by the
modal base shear Vt. Both analyses, with appropriate
tension and compression pier properties and with
average pier properties are shown. The roof drift
response is essentially a tri-linear curve representing the
elastic, transition, and inelastic states described
previously. In both analyses, the first coupling beam
was observed to yield at a base shear of 0.80Vt and all
beams had yielded at a base shear of 1.15Vt. Since the
wall piers are assigned different properties in each
analysis, the observed wall behaviors are different. For
the analysis with appropriate tension and compression
pier properties, the compression wall yields at its base at
1.33Vt and the tension wall exhibits first yield at 1.34Vt.
When average wall properties are used, the resulting
increased distribution of forces to the tension wall
causes this wall to yield sooner in the analysis (at
1.16Vt), with yielding of the compression wall
(occurring at its base) delayed until reaching a base
shear of 1.36 Vt. Regardless of the analysis, however,
the trilinear pushover behavior is exactly the same prior
to wall yielding and essentially the same thereafter since
the total stiffness of the structure in each analysis
remains the same. It is assumed that the first analysis
with appropriate wall pier properties (Figure 10(a))
264
1.48 1.6 Range of yielding 1.42
1.34 of wall piers
Normalized base shear (V/Vt)
1.4
1.33
1.18 1.16
1.2
1.15
1.0
0.8
0.8
LS CP 0.6 LS CP
Range of yielding
of coupling beams
0.4
0.2
0.0
1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5%
Roof drift ratio
(b) Average properties for tension and compression wall piers
Figure 10. Normalized base shear – roof drift response from pushover analysis
better represents the actual structural behavior, although
the average properties analysis results in a model that
may also be used for dynamic analyses.
The LS and CP drifts corresponded to base shears of
1.19Vt or 1.18Vt and 1.36Vt or 1.34Vt, respectively,
depending on whether appropriate tension and
compression pier properties or average values are used
for the wall piers. The observed behavior is generally
consistent with the performance objectives discussed
above and presented in Figure 5(b). In both analyses, the
first yielding of the walls occurs prior to the CP level; for
the analysis having appropriate tension and compression
properties (Figure 10(a)), the compression wall pier
yields at its base, whereas the analysis with average wall
properties (Figure 10(b)) indicates the tension wall yields
at its base. In either case, the coupling beams underwent
significant additional nonlinear deformations between
the LS and the CP levels.
8. RESULTS OF DYNAMIC ANALYSES
The finite element model having average wall pier
properties was used for a series of nonlinear dynamic
analyses. In this case, the required hysteretic behavior of
the beam and wall elements was modeled using the
modified Takeda hysteretic model (Carr 2000). Stiffness
and strength degradation coefficients were chosen
according to those used previously by Harries et al.
(1998). Refer to Figure 9 for various parameters
defining the hysteretic models and strength reduction
factors. Five ground motions were selected; three
records were recorded acceleration records (El Centro
1940 NS, Northridge 1994 at Pacoima Dam NS, and
Northridge 1994 at Sylmar Hospital NS), and two were
artificial accelerograms generated to be consistent with
the code-prescribed (FEMA 2000a) response spectra for
LS and CP performance criteria, respectively. The
spectra for these ground motions are shown in Figure 11;
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 11 No. 3 2008
2-07-631-Xuan.qxd 12/06/08 8:25 am Page 265

Gang Xuan, Bahram M. Shahrooz, Kent A. Harries and Gian A. Rassati

4.0

LS Design
3.5
CP Design

Artificial LS Level
3.0
Artificial CP Level

2.5 El Centro N-S

Acceleration (g)

Northridge pacoima N-S

2.0 Northridge Sylmar N-S

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
Period (sec.)

Figure 11. Response spectra of selected ground motions

15
14
13
12
11
10
9
LS Limit
8
Floor

7
6
5 El Centro N-S

4 Northridge pacoima N-S

3 Northridge Sylmar N-S

2 Artificial CP Level

1 Artificial LS Level

0
0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0%
Inter-story Drift

Figure 12. Interstory drift envelopes

based on these, the El Centro and artificial LS records
can be considered service level earthquakes, while the
others are CP level. The fundamental period of the
structure in the coupled direction is 1.44 seconds.
Figure 12 shows a summary of the interstory drift
envelopes for all levels for each of the seismic records
used in the analyses. The magnitudes of these drifts
match the expected input energy for the corresponding
earthquakes. It is important to notice that the response of
the system to both LS and CP level earthquakes are
compatible with the performance requirements and the
design criteria adopted, and meet the NEHRP (FEMA
2000a) provisions. The full set of results of these
analyses is provided in Xuan (2005). Table 2 shows the

Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 11 No. 3 2008 265

2-07-631-Xuan.qxd 12/06/08 8:25 am Page 266

A Performance-Based Design Approach for Coupled Core Wall Systems with Diagonally Reinforced Concrete Coupling Beams

Table 2. Maximum chord rotation

Chord rotation Rotation capacity* (rad)

Ground motion (rad) Location θy θu
El Centro 0.030 Floor 12 0.0081 0.0484
Artificial LS 0.036 Floor 13 0.0081 0.0484
Artificial CP 0.055+ Floor 14 0.0081 0.0484
Northridge @ Pacoima N-S 0.060+ Floor 14 0.0081 0.0484
Northridge @ Slymar N-S 0.077+ Floor 14 0.0081 0.0484

*Rotation capacity corresponding to the floor where the maximum chord rotation is obtained. The yield rotation (θy) and ultimate rotation (θu) capacities were
computed from Eqns 6 and 7, respectively.
+Although the coupling beams have exceeded their ultimate rotation capacities, the wall piers can still provide resistance because they have not reached their

ultimate capacities.

0.06
θu=0.048
0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02 θy=0.0081
Chord rotation (rad.)

0.01

0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
−0.01

−0.02

−0.03

−0.04

−0.05

−0.06
Time (sec.)

Figure 13. Representative coupling beam chord rotation history

maximum chord rotations for coupling beams in the
CCW system for all selected ground motions. For the
service level ground motions (El Centro 1940 and
artificial LS), the coupling beam chord rotations exceed
the predicted yield chord rotation capacities, but remain
below the expected ultimate rotation capacity. This
behavior is compatible with the previously discussed LS
level requirements. For the collapse prevention level
excitations (artificial CP record and the two Northridge
records), all the beams exceed their ultimate chord
rotation capacities, although this is acceptable within
the CP criteria discussed previously. Nevertheless, the
excursions beyond the ultimate rotational capacity are
instantaneous; for example, Figure 13 shows the chord
rotation history of the 14th floor coupling beam, which
experienced the largest rotational demand, under the
artificial CP record. Although some of the coupling beams
exceed their ultimate rotation capacities under CP level
earthquakes, the wall piers continue to provide resistance
because they do not reach their ultimate capacities.
An examination of the response of the CCW prototype
shows that the service level records did not cause yielding
of the wall piers, whereas the collapse prevention level
excitations cause transient excursions into post-elastic
behavior of wall pier elements (Xuan 2005). Both of
these behaviors are in accordance with the predetermined
requirements for LS and CP levels. A close examination
of the response of all wall pier elements (Xuan 2005)
shows that, although inelastic deformations are more
likely to take place at the base level of the structure,
other floors may also experience yielding, albeit less
frequently. This can be attributed to the gradual stiffness
degradation of the coupling beams in the post-yielding
phase, which imparts a larger demand on the wall
elements. This observation is also supported by existing
literature (McNeice 2004).

266 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 11 No. 3 2008

2-07-631-Xuan.qxd 12/06/08 8:25 am Page 267
Gang Xuan, Bahram M. Shahrooz, Kent A. Harries and Gian A. Rassati
9. CONCLUSIONS
This paper discusses the drawbacks of the traditional
strength-based design (SBD) methodology for the
design of coupled core wall (CCW) systems with
diagonally reinforced coupling beams. It is shown that
the underlying hypothesis in current code-based
provisions that the coupling beams and wall piers yield
simultaneously at the design base shear is unrealistic.
Furthermore, design based on this hypothesis results in
unreasonable shear stress demands on the coupling
beams, exceeding both constructability and code-based
limits. As an alternative, the paper presents a
performance-based design (PBD) approach that allows
the designer to respect the actual seismic response of a
CCW system while permitting a rational design of the
coupling beams, accounting for constructability issues.
The design of a prototype building based on SBD
and PBD methodologies is outlined. In particular, the
choice of performance objectives and design criteria
are discussed. Static and dynamic nonlinear analyses of
the performance-based designed CCW system are
presented and discussed. The structure designed using
the PBD approach meets the intended performance
objectives and design criteria for code-required seismic
loads. The performance-based design approach presented
is a rational and straightforward design methodology
that allows designers to produce code-compliant
structures that are constructible and that take full advantage
of the considerable economical and structural
advantages of coupled core wall systems.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Financial support for the first author was provided by
the University of Cincinnati.
REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute Committee 318 (2005). ACI 318-05
Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete and
Commentary (ACI 318-05/ACI 318R-05), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
ACI-ASCE Joint Committee 352. (2002). Recommendations for
Design of Beam-Column Connections in Monolithic Reinforced
Concrete Structures (ACI 352R-02), American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI.
Berg, V.B. and Stratta, J.L. (1964). “Anchorage and the Alaska
Earthquake of March 27, 1964”, American Iron and Steel
Institute, New York, pp.63.
Bertero, V. (1997). “Performance-based seismic engineering: a
critical review of proposed guidelines”, Seismic Design
Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes, A.A. Balkema
Publisher, pp. 1–32
Brienen, P. (2002). “Spreadsheets (electronic version) of a 10-Story
CCW Building Design”
Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 11 No. 3 2008
Carr, J. (2000). Manual of Ruaumoko-Computer Program Library,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury.
Computers and Structures Inc (CSI) (1997). ETABS V6.2, Three
Dimensional Analysis of Building Systems User Manual,
Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, California.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (2003). FEMA 403 World
Trade Center Building Performance Study, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington DC.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (2000a). FEMA 368
NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for
New Buildings and Other Structures, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington DC
Federal Emergency Management Agency (2000b). FEMA 356
Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings (FEMA 356), Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Washington DC.
Fortney, P. (2005). Next Generation Coupling Beams, PhD
Dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Cincinnati.
Hindi, A. and Sexsmith, R. (2001.) “A proposed damage model for
R/C bridge columns under cyclic loading”, Earthquake Spectra,
EERI, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 261–281.
Harries, K.A., Mitchell, D., Redwood, R.G. and Cook, W.D. (1998).
“Nonlinear seismic response predictions of walls coupled with
steel and concrete beams”, Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, Vol. 25, pp. 803–818.
Harries, K.A. and McNeice, D.S. (2006). “Performance-based
design of high-rise coupled wall systems”, The Structural
Design of Tall and Special Structures, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp.
289–306.
Harries, K.A., Fortney, P., Shahrooz, B.M. and Brienen, P. (2005).
“Design of practical diagonally reinforced concrete coupling
beams – a critical review of ACI 318 requirements”, ACI
Structures Journal, Vol. 102, No. 6, pp. 876–882.
Harries, K.A., Shahrooz, B.M., Brienen, P. and Fortney, P.J.
(2004). “Performance-based design of coupled wall systems”,
Composite Construction V, July 18-23, 2004, Kruger National
Park, South Africa.
Harries, K.A. (2001). “Ductility and deformability of coupling
beams in reinforced concrete coupled walls”, Earthquake
Spectra, EERI, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 457–478.
Imbsen Software Systems (2002). Release Notes of XTRACT v
2.6.2—Cross Sectional Xs Structural Analysis of Components,
Imbsen Software Systems, Sacramento, CA,
McNeice, D. (2004). Performance Based Design of a 30 Story
Coupled Core Wall Structure, M.S. Thesis, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of South Carolina.
National Research Council of Canada (1995). National
Building Code of Canada, (NBCC), Canadian Commission on
Building and Fire Codes, National Research Council of
Canada, Ottawa.
Park, R. and Paulay, T. (1975). Reinforced Concrete Structures,
John Wiley & Sons Inc., pp. 645–655.
267
2-07-631-Xuan.qxd 12/06/08 8:25 am Page 268

A Performance-Based Design Approach for Coupled Core Wall Systems with Diagonally Reinforced Concrete Coupling Beams

Paulay, T. (2002). “A displacement-focused seismic design of mixed
building systems”, Earthquake Spectra, EERI, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp.
689–718.
Subedi, N.K. (1990). “Ultimate strength analysis of reinforced
concrete coupling beams”, The Structural Engineer, Vol. 68,
No. 3, pp. 45–49.
Subedi, N.K., Marsono, A.K. and Aguda, G. (1999). “Analysis of
reinforced concrete coupled shear wall structures”, The Structural
Design of Tall Buildings, Vol. 8, pp. 117–143.
Xuan, G. (2005). Performance Based Design of a 15 Story Reinforced
Concrete Coupled Wall Structures, M.S. Thesis, Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Cincinnati.

268 Advances in Structural Engineering Vol. 11 No. 3 2008

Copyright of Advances in Structural Engineering is the property of Multi-Science Publishing Co Ltd and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.