D. Naish - Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Coupling Beams

STRUCTURAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY
EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION AND

ANALYTICAL MODELING OF ACI 318-05/08
REINFORCED CONCRETE COUPLING BEAMS
SUBJECTED TO REVERSED CYCLIC LOADING
David Naish
John W. Wallace
University of California, Los Angeles

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering
J. Andrew Fry
Ron Klemencic
Magnusson Klemencic Associates, Inc.
Sponsor:
UCLA - SGEL
Report 2009/06
Experimental Evaluation and Analytical Modeling of
ACI 318-05/08 Reinforced Concrete Coupling Beams
Subjected to Reversed Cyclic Loading
David Naish
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
J. Andrew Fry, P.E., S.E., LEED AP

Ron Klemencic, P.E., S.E., FACI

John Wallace, Ph.D., P.E., FACI

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Report to Charles Pankow Foundation

School of Engineering and Applied Science
August 25, 2009
ii
ABSTRACT
An efficient structural system for tall building construction to resist earthquake loads consists of
reinforced concrete shear walls connected by diagonally reinforced coupling beams.
Construction of coupling beams that satisfy the strength and detailing requirements set forth in
ACI 318-05 for diagonally reinforced coupling beams is cumbersome and costly; therefore, ACI
318-08 provides a new detailing option which aims to improve the constructability while
maintaining adequate strength and ductility. Eight half-scale specimens were tested to compare
the performance of beams constructed utilizing new and old detailing options, to evaluate
common modeling approaches, and to assess the impact of reinforced and post-tensioned slabs.
Test results indicate that the new detailing approach provides equal, if not improved behavior as
compared to the alternative detailing approach, that simple modeling approaches reasonably
capture measured force versus deformation behavior, and that including a slab had only a modest
impact on strength, stiffness, ductility, and observed damage. This report summarizes the results
of these eight tests.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research has been funded by the Charles Pankow Foundation, with significant in-kind
support provided by Webcor Concrete; this support is gratefully acknowledged. As well, material
contributions from Catalina Pacific Concrete, SureLock, and Hanson Pacific are appreciated.
Thanks are extended to laboratory assistants Joy Park, Nolan Lenahan, and Cameron Sanford, as
well as UCLA students Anne Lemnitzer, Sarah Taylor-Lange, and Derek Skolnik and UCLA
laboratory technicians Steve Keowen, Alberto Salamanca, Steve Kang, and Harold Kasper, for
help in test preparation and completion.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................. iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................ iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. v
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF SYMBOLS ................................................................................................................... xi
1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 1
2 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM.......................................................................................... 5
2.1 Beam Design................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Material Properties.......................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Test Setup...................................................................................................................... 16
2.4 Loading Protocol........................................................................................................... 16
2.5 Instrumentation ............................................................................................................. 18
3 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION........................................................ 25
3.1 Detailing........................................................................................................................ 27
3.1.1 Full Section vs. Diagonal Confinement ................................................................ 27
3.1.2 Full vs. Half Confinement .................................................................................... 27
3.2 Slab Impact ................................................................................................................... 31
3.3 Frame Beam .................................................................................................................. 35
3.4 Damage ......................................................................................................................... 36
4 MODELING........................................................................................................................ 47
4.1 Effective Stiffness......................................................................................................... 47
4.2 Effect of Scale............................................................................................................... 49
4.3 Backbone Relations ...................................................................................................... 53
4.4 Model vs. Test Results.................................................................................................. 56
5 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 59
REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 61
APPENDIX A .............................................................................................................................. 63
APPENDIX B .............................................................................................................................. 98
APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................................ 101
APPENDIX D ............................................................................................................................ 102
APPENDIX E ............................................................................................................................ 106
v
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Confinement options: (a) Diagonal confinement; and (b) Full section confinement........4
Figure 2.1 Test beam geometries (ln/h = 2.4) full section confinement: (a) CB24F, CB24F-RC,
CB24F-PT, CB24F-1/2-PT elevation; (b) CB24F cross section; and (c) CB24F-RC, CB24F-PT,
CB24F-1/2-PT cross section. (Dimensions are inches. 1in = 25.4mm) ...........................................8
Figure 2.2 Photographs of test specimens (ln/h = 2.4) full section confinement (clockwise from
top left): (a) CB24F beam construction; (b) CB24F-1/2-PT beam construction; (c) CB24F-PT
beam elevation; and (d) CB24F-RC beam and slab construction.......................................................9
Figure 2.3 - Slab geometry and reinforcement for CB24F-RC, CB24F-PT, and CB24F-1/2-PT:
(a) Elevation view; and (b) plan view. (Dimensions are inches. 1in = 25.4mm) ............................10
Figure 2.4 - Slab geometry and PT reinforcement for CB24F-PT and CB24F-1/2-PT: (a) Plan
view; and (b) photo of post-tensioning load application. (Dimensions are inches. 1in = 25.4mm)11
Figure 2.5 Test beam geometries (ln/h = 2.4) diagonal confinement (clockwise from top left): (a)
CB24D elevation; (b) cross section; (c) diagonal bundle section dimensions; and (d) beam
construction (Dimensions are inches. 1in = 25.4mm) ....................................................................12
Figure 2.6 Test beam geometries (ln/h = 3.33) full section confinement (clockwise from top left):
(a) CB33F elevation; (b) cross-section; and (c) beam construction (Dimensions are inches. 1in =
25.4mm) ............................................................................................................................................13
Figure 2.7 Test beam geometries (ln/h = 3.33) diagonal confinement (clockwise from top left):
(a) CB33D elevation; (b) cross-section; (c) diagonal bundle section dimensions; and (d) beam
construction (Dimensions are inches. 1in = 25.4mm) ....................................................................14
Figure 2.8 Test beam geometries (ln/h = 3.33) frame beam: (a) FB33 elevation; and (b) cross-
section. (Dimensions are inches. 1in = 25.4mm)............................................................................15
Figure 2.9 Laboratory test setup .......................................................................................................16
Figure 2.10 Loading protocol: (a) Load-controlled; and (b) Displacement-controlled. (1k =
4.45kN) .............................................................................................................................................17
Figure 2.11 Sensor layout for: (a) CB24F and CB24D, and (b) CB33F, CB33D, and FB33 ..........19
Figure 2.12 Sensor layout for (a) CB24F-RC, and (b) CB24F-PT and CB24F-1/2-PT ...................20
Figure 2.13 Strain gauge layout for CB24F and CB33F. SG 12 and SG 14 are on horizontal
crossties.............................................................................................................................................21
Figure 2.14 Strain gauge layout for CB24D and CB33D. SG 15 and SG 16 are located on
horizontal crossties............................................................................................................................22
Figure 2.15 Strain gauge layout for CB24F-RC, CB24F-PT, and CB24F-1/2-PT. SG 12 and SG
16 are located on horizontal crossties. ..............................................................................................23
Figure 2.16 Strain gauge layout for FB33. SG 12 and SG 16 are located on horizontal crossties. ..24
Figure 3.1 Cyclic load-deformation: CB24F vs. CB24D (1in = 25.4mm) .......................................29
Figure 3.2 Cyclic load-deformation: CB33F vs. CB33D (1in = 25.4mm) .......................................29
Figure 3.3 Cyclic load-deformation: CB24F-PT vs. CB24F-1/2-PT (1in = 25.4mm) .....................30
vii
Figure 3.4 Moment curvature analysis summary for beam with and without slab (clockwise from
top left): (a) Beam cross section with and without slab; (b) beam elevation with positive and
negative moment capacities shown; (c) plot of Mn- vs. curvature; and (d) plot of Mn+ vs.
curvature ...........................................................................................................................................32
Figure 3.5 Cyclic load-deformation: CB24F vs. CB24F-RC (1in = 25.4mm) .................................33
Figure 3.6 Axial elongation vs. rotation: CB24F vs. CB24F-RC (1in = 25.4mm)...........................33
Figure 3.7 Cyclic load-deformation: CB24F-RC vs. CB24F-PT (1in = 25.4mm) ...........................34
Figure 3.8 Axial elongation vs. rotation: CB24F-PT vs. CB24F-RC (1in = 25.4mm).....................34
Figure 3.9 Cyclic load-deformation: FB33 (1in = 25.4mm).............................................................35
Figure 3.10 CB24F damage photos: (a) 0.075% rotation; (b) 1% rotation; (c) 2% rotation; and (d)
3% rotation........................................................................................................................................38
Figure 3.11 CB24F damage photos: (a) 4% rotation; (b) 6% rotation; (c) 8% rotation; and (d)
10% rotation......................................................................................................................................39
Figure 3.12 CB24D damage photos: (a) 0.075% rotation; (b) 1% rotation; (c) 2% rotation; and
(d) 3% rotation ..................................................................................................................................40
Figure 3.13 CB24D damage photos: (a) 4% rotation; (b) 6% rotation; (c) 8% rotation; and (d)
10% rotation......................................................................................................................................41
Figure 3.14 CB24F-PT damage photos: (a) 0.075% rotation; (b) 1% rotation; (c) 2% rotation;
and (d) 3% rotation ...........................................................................................................................42
Figure 3.15 CB24F-PT damage photos: (a) 4% rotation; (b) 6% rotation; (c) 8% rotation; and (d)
10% rotation......................................................................................................................................43
Figure 3.16 CB24F-1/2-PT damage photos: (a) 0.075% rotation; (b) 1% rotation; (c) 2% rotation;
and (d) 3% rotation ...........................................................................................................................44
Figure 3.17 CB24F-1/2-PT damage photos: (a) 4% rotation; (b) 6% rotation; (c) 8% rotation; and
(d) 10% rotation ................................................................................................................................45
Figure 4.1 Effective stiffness plotted as a function of aspect ratio for various levels of
displacement ductility (NZS 3101-1995). Included on the plot are test results at the
corresponding ductility levels. ..........................................................................................................51
Figure 4.2 Effective stiffness vs. rotation: ln/h = 2.4 .......................................................................51
Figure 4.3 Yield rotation due to slip/extension vs. aspect ratio for various testing scales ...............52
Figure 4.4 Effective elastic stiffness as a function of gross section stiffness calculated for various
aspect ratios and testing scales..........................................................................................................52
Figure 4.5 Determination of backbone relation from test data .........................................................55
Figure 4.6 Backbone load-deformation for full-scale beam models and ASCE 41-06 model (1/2-
scale test results are dotted lines)......................................................................................................55
Figure 4.7 Cyclic load-deformation: CB24F vs. moment hinge model............................................58
Figure 4.8 Cyclic load-deformation: CB24F vs. shear hinge model ................................................58
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 - Test Matrix and Material Properties............................................................................. 7

Table 3.1 - Moment and Shear Strength Capacities ..................................................................... 26
Table 3.2 - Crack Widths [in.] ...................................................................................................... 37
Table 4.1 - Effective Stiffness Values .......................................................................................... 50
ix
x
LIST OF SYMBOLS
Acw = cross-sectional area of concrete beam web

Ash = area of transverse reinforcement provided within given spacing, s
Avd = cross-sectional area of each diagonal group of bars
bw = width of beam web
db = diameter of rebar
Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete
f’c = concrete compressive strength
fy = yield strength of reinforcement
h = beam depth
Ieff = effective section moment of inertia
Ig = gross section moment of inertia
ln = clear span of beam
Mn = moment capacity of beam
My = yield moment of beam
s = longitudinal spacing of transverse reinforcement
V = beam shear
Vave = average beam shear between yield and onset of strength degradation
Vmax = max shear force applied during test
Vn = nominal shear capacity of beam
Vy = yield strength of beam
α = angle between diagonal bars and longitudinal axis of beam
Δ = relative displacement of beam end
Δy = relative displacement at yield
θ = beam chord rotation
θy = beam chord rotation at yield
xi
xii
1 Introduction
Tall building construction is common in metropolitan areas and it has become increasingly
important to provide methods of construction that improve both seismic performance and
constructability. Reinforced concrete core walls, with coupling beams above openings to
accommodate doorways, are an efficient lateral-force-resisting system for tall buildings. When
subjected to strong shaking, coupling beams act as fuses and typically undergo large inelastic
rotations.
Various testing programs have been carried out to assess the load – deformation behavior
of coupling beams.1-5 Primary test variables in these studies were the ratio of the beam clear span
to the beam total depth (commonly referred to as the beam aspect ratio) and the arrangement of
the beam reinforcement. In a majority of these studies, the load – deformation behavior of low-
aspect ratio beams (1.0 to 1.5) constructed with beam top and bottom longitudinal reinforcement
were compared with beams constructed with diagonal reinforcement. Concrete compressive
strengths for most tests were around 4 ksi (~25-30 MPa). Although these tests provided valuable
information, they do not address issues for current tall building construction, where beam aspect
ratios are typically between 2.0 and 3.5 and concrete strengths are in the range of 6 to 8 ksi (~40-
55 MPa). In addition, in none of the prior studies was a slab included as part of the test
specimen; whereas the slab might restrain axial elongations and impact stiffness, strength, and
deformation capacity.6-8 Use of post-tensioned slabs is common for current construction.
Use of diagonal reinforcement in coupling beams with clear length to total depth less than
four was introduced into ACI 318-95.9 Two groups of diagonal bars are commonly assumed to
form a truss, with one group serving as the tension member and the other as the compression
member. To enhance the compressive strength and deformation capacity of the diagonal truss
1
members as well as to suppress buckling of the diagonal bars, use of transverse reinforcement
around the diagonal bar groups is required. The quantity of transverse reinforcement required is
the same as that used for columns, which is substantially more than that used in most of the prior
coupling beam test programs. Nominal transverse reinforcement also is required around the
entire beam cross section. Providing transverse reinforcement around the diagonal bar bundles as
detailed in ACI 318-0510 S21.7.7 is difficult where the diagonal groups intersect at the beam
mid-span, particularly for shallow beams, as well as at the beam-wall interface due to
interference with the wall boundary vertical reinforcement (Fig. 1-1(a)). To combat these issues,
ACI 318-0811 S21.9.7 introduced an alternative detailing option, where transverse reinforcement
is placed around the beam cross section to provide confinement and suppress buckling, and no
transverse reinforcement is provided directly around the diagonal bar bundles (Fig. 1-1(b)). Use
of this detailing option avoids the problems noted where the diagonal bars intersect and at the
beam-wall interface, reducing the construction time for a typical floor by a day or two.12
In beams with aspect ratio (ln/h) approaching four, the angle of inclination (α) of the
diagonal reinforcement is often very small (~10°), making placement of the diagonal
reinforcement more difficult, as the diagonal bars are more likely to be obstructed by transverse
reinforcement. Use of straight (longitudinal) flexural reinforcement is common in these
situations, if the shear demand and required ductility are low.
Nonlinear modeling of coupling beams has received increased attention as the use of
performance-based design for tall core wall buildings has become more common.13 Modeling
parameters for diagonally-reinforced coupling beams were introduced into Table 6-18 of FEMA
35614; given the limited test data available, only one row of modeling parameters is provided,
and these parameters remain unchanged in ASCE 41-06 (2007).15 Of particular interest is the
selection of the effective secant bending stiffness at yield Ec I eff and the allowable plastic rotation
prior to significant lateral strength degradation. The value used for coupling beam bending
stiffness has a significant impact on degree of coupling.16
Based on investigation of prior studies, the following parameters were deemed particularly
important for study:
1) Aspect ratio
2) Residual capacity/failure
2
3) Slab inclusion (RC and PT)
4) Detailing/confinement steel
a. Diagonal confinement
b. Full-section confinement
c. ½-section confinement
3
*
(a)
* Spacing
measured
perpendicular
to the axis of
the diagonal
bars not to
exceed 14 in.,
typical
SECTION
Spacing not to
exceed 8 in., typical
(b)
Alternate
consecutive crosstie
90-deg hooks, both
horizontally and
vertically, typical
*
* * Spacing not to
exceed 8 in.,
typical
SECTION
Figure 1.1 Confinement options: (a) Diagonal confinement; and (b) Full section
confinement
4
2 Experimental Program
2.1 BEAM DESIGN
The test beam prototypes were based on two common tall building configurations for
residential and office construction. Typical wall openings and story heights produce coupling
beams with aspect ratios of approximately 2.4 for residential buildings and 3.33 for office
buildings. A coupling beam with cross-section dimensions of 24" x 30" ( 94.5 mm x 118 mm )
and 24" x 36" ( 94.5 mm x 142 mm ) reinforced with two bundles of 8-#11 diagonal bars is
common for residential and office construction, respectively. The nominal shear strengths of the
residential and office beams, determined using ACI 318-08 equation 21-9
(V n )
= 2 Avd f y sin α ≤ 10 f 'c Acw , are 7.3 f 'c Acv and 4.8 f 'c Acv , for aspect ratios of 2.4
(α=15.7) and 3.33 (α=12.3), respectively, for Grade 60 reinforcement. Due to geometric and
strength constraints of an existing reaction frame, tests were conducted on one-half scale replicas
of the prototype beams. Thus the test specimens were either 12" x 15" ( 47 mm x 59 mm ) or
12" x 18" ( 47 mm x 71 mm ) with two bundles of 6-#7 diagonal bars (Figs. 2.1-2.5), for the
residential and office beams, respectively. For aspect ratio 3.33, a 12" x 18" ( 47 mm x 71mm )
specimen with two groups of 3-#6 straight (longitudinal) flexural reinforcement (referred to as
“frame beam”) was also tested (Fig. 2.8). The maximum shear stress expected for the frame
beam, based on reaching M pr at the beam-wall interface at the beam ends, was 3.6 f 'c . This
limit was selected based on input from practicing engineers; at higher shear stresses, use of
diagonal reinforcement is common.
5
As stated previously, the configuration of the transverse reinforcement was a primary
variable of the test program. Beams with transverse reinforcement provided around the bundles
of diagonal bars (referred to as “diagonal confinement”) were designed according to ACI 318-05
S21.7.7.4, whereas beams with transverse reinforcement provided around the entire beam cross
section (referred to as “full section confinement”) were designed according to ACI 318-08
S21.9.7.4(d). Volumetric ratios of transverse reinforcement and the ratios bar spacing to bar
diameter ( s / db ) for the one-half scale test beams were selected to be similar to the prototype
beams. Due to maximum spacing requirements, the volumetric ratios of transverse reinforcement
provided in both the prototype and test beams exceed that calculated using the requirement for
columns (ACI 318-08 21.6.4.4). The test beam geometries and reinforcement configurations are
summarized in Table 2.1 and Figures 2.1-2.8.
Three test specimens with aspect ratio of 2.4 were constructed with 4”-thick slabs. One
specimen (CB24F-RC) contained a slab reinforced with #3 bars @12” spacing, on the top and
bottom in the transverse direction, and on the top only in the longitudinal direction, without post-
tensioning strands (Fig. 2.3). Two specimens (CB24F-PT and CB24F-1/2-PT) both contained a
similar reinforced-concrete slab, but also were reinforced with 3/8” 7-wire strands post-tensioned
to apply 150 psi to the slab in the longitudinal direction (Figs. 2.3-2.4). Specimen notation is
given in Table 2.1.
2.2 MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Material samples were taken and tested in order to determine actual properties for both concrete
compressive strength and steel tensile strengths. Concrete cylinders were tested to determine f’c
for each test specimen on the day of testing. Concrete cylinders were tested both in the UCLA
material testing laboratory as well as at Twining Testing Labs in Long Beach, CA, in order to
provide redundancy, and to help avoid error in the material testing process. Rebar coupons were
tested in order to determine yield and ultimate tensile strengths for steel in the coupling beam
specimens. Rebar in each specimen was taken from the same batch to ensure consistency from
test to test. These material properties are summarized in Table 2.1.
6
Table 2.1 - Test Matrix and Material Properties
Transverse ⎛A ⎞ ⎛A ⎞
Reinforcement ⎜ sh ⎟ ⎜ sh ⎟
ln/h ⎜ act ⎟ ⎜ act ⎟
Beam α[°] f’c[psi] fy[psi] fu[psi] Description
type ⎜ Ash ⎟ ⎜ Ash ⎟
Full Section Diagonals ⎜⎝ req ⎟ ⎜ req ⎟
⎠x ⎝ ⎠y
Full section
1.34 1.24
CB24F #3 @ 3" N.A. 6850 confinement
(1.25)1 (1.09)1
ACI 318-08
Diagonal confinement
CB24D #2 @ 2.5" #3 @ 2.5" 1.92 2.44 6850
ACI 318-05
Full section conf.

2.4 15.7 1.34 1.24
CB24F-RC residential #3 @ 3" N.A. 7305 w/ RC slab
(1.25)1 (1.09)1
ACI 318-08
Full section conf.
1.34 1.24
CB24F-PT #3 @ 3" N.A. 7242 w/ PT slab
(1.25)1 (1.09)1
70000 90000 ACI 318-08
Full section conf.
CB24F-1/2- 0.67 0.62
#3 @ 6" N.A. 6990 (reduced) w/ PT slab
PT (0.63)1 (0.55)1
ACI 318-08
Full section
1.34 1.26
CB33F #3 @ 3" N.A. 6850 confinement
(1.25)1 (1.06)1
ACI 318-08
12.3
3.33
office Diagonal confinement
CB33D #2 @ 2.5" #3 @ 2.5" 1.92 2.44 6850
ACI 318-05
Frame beam with 6-#6

FB33 0 #3 @ 3” N.A. - - 6000
straight bars
()1
Calculations for full-scale prototype beams [1psi = 0.0069MPa]
7
Section A-A Section A-A
Figure 2.1 Test beam geometries (ln/h = 2.4) full section confinement: (a) CB24F, CB24F-RC, CB24F-PT, CB24F-1/2-PT
elevation; (b) CB24F cross section; and (c) CB24F-RC, CB24F-PT, CB24F-1/2-PT cross section. (Dimensions are inches. 1in
= 25.4mm)
8
Figure 2.2 Photographs of test specimens (ln/h = 2.4) full section confinement (clockwise from top left): (a) CB24F beam
construction; (b) CB24F-1/2-PT beam construction; (c) CB24F-PT beam elevation; and (d) CB24F-RC beam and slab
construction
9
Figure 2.3 - Slab geometry and reinforcement for CB24F-RC, CB24F-PT, and CB24F-1/2-PT: (a) Elevation view; and (b) plan
view. (Dimensions are inches. 1in = 25.4mm)
10
Figure 2.4 - Slab geometry and PT reinforcement for CB24F-PT and CB24F-1/2-PT: (a) Plan view; and (b) photo of post-
tensioning load application. (Dimensions are inches. 1in = 25.4mm)
11
Section B-B
Figure 2.5 Test beam geometries (ln/h = 2.4) diagonal confinement (clockwise from top left): (a) CB24D elevation; (b) cross
section; (c) diagonal bundle section dimensions; and (d) beam construction (Dimensions are inches. 1in = 25.4mm)
12
Section C-C
Figure 2.6 Test beam geometries (ln/h = 3.33) full section confinement (clockwise from top left): (a) CB33F elevation; (b) cross-
section; and (c) beam construction (Dimensions are inches. 1in = 25.4mm)
13
Section D-D
Figure 2.7 Test beam geometries (ln/h = 3.33) diagonal confinement (clockwise from top left): (a) CB33D elevation; (b) cross-
section; (c) diagonal bundle section dimensions; and (d) beam construction (Dimensions are inches. 1in = 25.4mm)
14
Section E-E
Figure 2.8 Test beam geometries (ln/h = 3.33) frame beam: (a) FB33 elevation; and (b) cross-section. (Dimensions are inches.
1in = 25.4mm)
15
2.3 TEST SETUP
The setup shown in Figure 2.9, where the test specimen was placed in a vertical position with
end blocks simulating wall boundary zones at each end, was used for all tests. The end blocks
were grouted and post-tensioned to the laboratory strong floor (bottom) and to the steel reaction
frame (top) to minimize slip between the surfaces as well as to provide for fixed end conditions.
Two vertical hydraulic actuators were used to ensure zero rotation at the top of the specimen,
while maintaining constant (zero) axial force in the beam.
The lateral load was applied via a horizontal actuator, with the line of action of the
actuator force passing through the mid-span (mid-height) of the test specimen to achieve zero
moment at the beam mid-span. To prevent out-of-plane rotation or twisting, a sliding truss
system was attached between the steel reaction frame and the reinforced concrete reaction wall.
Figure 2.9 Laboratory test setup
2.4 LOADING PROTOCOL
The testing procedure included load-controlled and displacement-controlled cycles (Fig. 2.10).
Load-control was performed at 0.125, 0.25, 0.50, and 0.75Vy, where Vy = 2 M y ln to ensure that
the load-displacement behavior prior to yield was captured. For residential beams, Vy was
16
assumed to be 120k using nominal material properties; for office beams, Vy was assumed to be
100k. Beyond 0.75Vy, displacement-control was used in increments of percent chord rotation (θ),
defined as the relative lateral displacement over the clear span of the beam (Δ) divided by the
beam clear span (ln) (excluding any contribution of slip and rotation of the bottom support
block). Three cycles were applied at each load increment for load controlled testing, and three
cycles were applied in displacement-control at each increment of chord rotation up to 3%, which
is approximately the allowable collapse prevention (CP) limit state for ASCE 41-06.15 Two
cycles were applied at each increment of chord rotation exceeding 3%.
100
50
Lateral Load [k]
-50
ln/h = 2.4
ln/h = 3.33
-100
12
8
Rotation [%]
-4
-8
-12
Figure 2.10 Loading protocol: (a) Load-controlled; and (b) Displacement-controlled. (1k =
4.45kN)
17
2.5 INSTRUMENTATION
Each of the test specimens was heavily instrumented. Linear Variable Differential Transformers
(LVDTs) were placed on the specimen to measure key deformation quantities; Figures 2.11 and
2.12 show the sensor layouts for the different test specimens. Vertical sensors (#1-12) measured
flexural response, diagonal sensors (#13-24) measured shear response, vertical sensors (#54-57)
at the beam-wall interface measured slip/extension deformations, horizontal sensors (#50-53) at
the beam-wall interface measured any sliding of the beam with respect to the wall, vertical
sensors (#40-41) spanning the full length of the beam measured axial elongation of the beam,
and all other sensors (#30-33 and AC-1,2) were used to measure the tip displacement of the
beam. As well, strain gauges were placed on diagonal, transverse, and longitudinal rebar (Fig.
2.13-2.16). Data from several different sensors was used to calculate values plotted in all results.
Individual sensor data are available from the authors. Eventually, the data will be uploaded to
the Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation data repository. Data also will be stored on
a data server at UCLA.
18
Figure 2.11 Sensor layout for: (a) CB24F and CB24D, and (b) CB33F, CB33D, and FB33
19
Figure 2.12 Sensor layout for (a) CB24F-RC, and (b) CB24F-PT and CB24F-1/2-PT
20
Figure 2.13 Strain gauge layout for CB24F and CB33F. SG 12 and SG 14 are on horizontal
crossties
21
Figure 2.14 Strain gauge layout for CB24D and CB33D. SG 15 and SG 16 are located on
horizontal crossties.
22
Figure 2.15 Strain gauge layout for CB24F-RC, CB24F-PT, and CB24F-1/2-PT. SG 12 and
SG 16 are located on horizontal crossties.
23
Figure 2.16 Strain gauge layout for FB33. SG 12 and SG 16 are located on horizontal
crossties.
24
3 Experimental Results and Discussion
Results from the tests are presented and discussed. Overall load-displacement relations are
compared to assess the impact of providing full section confinement as opposed to confinement
around the diagonals for both residential- and office-use beams. The role of transverse
reinforcement is examined by comparing load-displacement relations for the beams, including
one beam with only one-half of the required transverse reinforcement. Other comparisons are
made that examine the effect of the floor slab (both reinforced concrete (RC) and post-tensioned
reinforced concrete (PT)) on the beam load-deformation response, including the effective elastic
bending stiffness at yield as well as the influence of scale on the test results. Table 3.1
summarizes the calculated strengths, as well as the actual strengths and deformations of each test
specimen at major points.
25
Table 3.1 - Moment and Shear Strength Capacities
V @ Mn Vn ( ACI ) Vave
Beam Mn+ [in-k] Mn- [in-k] V@Mn [k] Vn(ACI)[k] V [k] V [k] Δy [in] Vmax [k] Δ@Vmax [in]
f 'c Acv f 'c Acv ave f 'c Acv y
CB24F 2850 2850 158.3 10.65 136.3 9.15 154.9 10.40 121.3 0.360 171.0 1.08
CB24D 2850 2850 158.3 10.65 136.3 9.15 150.7 10.12 128.8 0.363 159.2 2.16
CB24F- 2890 2890 160.6 10.45

136.3 8.87 181.0 11.77 147.2 0.362 190.8 2.16
RC (3550)1 (3350)1 (191.7)1 (12.50)1
CB24F- 3160 3160 175.6 11.45
136.3 8.90 198.9 12.98 163.2 0.361 211.8 2.16
PT (3960)1 (3625)1 (210.7)1 (13.75)1
CB24F- 3145 3145 174.7 11.61
136.3 9.06 182.4 12.12 158.1 0.365 189.6 1.08
1/2-PT (3940)1 (3610)1 (209.7)1 (13.90)1
CB33F 3615 3615 120.5 6.77 107.8 6.03 118.3 6.62 107.7 0.600 124.0 1.80
CB33D 3615 3615 120.5 6.77 107.8 6.03 114.7 6.42 95.94 0.601 120.6 3.60
FB33 1450 1450 48.3 2.89 - - 56.3 3.37 47.86 0.306 58.1 1.20
1
Calculations that consider the impact of the slab [1 in-k = 113 mm-kN, 1 in = 25.4 mm, 1 k = 4.45 kN]
26
3.1 DETAILING
3.1.1 Full Section vs. Diagonal Confinement
Load-deformation responses of CB24F and CB24D are very similar over the full range of
applied rotations (Fig. 3.1). Notably, both beams achieve large rotation (~8%) without significant
degradation in the lateral load carrying capacity, and the beams achieve shear strengths of 1.25
and 1.17 times the ACI nominal strength (Table 3.1). The shear strength of CB24D degraded
rapidly at around 8% rotation, whereas CB24F degraded more gradually, maintaining a residual
shear capacity of ~80% at rotations exceeding 10%.
Figure 3.2 plots load vs. rotation relations for the 3.33 aspect ratio beams with full section
confinement (CB33F) vs. diagonal confinement (CB33D). Similar to the 2.4 aspect ratio beams,
Figure 3.2 reveals that the beams have similar strength (Table 3.1), stiffness, deformation, and
damage (Table 3.2) characteristics.
The test results presented in Figures 3.1-3.2 indicate that the full section confinement
option of ACI 318-08 provides equivalent, if not improved performance, compared to
confinement around the diagonals per ACI 318-05.
3.1.2 Full vs. Half Confinement
The transverse reinforcement used for CB24F-1/2-PT was one-half that used for CB24F-PT to
assess the impact of using less than the code-required transverse reinforcement given that the
requirements of S21.6.4 are based on column requirements. Figure 3.3 plots load-deformation
responses and reveals similar loading and unloading relations up to 3% total rotation, which
approximately corresponds to the Collapse Prevention limit state per ASCE 41-06. At higher
rotations (θ≥4%), modest strength degradation is observed for CB24F-1/2-PT, whereas the
strength of CB24F-PT continues to increase slightly; however, both beams achieve rotations of
~8% before significant lateral strength degradation (<0.8Vave). Vave is defined as the average
shear force resisted by the beam between the yield point and the onset of significant lateral
strength degradation.
27
The results indicate that the one-half scale coupling beams tested with ACI 318-08
detailing are generally capable of achieving total rotations exceeding 8%, whereas ASCE 41
limits plastic rotation to 3% without strength degradation and 5% with 20% strength degradation.
The potential influence of scale on the test results is discussed later (Section 4.2). The test results
indicate that there is little difference in load-deformation response between CB24F-PT and
CB24F-1/2-PT; therefore, the potential to reduce the quantity of required transverse
reinforcement exists, but requires further study since only one beam test was conducted.
28
Beam Chord Rotation [%]
-12 -6 0 6 12
200 890
CB24F Vn (ACI)
CB24D
Lateral Load [kN]

100 445
Lateral Load [k]
0 0
-100 -445
Vn (ACI)
-200 -890
-4.32 -2.16 0 2.16 4.32
Relative Displacement [in]
Figure 3.1 Cyclic load-deformation: CB24F vs. CB24D (1in = 25.4mm)

-10 -5 0 5 10
150 670
CB33F Vn (ACI) *
100
Lateral Load [kN]
CB33D
335
Lateral Load [k]
50 **
0 0
-50
* Stroke of controlling
sensor exceeded -335
-100 Vn (ACI)
** Stroke of LVDT
exceeded
-150 -670
-6 -3 0 3 6
Figure 3.2 Cyclic load-deformation: CB33F vs. CB33D (1in = 25.4mm)
29
-14 -7 0 7 14
980
200 CB24F-PT
CB24F-1/2-PT Vn (ACI)
Lateral Load [kN]

490
Lateral Load [k]
100
0 0
-100 -490
Vn (ACI)
-200
-980
-5 -2.5 0 2.5 5
Figure 3.3 Cyclic load-deformation: CB24F-PT vs. CB24F-1/2-PT (1in = 25.4mm)
30
3.2 SLAB IMPACT
Four beams with aspect ratio of 2.4 were tested to systematically assess the impact of a slab on
the load-deformation responses. CB24F did not include a slab, whereas CB24F-RC included an
RC slab, and CB24F-PT and CB24F-1/2-PT included PT slabs (with 150 psi of prestress).
Comparing the load-displacement responses of CB24F vs. CB24F-RC, Figure 3.5 reveals that
the slab increases shear strength by 17% (155 k to 181 k); however, this strength increase can be
taken into account by considering the increase in nominal moment strength due to the presence
of the slab, i.e. slab concrete in compression at the beam-wall interface at one end, and slab
tension reinforcement at the beam-wall interface at the other end (Figure 3.4 and Table 3.1). For
example, consideration of the slab produces increases of approximately 20% in the nominal
moment capacities, which also provide similar increases in beam shear (since yielding of
diagonal reinforcement limits the shear forces on the beams). The results indicate that the higher
test shear strength observed is primarily due to the increase in nominal moment capacity when a
slab is present.
The presence of a slab, and in particular, a post-tensioned slab, might impact the load-
deformation behavior by restraining the axial growth along the member length. Figure 3.6 plots
the axial growth of CB24F vs. CB24F-RC and reveals that the axial growth is very similar for
the two tests. Both beams grow approximately one inch over the course of the test, with
relatively large cracks observed at the beam-wall interface. Strength degradation for CB24F is
noted at 8%, due to the buckling and eventual fracture of the diagonal bars, leading to axial
shortening, whereas the axial extension in CB24F-RC remains stable over the entire test due to
the presence of the slab.
Load-deformation responses for CB24F-RC vs. CB24F-PT are compared in Figure 3.7
and display similar overall behavior, with CB24F-PT experiencing higher shear forces
(13.0 f 'c Acw ) than CB24F-RC (11.8 f 'c Acw ). This increase in strength is primarily due to the
axial force applied to the specimen by the tensioned strands, which provided approximately 150
psi stress to the slab and increased the nominal moment strength (Table 3.1). Between 8% and
10% rotations, strength degradation is more pronounced for CB24F-PT than CB24F-RC, with
31
30% reduction for CB24F-PT vs. 10% for CB24F-RC, possibly due to the presence of pre-
compression.
A plot of axial elongation of CB24F-RC vs. CB24F-PT, (Fig. 3.8), indicates that the PT
slab with 150 psi prestress grows 30-40% less than the RC slab. As well, the PT slab, like the RC
slab in CB24F-RC, helps to maintain the axial integrity of the beam for rotations exceeding 6%.
Mn+ Mn-
Mn+ (slab) = 3550 in-k Mn- (slab) = 3350 in-k

Mn+(no slab) = 2850 in-k Mn-(no slab) = 2850 in-k
4000
3000
Moment [in-k]
2000
1000
No Slab No Slab
Slab Slab
0
0 0.00216 0.00432 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025
Curvature [in-1] Curvature [in-1]
Figure 3.4 Moment curvature analysis summary for beam with and without slab (clockwise
from top left): (a) Beam cross section with and without slab; (b) beam elevation with
positive and negative moment capacities shown; (c) plot of Mn- vs. curvature; and (d) plot
of Mn+ vs. curvature
32
-14 -7 0 7 14
980
200
CB24F
CB24F-RC Vn (ACI)
Lateral Load [kN]

490
Lateral Load [k]
100
0 0
-100 -490
Vn (ACI)
-200
-980
-5 -2.5 0 2.5 5
Figure 3.5 Cyclic load-deformation: CB24F vs. CB24F-RC (1in = 25.4mm)

-14 -7 0 7 14
1.2 3
Axial elongation [cm]

Axial elongation [in]
0.8 2
0.4 1
0 0
CB24F
CB24F-RC
-0.4 -1
-5 -2.5 0 2.5 5
Figure 3.6 Axial elongation vs. rotation: CB24F vs. CB24F-RC (1in = 25.4mm)
33
-14 -7 0 7 14
980
200
CB24F-RC
Vn (ACI)
Lateral Load [kN]

CB24F-PT
490
Lateral Load [k]
100
0 0
-100 -490
Vn (ACI)
-200
-980
-5 -2.5 0 2.5 5
Figure 3.7 Cyclic load-deformation: CB24F-RC vs. CB24F-PT (1in = 25.4mm)

-14 -7 0 7 14
1.2 3
Axial elongation [cm]

Axial elongation [in]
0.8 2
0.4 1
0 0
CB24F-RC
CB24F-PT
-0.4 -1
-5 -2.5 0 2.5 5
Figure 3.8 Axial elongation vs. rotation: CB24F-PT vs. CB24F-RC (1in = 25.4mm)
34
3.3 FRAME BEAM
FB33 was tested to assess the impact of providing straight bars as flexural reinforcement instead
of diagonal bars in beams with relatively low shear stress demand (< 4.0 f 'c ). A plot of load
vs. deformation for FB33 (Fig. 3.9) indicates that plastic rotations greater than 4% can be
reached prior to strength degradation. These results correspond well with prior test results5 on
similarly sized beams, which achieved maximum shear stresses of about 4.7 f 'c and plastic
chord rotations greater than 3.5%. Compared with CB33F and CB33D (Fig. 3.2), FB33
experiences pinching in the load-deformation plot, indicating that less energy is dissipated. As
well, the beams with diagonal reinforcement exhibited higher ductility, reaching plastic rotations
exceeding 7% prior to strength degradation. However, for beams that are expected to experience
shear forces less than 5.0 f 'c Acw , frame beams with straight bars can provide significant
ductility (θp > 4%), and are much easier to construct than diagonally-reinforced beams.
Therefore, adding a shear stress limit of 5.0 f 'c for conventionally-reinforced coupling beams
with aspect ratio between 2 and 4 to ACI 318-08 21.9.7 might be prudent. At a minimum, ACI
318 should add commentary to note the significant difference in deformation capacity between
diagonally- and longitudinally-reinforced coupling beams.
-8 -4 0 4 8
80 356
Lateral Load [kN]
40 178
Lateral Load [k]
0 0
-40 -178
-80 -356
-5 -2.5 0 2.5 5
Figure 3.9 Cyclic load-deformation: FB33 (1in = 25.4mm)
35
3.4 DAMAGE
Figures 3.10-11 and 3.12-13 are photos of CB24F and CB24D at the peak of every displacement
stage between 0.075% and 10% total rotations, respectively, and reveal that maximum diagonal
crack widths for CB24F were less than 0.02” and flexural crack widths of 0.08 and 0.125” were
measured at 3 and 6% rotations (Table 3.2). In general, diagonal crack widths for CB24D were
larger than for CB24F, possibly due to the reduced transverse reinforcement around the full
section. The results indicate beams detailed with full section confinement might require less
repair than beams detailed with diagonal confinement following an earthquake.
Diagonal crack widths for CB24F-1/2-PT (Figs. 3.16-17) are much larger than those
observed for CB24F-PT (Figs. 3.14-15), especially for rotations exceeding 6%. At 4% rotation,
1/16” diagonal cracks were noted in CB24F-1/2-PT, whereas diagonal cracks were still hairline
in CB24F-PT. Beyond 4% rotation, for CB24F-1/2-PT, spalling of cover concrete was noted,
with 1/4” diagonal cracks noted at 6% rotation; buckling and fracture of reinforcement, and
crushing of the core concrete were noted for rotations between 8 and 10%. In contrast, minimal
damage was observed for CB24F-PT (Figs. 3.14-15), with hairline diagonal cracks and flexural
crack widths of less than 1/4”, with most of the rotation due to rebar slip/pullout at the beam-wall
interface (approximately 1/2” at 6% rotation). Crack widths for all specimens are summarized in
Table 3.2. More photos of damage for all specimens are provided in Appendix A. Particularly, it
is of interest to know the degree of residual damage (i.e. at zero rotation) for repair purposes.
Pictures showing the residual damage of each beam after each rotation level are also shown in
Appendix A.
36
Table 3.2 - Crack Widths [in.]
1% 3% 6%
Beam
Slip/ext Flexure Shear Slip/ext Flexure Shear Slip/ext Flexure Shear
CB24F 0.125 0.065 hairline 0.400 0.080 hairline 0.750 0.125 0.015
CB24D 0.125 0.095 hairline 0.375 0.125 0.016 0.500 0.250 0.125
CB24F-
0.095 0.045 hairline 0.500 0.125 0.016 0.500 0.375 0.065
RC
CB24F-
0.065 0.030 hairline 0.250 0.190 hairline 0.500 0.250 hairline
PT
CB24F-
0.065 0.015 hairline 0.375 0.190 0.031 0.625 0.375 0.250
1/2-PT
CB33F 0.125 0.065 hairline 0.315 0.065 hairline 0.500 0.250 0.015
CB33F 0.125 0.065 hairline 0.250 0.125 0.016 0.500 0.190 0.125
FB33 0.060 0.030 hairline 0.250 0.250 0.125 - - -

[1 in = 25.4 mm]
37
Rotation = 0.0075 Rotation = 0.01
Figure 3.10 CB24F damage photos: (a) 0.075% rotation; (b) 1% rotation; (c) 2% rotation; and (d) 3% rotation
38
Figure 3.11 CB24F damage photos: (a) 4% rotation; (b) 6% rotation; (c) 8% rotation; and (d) 10% rotation
39
Figure 3.12 CB24D damage photos: (a) 0.075% rotation; (b) 1% rotation; (c) 2% rotation; and (d) 3% rotation
40
Figure 3.13 CB24D damage photos: (a) 4% rotation; (b) 6% rotation; (c) 8% rotation; and (d) 10% rotation
41
Figure 3.14 CB24F-PT damage photos: (a) 0.075% rotation; (b) 1% rotation; (c) 2% rotation; and (d) 3% rotation
42
Figure 3.15 CB24F-PT damage photos: (a) 4% rotation; (b) 6% rotation; (c) 8% rotation; and (d) 10% rotation
43
Figure 3.16 CB24F-1/2-PT damage photos: (a) 0.075% rotation; (b) 1% rotation; (c) 2% rotation; and (d) 3% rotation
44
Figure 3.17 CB24F-1/2-PT damage photos: (a) 4% rotation; (b) 6% rotation; (c) 8% rotation; and (d) 10% rotation
45
46
4 Modeling
Typical modeling procedures are discussed and results generated with models are compared to
test results. Specifically, models for effective secant stiffness at yield are presented to provide a
direct comparison between typical parameters used by engineers and values obtained via testing.
As well, the impact of scaling test specimens is investigated to allow test results to be applied to
full-scale models. Based on these studies, backbone relations are fit to all test results and
modified to represent the behavior of the beam at full-scale. These backbone relations can be
used directly in computer software, and the load-deformation results of one specific modeling
effort are presented.
4.1 EFFECTIVE STIFFNESS
Elastic analysis approaches require estimation of the effective elastic bending and shear stiffness
values. In FEMA 35614, stiffness values of 0.5 Ec I g and 0.4 Ec Acw are recommended for bending
and shear, respectively. ASCE 41-06 including Supplement #115 incorporates a lower value for
effective stiffness of 0.3 Ec I g , with a mean value obtained from tests of 0.2 Ec I g .17 The New
Zealand Code (NZS-3101 1995)18 includes an equation to estimate the effective bending stiffness
that depends on the expected ductility demand as:
A × Ec I g
Ec I eff = (Eq. 1)
B + C × (h / ln ) 2
where A, B, and C vary with ductility [A=1.0 and 0.40; B=1.7 and 1.7; C=1.3 and 2.7; for
ductility=1.25 and 6.0]. For beams with aspect ratio ln/h = 2.4, Equation 1 yields a beam with
effective elastic stiffness of around fifty percent of the gross section stiffness, 0.5 Ec I g , whereas
47
for a ductility ratio of 6, the effective (secant) stiffness drops to eighteen percent of the gross
section properties, 0.18 Ec I g . All of these values are summarized and compared with the test
results in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.2 plots the secant stiffness normalized with respect to the concrete gross section
stiffness versus the chord rotation. Secant stiffness is calculated assuming fixed end conditions
V × ln3
according to: Ec I eff = . The initial stiffness of each residential beam is
12 × Δ
approximately 0.25 Ec I g , with an effective stiffness at the yield rotation (~1.0% rotation)
of 0.12 Ec I g . Effective secant stiffness values corresponding to ASCE 41-06 limit states are
approximately 0.15 Ec I g at Immediate Occupancy (~0.6% rotation), 0.075 Ec I g at Life Safety
(~1.8% rotation), and 0.05 Ec I g at Collapse Prevention (~3% rotation). The effective stiffness
ratio ( I eff I g ) does not vary significantly for the three different configurations (Fig. 4.2), i.e.
beam without slab (CB24F, CB24D), beam with RC slab (CB24F-RC), and beam with PT slab
(CB24F-PT, CB24F-1/2-PT). The initial stiffness ratio for the beams with slabs is moderately
higher (~25%) for rotations up to about 2%; however, after significant flexural cracks form at the
slab-wall interface, generally at ~3% rotation, the stiffness ratio is nearly the same for all three
test configurations.
The low secant stiffness ratios ( I eff I g ) relative to recommended values (Table 4.1)
might imply that significant damage (cracking, concrete spalling) is required to achieve these
ratios. However, photos of beam damage, Figures 3.10-13 for the beams without slabs, and
Figures 3.14-17 for the beams with slabs, do not show significant spalling and diagonal crack
widths are limited to 1/32” even at 6% total rotation (Table 3.2); damage is concentrated at the
beam-wall interface in the form of slip/extension cracks. The photos also indicate that the
quantity of beam transverse reinforcement is sufficient to keep crack widths small for peak shear
stresses as large as10.5 to 13.8 f 'c . The larger diagonal crack widths observed for CB24F-1/2-
PT, with only one-half the required transverse reinforcement, indicate that the quantity of
transverse reinforcement provided in CB24F, CB24F-RC, and CB24F-PT could likely be
reduced moderately without compromising deformation capacity. Current modeling of the load-
deformation response of coupling beams tends to focus on shear behavior19; however, for the 2.4
48
and 3.33 aspect ratio beams tested, flexural and slip/extension deformations at and adjacent to
the beam-wall interface generally accounted for more than 85% of the total rotation.
Of the various approaches noted above for estimating the effective stiffness at yield, i.e.
FEMA 356 ( 0.5 E I ) ,
c g ASCE 41-06 ( 0.3 E I ) ,
c g and NZS-3101 1995 for low ductility
( 0.5 E I ) , only ASCE 41-06 (2007) addresses the impact of slip/extension on the effective
c g
stiffness at yield [it is noted that median effective stiffness reported by Elwood et al (2007)17 is
actually 0.2 Ec I g at low axial load, the value of 0.3 Ec I g is used as a compromise to address
issues associated with deformation compatibility checks for gravity columns].

The contribution of slip/extension to the yield rotation is estimated for the beams tested
using the approach recommended by Alsiwat and Saatcioglu20, where the crack width that
develops at the beam-wall interface depends on bar slip and bar extension (strain). Using a
coupling beam effective stiffness derived from a moment-curvature analysis of the beam cross-
section at the beam-wall interface ( ~ 0.5 Ec I g ) and the slip/extension model noted above, the
effective stiffness at yield reduces to 0.12 Ec I g , which is consistent with the effective stiffness at
the yield rotation (approximately 1.0% for all beams) derived for the tests (Fig. 4.2). Additional
details of the slip/extension calculations are included in Appendix B.
Table 4.1 provides a summary of the effective stiffness and yield rotation for each of the
different models discussed above. Based on these results, use of the model detailed in ASCE 41-
06 Supplement #1 is recommended, i.e., use a moment-curvature analysis to define the secant
stiffness at the yield point and include a slip/extension spring. Alternatively, as noted in ASCE
41-06 (2007), the effective bending stiffness can be defined to provide an equivalent stiffness
that combines both curvature and slip deformations (~ 0.12 Ec I g for the test beams).
4.2 EFFECT OF SCALE
As previously stated, the tests were conducted at one-half scale; therefore, it is important to
understand the potential impact of scale on the effective yield stiffness as well as the overall
load-deformation behavior. The relative contribution of flexural deformations (curvature) and
slip/extension to the yield rotation of the test beams at full scale (i.e. prototype beams) is
assessed using the same approach as noted in the previous paragraph for the one-half scale
49
beams. The study is extended to consider coupling beam aspect ratios beyond those tested, by
varying the beam length. Results are reported in Figure 4.3, where the effective yield rotation is
plotted against beam aspect ratio (ln/h) for various scale factors. For a given scale factor,
variation of the aspect ratio has only a moderate impact on the slip rotation, producing roughly a
15 to 20% increase from aspect ratios of 1.0 to 3.0. However, for a given aspect ratio, slip
rotation at yield is significantly impacted by scale, with a 35 to 40% reduction for beams at one-
half versus full scale. The effective bending stiffness at yield for the one-half scale tests of
0.12 Ec I g increases to 0.14 Ec I g for the full-scale prototypes due to the reduction in the relative
contribution of slip rotation. Based on these results, we recommend use of an effective yield
stiffness value of 0.15 Ec I g for full-scale coupling beams. Figure 4.4 provides a summary of
calculated values of effective yield stiffness for coupling beams with aspect ratios
2.0 ≤ ln h ≤ 4.0 , for both full-scale and half-scale beams (for comparison purposes). The
specifics of these calculations are provided in Appendix C.
Table 4.1 Effective Stiffness Values
EIeff [% EIg] θy [% drift]
14.0 0.70
Test Results
(12.5)1 (1.00)1
FEMA 356 50.0 0.23
ASCE 41 30.0 0.39
ASCE 41 S1, 16.5 0.75

w/slip hinge (13.0)1 (0.95)1
NZS-3101 95
50.0 0.23
(μ=1)
1
Modifications for 1/2-scale
50
0.6
m=1.25
m=3.0
m=4.5
m=6.0
0.4
Ieff/Ig
0.2
0
1 2 3 4
Ln/h
Figure 4.1 Effective stiffness plotted as a function of aspect ratio for various levels of
displacement ductility (NZS 3101-1995). Included on the plot are test results at the
corresponding ductility levels.
0.3
CB24F-PT
CB24F-RC
0.2 CB24F
Ieff/Ig
0.1
0
0 2 4 6
Figure 4.2 Effective stiffness vs. rotation: ln/h = 2.4
51
0.006
Slip Rotation [rad]

0.005
0.004
1/2-scale
2/3-scale
0.003
3/4-scale
Full-scale
0.002
1 2 3 4
ln/h
Figure 4.3 Yield rotation due to slip/extension vs. aspect ratio for various testing scales
0.25
Effective Stiffness [Ieff/Ig]
0.2
0.15
0.1 Full-scale
1/2-scale
0.05
2 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4
ln/h
Figure 4.4 Effective elastic stiffness as a function of gross section stiffness calculated for
various aspect ratios and testing scales
52
4.3 BACKBONE RELATIONS
Linearized backbone relations for normalized shear strength versus rotation are plotted in Figure
4.6 as dotted lines for the three configurations of beams tested, i.e. beams with no slab (CB24F,
CB24D, CB33F, CB33D), beam with RC slab (CB24F-RC), and beams with PT slab (CB24F-PT
and CB24F-1/2-PT). These backbone relations are determined as shown in Figure 4.5, which
plots the peaks of the load-deformation curves for CB24F and CB24D. The backbone relations
that are modified to represent full-scale beams are also plotted in Figure 4.6, as discussed in the
prior subsection. For configurations with multiple tests, an average relation is plotted. The results
for all seven tests are very consistent, with a yield rotation of approximately 1.0%, initiation of
shear strength degradation at 8.0% rotation, and the residual shear strength reached at 12.0%
rotation. Backbone relations modified to represent full-scale beams indicate that the total
rotations at yield, strength degradation, and residual strength are reduced to 0.70%, 6.0%, and
9.0%, respectively (from 1.0%, 8.0%, and 12.0%). The impact of slab on shear strength also is
apparent in Figure 4.6, with the ratios of Vave Vn being approximately 1.1 (no slab), 1.3 (RC
slab), and 1.4 (PT slab), where Vave is defined as the average shear force resisted by the beam
between the yield point and the onset of significant lateral strength degradation.
ASCE 41-06 with Supplement #1 modeling parameters also are plotted on Figure 4.6 and
indicate that the test beams are more flexible at yield and that they attain substantially higher
deformation capacity prior to lateral strength degradation than the standard backbone relation.
The elastic stiffness of the ASCE 41 relation is based on a bending stiffness of 0.3 Ec I g , or about
double that derived for full-scale beams from the test data. The plastic rotation capacity given by
ASCE 41-06 Table 6-18 is limited to 3%, whereas the backbone relations for the full-scale
beams derived from the test data yield at approximately 0.7% rotation and reach 6.0% rotation
prior to strength degradation, or a plastic rotation of 5.3%. Therefore, relative to ASCE 41-06,
the relations derived for the full-scale beams have a lower effective yield stiffness
(0.14EcIg/0.3EcIg = 0.47) and substantially greater deformation capacity (5.3%/3.0% = 1.77). The
tests also reveal that a residual strength equal to 0.3Vn can be maintained to very large rotations
(10 to 12%) compared to the ASCE 41-06 residual strength ratio of 0.8 at a plastic rotation value
of 5.0%. Therefore, it is reasonable to use a plastic rotation value of 5.0% with no strength
53
degradation, with moderate residual strength (0.3Vn) up to a plastic rotation of 7.0%. It is noted
that the ASCE 41-06 relation applies to all diagonally-reinforced coupling beams, including
beams with aspect ratios significantly less than the values of 2.4 and 3.33 investigated in this test
program. Results presented in Fig. 4.6 apply for the beam aspect ratios tested (2.4 and 3.33), as
well as to beams between these ratios. It is reasonable to assume these values can be extrapolated
modestly to apply to beams with 2.0 ≤ ln h ≤ 4.0 .
54
1.4
CB24F
1.2 CB24D
Linear Backbone
V/Vncode 1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Figure 4.5 Determination of backbone relation from test data
1.6
PT Slab
1.4 RC Slab
1.2 No Slab
ASCE 41-06
V/Vncode
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Rotation [% drift]
Figure 4.6 Backbone load-deformation for full-scale beam models and ASCE 41-06 model
(1/2-scale test results are dotted lines)
55
4.4 MODEL VS. TEST RESULTS
Based on the backbone and effective stiffness relations discussed above, nonlinear modeling
approaches commonly used by practicing engineers were investigated to assess how well they
were able to represent the measured test results. Two models were considered, one utilizing a
rotational spring at the ends of the beam to account for both nonlinear flexural and slip/extension
deformations (Mn hinge) and one utilizing a nonlinear shear spring at beam mid-span to account
for both shear and slip/extension deformations (Vn hinge). Both models were subjected to the
same loading protocol used in the tests (Fig. 2.8).
The Mn-hinge model consists of an elastic beam cross-section with EcIeff = 0.5EcIg,
elastic-rotation springs (hinges) at each beam-end to simulate the effects of slip/extension
deformations, and rigid plastic rotational springs (hinges) at each beam-end to simulate the
effects of nonlinear deformations. The stiffness of the slip/extension hinges were defined using
the Alsiwat and Saatcioglu20 model discussed above, whereas the nonlinear flexural hinges are
modeled using the backbone relations derived from test results (Fig. 4.6, excluding the elastic
portion). The Vn-hinge model also consists of an elastic beam cross-section and slip/extension
hinges. However, instead of using flexural hinges at the beam ends, a shear force versus
displacement hinge (spring) is used at the beam mid-span to simulate the effects of nonlinear
deformations. The shear hinge properties are defined using the backbone relations derived from
the test results (Fig. 4.6).
Figures 4.7 and 4.8 shows cyclic load-deformation plots for the two models and the test
results for CB24F. Both models accurately capture the overall load-displacement response of the
member; however, the Mn-hinge model (Fig. 4.7) captures the unloading characteristics better
than the Vn-hinge model (Fig. 4.8), due to the fact that unloading stiffness modeling parameters,
which help to adjust the slope of the unloading curve, are available for the flexural hinges in the
commercial computer program used, but not for the shear hinges. As noted previously, for the
beam test aspect ratios (2.4 and 3.33), flexural and slip/extension deformations account for
approximately 80-85% of total deformation whereas shear deformations generally account for
only l5-20% of total deformation. Therefore, in both models, the flexural and shear hinges are
used to represent flexural deformations, whereas shear deformations are not considered.
56
Therefore, depending on the computer program used, modeling studies similar to those presented
here should be conducted to calibrate available model parameters with test results.
Specifically, these models were created using Perform 3D, as it is the common program
used by design engineers in nonlinear modeling of structural systems. The parameters used in
each model are summarized in detail in Appendix D.
57
200 890
Test (CB24F)
Mn Hinge
Lateral Load [kN]

100 445
Lateral Load [k]
0 0
-100 -445
-200 -890
-0.12 -0.06 0 0.06 0.12
Beam Chord Rotation [rad]
Figure 4.7 Cyclic load-deformation: CB24F vs. moment hinge model
200 890
Test (CB24F)
Vn Hinge
Lateral Load [kN]

100 445
Lateral Load [k]
0 0
-100 -445
-200 -890
-0.12 -0.06 0 0.06 0.12
Beam Chord Rotation [rad]
Figure 4.8 Cyclic load-deformation: CB24F vs. shear hinge model
58
5 Conclusions
Eight coupling beam specimens with ln/h ratios of 2.4 and 3.33, and varying geometries and
reinforcement layouts, were tested under reversed cyclic loading and double curvature bending.
The following conclusions can be drawn from the test results.
1) Beams detailed according to the new provision in ACI 318-08, which allows for full
section confinement, have performance, in terms of strength and ductility, that is better
than beams detailed according to the old provision in ACI 318-05, which requires
confinement of the diagonal bar groups.
2) Including a reinforced concrete slab increases the beam shear strength approximately 15-
20%, whereas adding post-tensioning increases the beam shear strength an additional
10%. However, the strength increase was directly related to the increase in beam moment
strength, as the beam shear force was limited by flexural yielding.
3) Beams detailed to satisfy 1/2*Ash perform well at chord rotations θ < 3.0%. However, at
very large rotations (θ > 6.0%), the beams experienced greater levels of damage (i.e.
more spalling of cover concrete and substantially larger shear cracks > 1/4”) compared
with beams detailed to satisfy Ash. The results indicate that the amount of transverse
reinforcement required could be modestly reduced for the beam aspect ratios tested,
especially for beams with lower ductility requirements (θ < 3.0%.). However, further
study is necessary to determine if less transverse reinforcement could be used for
rotations exceeding 3%, or for beams with lower aspect ratios (< 2).
59
4) Effective elastic stiffness values for test beams are determined to be ~15% of the gross
section stiffness, values that are much less than FEMA and ASCE 41 prescribed values of
50% and 30%, respectively. Designers should therefore utilize the slip/extension hinge
model detailed in Supplement 1 to ASCE 41 to better approximate the elastic stiffness of
the coupling beam.
5) Most damage experienced by coupling beams with aspect ratio ranging from 2.4 to 3.33
is concentrated at the beam-wall interface in the form of slip/extension of diagonal
reinforcement, even when axial load is applied to the beam via post-tensioning. Beams
not detailed with full section confinement experience more damage at large rotations (θ >
6.0%).
6) ACI 318-08 implies equivalence between diagonally-reinforced and “frame beams” for
aspect ratios between 2.0 and 4.0. However, frame beams typically achieve maximum
plastic chord rotations of 3.5 to 4.0%, for cases where the expected shear stresses are
4.0 to 5.0 f 'c , or about one-half the values for diagonally-reinforced coupling beams
tested. Changes to ACI 318 code should be considered to reduce the shear stress allowed
for frame beams ( e.g., 5.0 )

f 'c , or to the ACI commentary to identify this significant
difference in performance.
7) Simple nonlinear models, either moment-hinge or shear-hinge, accurately represent the

load-deformation behavior of test beams. The flexural hinge model better matches the
test results in the unloading and reloading range, due to the specific modeling parameters
available in the computer software used (unloading stiffness modeling parameters),
although both models produce acceptable results up to 3% total rotation for beams with
ln/h between 2.0 and 4.0. Therefore, depending on the computer program used, the
influence of modeling parameters on the load versus deformation responses should be
compared with test results to ensure that they adequately represent observed behavior.
60
REFERENCES
1. Paulay, T., and Binney, J. R., 1974, “Diagonally Reinforced Coupling Beams of Shear
Walls,” Shear in Reinforced Concrete, SP-42, American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, Mich., pp. 579-598.
2. 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, V. 93,
No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 711-720.
3. Kwan, A. K. H. and Zhao, Z. Z., 2001, “Testing of coupling beams with equal end
rotations maintained and local joint deformation allowed,” Structures and Buildings,
Thomas Telford, London, 152, No. 1, 67–78.
4. Galano, L., and Vignoli, A., 2000, “Seismic Behavior of Short Coupling Beams with
Different Reinforcement Layouts,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp.
876-885.
5. Xiao, Y.; Esmaeily-Ghasemabadi, A.; and H. Wu, "High-Strength Concrete Beams
Subjected to Cyclic Shear," ACI Structural Journal Vol. 96 No.3, May-June 1999,
pp.392-399.
6. Klemencic, R., Fry, J.A., Hurtado, G., and Moehle, J.P., 2006, “Performance of Post-
tensioned slab-core wall connections,” PTI Journal, 4(2), 7-23.
7. Kang, T. H.-K., and Wallace, J. W., “Dynamic Responses of Flat Plate Systems with Shear
Reinforcement,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 102, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2005, pp. 763-773.
8. Kang, T. H.-K., and Wallace, J. W., “Punching of Reinforced and Post-Tensioned
Concrete Slab-Column Connections,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 4, July-August
2006, pp. 531-540.
9. ACI Committee 318, 1995, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI
318-95) and Commentary (318R-95),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Mich., 430 pp.
Mich., 430 pp.
61
Mich., 430 pp.
12. ENR, 2007. “Good News for Tall, Concrete Cores,” story by Nadine Post, Engineering
News Record, 16 May 2007, pp. 10-11.
13. Wallace, J. W., 2007, “Modeling issues for tall reinforced core wall buildings,” The
Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, V. 16, No. 5, pp. 615-632.
14. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2000, “Prestandard and Commentary for the
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA-356),” Washington DC.
15. American Society of Civil Engineers, 2007, “ASCE/SEI Standard 41-06, Seismic
Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings,” Reston, VA.
16. Coull, A., 1974, “Stiffening of Coupled Shear Walls against Foundation Movement,”
Structural Engineer, V. 52, Issue 1, pp. 23-26.
17. Elwood, K.J., et al. (2007), “Update to ASCE/SEI 41 Concrete Provisions,” Earthquake
Spectra, EERI, Vol. 23, Issue 3, pp. 493-523.
18. New Zealand Standards Association (NZS), 1995, “NZS 3101:1995 Concrete Structures
Standard,” Wellington, New Zealand, 256 pp.
19. New Zealand Standards Association (NZS), 2006, “NZS 3101:2006 Concrete Structures
Standard,” Wellington, New Zealand, 256 pp.
20. Alsiwat, J., and Saatcioglu, M. (1992), “Reinforcement Anchorage Slip under
Monotonic Loading,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 118, No. 9, pp.
2421-2438.
62
Appendix A – Summary of test results
63
CB24F

-12 -6 0 6 12
200
100
Lateral Load [k]
-100
-200
-4.32 -2.16 0 2.16 4.32
100
Flexure
80 Slip
% Contribution
Shear
60
40
20
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Rotation [% drift]
64
Residual (zero displacement) damage photos (CB24F)
After Rotation = 0.01 After Rotation = 0.015
65
After Rotation = 0.08
66
CB24D

-12 -6 0 6 12
200
100
Lateral Load [k]
-100
-200
-4.32 -2.16 0 2.16 4.32
100
Flexure
80 Slip
% Contribution
Shear
60
40
20
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Rotation [% drift]
67
Residual (zero displacement) damage photos (CB24D)
68
69
CB24F-RC

-12 -6 0 6 12
200
100
Lateral Load [k]
-100
-200
-4.32 -2.16 0 2.16 4.32
100
Flexure
80 Slip
% Contribution
Shear
60
40
20
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Rotation [% drift]
70
Damage at peak rotation (CB24F-RC)

Slab Slab
Beam Beam

Slab Slab
Beam Beam
71

Slab Slab
Beam Beam

Slab Slab
Beam Beam
72

Slab Slab
Beam Beam
Rotation = 0.14
Slab
Beam
73
Residual (zero displacement) damage photos (CB24F-RC)

Slab Slab
Beam Beam

Slab Slab
Beam Beam
74

Slab Slab
Beam Beam

Slab Slab
Beam Beam
75

Slab Slab
Beam Beam

Slab
Beam
76
CB24F-PT

-12 -6 0 6 12
Lateral Load [k] 200
100
-100
-200
-4.32 -2.16 0 2.16 4.32

100
Flexure
80 Slip
Shear
% Contribution
60
40
20
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Rotation [% drift]
77
Residual (zero displacement) damage photos (CB24F-PT)
78
Residual (zero displacement) damage photos (CB24F-PT)
79
CB24F-1/2-PT

-12 -6 0 6 12
Lateral Load [k] 200
100
-100
-200
-4.32 -2.16 0 2.16 4.32

100
Flexure
Slip
80
Shear
% Contribution
60
40
20
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Rotation [% drift]
80
Residual (zero displacement) damage photos (CB24F-1/2-PT)
81
Residual (zero displacement) damage photos (CB24F-1/2-PT)
82
CB33F

-10 -5 0 5 10
150
100
Lateral Load [k]
50
-50
-100
-150
-6 -3 0 3 6
83
Damage photos at peak deformation (CB33F)
84
Damage photos at peak deformation (CB33F)
Rotation = 0.06
85
86
87
CB33D

-10 -5 0 5 10
150
100
Lateral Load [k]
50
-50
-100
-150
-6 -3 0 3 6
88
Damage photos at peak deformation (CB33D)
89
Damage photos at peak deformation (CB33D)
90
91
92
FB33

-8 -4 0 4 8
80
40
Lateral Load [k]
-40
-80
-5 -2.5 0 2.5 5
93
Damage photos at peak deformation (FB33)
94
Damage photos at peak deformation (FB33)
95
Residual (zero displacement) damage photos (FB33)
96
Residual (zero displacement) damage photos (FB33)
97
Appendix B – Slip/extension calculations
Problem Statement
For the cross-section of CB24F, determine the rotation, θ, due to slip/extension of flexural
reinforcement at the beam-wall interface prior to yielding.
x
d
θ
δtot
Given:
db = 7 / 8" = 22.23 mm
Ab = 0.6 in 2 = 387 mm 2
f c' = 6.8 ksi = 46.9 MPa
f y = 70 ksi = 482.7 MPa
Ld = 33" = 838mm
d = 12.625"
@ fs = f y
M y = 2200 in − k ( from M − φ analysis)
x = 5"
98
Calculations: Determine M − θ@ δtot
f y × db (482.7 MPa) × (22.23 mm)

ue = = = 3.2 Mpa
4 × ld 4 × (838 mm)
f s × db f s × 22.23 mm
Le = = = 1.74 × f s
4 × ue 4 × 3.2 MPa
db f c' 46.89
uu = (20 − ) × = (20 − 22.23 / 4) × = 18.1 MPa
4 30 30
30
δ s1 = = 0.80 mm
f c'
@ fs = fy
L'e = Le = 1.74 × f y = 840 mm

f y × db
ue' = = 3.19 MPa
4 × L'e
ue' 2.5
δ s = δ s1 × ( ) = 0.0104 mm
uu
δ ext = 1.25 × ε y × Le / 2 = 1.05 mm
δ tot = δ s + δ ext = 0.0104 mm + 1.05 mm = 0.0417"
δ tot
0.0417"
θ@δ = = = 0.00547
tot
d − x 12.625"− 5"
M y = 2200 in − k
K = M y / θ = 2200 / 0.0054 = 402200
Result
This M-θ relation represents the deformation characteristics of the beam in the elastic region due
to slip/extension of the flexural reinforcement. It can be implemented as an M-θ hinge in a
model to modify the elastic stiffness of the member.
99
4000
2000
Moment [in-k]
-2000
-4000
-0.008 -0.004 0 0.004 0.008
Rotation (rad)
Slip/Extension springs
100
APPENDIX C – Procedure to Estimate EIeff
Problem Statement
Determine an estimate for the effective elastic stiffness (EIeff) as a function of the gross section
stiffness (EIg), considering the influence of slip/extension deformations.
Calculations
1) Calculate θslip@yield, by following the procedure in Appendix B.
2) Calculate θflex@yield, by the following:
⎛ VACI ⎞
a. Vy = min ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ V@ M y ⎠
b. Use EIeff for flexure = 0.5EIg
V y × ln 2 V y × ln 2
c. θ flex @ yield = =
12 × ( EI eff for flex.) 6 × EI g
3) Calculate θtot:
a. θtot ≅ θ slip + θ flex
4) Calculate EIeff:
EI eff V y × ln 2
a. =
EI g 12 × EI g × θtot
Results
This value of EIeff as a function of EIg can be directly input to a model (modifying the flexural
stiffness) in place of a slip/extension hinge model. This has the same impact as the slip hinge,
but would ease computation time.
101
APPENDIX D – Modeling Parameters
Summarized below are the parameters used in modeling of diagonally reinforced coupling beams
using CSI Perform 3D. Specifically, these parameters are for CB24F.
Mn-Hinge Model
The Moment-hinge model consists of an elastic RC cross-section, Mn-θ hinges, and
Slip/Extension hinges. The properties listed are for CB24F.
Slip/Ext. Springs
Mn-Rotation Springs
The elastic RC cross-section has the following properties:

Cross Section: Beam, Reinforced Concrete Section
Shape and Dimensions
Section Shape: Rectangle
B: 12 [in] D: 15 [in]
Section Stiffness
Axial Area: 180 [in2]
Shear Area: 0 (Shear area = 0 means no shear deformation)
Material Stiffness
Young’s Modulus: 1800 [ksi] Poisson’s Ratio: 0.2 Shear Modulus: 692
102
The Slip/Extension Hinges have the following properties:
Inelastic: Semi-Rigid Moment Connection
Basic F-D Relationship
K0: 402200 [k-in/rad2]
FU: 3100 [in-k]
DX: 0.14 [rad]
The Mn-θ hinges have the following properties:

Inelastic: Moment Hinge, Rotation Type
FY: 2350 [in-k] DU: 0.075 [rad]
FU: 2500 [in-k] DX: 0.130 [rad]
Strength Loss
DL: 0.08 FR/FU: 0.3
DR: 0.1 Interaction Factor: 0.25
Cyclic Degradation
Point Energy Factor
Y 0.5
U 0.45
L 0.4
R 0.35
X 0.35
Unloading Stiffness Factor: 0.5
Alternatively, similar results can be obtained by modifying the cross-section properties such that
Young’s Modulus = 0.15EcIg = 540 [ksi], and eliminating the slip/ext hinge altogether.
103
Vn-Hinge Model
The Shear-hinge model consists of an elastic RC cross-section, Vn-δ hinges, and Slip/Extension
hinges. The properties listed are for CB24F.
Slip/Ext. Springs
Vn-Displacement Hinge
The elastic RC cross-section has the following properties:

Cross Section: Beam, Reinforced Concrete Section
Shape and Dimensions
Section Shape: Rectangle
B: 12 [in] D: 15 [in]
Section Stiffness
Axial Area: 180 [in2]
Shear Area: 0 (Shear area = 0 means no shear deformation)
Material Stiffness
Young’s Modulus: 1800 [ksi] Poisson’s Ratio: 0.2 Shear Modulus: 692
The Slip/Extension Hinges have the following properties:

Inelastic: Semi-Rigid Moment Connection
K0: 402200 [k-in/rad2]
FU: 3100 [in-k]
DX: 0.14 [rad]
104
The Vn-δ hinges have the following properties:
Inelastic: Shear Hinge, Displacement Type
FY: 130 [k] DU: 2.7 [in]
FU: 136 [k] DX: 4.7 [in]
Strength Loss
DL: 2.88 [in] FR/FU: 0.3
DR: 3.31 [in] Interaction Factor: 0.25
Cyclic Degradation
Point Energy Factor
Y 0.5
U 0.45
L 0.4
R 0.35
X 0.35
Unloading Stiffness Factor: 0.5
Alternatively, similar results can be obtained by modifying the cross-section properties such that
Young’s Modulus = 0.15EcIg = 540 [ksi], and eliminating the slip/ext hinge altogether.
105
APPENDIX E – Material Testing
Diagonal #7 bars; tested by twining laboratories; based on given fy, fu, and % elongation
100
80
60
σ [ksi]
40
bar1
20 bar2
bar3
0
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2
ε [in/in]
106
Concrete cylinders CB24F, CB24D, CB33F, CB33D; 6”x12” tested by twining laboratories;
curve fit based on f’c
8
cyl1
cyl2
6 cyl3
cyl4
cyl5
σ [ksi]
4 cyl6
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
ε [in/in]
Concrete Cylinders CB24F-RC; 6”x12” tested by twining laboratories; 4”x8” tested by ucla;
10
twining1
twining2
8 twining3
twining4
6 ucla1
σ [ksi]
ucla2
ucla3
4
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
ε [in/in]
107
Concrete Cylinders CB24F-PT; 6”x12” tested by twining laboratories; 4”x8” tested by ucla;
10
twining1
twining2
8 twining3
twining4
6 ucla1
σ [ksi]
ucla2
ucla3
4
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
ε [in/in]
Concrete cylinders CB24F-1/2-PT; 6”x12” tested by twining laboratories; 4”x8” tested by ucla;
8
twining1
twining2
6 twining3
twining4
ucla1
σ [ksi]
4 ucla2
ucla3
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
ε [in/in]
108
Concrete cylinder tests FB33; 6”x12” tested by twining laboratories; 4”x8” tested by ucla; curve
fit based on f’c
8
twining1
twining2
6 twining3
twining4
ucla1
σ [ksi]
4 ucla2
ucla3
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
ε [in/in]
109

D. Naish - Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Coupling Beams

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

D. Naish - Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Coupling Beams

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STRUCTURAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY

EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION AND

University of California, Los Angeles

Magnusson Klemencic Associates, Inc.

J. Andrew Fry, P.E., S.E., LEED AP

Ron Klemencic, P.E., S.E., FACI

John Wallace, Ph.D., P.E., FACI

Report to Charles Pankow Foundation

Table 2.1 - Test Matrix and Material Properties............................................................................. 7

Acw = cross-sectional area of concrete beam web

2.1 BEAM DESIGN

2.2 MATERIAL PROPERTIES

Full section conf.

Frame beam with 6-#6

Figure 2.9 Laboratory test setup

2.4 LOADING PROTOCOL

CB24F- 2890 2890 160.6 10.45

3.1.1 Full Section vs. Diagonal Confinement

3.1.2 Full vs. Half Confinement

Lateral Load [kN]

Beam Chord Rotation [%]

Lateral Load [kN]

Mn+ (slab) = 3550 in-k Mn- (slab) = 3350 in-k

Lateral Load [kN]

Beam Chord Rotation [%]

Axial elongation [cm]

Lateral Load [kN]

Beam Chord Rotation [%]

Axial elongation [cm]

FB33 0.060 0.030 hairline 0.250 0.250 0.125 - - -

Rotation = 0.02 Rotation = 0.03

Rotation = 0.08 Rotation = 0.10

Rotation = 0.02 Rotation = 0.03

Rotation = 0.08 Rotation = 0.10

Rotation = 0.02 Rotation = 0.03

Rotation = 0.08 Rotation = 0.10

Rotation = 0.02 Rotation = 0.03

Rotation = 0.08 Rotation = 0.10

4.1 EFFECTIVE STIFFNESS

results in Figure 4.1.

approximately 0.15 Ec I g at Immediate Occupancy (~0.6% rotation), 0.075 Ec I g at Life Safety

issues associated with deformation compatibility checks for gravity columns].

4.2 EFFECT OF SCALE

specifics of these calculations are provided in Appendix C.

Table 4.1 Effective Stiffness Values

EIeff [% EIg] θy [% drift]

FEMA 356 50.0 0.23

ASCE 41 30.0 0.39

ASCE 41 S1, 16.5 0.75

Slip Rotation [rad]

Lateral Load [kN]

Lateral Load [kN]

for frame beams ( e.g., 5.0 )

7) Simple nonlinear models, either moment-hinge or shear-hinge, accurately represent the

Beam Chord Rotation [%]

After Rotation = 0.01 After Rotation = 0.015

After Rotation = 0.02 After Rotation = 0.03

After Rotation = 0.04 After Rotation = 0.06

After Rotation = 0.08

Beam Chord Rotation [%]

After Rotation = 0.01 After Rotation = 0.015

After Rotation = 0.02 After Rotation = 0.03

After Rotation = 0.04 After Rotation = 0.06

After Rotation = 0.08