Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2008 781

ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 6, November-December 2008.


MS No. S-2007-191.R1 received October 9, 2007, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright 2008, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,
including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be published in the September-
October 2009 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by May 1, 2009.
ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER
The response of coupled core wall systems is governed by the
performance of their coupling beams. Moreover, coupling beam
design is controlled by the post-elastic behavior of the entire
coupled system. This paper presents the results of an experimental
investigation dealing with the effects that transverse reinforcement
ratios have on the post-elastic performance of diagonally-reinforced
coupling beams. Two coupled wall subassemblages, with two
different transverse reinforcement detailings, were designed and
tested under cyclic reversed loads. The design philosophy for both
specimens is presented and discussed, and the detailing is
compared with what is required by ACI 318-05. The experimental
results are presented, with particular attention to the post-elastic
performance of the specimens tested. Overall performance
comparisons are made. It is concluded that providing a higher
transverse reinforcement ratio greatly benefits ductility and hysteretic
stability of diagonally-reinforced coupling beams.
Keywords: coupling beams; reinforcement detailing; seismic design; walls.
INTRODUCTION
Coupled core wall systems (CCWs) are advantageous
lateral force-resisting (LFR) systems that combine the large
shear and axial stiffness of shear walls with the ductility of
the coupling beams. Many studies in literature amply
demonstrate the desirable attributes of CCWs as a whole as
well as the issues and advantages related to the components
within the system: some examples include Fortney (2005),
Harries et al. (2005), Shahrooz et al. (1992, 1993), and
Aristizabal-Ochoa (1982). The overall lateral stiffness
largely depends on the type and detailing of the coupling
beams used. Previous work by the authors (Fortney et al.
[2004a,b]; Fortney [2005]; Harries et al. [2005]; Shahrooz et
al. [1992, 1993]) highlighted the difference in response
between steel, steel-concrete, and diagonally-reinforced
concrete coupling beams. Traditionally, the coupling beam
typology chosen for CCWs is represented by diagonally-
reinforced concrete beams. These beams, if properly detailed,
can provide considerable stiffness, strength, and ductility;
but sometimes they can be very complicated, if not impossible,
to fabricate and construct. Harries et al. (2005) clearly
showed that diagonally-reinforced coupling beams with
practical span-depth ratios cannot practically be built when
designed for shear demands larger than 0.50 (f
c
in
MPa) (6 [f
c
in psi]), whereas ACI 318-05 (ACI
Committee 318 2005) allows for a maximum shear demand
of 0.83 (f
c
in MPa) (10 [f
c
in psi]). Constructibility
and limited shearing stress are reasons why a design solution
including a CCW with diagonally-reinforced coupling
beams might be discarded; construction may be overly
expensive and the system may not be practically constructible,
despite the considerable advantages. Contributing factors for
increased construction cost are the amount and location of
transverse reinforcement, in the form of stirrups and
f
c

f
c

f
c
f
c

crossties. The study presented in this paper investigates the


influence of the amount of transverse reinforcement provided in
a diagonally-reinforced coupling beam on its overall response,
in terms of available ductility and hysteretic stability.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The matter of transverse reinforcement detailing is being
actively discussed within both ACI Committees 318H and
374 and among practitioners. Due to the fact that current
provisions are open to interpretation, practitioners often do
not have full confidence that the transverse reinforcement
they design will provide the necessary deformation capacity
and ductility. This paper presents a study that compares the
response of two diagonally-reinforced coupling beams with
different transverse reinforcement detailing. This research
will clarify the effect of transverse reinforcement and illustrate
the positive impact of an increase in transverse reinforcement
ratios with respect to ACI 318-05 specifications. Additionally,
the manner in which the transverse reinforcement is distributed
is equally crucial.
DESIGN PHILOSOPHY
The shear strength of a diagonally-reinforced concrete
coupling beam as given by ACI 318-05 is shown in Eq. (1).
(1)
Note that Eq. (1) relies solely on the strength provided by
the diagonal bar groups and ignores the contribution of the
concrete (V
c
) or stirrups (V
s
) to shear resistance (that is, V
c
and V
s
are taken as zero). Furthermore, the limit on the shear
strength is 0.83 A
cw
(10 A
cw
) and is a function of the
compressive strength of the concrete. In Eq. (1), A
vd
is the
cross-sectional area of one diagonal bar group, f
y
is the yield
strength of the diagonal bars, is the angle of inclination of
the diagonal bar groups from the horizontal, f
c
is the specified
concrete compressive strength, and A
cw
is the gross cross-
sectional area of the coupling beam. The minimum dimensions
of the cross section of the diagonal bar groups are given in
ACI 318-05, Section 21.7.7.4(a), according to which the
horizontal cross-sectional dimension of the diagonal bar
group (d
h
) measured out-to-out of the transverse reinforcement
shall be equal to or greater than b
w
/2 and the vertical
V
n
2A
vd
f
y
0.83 f
c
A
cw
(f
c
in MPa) sin =
V
n
2A
vd
f
y
10 f
c
A
cw
(f
c
in psi) sin =
f
c
f
c

Title no. 105-S72


Investigation on Effect of Transverse Reinforcement on
Performance of Diagonally Reinforced Coupling Beams
by Patrick J. Fortney, Gian A. Rassati, and Bahram M. Shahrooz
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2008 782
cross-sectional dimension of the diagonal bar group (d
v
)
shall be equal to or greater than b
w
/5 (b
w
is the width of the
coupling beam).
The transverse reinforcement around the diagonal bar groups
(DBG) must comply with ACI 318-05, Section 21.7.7.4(c),
which requires that Sections 21.4.4.1 through 21.4.4.3 be
satisfied. ACI 318-05, Section 21.4.4.1(b), requires that the
total cross-sectional area of rectangular hoop reinforcement
around the DBG shall not be less than that required by Eq. (2)
and (3). Section 21.4.4.1(d), however, permits Eq. (2) to be
neglected if spalling of the concrete cover around the DBG
transverse reinforcement will not result in loss of axial strength
of the member. Because spalling of concrete surrounding the
DBG is not considered to contribute to the beams strength,
Eq. (2) may be neglected (per ACI 318 Commentary).
(2)
(3)
In Eq. (2) and (3), s is the spacing of the transverse
reinforcement; b
c
is the cross-sectional dimension of the
diagonal core measured center-to-center of the outer legs
of the reinforcement comprising A
sh
; A
g
is the gross cross-
sectional area of the diagonal bar group, including cover on
all four sides of the diagonal bar group as required by ACI
318-05, Section 7.7; A
ch
is the cross-sectional area of the DBG
measured center-to-center of the transverse reinforcement
around the DBG, A
sh
is the total cross-sectional area of
transverse reinforcement within the spacing s; and f
yt
is the
yield strength of the transverse reinforcement. ACI 318-05,
Section 21.4.4.2, requires that the maximum spacing of the
transverse reinforcement around the DBG be limited to Eq. (4),
and ACI 318-05, Section 21.4.4.3, requires that spacing of
the horizontal crossties or legs of overlapping hoops, s
0
,
shall not exceed 356 mm (14 in.), as shown in Eq. (5). In Eq.
(5), h
x
is the maximum center-to-center horizontal spacing of
crossties or hoop legs on all faces of the DBG.
(4)
(5)
ACI 318-05, Section 21.7.7.4(f), requires that transverse
reinforcement parallel and perpendicular to the longitudinal
A
sh
0.3
sb
c
f
c

f
yt
-------------


A
g
A
ch
--------


1 =
A
sh
0.09sb
c
f
c

f
yt
------------------------ =
s
max
smaller of
1
4
--- of minimum member dimension
6d
b
s
0

=
s
0
4
14 h
x

3
-----------------


(h
x
in inches) + =
axis of the beam shall be provided and, as a minimum, shall
conform to ACI 318-05, Sections 11.8.4 and 11.8.5. Section
11.8.4 of ACI 318-05 prescribes the minimum cross-sectional
area of shear reinforcement perpendicular (A
v
) to the flexural
tension reinforcement, and Section 11.8.5 prescribes the
minimum cross-sectional area of shear reinforcement parallel
(A
vh
) to the flexural tension reinforcement. The minimum cross-
sectional areas of shear reinforcement for Sections 11.8.4
and 11.8.5 are given in Eq. (6) and (7), respectively.
(6)
(7)
The aforementioned provisions are referred to in the
following discussion pertaining to the design and detailing of
two half-scale specimens.
DESIGN PHILOSOPHY OF TEST SPECIMENS
The two beams discussed in the following were evaluated
during two different research projects. Specimen DCB-1 was
part of a 2005 project, and Specimen DCB-2 was part of a
2006 project. Both specimens are diagonally reinforced
concrete coupling beams. However, there are two very distinct
differences pertaining to the transverse reinforcement provided
and the manner in which the transverse reinforcement is
distributed. Specimen DCB-1 was tested in a research project
that was investigating the possibility of reducing steel
congestion associated with this type of beam in an effort to
minimize construction difficulties. Specimen DCB-2 was
tested in a research project investigating the possibility of
using main beam transverse reinforcement to provide a
confining effect to provide lateral stability to the diagonal
bar groups. As will be discussed further in detail, it is shown
that the two main differences between the two beams are: 1) no
transverse reinforcement was provided on the diagonal bar
groups along the length of the beam where the diagonal bar
groups intersect in Specimen DCB-1; a set of hoops that
enclosed both sets of diagonal bar groups was provided
along the intersecting length in Specimen DCB-2; and 2) the
provided area of horizontal skin reinforcement provided in
Specimen DCB-1 was more than five times that required by
ACI 318-05, but was not distributed over the depth of the
beam to satisfy ACI 318-05 requirements for spacing
(spacing of bars was 80% larger than that permitted); the
provided area of horizontal skin reinforcement provided in
Specimen DCB-2 was three times greater than that required
by ACI 318-05, but was distributed relatively more uniformly
over the depth of the beam to meet the ACI 318-05 requirement
for bar spacing. The details of these specimens are discussed
in the following.
Specimen 1 (DCB-1)
The diagonal bars of the diagonally-reinforced coupling
beam (DCB) of Specimen DCB-1 were sized to satisfy Eq. (1).
Specimen DCB-1 was constructed with four No. 8 (d
b
=
25.4 mm [1 in.]) bars in each DBG. Each DBG had dimensions
A
v
0.0025b
w
s where s smaller of
d
5
---
12 in.


A
v
0.0015b
w
s
2
where s smaller of
d
5
---
12 in.


Patrick J. Fortney is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Dayton, Dayton, OH.
Gian A. Rassati is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.
Bahram M. Shahrooz is a Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Cincinnati.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2008 783
of d
h
= 127 mm (5 in.) and d
v
= 108 mm (4.25 in.), resulting
in an angle of inclination equal to 13 degrees. Therefore,
the calculated shear capacity of the beam as defined by Eq. (1)
is 396 kN (89 kips) (using the measured material properties;
refer to Table 1). The upper limit shear permitted by Eq. (1)
is 460 kN (103 kips) using the measured concrete compressive
strength. Therefore, the shear capacity does not exceed the
allowable upper limit as set by ACI 318-05. It should be noted
that the original target capacity of 534 kN (120 kips) would
have resulted in a shear of approximately 0.96 A
cw
(11.6 A
cw
), which exceeds the limit shown in Eq. (1). It
should be noted that the concrete compressive strength of
Specimen DCB-2 is 8 ksi (55 MPa), which is approximately
46% larger than that of Specimen DCB-1. However, because
concrete shear strength is typically ignored in seismic
applications and the contribution of shear strength from the
concrete is small relative to the diagonal bar group contribution
to shear, the authors do not consider this to have an appreciable
effect on the comparisons of performance between the
two beams.
The provided transverse reinforcement around the DBG,
as per ACI 318-05, Section 21.7.7.4(c), is not sufficient. It
should be noted that Section 21.7.7.4(c) is intended to be
satisfied over the entire length of the beam, including the
portion of the beam where the DBGs intersect. The lack of
transverse reinforcement around the DBGs of the intersecting
region of the beam, however, is one of the parameters
investigated in this research. Therefore, no transverse
reinforcement was provided around the DBGs of Specimen
DCB-1 over the intersecting region. Transverse reinforcement
f
c

f
c

was only provided around the DBGs toward the beam ends
where it was physically possible to place the transverse
reinforcement directly around the DBGs. As can be seen in
Fig. 1, which shows the details of Specimen DCB-1, the
DBGs were tied with four No. 3 (d
b
= 9.5 mm [0.375 in.])
closed ties spaced at 76 mm (3 in.) in the region where these
ties can physically be placed directly on the DBGs. The area
of transverse reinforcement (spaced at 76 mm [3 in.]) provided
around the DBGs over the nonintersecting regions is
142.4 mm
2
(0.22 in.
2
). This provided area satisfies the area
required by Eq. (3), which is calculated to be 72 mm
2
(0.11 in.
2
). Recall that Eq. (2) may be neglected. Therefore,
the transverse reinforcement provided around the DBGs
satisfies ACI 318-05, Section 21.7.7.4(c), along regions
where the bar groups do not intersect, but does not satisfy the
provision over the midspan of the beam where the DBGs
intersect. However, the maximum spacing requirements
given by Section 21.4.4.2 (refer to Eq. (4) and (5)) result in
a maximum allowable spacing of 27 mm (1.1 in.) (governed
by 1/4 of the minimum member dimension equal to 108 mm
Table 1Measured material properties for
Specimens DCB-1 and DCB-2
Constituent
Yield, compressive strength, MPa (ksi)
DCB-1 DCB-2
Longitudinal bars 418 (60.7) 461 (66.9)
Diagonal bars 431 (62.6) 477 (69.2)
Stirrups 414 (60.6) 461 (66.9)
Concrete 37.6 (5.55) 55.3 (8.02)
Fig. 1Elevation and cross section of Specimen DCB-1. Refer to Fig. 3 for enlarged
elevation of beam. Dimensions are in mm (in.).
784 ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2008
[4.25 in.]). Therefore, the 76 mm (3 in.) spacing of the ties
clearly violates the maximum spacing requirements of
Section 21.4.4.2. Table 2 summarizes the percent of provision
compliance (for example, the ratio of A
s,prov
to A
s,required
,
where A
s,prov
is the area of steel provided in the test specimen,
and A
s,required
is the area of steel that would be required by
ACI 318-05 provisions) for both of the specimens discussed
in this paper.
The provided shear reinforcement perpendicular to the
flexural tension reinforcement (A
v
) (refer to Fig. 1) was
No. 2 (d
b
= 6.4 mm [0.25 in.]) closed stirrups spaced at 76 mm
(3 in.) on center, giving a provided A
v
equal to 63.2 mm
2
(0.098 in.
2
). The required area of shear reinforcement as
given by Eq. (6), with s equal to 72 mm (3.0 in.), is 48.4 mm
2
(0.075 in.
2
). Therefore, the provided area of steel satisfies
the area of steel required by ACI 318-05, Section 11.8.4, but
the provided spacing of 76 mm (3 in.) exceeds the maximum
allowable spacing of d/5 = 318 mm/5 = 64 mm (2.5 in.).
Therefore, the maximum spacing requirements of Section 11.8.4
are not satisfied.
The provided shear reinforcement parallel to the flexural
tension reinforcement (A
vh
) on each face of the beam was
two No. 6 (d
b
= 25.4 mm [1.0 in.]) bars (these are the
longitudinal bars shown in Fig. 1) giving a provided A
vh
equal to 568 mm
2
(0.88 in.
2
). These bars were extended into
the wall piers a distance l
d
to ensure development of their
Table 2Transverse reinforcement ratios for
Specimens DCB-1 and DCB-2
Beam
component
ACI 318-05
provision
Test
specimen Notes
Percent
compliance
Provision
satisfied
Diagonal
bar groups
21.4.4.1
(area)
DCB-1
End region 2.00 OK
Intersect region 0.00 NG
DCB-2
End region 1.30 OK
Intersect region 1.30 OK
21.4.4.2
(spacing)
DCB-1
End region 0.40 NG
Intersect region 0.00 NG
DCB-2
End region 0.52 NG
Intersect region 1.00 OK
21.4.4.3
(spacing)
DCB-1
End region 3.00 OK
Intersect region 0.00 NG
DCB-2
End region 2.90 OK
Intersect region 2.90 OK
Main beam
11.8.4
(vertical
bars)
DCB-1
A
v
1.30 OK
A
v
spacing 0.84 NG
DCB-2
A
v
1.96 OK
A
v
spacing 1.13 OK
11.8.5
(horizontal
bars)
DCB-1
A
vh
5.20 OK
A
vh
spacing 0.23 NG
DCB-2
A
vh
3.10 OK
A
vh
spacing 1.10 OK
Fig. 2Elevation and cross section of Specimen DCB-2. Refer to Fig. 3 for enlarged
elevation of beam. Dimensions are in mm (in.).
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2008 785
yield strength. The required area A
vh
, per Eq. (7), with s
2
equal to 72 mm (3.0 in.), is 109 mm
2
(0.169 in.
2
), which is
significantly less than that provided. Moreover, the No. 6
longitudinal bars were 286 mm (11.25 in.) apart, which is
greater than the maximum spacing s
2
given in Eq. (7)
(s
2,max
= 64 mm [2.53 in.]) and, therefore, is a clear violation
of ACI 318-05, Section 11.8.5.
As discussed previously, it was the intention of the authors
to test a DCB with reduced transverse reinforcement relative
to the ACI 318-05 provisions in an effort to investigate the
potential of relieving the highly undesirable steel congestion
associated with these types of beams. The ACI 318-05
provisions that were not satisfied are considered by the
authors to be those that inflict the greatest amount of steel
congestion. A summary of the requirements of the provisions
discussed and the manner in which those provisions were either
satisfied or not satisfied is given in Table 2.
Specimen 2 (DCB-2)
Specimen DCB-2 was designed and detailed similarly to
Specimen DCB-1. The computed shear strength of Specimen
DCB-2, using measured material properties, was 329 kN
(74 kips). This shear strength was provided by four No. 7
(d
b
= 19 mm [0.75 in.]) bars in each DBG. The transverse
reinforcement was detailed similarly to that of Specimen
DCB-1 with the exception that the ACI 318-05 provisions
were intended to be satisfied. For the most part, this was
achieved. However, as can be seen in Table 2, the maximum
spacing limitations of Section 21.4.4.2 was controlled by the
criterion s less than or equal to 1/4 of the minimum
member dimension which resulted in a maximum spacing
of 26 mm (1.03 in.). The provided spacing was 50.8 mm (2 in.),
which is a clear violation of the provision, but at a spacing of
50.8 mm (2 in.), the resulting area of steel provided was 30%
greater than that required by Section 21.4.4.1. The authors
contend that the critical spacing requirement is merely a
function of the 1/2-scale beam and, therefore, do not consider
this a deficiency relative to ACI 318-05 requirements. In
other words, practical full-scale beam sizes will have large
enough minimum member dimensions such that tie spacing
at 1/4 the minimum member dimensions will not be impractical.
Nevertheless, Table 2 recognizes the violation of the
maximum spacing and reports this provision as not being
satisfied. Figure 2 shows the details of Specimen DCB-2.
Figure 3 shows an enlarged elevation of the two beams.
TEST SETUP AND PROTOCOL
The subassemblages were tested at the University of
Cincinnati Large Scale Test Facility. To simulate the double
curvature expected in a coupling beam, one of the subassem-
blages wall piers (fixed wall) was post-tensioned to a reinforced
concrete pedestal (in turn, post-tensioned to the laboratorys
strong floor) by means of high-strength rods threaded into
the pedestal. The other wall pier (load wall) and coupling
beam were cantilevered from the pedestal beneath the cross
beam of a steel load frame. Clamped atop the load wall pier
was a very stiff I-shape beam (load beam) used to transfer
applied actuator force to the load wall. To prevent load wall
rotation, the load beam extended beneath the cross beam of
a second load frame and connected to a secondary actuator
used to stabilize the system and prevent in-plane rotation of
the load wall. Figure 4 shows a schematic of the test apparatus
with a subassembly installed. Clamping forces in both fixed
and load walls were calibrated to reproduce an axial stress
distribution such as one that could be found at a critical location
along the height of a midrise building and, at the same time,
provide sufficient rotational restraint to the wall piers. As a
result, the loads on the fixed and load wall piers resulted in
axial forces of 0.25f
c
A
g
and 0.34f
c
A
g
, respectively.
The test specimens were similarly loaded with sets of
increasing amplitudes of displacement or force in a reverse
cyclic fashion. Each set of cycles was followed by one cycle
of decreased amplitude to capture stiffness degradation. A
representative plot of the loading history incorporated during
testing is shown in Fig. 4. To capture critical responses during
loading, an adequate number of strain gauges, displacement
transducers, and tilt meters were installed.
Fig. 3Enlarged beam elevations for: (a) Specimen DCB-1;
and (b) Specimen DCB-2.
Fig. 4Elevation of test setup and typical load history.
Dimensions are in mm (ft-in.).
786 ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2008
RESULTS AND COMPARISONS
A diagram showing the overall measured response of
Specimen DCB-1 is shown in Fig. 5. The vertical axis is the
shear demand normalized with respect to the shear capacity
calculated using measured materials properties, and the
horizontal axis is the chord rotation of the coupling beam. By
examination of the response, it is apparent that Specimen
DCB-1 shows a reasonably stable hysteretic behavior up to
4% chord rotation, followed by considerable strength and
stiffness degradation. Experimental observations point out
that this strength degradation is mostly due to buckling of
diagonal reinforcing bars in compression, after the concrete
in the beam core suffers excessive damage due to shearing
stresses. Figures 6(a) and (c) show photographs of the
damage levels in Specimen DCB-1 at 3% and 4% chord
rotation. ASCE 7-05, Section 16.2.4.2, prescribes limits of
acceptability for strength degradation and total deformation:
specifically, it is stated that member deformations shall not
exceed either 2/3 of the deformation that results in loss of
ability to carry dead loads, or 2/3 of the deformation
corresponding to deterioration of member strength to less
than 2/3 of its peak value. These two limits are shown in Fig. 5
as dashed lines. Specimen DCB-1 is still above 67% of the
peak force at 5% chord rotation; however, based on the
amount of damage observed in the beam and on the strength
loss experienced in the subsequent same-amplitude cycles, it
was concluded that the ultimate chord rotation is 4%,
resulting in a permissible maximum chord rotation of 2.7%
per ASCE 7-05.
A similar plot is shown in Fig. 7 for Specimen DCB-2. The
normalized shear-chord rotation diagram shows very stable
hysteretic cycles up to 10% chord rotation of the coupling
beam, with very limited strength degradation. In this case,
the presence of larger amounts of transverse reinforcement
around the beam core provided sufficient confinement to
core concrete such that buckling of the diagonal reinforcing
bars in compression was significantly delayed into much
larger deformation cycles. The test was stopped at 10%
chord rotation, due to rupture of diagonal reinforcing bars,
which could have potentially led to specimen stability issues.
The limits in ASCE 7-05 are shown as dashed lines in Fig. 7,
which indicate that the specimen never loses enough strength
to reach 67% of the peak force. At 10% rotation, the diagonal
reinforcing bars began rupturing in tension; for this reason,
10% rotation is considered the ultimate rotation. As a
consequence of the ASCE 7-05 acceptance criteria,
maximum chord rotation is 6.7%.
The aforementioned observations are reinforced by an
examination of Fig. 6. This figure shows photographs of
damage experienced by Specimen DCB-1 at 3% (Fig. 6(a))
and 4% (Fig. 6(c)) chord rotations, compared with those of
Specimen DCB-2 at the same deformations (Fig. 6(b) and
(d)). The physical response of the two specimens is remarkably
different. At 3% rotation (Fig. 6(a)), Specimen DCB-1 shows
a dense interlocking pattern of diagonal tension cracks along
the middle span of the beam, while the beam-wall interface
remains mostly undamaged. At the same rotation, Specimen
DCB-2 (Fig. 6(b)) shows a coarse combination of flexural,
flexural-shear, and shear cracks, with most of the damage
concentrated at the beam-wall interface. At 4% chord rotation,
Specimen DCB-1 (Fig. 6(c)) shows considerable damage
in the midspan region of the beam, with two triangular
wedges of nearly undamaged concrete that are clearly visible
at the beam-wall interface. At the same rotation, Specimen
DCB-2 (Fig. 6(d)) shows a mostly undamaged coupling
beam, with a combination of flexural, flexural-shear, and
shear cracks sparsely located, and wide vertical cracks at
the beam-wall interface, practically separating the wall
Fig. 5Normalized shear force versus chord rotation of
Specimen DCB-1.
Fig. 6Photographs of specimens at: (a) and (b) 3%; and
(c) and (d) 4% chord rotations. (Note: (a) and (c) show
Specimen DCB-1 and (b) and (d) show Specimen DCB-2.)
Fig. 7Normalized shear force versus chord rotation of
Specimen DCB-2.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2008 787
pier-beam end interfacial concrete. Considering the cracking
patterns shown, it is conceivable to hypothesize that the
limited amount of transverse reinforcement in Specimen DCB-1
was active and provided shear strength but limited
confinement, whereas the larger amount of transverse
reinforcement in Specimen DCB-2 provided more of a
confining effect rather than participating in shear resistance.
As can be seen in Fig. 1 and 2, boundary area steel was not
provided in the wall piers of Specimen DCB-1, but was
provided in the wall piers of Specimen DCB-2, as discussed
previously. These two specimens were tested at different
times during two separate research projects. The presence (or
lack of) boundary area steel has little if no effect on the response
of the experimental coupling beams because the wall pier
response is essentially isolated for the given test setup.
Figure 8 shows the nondimensional stiffness degradation
diagram for both specimens as a function of the beam chord
rotation. The peak-to-peak stiffness is normalized with the
stiffness calculated based on the data measured after the very
first load cycle in the experimental history. Examination of
the diagram leads to the conclusion that the stiffness of
Specimen DCB-1 initially degrades considerably more
slowly than that of Specimen DCB-2. After 2% chord rotation,
however, the stiffness of Specimen DCB-2 stabilizes,
whereas Specimen DCB-1 continues to lose stiffness. This
trend could be due to the fact that Specimen DCB-1 forms
a single plastic hinge at midspan of the beam mostly in shear,
as opposed to Specimen DCB-2, which forms two plastic
hinges at the ends of the beam at the locations of maximum
shear and moment.
A diagram plotting the plastic energy dissipated by the two
specimens as a function of beam chord rotation is presented
in Fig. 9. The more pronounced peak-to-peak stiffness
degradation observed for Specimen DCB-2 illustrates that
Specimen DCB-2 dissipates consistently more energy than
Specimen DCB-1, even in the initial stages of the load
history. Substantial energy dissipation, at large chord rotations,
in Specimen DCB-2 is achieved as a result of having virtually
no strength degradation up through larger rotation cycles.
Overall, Specimen DCB-2 performed substantially better
than Specimen DCB-1; Specimen DCB-1 exhibits significant
strength degradation beyond 3% chord rotation with shear
strength loss occurring prior to realizing the full inelastic
capacity of the DBG, whereas Specimen DCB-2 shows no
signs of strength degradation up through 10% chord rotation
at which point the Specimen DBGs begin to fracture. Upon
inspection of the hysteresis of Specimen DCB-2 shown in
Fig. 7, a slight increase in strength is seen beyond about 6%
chord rotation. This increase in strength is attributed to the
strain hardening behavior of the DGBs, indicating that full
inelastic capacity of the DBGs is mobilized. This desirable
performance is attributed to the lateral stability of the DBGs
made possible by the amount of transverse reinforcement
provided around the main core of the beams, and the manner
in which it is distributed. Furthermore, the transverse hoops
over the DBG intersection, where the height of the hoop was
just high enough to encompass both diagonal bar groups,
contributed to the better performance of Specimen DCB-2
relative to Specimen DCB-1 because the horizontal legs of
these hoops provided increased stability for the vertical legs
of the larger hoops in that region. In contrast, Specimen DCB-1
degraded in the early rotation cycles (Fig. 6) because the
provided transverse reinforcement around the main core of
the beam could not prevent instability of DGB, even though
the provided amount of transverse reinforcement exceeded
the level required by ACI 318-05.
The resulting performances of the two different beam details,
assessed using the ASCE 7 performance acceptance criteria
(Fig. 5 and 7), demonstrate that the transverse reinforcement
detailing practice employed in Specimen DCB-2 provides
substantially more ductile behavior in situations where large
beam chord rotations would be anticipated.
APPLICATIONS TO PRACTICAL DESIGN
Based on the results of the experimental tests, the authors
contend that designers should take into careful consideration
the confinement provided to the concrete core of a coupling
beam, especially when dealing with beams having practical
span-depth ratios between 2 and 4. As can be seen in Table 2,
the provided area of transverse steel around the main core of
the DCB-2 beam was two and three times (vertical legs and
horizontal legs, respectively) more than that required by
ACI 318-05 and was distributed (spaced) approximately the
same as the maximum permitted by ACI 318-05. Conversely,
the area of steel provided around the main core of the
Specimen DCB-1 beam was more than five times that
required by ACI 318-05, but was provided by using larger
Fig. 8Comparison of normalized stiffness degradation in
Specimens DCB-1 and DCB-2. Stiffness is normalized with
values at the end of first loading cycle.
Fig. 9Comparison of energy dissipated by Specimens DCB-2
and DCB-2.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2008 788
bars spaced further apart (in this case, provided by the four
No. 6 corner bars).
Hence, detailing transverse reinforcement ratios in excess
of the minimum prescribed, for instance, two to three times
larger (Specimen DCB-2), and distributing the bars efficiently
(the maximum spacing requirements of ACI 318-05 appear
to sufficiently address this consideration) should sufficiently
provide the required strength, ductility, and energy dissipation
expected from a diagonally reinforced concrete coupling
beam constructed in areas of high seismic demand. It is
important to point out that the transverse reinforcement, in
excess of that currently required by ACI 318-05, is not meant
to contribute directly to the shear strength of the coupling
beam, but rather to provide confinement to the concrete core
well into large chord rotations. Such confinement will in turn
maintain the beams concrete core integrity, thereby
preventing instability phenomena in the diagonal reinforcement
while in compression. By providing a diagonal tension/
compression field to the coupling beam well into large chord
rotations, strength preservation is improved, and it is further-
more possible to attain the tensile/compressive strength of
the diagonal reinforcing bars to realize the full potential of
the system.
CONCLUSIONS
The experimental results presented in this paper show that
providing a higher ratio of transverse reinforcement in a
diagonally-reinforced coupling beam, relative to that currently
required by ACI 318-05, will beneficially impact its response
by providing necessary confinement to the concrete core of
the beam. This, in turn, will delay the onset of buckling in the
diagonal reinforcement bars, thereby allowing them to
develop enough force to reach their fracture strength. It
should be noted, however, that this recommendation for
higher steel ratios may very well add to construction difficulties,
depending on the shear demand in the coupling beams.
EPILOGUE
Although the two experimental tests offered in this paper
are not sufficient to provide conclusive evidence from which
transverse reinforcement ratio recommendations can be
made, it is apparent that the concrete core of the DCB must
remain intact through large deformation cycles if the DBGs are
to develop their full inelastic capacity. The transverse
reinforcement detailing provided in Specimen DCB-1 more
closely represents ACI 318-05 requirements (with the
exception of the transverse steel around the DBGs intersecting
length), whereas the detailing of Specimen DCB-2 exceeds that
required by ACI 318-05. Considering the outstanding
deformation capacity and stable hysteretic behavior of
Specimen DCB-2 relative to Specimen DCB-1, further
research is recommended to develop design recommendations for
hysteretically-stable diagonally-reinforced concrete coupling
beams with desirably large deformation capacities. Moreover,
these recommendations are made in direct reference to
concrete coupling beams with practical span-depth ratios,
specifically, span-depth ratios between 2 and 4. Meanwhile,
the authors recommend that transverse reinforcement ratios
provided to the main core of a diagonally-reinforced
concrete coupling beam be on the order of two to three times
the minimum ratios required by the corresponding ACI 318-05
provisions, as supported by the performance of Specimen DCB-2.
Additionally, maximum spacing requirements of ACI 318-05
should not be exceeded.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Specimen DCB-1 was tested as part of a research project funded by the
National Science Foundation under Grant No. BCS-CMS-9714860, with
S. C. Liu as the Program Director. Specimen DCB-2 was tested as part of a
research project funded by PCS Structural Solutions (Tacoma, WA) under
the helpful supervision of PCS Principal P. Brienen. The authors gratefully
acknowledge the contributions of D. Bartole and W. Berton, graduate
students at the University of Trieste (Italy), who actively participated in the
fabrication and testing of Specimen DCB-2 as part of a student exchange
collaboration by spending the summer in the U.S. working at the large-scale
test facility at the University of Cincinnati. The authors would also like to
acknowledge the contribution of S. No with the University of Trieste
(Italy). Finally, acknowledgment is given to I. Clemente for his contribution
to the Specimen DCB-2 testing.
REFERENCES
ACI Committee 318, 2005, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 430 pp.
Aristizabal-Ochoa, J. D., 1982, Dynamic Response of Coupled Wall
Systems, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 108, No. ST 8,
pp. 1846-1857.
ASCE 7, 2005, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
Fortney, P. J., 2005, The Next Generation of Coupling Beams,
dissertation, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, Chapter 5.
Fortney, P. J.; Shahrooz, B. M.; and Rassati, G. A., 2004a, The Next
Generation of Coupling Beams, Composite Construction V, Kruger
National Park, South Africa, July, pp. 619-630.
Fortney, P. J.; Rassati, G. A.; Shahrooz, B. M.; Clemente, I.; and No, S.,
2004b, Cyclic Test on Steel Plate Reinforced Coupling Beam, Proceedings
of Atti del VI Workshop Italiano sulle Strutture Composte, Trieste, Italy,
pp. 301-309.
Harries, K. A.; Fortney, P. J.; Shahrooz, B. M.; and Brienen, P., 2005,
Design of Practical Diagonally Reinforced Coupling BeamsA Critical
Review of ACI 318 Requirements, ACI Structures Journal, V. 102, No. 6,
Nov.-Dec., pp. 876-882.
Shahrooz, B. M.; Remmetter, M. E.; and Qin, F., 1992, Seismic
Response of Composite Coupled Structural Walls, Proceedings of the
International Conference on Concrete, pp. 465-481.
Shahrooz, B. M.; Remmetter, M. E.; and Qin, F., 1993, Seismic Design
and Performance of Composite Coupled Walls, Journal of the Structural
Division, ASCE, V. 119, No. 11, pp. 2858-2896.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi