Engineering Structures 76 (2014) 371–382

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Effective stiffness of reinforced concrete coupling beams

Ngoc Son Vu, Bing Li ⇑, Katrin Beyer
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798, Singapore
Civil Engineering Institute, Ecole Polytechnqiue Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Reinforced concrete (RC) structural walls with coupling beams are widely used as the primary lateral-
Received 30 April 2014 load-bearing elements in high-rise building structures. Many researches have shown that there is uncer-
Revised 23 June 2014 tainty in the estimation of the effective stiffness of RC coupling beams. In an attempt to develop rational
Accepted 10 July 2014
approaches regarding the stiffness of these structural components, this paper presents the analytical
Available online 8 August 2014
approaches, considering the influence of flexural and shear deformations, to determine the effective stiff-
ness of RC coupling beams. A comprehensive parametric study, including 144 combinations for the con-
Keywords:
ventionally reinforced concrete coupling beam (CCB) and 48 combinations for the diagonally reinforced
Reinforced concrete coupling beam
Diagonally reinforced concrete coupling
concrete coupling beam (DCB), is carried out and two equations to estimate the effective stiffness of RC
beam coupling beams are proposed each as a function of aspect ratio, transverse reinforcement ratio, longitu-
Conventionally reinforced concrete coupling dinal reinforcement ratio, diagonal reinforcement ratio and concrete compressive strength, on the basis
beam of these parametric case studies. The proposed analytical approaches and the equations for assessing the
Initial stiffness effective stiffness of CCBs and DCBs are then verified by comparison with experimental results obtained
Stiffness ratio from literature.
Shear stiffness Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction stiffness of RC coupling beams as a function of the aspect ratio.

In seismic design, a displacement-based approach recently has
been widely employed instead of a traditional force-based
approach in which the deformation of structures is the point of
focus [1]. In these structures, the effective stiffness of RC coupling
beams plays an important role in the seismic performance of the
structural walls and the whole structure because it may signifi-
cantly affect the determination of fundamental period, displace-
ments, ductility factor, and distributed internal forces of
structures. Therefore, accurately assessing the effective stiffness
of RC coupling beams is extremely important for the practical
design of building structures subjected to seismic excitation. Many
researchers showed that there is a large uncertainty with regard to
the effective stiffness of RC coupling beams when subjected to seis-
mic excitation. To deal with this problem, some current design
codes employ a stiffness reduction factor of value from 0.3 to 0.5
of the inertia moment of the gross sectional area. However, in many
cases, this simplification often leads to overestimation of the effec-
tive stiffness of RC coupling beams subjected to lateral loads. Paulay
and Priestley [2], Standards New Zealand – NZS 3101 [3], and Tar-
anath [4] recommended equations to estimate the effective
⇑ Corresponding author at: School of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798, Singapore. Tel.: +65
67905090.
E-mail address: cbli@ntu.edu.sg (B. Li).
These equations are oversimplified because the effective stiffness
of RC coupling beams depends significantly on, not only the aspect
ratio but also the reinforcement content and the concrete compres-
sive strength. This paper presents proposed methods to estimate
the effective stiffness of the RC coupling beam that would consider
the influence of the flexural and shear deformation on its stiffness.
Following which a parametric study based on the proposed meth-
ods is carried out to investigate the influence of some important
parameters, including the aspect ratio, longitudinal reinforcement
ratio, diagonal reinforcement ratio, transverse reinforcement ratio,
and concrete compressive strength. Two simple equations to esti-
mate the effective stiffness of CCBs and DCBs are also proposed
based on the comprehensive parametric study. The accuracy of
the proposed approaches and the equations are then verified by
comparison with experimental results from literature.
2. Review of existing effective stiffness models
2.1. ACI 318-11 [5]
According to ACI 318-11 [5] there are two options for estimat-
ing the effective stiffness of flexural members: (a) 0:35Ec Ig ; or (b) it
can be determined using the following equation:
 
b
Ie ¼ ð0:1 þ 25qs Þ 1:2  0:2 Ig 6 0:5Ig ð1Þ
d

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.07.014
0141-0296/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
372 N. Son Vu et al. / Engineering Structures 76 (2014) 371–382

Nomenclature

Av effective shear area, Av = bdv /y curvature at yield lateral force

Av effective area of the concrete strut, taken as Av ¼ 0:35bd h angle of the inclined strut in the cracked concrete with
As sectional area of longitudinal reinforcement respect to longitudinal axis of RC coupling beam in
Asd sectional area of diagonal reinforcement VATM
b web width of the coupling beam h0 angle of the inclined strut in the cracked concrete with
d effective depth of the coupling beam respect to longitudinal axis of RC coupling beam in
db the effective shear depth taken as flexural lever arm CATM
which need not be taken less than 0.9d Dfy flexural and bar slip deformations (displacements, dis-
Ec modulus of elasticity of concrete tortion) of CCBs under yield force
Es modulus of elasticity of reinforcing bars Df1 flexural deformation of VATM due to the applied unit
fct concrete tensile strength shear force
fc0 concrete compressive strength Dsy shear deformation of the CCB under yield force
fy yield strength of longitudinal reinforcing bars Ds vertical displacement between two faces of the DCB un-
Ie effective moment of inertia of the coupling beam der the shear force, Vs
Ig moment of inertia of the gross sectional area t Poisson’s ratio
Ki initial stiffness of RC coupling beams l ductility of RC coupling beams
Kca shear stiffness of constant truss angle model for CCBs fd factor allowing for deformation within the anchorage
Kva shear stiffness of variable angle truss model for CCBs length of the DCB
Ks shear stiffness of the CCB qs the longitudinal reinforcement ratio
l length of the coupling beam qv transverse reinforcement ratio
ld anchorage length of longitudinal reinforcement in the qsd diagonal reinforcement ratio
CCB or diagonal reinforcement in the DCB cs1 shear rotation due to (caused by, under) the applied unit
lp equivalent plastic hinge length shear force
My yield bending moment cf1 flexural drift angle due to (caused by, under) the applied
n modulus ratio, n ¼ EEcs unit shear force
Vs shear force transmitted by the coupling beam cs rotation of the DCB under the shear force, Vs
Vy yield lateral force s bond stress between reinforcing bars and concrete
a corner-to-corner diagonal angle of VATM, a = arctan j dimensionless stiffness factor of RC coupling beams,
(db/l) j ¼ IIge
ad angle of inclination of diagonal reinforcement jCCB dimensionless stiffness factor of CCBs
b factor allowing for deformation within the anchorage jDCB dimensionless stiffness factor of DCBs
length of the CCB
Ub diameter of longitudinal reinforcement

where qs is the longitudinal reinforcement ratio; d is the effective 2.4. Paulay and Priestley [2]
depth of the member and b is the web width of the member.
Paulay and Priestley [2] propose the equation shown in Eq. (4)
2.2. FEMA 356 [6] & ASCE 41 [7] to calculate the effective stiffness of CCBs with depth d and clear
span l
FEMA 356 [6] suggests the effective stiffness be taken as 0.5EcIg 0:2Ig
Ie ¼ d2 ð4Þ
for members under bending; Otherwise, ASCE 41 [7] including sup- 1þ3 l
plement #1 recommends a lower value for the effective stiffness of
0.3EcIg. Paulay and Priestley [2] also suggest Eq. (5) to estimate the
effective stiffness of DCBs as:

2.3. NZS 3101 [3] 0:4Ig

Ie ¼  2 ð5Þ
1 þ 3 dl
The Standards New Zealand – NZS 3101 [3] recommends an
equation to estimate the effective stiffness of CCBs solely as a func- Eqs. (4) and (5) are also adopted by the Canadian Concrete Stan-
tion of the aspect ratio: dard A23.3 [8]

0:4Ig 2.5. Taranath [4]

Ie ¼  2 ð2Þ
1 þ 8 dl
Taranath [4] gives an equation to calculate the effective stiff-
NZS 3101 [3] also gives an equation estimating the effective ness of RC coupling beams of shear walls that takes into account
stiffness of DCBs that depends on the aspect ratio and the expected the effect of shear deformation in RC coupling beams as follows:
ductility demand, l, as follow:
Ig
A I g Ie ¼  3 ð6Þ
Ie ¼  2 ð3Þ 1 þ 2:4 dl ð1 þ tÞ
B þ C  dl
where t is Poisson’s ratio. Fig. 2 illustrates the variation of the effec-
where A, B, and C coefficients vary with l (A = 1.0 and 0.40; B = 1.7 tive stiffness ratio of the CCB and DCB versus the aspect ratio for dif-
and 1.7; and C = 1.3 and 2.7; for l = 1.25 and 6.0). ferent existing effective stiffness models.
 N. Son Vu et al. / Engineering Structures 76 (2014) 371–382 373

3. Proposed methods to estimate the effective stiffness of RC ACI318-11(CCB) ASCE41-06(CCB)

coupling beams FEMA(CCB) NZS-3101(CCB)
Paulay&Priestley(CCB) NZS-3101(DCB-ductility=1.25)
3.1. Effective stiffness of conventionally RC coupling beams
NZS-3101(DCB-ductility=6) Paulay&Priestley(DCB)
Taranath(CCB&DCB)
3.1.1. Initial stiffness determination 1
There are two common methods to estimate the initial stiffness
of RC coupling beams, as shown in Fig. 1. The first method is often
used in experimental studies in which the initial stiffness is the 0.8
slope of the line passing the point at which the applied lateral force

Stiffness ratio (%)

reaches 75% of the nominal strength, corresponding to point A. In
the second method, the beam is loaded until either the first yield 0.6
of the longitudinal reinforcing bars or the maximum compressive
strain of concrete reaches 0.002 at the critical section of the cou-
pling beam, corresponding to point B, which is normally used in 0.4

numerical studies. Because initial reinforcing yield occurs prior to

nominal capacity being achieved, both approaches generate similar
0.2
values. In this study, the second approach is adopted to estimate
the initial stiffness of CCBs.

0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
3.1.2. Yield force
Aspect ratio
As mentioned previously, the initial stiffness of coupling beams
can be determined by the second method. The yield bending Fig. 2. Relationship between the stiffness ratio and the aspect ratio of available
moment, My, is obtain by analyzing moment–curvature for the crit- models.
ical section of the CCB. Assuming the CCB is fixed against rotation
at both ends, the yield lateral force of the CCB is given by:
Therefore, the flexure deformation and bar slip/extension at the
2My yield force can be calculated as follows:
Vy ¼ ð7Þ
l 2
/y ðl þ 2lp Þ
The displacement of the CCB, Dy, at yield point can be calculated Dfy ¼ ð8Þ
6
as the sum of the displacement due to flexure, bar slip and shear.
where /y is the curvature at yield force at the end section of the CCB
estimated by utilizing moment–curvature analysis and l is the
3.1.3. Flexure and bar slip deformations
length of the CCB. The equivalent plastic hinge length, lp, can be
In this proposed method, moment curvature analysis is con-
defined following the suggestion of Paulay and Priestley [2]:
ducted to estimate the displacement due to flexure and bar slip.
In general, this analysis is applied for various sections along the lp ¼ 0:08l þ 0:022Ub fy ð9Þ
length of the CCB. The CCB is divided into several segments along
its length to estimate the flexural deformation at the end of the In which fy is the yield strength of longitudinal reinforcing bars
CCB. The total flexural deformation at one end of the CCB is and Ub is the diameter of longitudinal reinforcing bars.
obtained by cumulating the flexural deformation along segments.
However, in this paper, for simplicity, the assumption of linear 3.1.4. Shear deformation
curvature contribution over the length of the CCB is adopted. To estimate the shear behavior of RC structures, there are two
standard regions defined by Schlaich et al. [9], namely B-regions,
where B stands for beam or Bernoulli and D-regions, where D
Shear Force

stands for discontinuity or disturbed. In B-regions, the linear strain

distribution in beams is postulated valid for RC beams with mod-
erate and high aspect ratio, l=d. While in D-regions, the plain strain
distribution assumption is invalid and may be significantly non-
linear in RC beams with low aspect ratio. The constant truss angle
Vu
model (CTAM) is suitable in modeling shear behavior for B-regions
of RC beams, while D-regions are analyzed with variable truss
Vy angle model (VTAM). In shear behavior analysis of RC beams, it is
B
0.75 Vu A difficult to combine both of the truss models, therefore, only one
truss model is used to analyze shear behavior of RC beams and
the selection of the type of model is based on the concept of min-
imum amount of energy to work out the minimum inclined crack
angle, h. If the condition, h P a ða ¼ ar tanðdb =lÞÞ; is satisfied, CATM
initial stiffness should be employed; if h < a, the shear behavior of RC beams
should be modeled using VATM. In this study, the CATM and VATM
are applied to estimate the shear stiffness of CCBs.
Ki
3.1.5. Shear stiffness of CATM for CCBs
0.75 Vu y Displacement Fig. 3 shows the CATM, which can be used to analyze shear
behavior of CCBs with moderate and high aspect ratio. In this
Fig. 1. Initial stiffness determination. model, it is believed that the inclined cracks are roughly parallel
374 N. Son Vu et al. / Engineering Structures 76 (2014) 371–382

θ0
αd

db
db
αd

θ0 L

1 2 Vs Vs
2 2
(dVs ) cot θ0 A D
Vs cotα Vs cotα
d d
db 2 2
dVs
M M db
θ0 Vs cotα
C αd αd B 2 d

(dVs ) cot θ0 3 4
Vs cotα Vs
dbcot θ0
d
2 L 2
Vs
2
Fig. 3. Constant angle truss model of CCB.
Fig. 5. Truss model of DCB.

to each other in the CCB. For simplicity, the longitudinal chords,

transverse tensile ties, and diagonal concrete compression struts,
are assumed to be joined at rigid nodes to attain a static equilib-
α rium truss. In addition, by ignoring the effect of flexure deforma-
tion, the longitudinal chords which are formed by longitudinal
db reinforcement in tension zone and concrete in the compression
zone can be considered rigid in this model. Kim and Mander [10]
proposed Eq. (10) to estimate the shear stiffness of concrete ele-
α
ments by applying the principles of virtual work method of
analysis:

L nqv Ec Av cot2 h0
K ca ¼ ð10Þ
1 þ nqv csc4 h0

0.21L 0.58L 0.21L In which h0 is the angle of the inclined concrete strut, which can
Vs be determined by using the equilibrium of average stress and com-
A B C D patibility of deformation in compression field theory [11]:
Vs cotα Vs cot α 2 !0:25 3
2 2 1 þ n1q
h0 ¼ arctan 4 s 5 ð11Þ
M M 1 þ nq1
v

It is noted that the calculations of the shear stiffness mentioned

Vs cotα E F G H above are only applicable for CCBs with vertical stirrups.
Vs cot α
2 2
Vs L
3.1.6. Shear stiffness of VATM for CCBs
Fig. 4. Variable angle truss model of CCB by two-point Gauss quadrature. The variable angle truss model indicated in Fig. 4, using two-
point Gauss quadrature can be utilized as sufficiently accurate
model to analyze shear behavior of CCBs with low aspect ratio,

Table 1
Chord deformations of VATM of the conventionally RC coupling beam by two-point Gauss quadrature.

Member Force F Unit load f Length l Rigidity EA Strain e ¼ EAF Deformation Ffl
EA

(AB), (GH) Vs 1 0.21bl EsAs V s cot a 0:0525blV s cot2 a

2 tan a 2 tan a E s As E s As
(CD), (EF) 0 0 0.21bl EsAs 0 0
(BC), (FG) 0:395V s 0:395 0.58l EsAs 0:79V s cot a 0:0905lV s cot2 a
tan a tan a Es As E s As
 N. Son Vu et al. / Engineering Structures 76 (2014) 371–382 375

Table 2
Chord deformations of truss model of the diagonally RC coupling beam.

Member Force F Unit load f Length l Rigidity EA Strain e ¼ EAF Deformation Ffl
EA

AB Vs 1 fd l EsAsd Vs fd lV s
2 sin ad 2 sin ad cos ad 2Es Asd sin ad 4Es Asd sin2 ad cos ad
CD Vs
 2 sin a
1
 2 sin ad
l
cos ad
bEc Av þ Es Asd  2ðbEc A þEVssA Þ sin a , lV s
,
v sd d 4ðbEc Av þEs Asd Þ sin2 ad cos ad

Table 3 3.1.9. Determination of flexural drift angle

Parameters study. Considering a VATM of the CCB with fixed–fixed ends shown in
No. Name Description Range Investigated Fig. 4, it is of interest that all longitudinal chord members are ten-
sile over the entire length of the model, consistent with the obser-
1 l/d Aspect ratio 1.03, 1.29, 2.00, 2.50
2 qs(%) Longitudinal reinforcement ratio 0.87, 1.36, 2.12 vation by Paulay [13] both theoretically and experimentally. By
3 qsd(%) Diagonal reinforcement ratio 0.59, 0.92, 1.44 considering the deformation of the longitudinal chord members
4 qv(%) Transverse reinforcement ratio 0.44, 0.69, 2.07 in a truss model in Fig. 4, the flexural deformation of VATM under
5 fc0 ðMpaÞ Concrete compressive strength 25, 35, 45, 55
the unit shear force can be estimated by utilizing the virtual work
method. It is noted that the anchorage length of the longitudinal
and its shear stiffness can be defined by the following expression reinforcements should be taken into account. The detailed calcula-
[10]: tions of deformation of upper and bottom longitudinal chords are
listed in Table 1. Then, the total flexural deformation of a truss
nqv Ec Av cot2 a model under the unit shear force is:
K va ¼ 2
ð12Þ
1 þ 4nqv ð1 þ 0:39cot2 aÞ
klcot2 a
where a is the corner-to-corner diagonal angle of VATM, a = arc- Df 1 ¼ ð14Þ
E s As
tan (db/l).
where k ¼ 0:105b þ 0:181; B is a factor allowing for deformation
3.1.7. Solution procedure for determining the minimum inclined crack within the anchorage length, which can be calculated as follows:
angle
As mentioned above, the value of minimum inclined crack angle ld
b¼1þ ð15Þ
h determines CATM or VATM will be used to analysis the shear l
behavior of CCBs. It is believed that both flexure and shear compo-
In which ld is the anchorage length of longitudinal reinforce-
nents affect the crack angle which will occur and propagate in a
ment, which can be given by:
direction that requires the minimum potential energy [10,12].
fy Ub
3.1.8. Determination of shear rotation ld ¼ ð16Þ
4s
Using the VATM, the shear rotation of the CCB subjected to unit
shear force can be obtained as follows: where s is the bond stress between anchorage reinforcing bars and
concrete, which can be calculated simply as follows [14]:
2
1 1 þ 4nqv ð1 þ 0:39cot2 aÞ
cs1 ¼ ¼ ð13Þ
s ¼ 2f ct ¼ 0:6ðfc0 Þ2=3 ð17Þ
K va nqv Ec Av cot2 a

2Ø25 2Ø22 2Ø25

2Ø22
Ø10@100
Ø10@100
787

2Ø22

2Ø25 2Ø22 2Ø25

152

1016

Fig. 6. Details of the CCB specimen, B311, tested by Paulay [13].

376 N. Son Vu et al. / Engineering Structures 76 (2014) 371–382

2Ø12 2Ø12

Ø6
4Ø16
+3Ø25 4Ø22

Ø6

787
Ø6

4Ø16 3Ø25
4Ø22

2Ø12 2Ø12
152

1016

Fig. 7. Details of the DCB specimen, B317, tested by Binney [16].

By dividing the flexural deformation by the length of the truss Vy

Ki ¼ ð22Þ
model, the flexural drift angle of the CCB under the unit shear force Dfy þ Dsy
can be estimated as:
Assuming both ends of the CCB are fixed against rotation and
kcot2 a the curvature is linear variation along the span of the coupling
cf 1 ¼ ð18Þ
beam, the effective moment of inertia of the CCB, Ie, can be defined
Es As
by the following expression:
3
3.1.10. Determination of minimum inclined crack angle Kil
Ie ¼ ð23Þ
The external work done, EWD, due to a unit shear force can be 12Ec
obtained by summing of shear rotation and flexural drift angle and
letting a = h in Eqs. (13) and (18): 3.2. Effective stiffness of diagonally RC coupling beams
2 2 2
1 þ 4nqv ð1 þ 0:39cot hÞ kcot h 3.2.1. Deformation of DCBs
EWD ¼ þ ð19Þ
nqv Ec Av cot2 h Es As Consider a truss model of the DCB with fixed–fixed ends shown
The minimum inclined crack angle, h, is calculated by differen- in Fig. 5. The deformation of the truss model consists of the elon-
tiating Eq. (19) and taking dEWD ¼ 0, as a result: gation of the diagonal tension member, AB, and the contraction
dh
2 of the diagonal compression member, CD, which can be estimated
!0:25 3
0:61 þ nkq by utilizing the virtual work method of analysis. This analysis is
h ¼ arctan 4 s 5 ð20Þ shown in Table 2. The deformation of the simplified truss model
4 þ nq1
v is then calculated by summing the member deformations, thus:
It is clearly seen from Eq. (20) that the minimum angle crack X
2
Ffl
mainly depends on the transverse reinforcement and longitudinal Ds ¼
i¼1
EA
reinforcement ratios. As mentioned above, if h achieved from Eq.
(20) is less than a (a = arctan (db/l)), VATM is used and the shear fd lV s lV s
¼ 2
þ  2
ð24Þ
stiffness is estimated by Eq. (12) with a = arctan (db/l); Otherwise, 4Asd Es sin ad cos ad 4ðAv Ec þ Asd Es Þ sin ad cos ad
CATM would be used and the Eq. (10) and Eq. (11) can be used to
calculate the shear stiffness of CCBs. The drift angle is then determined by dividing the displacement
to the length of the truss model, thus:
 
3.1.11. Shear deformation of CCBs Vs fd 1
After the shear stiffness of CCBs is estimated either using VATM cs ¼ þ  ð25Þ
2 sin ad sin 2ad Asd Es Av Ec þ Asd Es
or CATM, the shear deformations of CCBs under yield force, can be
calculated as follows: where Av is the effective area of the concrete strut; ad is the angle of
inclination of diagonal reinforcement; fd is a factor allowing for
Vy deformation within the anchorage length, which can be estimated
Dsy ¼ l ð21Þ
Ks as follows:
In which the shear stiffness of CCBs, Ks, is calculated either using leff ld cos ad
Eq. (10) or Eq. (12). fd ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ¼ 1 þ ð26Þ
2
d þl
2 l

3.1.12. Combination of shear and flexural response where leff is the effective length of diagonal reinforcement, allowing
After the flexural and shear deformations of the CCB under yield for the same strain over a length of 0.5ld beyond beam faces; ld is the
force are achieved, the initial stiffness of the CCB can be obtained anchorage length of diagonal reinforcement, which can be calcu-
as follows: lated by using Eq. (16).
 N. Son Vu et al. / Engineering Structures 76 (2014) 371–382 377

(a) 18 (a) 18
f c' = Aspect ratio: 1.03 f c' =
ρv=0.44% Aspect ratio: 1.29
ρv=0.69% 45 MPa Aspect ratio: 2.0 45 MPa
Aspect ratio: 2.5
ρv=2.07% 35 MPa 35 MPa
14 14
25 MPa 25 MPa
Stiffness ratio κ (%)

ρs=0.87%

Stiffness ratio κ (%)

ρs=0.87%

10
10

6
6

2
1.03 1.52 2.01 2.50
2
Aspect ratio 0.44 1.26 2.07
Transvese reinforcement ratio (%)
(b) 22
ρv=0.44% f c' =
(b) 22 Aspect ratio: 1.03
ρv=0.69% f c' =
45 MPa Aspect ratio: 1.29
ρv=2.07% Aspect ratio: 2.0 45 MPa
18 35 MPa Aspect ratio: 2.5
18 35 MPa
25 MPa
ρs=1.36% 25 MPa
Stiffness ratio κ (%)

ρs=1.36%
Stiffness ratio κ (%)
14
14

10
10

6
6

2
1.03 1.52 2.01 2.50
2
Aspect ratio 0.44 1.26 2.07
Transvese reinforcement ratio (%)
(c) 26 f c' =
ρv=0.44%
ρv=0.69% 45 MPa
(c) 26 Aspect ratio: 1.03
f c' =
Aspect ratio: 1.29
ρv=2.07%
22 35 MPa Aspect ratio: 2.0 45 MPa
Aspect ratio: 2.5
25 MPa 22 35 MPa
Stiffness ratio κ (%)

18 ρs=2.12% 25 MPa
ρs =2.12%
Stiffness ratio κ (%)

18
14

14
10

10
6

6
2
1.03 1.52 2.01 2.50
2
Aspect ratio 0.44 1.26 2.07
Transvese reinforcement ratio (%)
Fig. 8. Influence of aspect ratio on stiffness ratio of CCB.
Fig. 9. Influence of transverse reinforcement ratio on stiffness ratio of CCB.

3.2.2. Effective moment of inertia of DCBs

The DCB can be treated as a hypothetical prismatic flexural. Vs l
2

Assuming both ends of the DCB are fixed–fixed against rotation, Ec Ie ¼ ð27Þ
cs 12
the effective flexural stiffness, EcIe, can be defined as follows:
378 N. Son Vu et al. / Engineering Structures 76 (2014) 371–382

(a) 22 12
Aspect ratio: 1.03 f c' = ρsd=0.59% f c' =
Aspect ratio: 1.29
ρsd=0.92%
Aspect ratio: 2.0 45 MPa 45 MPa
Aspect ratio: 2.5 ρsd=1.44%
18 35 MPa 10 35 MPa
25 MPa 25 MPa
ρv =0.44%

Stiffness ratio κ (%)

Stiffness ratio κ (%)

14 8

10 6

6
4

2
0.87 1.50 2.12 2
1.03 1.52 2.01 2.50
Longitudinal reinforcement ratio (%) Aspect ratio

(b) 22 Fig. 11. Influence of aspect ratio on stiffness ratio of DCB.

Aspect ratio: 1.03 f c' =
Aspect ratio: 1.29
Aspect ratio: 2.0 45 MPa
Aspect ratio: 2.5 35 MPa
18
25 MPa 12
Aspect ratio: 1.03 f c' =
ρ v =0.69%
Stiffness ratio κ (%)

Aspect ratio: 1.29

14 45 MPa
Aspect ratio: 2.0
10 35 MPa
Aspect ratio: 2.5
25 MPa
10
Stiffness ratio κ (%)

2
0.87 1.50 2.12
Longitudinal reinforcement ratio (%) 4

(c) 28
Aspect ratio: 1.03
f c' =
Aspect ratio: 1.29
2
45 MPa 0.59 1.02 1.44
24 Aspect ratio: 2.0
Aspect ratio: 2.5 35 MPa Diagonal reinforcement ratio (%)
25 MPa
ρv =2.07%
Stiffness ratio κ (%)

20

Fig. 12. Influence of diagonal reinforcement ratio on stiffness ratio of DCB.

16
 2
2 l sin ad sin 2ad
Ie ¼  d  Ig ð28Þ
12 1
0:35ð1þnq Þ
þ nfqd
sd sd

where qsd is the diagonal reinforcement ratio.

8

4
0.87 1.50
Longitudinal reinforcement ratio (%)
Fig. 10. Influence of transverse reinforcement ratio on stiffness ratio of CCB.
By combining Eqs. (25) and (27) and assuming the compression
zone of the section equals to 0.35d [15], the effective moment of
inertia of the DCB, Ie, can be simplified as follows:
4. Parametric studies
2.12
To gain a better understanding of the effects of the various
parameters on the effective stiffness of CCBs & DCBs, a parametric
study comprising 144 combinations for CCBs and 48 combinations
for DCBs is carried out in this section. The primary parametric
studies for CCBs include the aspect ratio (l/d), transverse reinforce-
ment ratio (qv), longitudinal reinforcement ratio (qs), and concrete
compressive strength ðfc0 Þ while the aspect ratio (l/d), diagonal rein-
forcement ratio (qsd), and concrete compressive strength ðfc0 Þ are
 N. Son Vu et al. / Engineering Structures 76 (2014) 371–382 379

12 4.1. Influence of aspect ratio

Aspect ratio: 1.03
Aspect ratio: 1.29
10 Aspect ratio: 2.0
Aspect ratio: 2.5
Stiffness ratio κ (%)
ρ sd =
0.59% As indicated in Figs. 8–10, in general, the stiffness ratio of CCBs
increases with an increase in aspect ratio with the same reinforce-
0.92%
ment detailing and compressive concrete strength. With the
1.44%
increase of aspect ratios from 1.03 to 1.29, 2.00 and 2.50, stiffness
ratios of CCBs under transverse reinforcement ratio of 0.44% rise by

8 approximately 101%, 197%, and 293%, respectively. Similar trends

were observed for CCBs with transverse reinforcement ratio of
2.07%. The stiffness ratio of CCBs also rises by roughly 8%, 87%
and 132%, respectively.
6
Figs. 11–13 also showed that the stiffness ratio of DCBs
increases with an increase in aspect ratio. With the increase of
aspect ratios from 1.03 to 1.29, 2.00 and 2.50, stiffness ratios of
4 DCBs rises by approximately 9%, 34%, and 51%, respectively. It
can thus be concluded that the aspect ratio significantly influences
the stiffness ratio of both CCBs and DCBs. However, the influence of
the aspect ratio on the stiffness ratio of CCBs is much more serious
2 than that of DCBs.
25 35 45 55
Compressive concrete strength (Mpa)
4.2. Influence of transverse reinforcement ratio
Fig. 13. Influence of compressive concrete strength on stiffness ratio of DCB.
Figs. 8–10 showed that with the added transverse reinforce-
ment ratio, the stiffness ratio of CCBs generally increases. An
approximately 10% and 33% stiffness ratio increase is observed
Conventionally RC Coupling Beams Diagonally RC Coupling Beams
for CCBs with an aspect ratio of 2.50 when the transverse reinforce-
20 ment ratio rises from 0.44% to 0.69%, and 2.07%, respectively. The
influence of transverse reinforcement ratio on the stiffness ratio
of CCBs becomes more significant with decrease in aspect ratios.
For CCBs with the aspect ratio of 1.03, the stiffness ratios rise by
15 roughly 34% and 125% with the increase of transverse reinforce-
ment ratio from 0.44% to 0.69%, and 2.07%, respectively.
Proposed stiffness ratio

4.3. Influence of Longitudinal Reinforcement Ratio

10 As indicated in Figs. 8–10, the stiffness ratio increases with the

increase of longitudinal reinforcement ratio in CCBs. With the
increase of longitudinal reinforcement ratio from 0.87, 1.36, and
2.12, stiffness ratios of CCBs with the aspect ratio of 1.03 rise
5 slightly by approximately 3.8%, and 6.7%, respectively. This sug-
gests that the effect of longitudinal reinforcement ratio on stiffness
ratio of CCBs is insignificant for CCBs with low aspect ratios. How-
ever, for CCBs with the aspect ratio of 2.5, the influence of longitu-
dinal reinforcement ratio becomes more significant because a
0
0 5 10 15 20 26.5% and 56.2% increase in stiffness ratios is obtain when the lon-
Experimental stiffness ratio (%) gitudinal reinforcement ratio rises from 0.87%, 1.36%, and 2.12%,
respectively.
Fig. 14. Comparisons between experimental and proposed stiffness ratios. verifi-
cation of the proposed equation of DCBs.
4.4. Influence of diagonal reinforcement ratio

Figs. 10–13 showed that with the added diagonal reinforcement

used as the parametric studies for DCBs. The range of the investi-
ratio, the stiffness ratio of DCBs generally increases. An approxi-
gated parameters is tabulated in Table 3.
mately 42% and 107% stiffness ratio increase is observed when the
Specimen B311 with an aspect ratio of 1.29, tested by Paulay
diagonal reinforcement ratio rises from 0.59% to 0.92%, and 1.44%,
[13], is considered as the reference specimen in the parametric
respectively. Therefore, it can be concluded that the diagonal rein-
study for CCBs while specimen B317, carried out by Binney [16],
forcement ratio significantly influences the stiffness ratio of DCBs.
is used in the parametric study for DCBs. The details of specimen
B311 and B317 are shown in Figs. 6 and 7. The dimensionless stiff-
4.5. Influence of concrete compressive strength
ness ratio, j, is used to investigate the influence of the parameters,
defined as following:
Figs. 8–13 presented the influence of concrete compressive
Ie strength on stiffness ratios of CCBs and DCBs with different aspect
j¼  100% ð29Þ ratios and reinforcement detailing. With an increase of concrete
Ig
compressive strength from 25 MPa to 35 MPa, and 45 MPa, stiff-
In which Ig is the moment of inertia of the gross sectional area. ness ratios of CCBs decrease by approximately 12.5% and 21.1%,
Figs. 8–13 show the analytical results of the stiffness ratio of respectively while stiffness ratios of DCBs also decrease by approx-
CCBs and DCBs with the variation of the investigated parameters. imately 13% and 20%, respectively. Thus, it can be concluded that
380 N. Son Vu et al. / Engineering Structures 76 (2014) 371–382

Table 4
Experimental verification of the proposed equation of CCBs.

Specimen l qv qs fc0 jexp jpro jexp jexp jexp jexp jexp jexp jexp jexp
d jpro jACIðaÞ jACIðbÞ jFEMA jASCE jNZS jPP jT

Paulay [13]
B311 1.29 0.88 1.50 35.0 6.51 5.15 1.264 0.186 0.130 0.130 0.217 0.945 0.912 0.149
B312 1.29 1.65 1.50 35.0 6.88 6.03 1.141 0.197 0.138 0.138 0.229 0.998 0.964 0.157
B313 1.29 2.52 1.50 45.0 6.67 6.42 1.038 0.191 0.133 0.133 0.222 0.968 0.934 0.152
B314 1.29 2.52 1.50 45.0 6.72 6.42 1.047 0.192 0.134 0.134 0.224 0.976 0.942 0.154
B391 1.03 0.88 1.03 32.0 4.14 3.39 1.221 0.118 0.100 0.083 0.138 0.890 0.797 0.147
B392 1.03 0.88 1.03 38.0 4.15 3.17 1.308 0.118 0.100 0.083 0.138 0.892 0.798 0.148
B393 1.03 1.62 1.03 31.0 4.77 4.11 1.161 0.136 0.115 0.095 0.159 1.025 0.918 0.170
B394 1.03 2.52 1.03 43.0 4.68 4.35 1.076 0.134 0.113 0.094 0.156 1.008 0.902 0.167
B241 2.00 0.41 1.67 24.2 13.04 10.04 1.298 0.373 0.261 0.261 0.435 0.978 1.141 0.175
B242 2.00 0.88 1.67 38.0 10.84 9.21 1.176 0.310 0.217 0.217 0.361 0.813 0.948 0.146
B243 2.00 0.88 1.67 31.0 12.06 9.97 1.209 0.344 0.241 0.241 0.402 0.904 1.055 0.162
B244 2.00 1.58 1.67 36.0 13.93 10.77 1.293 0.398 0.279 0.279 0.464 1.045 1.219 0.187
Binney [16]
B315 1.29 2.44 1.49 37.9 7.31 6.72 1.087 0.209 0.146 0.146 0.244 1.061 1.024 0.167
Naish [17]
FB33 3.33 0.61 0.61 41.4 9.00 10.72 0.839 0.257 0.338 0.180 0.300 0.387 0.571 0.097
Kwan and Zhao [18]
MCB1 1.17 1.12 0.47 40.9 1.09 3.00 0.364 0.031 0.043 0.022 0.036 0.188 0.175 0.030
MCB2 1.40 1.12 0.46 40.9 2.51 3.72 0.673 0.072 0.102 0.050 0.084 0.319 0.317 0.050
MCB3 1.75 1.12 0.47 40.9 4.65 4.96 0.938 0.133 0.188 0.093 0.155 0.420 0.460 0.070
MCB4 2.00 1.12 0.51 40.9 5.30 6.00 0.882 0.151 0.208 0.106 0.177 0.397 0.464 0.071
Kwan and Zhao [19]
CCB1 1.17 1.12 0.47 37.8 1.18 3.08 0.384 0.034 0.047 0.024 0.039 0.203 0.190 0.032
CCB2 1.40 1.12 0.46 37.8 2.49 3.83 0.650 0.071 0.101 0.050 0.083 0.316 0.315 0.050
CCB3 1.75 1.12 0.58 37.8 4.15 5.37 0.773 0.118 0.150 0.083 0.138 0.374 0.410 0.063
CCB4 2.00 1.12 0.51 37.8 4.20 6.18 0.681 0.120 0.165 0.084 0.140 0.315 0.368 0.057
CCB12 1.17 1.68 0.47 37.8 1.56 3.63 0.430 0.045 0.062 0.031 0.052 0.268 0.250 0.043
Galano and Vignoli [20]
P01 1.50 0.84 0.52 48.9 3.40 3.61 0.942 0.097 0.132 0.068 0.113 0.387 0.397 0.062
P02 1.50 0.84 0.52 44.5 3.40 3.71 0.916 0.097 0.132 0.068 0.113 0.387 0.397 0.062
P03 1.50 0.84 0.52 52.4 3.40 3.53 0.964 0.097 0.132 0.068 0.113 0.387 0.397 0.062
P04 1.50 0.84 0.52 48.7 3.40 3.61 0.943 0.097 0.132 0.068 0.113 0.387 0.397 0.062
Breña and Ihtiyar [21]
CB1 1.34 1.27 0.79 39.0 1.58 4.38 0.362 0.045 0.049 0.032 0.053 0.215 0.211 0.034
CB2 2.68 0.18 1.12 39.0 13.21 9.11 1.449 0.377 0.321 0.264 0.440 0.697 0.935 0.151
CB3 1.34 1.27 0.79 31.0 2.11 4.78 0.440 0.060 0.065 0.042 0.070 0.287 0.281 0.045
CB4 2.68 1.27 0.79 30.0 12.94 11.93 1.085 0.370 0.401 0.259 0.431 0.683 0.917 0.148
Bristowe [22]
NR2 3.60 0.51 1.00 41.0 9.08 14.15 0.642 0.259 0.243 0.182 0.303 0.367 0.559 0.096
NR4 3.60 0.74 1.00 41.0 10.00 15.12 0.661 0.286 0.268 0.200 0.333 0.404 0.616 0.106
MR2 3.60 0.47 1.00 79.8 8.39 11.61 0.723 0.240 0.225 0.168 0.280 0.339 0.517 0.089
MR4 3.60 0.78 1.00 79.8 9.17 12.71 0.721 0.262 0.245 0.183 0.306 0.371 0.564 0.097
Barney [23]
C2 2.50 0.55 0.66 20.7 7.08 9.72 0.728 0.202 0.252 0.142 0.236 0.403 0.523 0.083
C5 2.50 0.55 0.66 20.7 7.71 9.74 0.791 0.220 0.273 0.154 0.257 0.439 0.570 0.091
Mean 0.900 0.180 0.172 0.126 0.210 0.580 0.631 0.104
Coefficient of Variation 0.296 0.106 0.088 0.075 0.124 0.303 0.302 0.050

   
the stiffness ratio of both CCBs and DCBs decreases with the Ie l 14
jDCB ¼ ¼ 0:65 1:6 þ 0:9 ð0:4 þ 1:7qsd Þ 0:7 þ 0 ð31Þ
increase of concrete compressive strength. Ig d fc
(31) Fig. 14 and Tables 4 and 5 show the average ratio of
5. Proposed equation for effective moment of inertia of RC
the experimental to the predicted effective stiffness ratio of
coupling beams
CCBs and DCBs by the proposed equation, Eqs. (30) and (31),
is 0.900 and 1.017, respectively, showing a good agreement
Based on the results of the previous parametric study, it is
between experimental results and proposed equations. Tables
clearly seen that the stiffness ratios of CCBs and DCBs increase with
4 and 5 also indicates the average ratio of the experimental
an increase in aspect ratio, transverse reinforcement ratio, longitu-
to predicted stiffness ratio of CCBs and DCBs and its coefficient
dinal reinforcement ratio, diagonal reinforcement ratio and
of variation of different existing effective stiffness models. It is
decrease with an increase of concrete compressive strength. Eqs.
clearly seen that the extent models have poor predictive
(30) and (31) are proposed to evaluate the effective stiffness of
capacity ranging from 0.084 to 0.631 as shown in Tables 4
CCBs and DCBs, respectively.
and 5.
!  
Ie l
2
l   11 From the comparison of the available models with experimental
jCCB ¼ ¼ 0:67 1:8 þ 0:4 2 0:9 þ 0:7qv þ 1:1qs 0:5 þ 0 results, it is concluded that proposed equations produce a better of
Ig d d fc
average ratio of the experimental to the predicted stiffness ratio
ð30Þ than other available models.
 N. Son Vu et al. / Engineering Structures 76 (2014) 371–382 381

Table 5
Experimental verification of the proposed equation of DCBs.

Specimen l qsd fc0 jexp jpro jexp jexp jexp jexp

d jpro jNZS jPP jT

Binney [16]
B316 1.29 1.41 33 6.72 5.62 1.197 0.558 0.471 0.154
B317 1.29 1.36 51 7.80 4.76 1.640 0.648 0.547 0.178
B395 1.03 1.08 36 4.07 4.01 1.014 0.434 0.392 0.145
Naish [17]
CB24F 2.40 2.22 47 7.23 10.17 0.711 0.392 0.275 0.087
CB24D 2.40 2.22 47 7.62 10.17 0.749 0.413 0.290 0.091
CB24F-RC 2.40 2.22 50 8.73 9.99 0.874 0.473 0.332 0.105
CB24F-PT 2.40 2.22 50 9.70 10.01 0.969 0.526 0.369 0.116
CB24F-1/2-PT 2.40 2.22 48 9.30 10.11 0.919 0.504 0.354 0.112
CB33F 3.33 1.85 47 10.32 10.57 0.977 0.501 0.328 0.111
CB33D 3.33 1.85 47 9.18 10.57 0.868 0.446 0.291 0.099
Kwan and Zhao [19]
CCB11 1.17 0.47 38 1.15 2.20 0.526 0.106 0.092 0.032
Galano and Vignoli [20]
P05 1.50 0.58 40 3.20 2.80 1.143 0.232 0.187 0.058
P06 1.50 0.58 46 3.20 2.67 1.196 0.232 0.187 0.058
P07 1.50 0.58 54 3.20 2.55 1.252 0.232 0.187 0.058
P08 1.50 0.58 53 3.20 2.56 1.248 0.232 0.187 0.058
P10 1.50 0.58 47 3.50 2.66 1.316 0.254 0.204 0.064
P11 1.50 0.58 40 3.50 2.80 1.251 0.254 0.204 0.064
P12 1.50 0.58 42 3.50 2.76 1.268 0.254 0.204 0.064
Fortney [24]
DBCB1 2.57 2.49 38 9.72 12.63 0.770 0.513 0.354 0.113
Dugas [25]
D30 1.14 0.51 33 2.60 2.42 1.075 0.246 0.216 0.075
Kimura [26]
Specimen 1 1.78 0.64 42.19 3.24 3.18 1.017 0.207 0.158 0.048
Specimen 2 1.78 0.96 45.88 4.15 4.23 0.981 0.265 0.202 0.062
Specimen 3 1.78 0.96 45.08 4.81 4.26 1.129 0.307 0.234 0.072
Specimen 4 1.78 0.96 48.22 4.68 4.17 1.122 0.299 0.228 0.070
Specimen 5 1.78 0.96 26.75 4.85 5.15 0.942 0.310 0.237 0.072
Specimen 6 1.78 0.96 51.23 5.06 4.10 1.236 0.323 0.247 0.076
Specimen 7 1.78 0.96 51.74 3.62 4.09 0.885 0.231 0.176 0.054
Specimen 8 1.78 0.94 45.28 4.33 4.21 1.028 0.276 0.211 0.065
Specimen 9 1.78 0.94 45.81 3.80 4.20 0.906 0.243 0.185 0.057
Specimen 10 1.78 0.94 51.73 2.88 4.05 0.710 0.184 0.140 0.043
Barney [23]
C6 2.50 1.01 20.70 8.28 7.31 1.133 0.441 0.306 0.097
C8 2.50 1.01 20.70 8.28 7.31 1.133 0.441 0.306 0.097
Tassios, Moretti [27]
CB-2A 1.00 0.54 28.50 1.24 2.54 0.486 0.136 0.124 0.046
CB-2B 1.67 0.89 26.3 2.68 4.77 0.561 0.179 0.139 0.043
Fortney et al. [28]
DCB-1 2.57 2.41 37.6 11.61 12.27 0.946 0.613 0.422 0.135
DCB-2 3.00 1.63 55.3 12.21 8.43 1.450 0.611 0.407 0.135
Mean 1.017 0.348 0.261 0.084
Coefficient of Variation 0.252 0.146 0.104 0.035

6. Conclusions stiffness ratio of the experiment to the prediction of CCBs by using

The analytical approaches assessing the effective stiffness of
CCBs and DCBs are proposed in this paper, computing the influence
of flexural and shear deformations on the effective stiffness of RC
coupling beams. Using the proposed analytical methods, a para-
metric study including 144 combinations of CCBs and 48 combina-
tions of DCBs was carried out and shows that the effective stiffness
ratio increases with the increase of aspect ratio, transverse rein-
forcement ratio, longitudinal reinforcement ratio, and diagonal
reinforcement ratio and decreases with the increase of concrete
compressive strength. Based on the parametric study, two simple
equations to estimate the effective stiffness of CCBs and DCBs,
Eqs. (30) and (31), are also proposed. The effective stiffness ratios
of 37 tests of CCBs calculated by Eq. (30) and 36 tests of DCBs esti-
mated by Eq. (31) are then compared with the experiment results.
The comparisons show a good agreement between the experimen-
tal data and proposed equation because the average effective
Eq. (30) is 0.900 and its standard deviation of 0.296. With DCBs, by
utilizing Eq. (31), this value is 1.017 and its standard deviation of
0.252. Therefore, it can be concluded that the proposed equations,
Eqs. (30) and (31), can be used to estimate the effective stiffness of
CCBs and DCBs with satisfactory accuracy.
References
[1] Priestley MJN, Calvi GM, Kowalsky MJ. Displacement-based seismic design of
structures. Pavia, Italy: IUSS Press: Distributed by Fondazione EUCENTRE,
c2007; 2007.
[2] Paulay T, Priestley MJN. Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry
buildings. New York: Wiley; 1992.
[3] Standards New Zealand – NZS 3101. Concrete structures standard. Wellington:
Standards New Zealand, c1995; 1995.
[4] Taranath BS. Steel, concrete, and composite design of tall buildings. 2nd
ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1998.
[5] ACI 318-11. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318–11)
and commentary/reported by ACI Committee 318. Farmington Hills, Mich.:
American Concrete Institute; 2011.
382 N. Son Vu et al. / Engineering Structures 76 (2014) 371–382
[6] FEMA 356. Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of
buildings/prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers; prepared for
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Reston, Va.: American Society of Civil
Engineers; Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2000.
[7] ASCE standard: ASCE/SEI 41-06: Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings/
American Society of Civil Engineers. Reston, Va.: American Society of Civil
Engineers; 2007.
[8] Canadian Standards Association (CSA). CSA A23.3-94 Design of concrete
structures: structures design. Rexdale, Ont.: Canadian Standards Association;
1994.
[9] Schlaich J, Schaefer K, Jennewein M. Toward a consistent design of structural
concrete. PCI J 1987;32:74–150.
[10] Kim JH, Mander JB. Influence of transverse reinforcement on elastic shear
stiffness of cracked concrete elements. Eng Struct 2007;29:1798–807.
[11] Collins MP. Towards a rational theory for RC members in shear. J Struct Div
ASCE 1978;104:649–66.
[12] Pan Z, Li B, Lu Z. Effective shear stiffness of diagonally cracked reinforced
concrete beams. Eng Struct 2014;59:95–103.
[13] Paulay T. The coupling of shear walls. Ph.D. University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand; 1969.
[14] Alvarez M. Influence of bond behaviour on the deformation capacity
of reinforced concrete. ETHZ, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich;
1998.
[15] Muttoni A, Ruiz MF. Shear strength of members without transverse
reinforcement as function of critical shear crack width. ACI Struct J
2008;105:163–72.
[16] Binney JR. Diagonally reinforced coupling beams. Master of Engineering.
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand; 1972.
[17] Naish DAB. Testing and modeling of reinforced concrete coupling beams. Ph.D.
Ann Arbor. University of California, Los Angeles; 2010.
[18] Kwan AKH, Zhao ZZ. Testing of coupling beams with equal end rotations
maintained and local joint deformation allowed. Proc Inst Civil Eng: Struct
Build 2002;152:67–78.
[19] Kwan AKH, Zhao Z-Z. Cyclic behaviour of deep reinforced concrete coupling
beams. Proc Inst Civil Eng: Struct Build 2002;152:283–93.
[20] Galano L, Vignoli A. Seismic behavior of short coupling beams with different
reinforcement layouts. ACI Struct J 2000;97:876–85.
[21] Breña SF, Ihtiyar O. Performance of conventionally reinforced coupling beams
subjected to cyclic loading. J Struct Eng 2011;137:665–76.
[22] Bristowe SJ. Seismic response of normal and high-strength concrete members.
Ph.D. Ann Arbor. McGill University (Canada); 2000.
[23] Barney KNS GB, Rabbat BG, Fiorato AE, Russell HG, Corley WG. Behavior of
coupling beams under load reversals. Portland Cement Association 1980.
[24] Fortney PJ. The next generation of coupling beams. Ph.D. Ann Arbor. University
of Cincinnati; 2005.
[25] Dugas DG. Seismic response of diagonally reinforced coupling beams with
headed bars. Master of Engineering. Ann Arbor. McGill University (Canada);
2003.
[26] Kimura YIaH. Experimental Study on Seismic Behavior of R/C Diagonally
Reinforced Short Beams. Eleventh world conference on earthquake
engineering.
[27] Tassios TP, Moretti M, Bezas A. On the behavior and ductility of reinforced
concrete coupling beams of shear walls. ACI Struct J 1996;93:711–20.
[28] Fortney PJ, Rassati GA, Shahrooz BM. Investigation on effect of transverse
reinforcement on performance of diagonally reinforced coupling beams. ACI
Struct J 2008;105:781–8.