Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14801490 www.elsevier.

com/locate/engstruct

Steel-concrete composite coupling beams behavior and design

Binginan Gong a, Bahram M. Shahrooz
b

b,*

a S&B Infrastructure, Ltd., 3535 Sage Road, Houston, TX 77056-7011, USA University of Cincinnati, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 741 Baldwin Hall, PO Box 210071, Cincinnati, OH 45221-00171, USA

Received 12 September 2000; received in revised form 16 January 2001; accepted 10 April 2001

Abstract Structural steel/composite beams provide a viable alternative for coupling individual reinforced concrete wall piers. Well-established guidelines for shear links in eccentrically braced steel frames form the basis of current design guidelines. However, these provisions ignore the effects of nominally reinforced concrete encasement which typically surrounds the coupling beam, and are based on overly conservative assumed deformation demands. A coordinated analytical and experimental research program at the University of Cincinnati has focused on cyclic response of steel/composite coupling beams, their connections to reinforced concrete walls, and overall behavior of composite coupled wall systems. Using the results from this study, guidelines for proper design and detailing of steel/composite coupling beams and beam-wall connections have been developed. This paper summarizes the research program, and highlights the basic concepts, important ndings, and recommendations. 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Composite construction; Coupling beams; Coupled walls; Cyclic testing; Mixed construction; Seismic design

1. Introduction An efcient structural system can be achieved if the openings in structural walls are arranged in a regular pattern. In this manner, a number of individual wall piers can be coupled together to produce a system with large lateral stiffness and strength. The structural performance at or near ultimate state can also be optimized by proper detailing of the coupling beams (i.e., the beams that connect the individual walls). Coupling beams should be proportioned to avoid over coupling (i.e., a system that acts as a single pierced wall) and light coupling (i.e., a system that performs as a number of isolated walls). Extensive past research [18] has led to well established seismic resistant design guidelines for reinforced concrete coupling beams. Current design provisions [9] typically result into diagonally reinforced deep beams in order to satisfy the stiffness, strength, and energy dissipation demands. The diagonal reinforcement consists of

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-513-556-3677; fax: +1-513-5562599. E-mail address: bahram.shahrooz@uc.edu (B.M. Shahrooz).

relatively large diameter bars which have to be adequately conned to avoid buckling at advanced limit states. Anchorage of the reinforcing bars in wall piers can pose difculties. Structural steel or steelconcrete composite beams provide a viable alternative, particularly for cases with oor height restrictions. In contrast to conventionally reinforced concrete members, steel/composite coupling beams can be designed as a exural-yielding or shearyielding member. Therefore, a desirable mode of energy dissipation is achieved depending on the particular case. The main design issues are (a) proportioning and detailing of steel/composite coupling beams, and (b) beamwall connections. Depending on whether the wall boundary element consists of structural steel columns or reinforced concrete elements, the coupling beamwall connection is different. In the former case, the connection is similar to steel beamcolumn connections. The connection in the latter case, which is the focus of this paper, is achieved by embedding the coupling beam inside the wall piers and interfacing it with the wall boundary element. The embedment length will clearly have a major inuence on the performance of steel/composite coupling beams.

0141-0296/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 4 2 - 6

B. Gong, B.M. Shahrooz / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14801490

1481

A number of recent studies at the University of Cincinnati have been focused on examining seismic response of such composite systems. An overview of the research program is provided herein. Current design guidelines [10] are evaluated, and a number of changes are recommended.

2. Summary of current design guidelines Steel coupling beams are designed according to the provisions outlined in the 1997 NEHRP Recommended Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for New Buildings [10]. These provisions are based on seismic detailing of steel links in eccentrically braced frames. The coupling beam rotation angle is arbitrarily set equal to 0.09 rad. Note that for link beams this angle is computed. The assumed coupling beam rotation is rather conservative. For example, if the beam length is less than 1.6 Mp/Vp (Mp=plastic moment capacity; Vp=plastic shear capacity, i.e., 0.6 Fy (d2tf)tw in which Fy=yield strength, d=beam depth, tf=ange thickness, tw=web thickness), web stiffeners at (30 twd/5) will have to be provided. Considering that most coupling beams are typically short, current design leads to closely spaced web stiffeners. Steel coupling beams are often encased inside nominally reinforced concrete elements, e.g., in door lintels. However, due to lack of information about the effects of concrete encasement, current design guidelines are tacit about cases in which the coupling beam is encased. Accordingly, most engineers ignore the inuence of encasement apparently on the basis that (a) the encasement is nominally reinforced and hence not expected to signicantly contribute towards strength and stiffness, and (b) the design will be more conservative by not including the contribution of the encasing element around the steel coupling beam. As a result, details for preventing ange and web buckling are identical to those used for unencased coupling beams, and the embedment length is calculated to develop the design capacity of the steel beam only. No specic guidelines are provided for computing the required embedment length, but references are made to previous studies [1114] for further information. These studies examined the applicability of two models proposed by Marcakis and Mitchell [15] and Mattock and Gaafar [16]. In Fig. 1, Mattock and Gaafars model is illustrated. The applied shear (Vu) is resisted by mobilizing an internal moment arm between bearing forces Cf and Cb. A parabolic distribution of bearing stresses is assumed for Cb, and Cf is computed by using a uniform stress equal to 0.85 fc where fc=concrete compressive strength in MPa. The bearing stresses are assumed to be distributed uniformly over the beam ange width. Following these assumptions and calibration against experimental data for steel corbels subjected to monotonic

Fig. 1. length.

Mattock and Gaafars model for computing embedment

loading, this model calculates the required embedment length (Le) according to Eq. (1) in which twall=thickness of wall pier, bf=beam ange width, and b1=ratio of the average concrete compressive strength to the maximum stress.

Vu4.05fc

twall bf

0.66

b1bfLe

0.580.22b1 a 0.88+ Le

(1)

In this equation, the inection point is assumed to be at the midspan; hence, the value of a is taken as one half of the coupling beam span. The model proposed by Marcakis and Mitchel generally results in a slightly longer embedment length; however, the difference between the two models is negligible [13,14]. Although Marcakis and Mitchell [15] and Mattock and Gaafar [16] originally developed their respective equations for design of steel brackets attached to reinforced concrete columns, previous studies at the University of Cincinnati and elsewhere [1114] have shown that these models result in acceptable performance for steel coupling beams which are subjected to cyclic shear. Moreover, the calculated embedment length from either model is adequate to ensure a desirable mode of energy dissipation for steel, unencased coupling beams by forming the plastic hinges in the beam rather in the connection region. Note that the value of Vu in Eq. (1) should be taken as the plastic shear capacity of the steel beam (i.e., Vp=0.6 Fy (d2tf)tw) to ensure adequate performance.

1482

B. Gong, B.M. Shahrooz / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14801490

Fig. 2.

Plan view of selected prototype structure.

3. Response of steelconcrete composite coupling beams A recent study [17,18] has examined the effects of concrete encasement. The test specimens were extracted from a 20-story prototype building shown in Fig. 2. For the chosen span length of the steel/composite coupling beams, current design guidelines [10] require stiffener plates to be placed at (30twd/5) on one side of the web. As part of the experimental phase of this study, which was conducted in two phases, seven specimens were tested. The main test variables, summarized in Table 1, were (a) presence or lack of encasement, (b) the amount of web stiffener in the steel beam, (c) presence or lack of face bearing plates at the wallbeam interface, (d) the level of shear force for which the beamwall connection is designed, and (e) oor slab around the coupling beam. The encasement was nominally reinforced with four 4.9 mm longitudinal bars and 4.9 mm transverse reinforcement placed at one-half depth of the encasing element,

see Fig. 3. A low-strength concrete (fc=12 MPa) was used for the encasement in order to accentuate nominal connement around the steel coupling beam. In all the specimens, auxiliary transfer bars had been attached (through the use of mechanical half couplers) to the top and bottom anges at two locations (Fig. 3) in an effort to aid in the transfer of bearing forces to the surrounding concrete [13,14]. Face bearing plates in specimens 6 and 7 consisted of a pair of 4.75 mm thick stiffeners welded on both sides of the web. The face bearing plates were located inside the wall boundary element transverse reinforcement. Another pair of stiffeners were also added at 125 mm from the face bearing plates under the auxiliary bars. The resulting concrete struts between these plates (shown schematically in Fig. 3) are expected to enhance the performance by reducing the contribution of bearing stresses against the top and bottom anges. The benets of face bearing plates have been demonstrated in past studies on steel beam-reinforced concrete column connections [19], and as part of testing of specimen No. 6. Additional details regarding the test specimens and other aspects of the experimental program are provided elsewhere [18]. The focus of this paper is on specimens No. 1, 4, 5, and 7. 3.1. (a) Strength characteristics The load-deection responses of the unencased specimen No. 1 and encased specimen No. 4 are plotted in Fig. 4. The hysteresis loops are stable, and exhibit a signicant level of energy dissipation. Sudden drops during the last cycles are primarily due to fracture of wall transverse reinforcement passing through the steel beam web, and fracture of the weld around the mechanical half couplers which were used to attach the auxiliary bars to the beam anges [18]. Both specimens could develop and exceed the capacity computed based on the measured material properties [18]. For specimen No. 1, the capacity is equal to the plastic shear capacity, i.e., 0.6 Fy(d2tf)tw. The shear capacity of specimen No. 4 was

Table 1 Test specimens and test variables Specimen I.D. Phase I 1 2 3 4 Phase II 5 6 7
a

Encasement

Spacing of web stiffeners

Force for connection design

Face bearing plate

Floor slab

No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

L L 2L N/Aa N/Aa N/Aa N/Aa

Vsteel section Vsteel section Vsteel section Vsteel section Vcomposite section Vcomposite section Vcomposite section

No No No No No Yes Yes

No No No No No No Yes

No web stiffeners were provided.

B. Gong, B.M. Shahrooz / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14801490

1483

Fig. 3.

Specimen details.

computed by (a) superposition of the shear capacities of the steel section and concrete beam, or (b) a ber cross section analysis incorporating exure as well as shear. The average value from these two analyses is plotted in Fig. 4. The nominally reinforced encasement around the steel coupling beam is apparently adequate to prevent web and ange buckling at advanced yielding. Note that specimen No. 4 could develop 107 kN at a shear angle of 0.057 rad. At this shear deformation, current NEHRP provisions [10] require web stiffener plates at 1.5 times the spacing used for specimen No. 2. Despite having no stiffeners, specimen No. 4 could develop shears corresponding to 1.10 Vp. Hence, nominally reinforced encasement around steel coupling beams is sufcient to prevent web and ange buckling; and web stiffeners are not needed. 3.2. (b) Energy dissipation characteristics The dissipated energies are compared in Fig. 5. In an effort to examine the performance of the specimens, the dissipated energy was separated into two parts: (a) the energy dissipated by plastic hinges in the beam (Beam), and (b) the energy dissipated by inelastic deformations in the connection region (Connection) [18]. For specimen No. 1, the participation of beam towards energy dissipation was more signicant than that for specimen No. 4. Although the beam capacities could be developed, the performance of the encased specimen was not as desirable because inelastic action in the connection region contributed more than the plastic

hinges in the beam. This behavior is attributed to the provided embedment length. 3.3. (c) Revised embedment length As indicated in Table 1, the required embedment length for specimen No. 1 and No. 4 was, according to current design guidelines and practice, computed to develop the shear capacity of the steel coupling beam only, i.e., 0.6 Fy(d2tf)tw. The experimental data shown in Fig. 4 suggest that nominally reinforced encasement can increase the capacity by as much as 23%. Clearly, if the provided embedment length is calculated to develop a smaller shear, plastic hinges form in the connection region before fully mobilizing the full capacity of the composite beam. This performance is not desirable. A capacity design methodology, in which the embedment length is computed to develop the capacity of the composite beam and not the steel beam alone, is proposed. This method requires that the contribution of concrete encasement towards shear capacity is taken into account. In lieu of detailed techniques such as ber based models [18], a simple method based on combining the shear capacity of the steel beam (Vsteel) and encasement (VRC) appears to be a reasonable alternative, i.e., Vn=Vsteel+VRC in which Vsteel=0.6 Fy(d2tf)tw and VRC is computed based on standard methods for reinforced concrete memAvfyd bers (e.g., [20:31899]), i.e., VRC=0.166fcbd+ s where b=width of the encasement, d=effective depth of the encasement, Av=total area of transverse reinforce-

1484

B. Gong, B.M. Shahrooz / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14801490

Fig. 4. beams.

Hysteresis responses of encased and unencased coupling

ment, and s=spacing of the transverse steel. In this simplied approach, the constitutive models for concrete and steel are idealized, and factors such as strain hardening of the longitudinal and transverse steel are ignored; the shear capacity of the reinforced concrete encasement is based on the ACI method in which the concrete contributions towards shear capacity from aggregate interlock, dowel action of the longitudinal bars, and the uncracked concrete are lumped together [21]; and the contribution of the concrete beyond cracking is not included [22]. Therefore, this simple model needs to be calibrated so that the computed capacity would be comparable to that obtained from a more detailed analysis such as ber modeling. A correction factor was determined by comparing the capacity computed from detailed ber section analysis based on the modied compression eld theory [22] and the capacity from the superposition method, i.e., Vn=Vsteel+VRC. The parametric study included 24 cases in which the concrete compressive and the steel yield

Fig. 5.

Distribution of dissipated energy.

as well as the ultimate strength, dimensions of the steel sections, and the overall encasement dimensions were changed systematically. The ratio between the two computed capacities ranges between 1.31 to 1.85 with an average of 1.61 and a standard deviation of 0.075 [18]. Within the limitations of this parametric study, a correction factor of 1.6 is recommended and hence the shear capacity of composite coupling beams is taken as Vn=1.6 (Vsteel+VRC). Additional studies covering a wider range of parameters is necessary to further rene the recommended correction factor. 3.4. (d) Evaluation of revised embedment length In an effort to evaluate the performance of coupling beams for which the embedment length is calculated based on the proposed capacity design method, strength

B. Gong, B.M. Shahrooz / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14801490

1485

and energy dissipation characteristics of specimens No. 4 and 5 are compared. Specimen No. 5 was generally similar to those tested in the rst phase, except for a longer embedment length that the revised procedure would require, and the testing method which included wall overturning moment in contrast to the rst four specimens for which the wall overturning was not simulated. Normalized load-shear angle envelope curves of specimens No. 4 and 5 are compared in Fig. 6. The vertical axis is normalized with respect to the shear at the onset of web yielding (Vy). Shear angle at this stage (gy), was used to normalize the measured shear angles. Prior to yielding, the two specimens exhibit almost identical load-deformation relationships. The response of specimen No. 5 shows a remarkable improvement in terms of achieving higher ductilities and reduced strength deterioration beyond the maximum load. For example, at shear angle of 0.0885 radians, the load had dropped only to 96% of the peak value. Specimen No. 5 also developed a larger capacity in the positive direction when the wall overturning moment produced compressive stresses around the connection. Under negative bending, the two specimens developed rather similar loads, although specimen No. 5 reached a slightly lower load than specimen No. 4. This difference is attributed to the presence or lack of wall overturning moment. The wall overturning moment in specimen No. 5 resulted in tensile stresses that reduced the level of bearing stress transfer between the beam anges and the surrounding concrete in the connection region. Despite these stresses, the load carrying capacity did not drop signicantly below that for specimen No. 4 in which the connection region was kept under a constant gravity compressive stress. The longer embedment length in specimen No. 5, which is the result of using the revised design methodology,

Fig. 7.

Distribution of dissipated energy for specimen No. 5.

delayed the connection failure until a higher capacity could be developed, and hence the enhanced behavior. A similar observation is made by evaluating the energy dissipation characteristics of specimen No. 5 shown in Fig. 7 in which the total dissipated energy (Total) is divided as discussed previously. The input energy was predominately dissipated by inelastic deformations in the coupling beam. Beyond shear angle of 0.05 rad., the participation of the connection was gradually increased although the plastic hinges in the beam outside the connection continued to dissipate a reasonable portion of the total energy. This trend is different from that observed for specimen No. 4 (see Fig. 5). The longer embedment length in specimen No. 5 evidently enhanced the energy dissipation characteristics by reducing the contribution of the connection region. Note that the contribution of oor slab is not included in the proposed design method because (a) as seen in Fig. 8 the contribution of slab is relatively negligible because the additional tensile forces from the slab bars

Fig. 6.

Normalized load-deection curves.

Fig. 8. Moment-curvature response of composite coupling beam in prototype structure.

1486

B. Gong, B.M. Shahrooz / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14801490

The oor slab clearly increases the initial stiffness of specimen No. 7. However, at shear angle of about 0.005 rad., the signicance of slab is effectively lost. Beyond this small level of deformation the stiffness of specimen No. 7 drops to a level comparable to the initial stiffness of the specimens without slab. When specimens were loaded up to a shear angle of about 0.06 rad., all the three specimens had reached about the same stiffness. Therefore, although oor slabs increase the initial stiffness of coupling beams, the contribution of the slab deteriorates under small deformations and may be ignored in seismic design and analysis.
Fig. 9. Distribution of dissipated energy for specimen No. 7.

4. Evaluation of impact of encasement on overall structural response The effects of the additional stiffness due to nominally reinforced encasement around steel coupling beams, which is ignored in current design guidelines, were evaluated analytically by examining the overall response of the prototype structure (Fig. 2). The larger stiffness obviously results in smaller vibration periods. Such a shift could inuence the dynamic behavior if the frequencies coincide with the frequency band of the design ground motion with high input energy content. The demands in the walls and coupling beams are affected by the changes in the coupling beam stiffness. The concrete encasement increases the coupling beam stiffness which in turn increases the level of coupling action between the individual wall piers. For instance, the wall axial load in the rst oor of the prototype structure increases by 40% when the inuence of encasement is taken into account [17]. Such a large increase could pose stability problems if the wall boundary elements are designed for forces calculated based on ignoring the encasement. In addition, the foundation system needs to be designed for the increased demands in the walls. The increase in wall shear force, which is about 10%, is not perhaps as critical. The increases in beam design forces are offset by the corresponding additional capacity due to encasement. Therefore, design of walls and foundation systems needs to incorporate the effects of encasement around steel coupling beams. The numerical values stated above are particular to the prototype structure, and are based on elastic analysis. For other structures with different geometries and stiffness characteristics, the increase in the stiffness and hence the changes in the design forces may be more or less. Moreover, cracking of the encasement around the steel coupling beam will reduce the stiffness of the composite coupling beam, and hence the increased coupling action will be less than that predicted from a simple elastic analysis. Nevertheless, in view of the potential higher design forces, the engineer should consider the increased stiffness of composite coupling beams as one of the variables in the design model.

are relatively small in comparison to the tensile force in the anges of a typical steel beam, and (b) the oor slab wraps the connection region and reduces its participation as illustrated in Fig. 9 [18]. The distribution of dissipated energy clearly indicates that the slab and beam dissipated the majority of the input energy, and the connection essentially did not participate. Therefore, the contribution of oor slab is neglected, and the embedment length needs to be calculated to develop only 1.6 (Vsteel+VRC). 3.5. (e) Stiffness of composite coupling beams The variation of peak-to-peak stiffness against shear angle is plotted in Fig. 10. The initial stiffness of specimen No. 4 is 25% larger than that for specimen No. 1. The initial stiffness for specimen No. 5 is less than the stiffness of specimen No. 4 because this specimen was accidentally loaded due to difculties in the computerbased control of one of the actuators used for loading. Specimen No. 5 had apparently experienced some minor cracks before the testing program was started.

Fig. 10. Stiffness degradation of various composite coupling beam specimens.

B. Gong, B.M. Shahrooz / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14801490

1487

5. Evaluation of shear angle Well established guidelines for shear links in eccentrically-braced frames [23] form the basis of current guidelines [10] for design and detailing of steel/composite coupling beams. The expected coupling beam rotation angle plays an important role in the required beam details such as the provision of stiffeners. Current design guidelines [10] arbitrarily set the coupling beam shear angle equal to 0.09 rad., and the beam is detailed accordingly. Such a large angle results in closely spaced web stiffeners. Note that the shear angle is computed for steel link beams in eccentrically braced frames. In order to examine whether this level of shear angle (0.09 rad.) is reasonable and to understand the maximum expected range of shear angle, the response of the prototype structure was evaluated. A pseudo three-dimensional model of the prototype structure was constructed (Fig. 11(a)). The torsional and vertical springs used in the model are intended to simulate the outrigger action of the transverse members. The walls were modeled by an element (Fig. 11(b)) that incorporates axial, exural, and shear deformations in the elastic and inelastic range [24]. Both dynamic and static push-over analyses were conduced [18]. For static analyses, the lateral loads were

assumed to be distributed uniformly or triangularly, and three ground motion records (1940 El Centro NS, 1989 Loma Preita, and 1994 Northridge N60E) were used for the dynamic analyses. Three different analyses were conduced in which (a) the coupling beams were unencased steel members, (b) the inuence of encasement around the steel coupling beams was taken into account, and (c) exibility at the foundation level was approximately taken into account by placing vertical and rotational elastic springs under the column and wall elements as shown in Fig. 11(c). The spring coefcients were computed based on basic principles by assuming a modulus of sub-grade of 54,260 kN/m3. The maximum computed coupling beam shear angles for various analyses are summarized in Table 2. The level of shear angle for encased and unencased coupling beams is considerably less than 0.09 rad. Only when the foundation exibility was taken into account and lateral loads were assumed to be distributed triangularly did the coupling beam shear angle approach the value of 0.09 rad. stipulated in NHERP provisions [10]. However, at this shear angle the roof lateral drift exceeds 10% of the building height, which is well above acceptable levels, and the base shear approaches 40% of the building weight. For other cases with reasonable drifts, the com-

Fig. 11.

Analytical modeling of prototype structure.

1488

B. Gong, B.M. Shahrooz / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14801490

Table 2 Maximum coupling beam shear angle (rad.)a Analysis Static push over: Rectangular lateral loads Static push over: Triangular lateral loads Dynamic:1940 El Centro NS Dynamic:1989 Loma Prieta Dynamic:1994 Northridge N60E
a

Unencased xed base 0.0177 (1.2%) 0.0328 (2.7%) 0.00391 0.00709 0.00208

Encased xed base 0.0198 (1.3%) 0.0378 (3.2%) 0.00355 0.0075 0.0188

Encased exible base 0.0269 (2.0%) 0.0884 (10.2%) 0.00388 0.00673 0.00209

The values in the parentheses are calculated roof drifts at maximum reported shear angle.

puted shear angles are signicantly less than 0.09 rad. It is deemed that similar observations are made for other well-proportioned buildings employing coupled walls. Despite an effort to perform a reasonably complete analysis of the prototype structure, major simplications had to be made, e.g., (a) the three-dimensional behavior of the structure is modeled rather crudely, (b) simulation of the soil-structure action is very approximate, and (c) the parameters in the wall and beam hysteretic models were established based on subassembly tests with boundary conditions different from those in an actual building. The main reason behind the reported analytical study was to explore the rationality of the assumed coupling beam shear angle of 0.09 rad., in current design codes. Additional detailed studies that overcome the stated limitations of the current study are necessary. Despite the simplicity of the analytical studies used here, the current assumed shear angle of 0.09 rad., appears to be questionable and can lead to unnecessary conservative detailing of steel coupling beams. Note that the reported test results (Fig. 4) show that stiffeners can be eliminated for steelconcrete composite coupling beams; therefore, the focus of this discussion is on steel coupling beams. More rational techniques for computing the value of shear angle are needed. The coupling beam shear angle is computed with reference to the collapse mechanism shown in Fig. 12 which corresponds to the expected behavior of coupled wall systems, i.e., plastic hinges at the base of walls and at the ends of coupling beams. The value of plastic interstory drift angle (qp) is taken as Cdqe (Cd=deection amplication factor dened by NEHRP [10]), where the elastic interstory drift angle, qe, is computed under code level lateral loads (e.g., [9,10]). Knowing the value of Lwall in which qp, shear angle, gp, is calculated as gP=qP L Lwall is the distance between center lines of the wall piers and L is the clear span of the coupling beam. Previous experimental data suggest that the effective xed point of steel or steelconcrete composite coupling beams is about 1/3 of the embedment length from the face of the wall [13,14,18]. Therefore, for consistency with experimental observations it is recommended to take Lwall as

Fig. 12. Analytical model for computing shear angle of coupling beams.

L+0.6 Le in which Le is the embedment length of the coupling beam inside each wall pier. Note that with the exception of the assumed collapse mechanism and the relationship between the shear angle and drift angle, the proposed method is similar to that used for steel shear links in eccentrically braced frames.

6. Summary and conclusions Seismic behavior of steel and steelconcrete composite coupling beams was evaluated through a coordinated experimental and analytical research study. One of the main objectives of the reported study was to scrutinize current design guidelines, and to recommend modications if necessary. Based on the reported study, the following conclusions are drawn. These conclusions are clearly based on a relatively limited number of tests and analytical studies. Additional test data from more complete subassemblies and more detailed analytical studies are recommended to supplement the results reported herein.

B. Gong, B.M. Shahrooz / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14801490

1489

1. Nominal encasement around steel coupling beams provides an effective means for preventing web buckling. Hence, web stiffeners can be eliminated. Current design codes need to be re-evaluated and relaxed for the cases where the steel coupling beam is encased. Available provisions appear to be overly conservative. 2. Although current design procedures result in a conservative design and detailing of encased steel coupling beams, the increased strength and stiffness due to the surrounding concrete encasement could have detrimental effects on the overall performance if they are not taken into account as part of the design. 3. Nominally reinforced encasement around steel coupling beams is expected to increase the stiffness. The additional stiffness increases the level of coupling between walls, which in turn affects the distribution of design forces. Most importantly, the wall axial load at the base could substantially increase. The increased stiffness of encased coupling beams has to be incorporated in design of coupled walls as well as foundation systems. 4. Unless design calculations consider the contribution of encasement towards shear capacity of composite coupling beams, a signicant portion of the input energy will be dissipated by inelastic deformations in the connection region, which is not desirable. Therefore, the embedment length has to be computed to develop the expected shear capacity of the composite section. In lieu of rened ber analyses, the shear capacity may be taken as 1.6 times the sum of the shear capacity of the steel beam and encasement. The energy dissipation characteristics, ductility, and loadcarrying capacity of composite coupling beams are substantially improved by using the proposed methodology which leads into a longer embedment length. 5. The contribution of oor slab towards stiffness and strength of composite coupling beams may be ignored. The additional stiffness due to oor slab is lost after rather small deformations. Contribution of oor slab is less than that expected for reinforced concrete beams because the area of slab reinforcing bars within the effective slab width is small in comparison to the ange area of the coupling beam. The additional strength may be ignored when the embedment length is computed as the slab prevents the formation of plastic hinges in the connection region. 6. Relatively detailed inelastic static and dynamic analyses suggest that the maximum expected coupling beam shear angle in reasonably proportioned coupled walls is probably less than the value assumed by current design provisions. Until the availability of further data, a simple procedure, similar to a well established method for link beams in eccentrically braced frames, is proposed to compute a more reliable estimate of

the expected coupling beam shear angle demands, and hence the amount of stiffeners, if necessary, can be established more rationally.

Acknowledgements The research presented herein is based on an investigation sponsored by the National Science Foundation under grant no. BCS-9319838, with Dr. Shih Chi Liu as the program director. Any opinions, ndings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are of those of the writers and do not necessarily reect the views of the sponsors.

References
[1] Aktan AE, Bertero VV. The seismic resistant design of R/C coupled structural walls. Report No. UCB/EERC-81/07, University of California, Berkeley: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, 1981. [2] Aristizabal-Ochoa JD. Dynamic response of coupled wall systems. ASCE J Struct Div 1982;108(8):184657. [3] Aristizabal-Ochoa JD. Seismic behavior of slender coupled wall systems. ASCE J Struct Div 1987;113(10):222134. [4] Paulay T. The design of ductile reinforced concrete structural walls for earthquake resistance. Earthquake Spectra 1986;2(4):783823. [5] Paulay T. Coupling beams of reinforced concrete shear walls. ASCE J Struct Div 1971;97(3):84362. [6] Paulay T, Santhakumar AR. Ductile behavior of coupled shear walls. ASCE J Struct Div 1976;102(1):93108. [7] Shiu NK, Takayangi T, Corley WG. Seismic behavior of coupled wall systems. ASCE J Struct Div 1984;110(5):105166. [8] Shiu NK, Barney GB, Fiorato AE, Corley WG. Earthquake resistant walls coupled wall test. Report to NSF submitted by Portland Cement Association, Research and Development, Skokie, Illinois, 1981. [9] International Council of Building Ofcials (ICBO). Uniform building code, vol. 2. Whitier, CA: Structural Engineering Design Provisions, 1994. [10] Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC). NEHRP Recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures (FEMA 302) and Commentary (FEMA 303), 1997 edition. Washington, DC, 1998. [11] Harries KA. Ductility and deformability of coupling beams in reinforced concrete coupled walls. Proceedings of the Eighth Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, June 1999, 1998:475481. [12] Harries KA. Seismic design and retrot of coupled walls using structural steel. PhD thesis, McGill University, 1995. [13] Shahrooz BM, Remmetter MA, Qin F. Seismic response of composite coupled walls. Composite Construction in Steel and Concrete II, ASCE, 1992:429441. [14] Shahrooz BM, Remmetter MA, Qin F. Seismic design and performance of composite coupled walls. ASCE J Struct Div 1993;119(11):3291309. [15] Marcakis K, Mitchell D. Precast concrete connections with embedded steel members. Prestressed Concrete Inst J 1980;25(4):88116.

1490

B. Gong, B.M. Shahrooz / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 14801490

[16] Mattock AH, Gaafar GH. Strength of embedded steel sections as brackets. ACI J 1982;79(2):8393. [17] Gong B, Shahrooz BM, Gillum AJ. Cyclic response of composite coupling beams. ACI Special Publication 174 Hybrid and Composite Structures, Farmington Hills, MI, 1998:89112. [18] Gong B, Shahrooz BM. Seismic behavior and design of composite coupled wall systems. Report No. UC-CII 98/01, Cincinnati Infrastructure Institute, Cincinnati, OH, 1998. [19] ASCE Task Committee on Design Criteria for Composite Structures in Steel and Concrete. Guidelines for design of joints between steel beams and reinforced concrete columns. J Struct Div, ASCE 1994;120(8):233057.

[20] American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 318. Building code requirements for reinforced concrete and commentary (ACI 318-99/ACI 318R-99), Farmington Hills, MI, 1999. [21] MacGregor JG. Reinforced concrete mechanics and design. Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1992. [22] Collins MP, Mitchell D. Prestressed concrete structures. Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1991. [23] American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings, Chicago, IL, 1997. [24] Kunnath SK, Reinhorn AM. IDARC-2D Version 3.1: Inelastic damage analysis of reinforced concrete building structures. State University of New York at Buffalo, 1994.