Engineering Structures 196 (2019) 109307

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Effect of transverse reinforcement on the seismic behavior of diagonally T

reinforced concrete coupling beams
⁎
Sang Whan Han , Seung Bum Kim, Taeo Kim
Department of Architectural Engineering, Hanyang University, Seoul 04763, Republic of Korea

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Coupled shear wall systems have been more popularly used in high-rise building construction in urban areas due
Coupled shear wall to their efficiency in sustaining lateral loads as well as economic effectiveness. During earthquakes, coupling
Coupling beams beams in the coupled wall system act as a seismic fuse element that dissipate most of seismic input energy
Diagonal reinforcement exerted in the system. Diagonally reinforced concrete coupling beams (DRCBs) have been developed for this
Transverse reinforcement
purpose. The objective of this study was to acquire test data of DRCBs of with different amount of transverse
Shear strength
Deformation capacity
reinforcement and to evaluate the seismic behavior of these DRCBs. Quasi-static cyclic tests were conducted
using seven DRCB specimens with different amounts of transverse reinforcement and different aspect ratios. Four
specimens had Ln / h of 2.0, whereas it was 3.5 for the other three specimens. The shear strengths of individual
specimens were compared to that calculated from the shear strength equation specified in ACI 318-14, and their
deformation capacities were compared to those specified in ASCE 41-17. It is observed that the amount of
transverse reinforcement in DRCBs played an important role in their shear strength and deformation capacities,
indicating that the contribution of transverse reinforcement needs to be incorporated to ACI 318 shear strength
equation and ASCE 41-17 model parameters.

1. Introduction
Coupled shear wall systems with coupling beams have been com-
monly used in mid- to high-rise building construction in urban areas to
effectively resist lateral forces such as winds and earthquakes. The
coupling beams connect individual shear walls separated by openings
like doors and windows.
Shear walls connected by coupling beams act as one unit and are
capable of sustaining lateral loads more efficiently than individual
shear walls without coupling beams. The moment that must be resisted
by individual walls is reduced and the lateral stiffness of the system is
increased by connecting the walls with coupling beams [1]. Thus,
coupled shear wall systems are not only structurally efficient but also
cost effective [2,3].
During large earthquakes, properly designed coupling beams act as
seismic fuse elements that dissipate most of seismic input energy ex-
erted in coupled shear wall systems. Thus, the coupling beams should
have sufficient strength, deformation and energy dissipation capacities
to guarantee satisfactory seismic resistance [4,5].
However, during the 1964 Alaska earthquake, brittle sliding shear
failure occurred in coupling beams with conventional beam reinforce-
ment details [6]. Paulay [7] showed that coupling beams (aspect
ratio < 2.0) with conventional beam reinforcement details experienced
brittle sliding shear failure and diagonal tension failure in the early
loading stage. To prevent such premature brittle failure, Paulay and
Binney [4] proposed diagonally reinforced concrete coupling beams
(DRCBs). Past experimental tests verified that DRCBs exhibited ex-
cellent seismic behavior without premature sliding shear failure and
diagonal tension failure [8–13].
Two confinement options for DRCBs are specified in ACI 318-14
[14]. As shown in Fig. 1a, the first option is that the transverse re-
inforcement is placed along the individual diagonal rebar groups.
Harries et al [15] pointed out that it is practically impossible to design a
constructible DRCB having a shear stress approaching 0.83 f ′c
(MPa)—the ACI 318 prescribed limit, where fc′ is the concrete com-
pressive strength (MPa).
The second confinement option (full-section confinement) was first
introduced in ACI 318-08 [16] to relax spacing of transverse re-
inforcement confining the diagonal bars, to clarify that confinement is
required at the intersection of the diagonals, and to simplify design of
the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement around the beam peri-
meter. Although the second confinement has been widely used in
construction, test data of DRCBs with full-section confinement is lim-
ited. Fig. 1b shows this option, which confines the entire section of

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: swhan82@gmail.com (S.W. Han).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109307
Received 30 January 2019; Received in revised form 15 May 2019; Accepted 13 June 2019
0141-0296/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.W. Han, et al.
Fig. 1. Diagonally reinforced coupling beam (DRCB) details [14].
beam instead of confining individual diagonals. As shown in this figure,
the use of this option can considerably simplify field placement of
transverse reinforcement, which can otherwise be especially challen-
ging where diagonal bars intersect each other or enter the wall
boundary (Commentary R18.10.7 of ACI 318-14). The transverse
(confinement) reinforcement for the second option should satisfy the
requirement for special moment frame columns specified in ACI 318-
14. In this study, DRCB specimens with full-section confinement were
considered because their reinforcement detail is relatively simple, these
DRCBs gain more popularity in construction, and only limited test data
is available.
The aim of this study was to acquire test data of DRCBs with dif-
ferent amount of transverse reinforcement and to evaluate the seismic
behavior of these DRCBs. Existing DRCBs have various amounts of
transverse reinforcement because they were constructed using various
design provisions. Different design provisions have been used in in-
dividual countries, and design provisions have been modified multiple
time since DRCB was introduced by Paulay [7]. Recently, DRCBs have
been popularly used in tall building construction. The aspect ratios
(Ln / h ) of DRCBs in these buildings are typically between 2.0 and 3.5
[2]. Unlike past experiment studies, which focused more on DRCBs with
Ln / h < 2.0, this study considered aspect ratios (Ln / h ) of 2.0 and 3.5.
In this study, DRCBs complying with the second confinement option
were considered (Fig. 1b). Quasi static cyclic tests were conducted with
seven DRCB specimens with different amounts of transverse reinforce-
ment and different aspect ratios. Measured shear strength and de-
formation capacities were compared to shear strength calculated ac-
cording to ACI 318-14 and the values of deformation model parameters
specified in ASCE 41-17 [17], respectively.
2. Experimental test program and test setup
2.1. Test specimens
Coupling beams have been popularly used in tall building con-
struction. The aspect ratios of DRCBs in these buildings are typically
between 2.0 and 3.5 [2]. In this study, DRCBs with ln / h = 2.0 and 3.5
were considered. Seven DRCB specimens had two different aspect ratios
(ln / h =2.0 and 3.5) and different amounts of transverse reinforcement,
where ln and h are the length and depth of the beam, respectively. Thus,
the test variables were (1) the amount of transverse reinforcement, and
(2) the aspect ratio of the DRCBs. In this study, 1/2-scale specimens
were made due to the limitation of testing facilities. The normal con-
crete with a maximum aggregate size of 25 mm and normal steel re-
inforcing bars were used. Size effect was not investigated in this study.
Fig. 2 illustrates the reinforcement details of the specimens. Fig. 3
shows a summary of the test program and the specimen identification
nomenclature. The length (ln ) and the width (b ) of all specimens were
identical, which were 1050 mm and 250 mm, respectively, whereas the
2
Engineering Structures 196 (2019) 109307
height (h ) of specimens with ln / h = 2.0 and 3.5 was 300 mm and
525 mm respectively.
All specimens were designed to have a shear stress (νn ) equal to
0.5 fc′ (MPa) where νn is calculated as the shear strength (Vn ) of a DRCB
divided by its cross sectional area (b × h ). Harries et al. [15] reported
that it is difficult to place reinforcing bars in DRCBs when the νn of
DRCBs exceeds 0.5 fc′ (MPa) due to reinforcement congestion and in-
terference. Several studies [2,4,18–24] tested DRCBs with full section
confinements. The transverse reinforcement ratio ( ρt ) of tested speci-
mens ranged from 0.21% to 1.52%, where ρt is calculated as At / bs
where is the sectional area ( At ) divided by b and spacing s of the
transverse reinforcement. In this study, ρt of DRCB specimens for
ln / h = 2.0 ranged from 1.27% (standard specimen satisfying the detail
requirements of ACI 318–14) to 0.51%, whereas for ln / h = 3.5, ρt
ranged from 1.38% (standard specimen) to 0.3%. All specimens had ρt
within the range of ρt of specimens tested by past experimental studies
[2,4,18–24].
The shear strength (Vn ) of a DRCB can be calculated using Eq. (1)
according to Section 18.10.7.4 of ACI 318-14.
Vn = VACI = 2Avd f yd sin α ⩽ 0.83 fc′ Acw (1)
Here, Avd is the total area of reinforcement in each group of diag-
onal bars (mm2), f yd is the yield strength of the diagonal reinforcement
(MPa), and α is the angle between the diagonal bars and the long-
itudinal axis of the coupling beam.
In this study, the second confinement option (Fig. 1b) was used to
place the reinforcing bars in the DRCB specimens. A sufficiently long
development length was used for diagonal bars to avoid reinforcement
pull-out failure, because the development length was not considered as
a test variable in this study. Table 1 summarizes the properties of all of
the specimens.
Specimens T100-2.0 and T100-3.5 were standard DRCB specimens
(Fig. 2) designed and detailed according to ACI 318-14, which had
ln / h = 2.0 and 3.5, respectively. Deformed bars with diameters of
25 mm (D25) and 13 mm (D13) were used for diagonal and transverse
reinforcement, respectively. The angles of diagonal reinforcement in
specimens with ln / h = 2.0 and 3.5 were 20.4° and 8.9°, respectively.
Specimens T77-2.0, T50-2.0 and T30-2.0 with ln / h = 2 had 77%,
50%, and 30% of the amount of transverse reinforcement ( ρt ) placed in
the standard specimen T100-2.0, respectively. Similarly, specimens
T50-3.5 and T30-3.5 with ln / h = 3.5 had 50% and 30% of ρt used in the
standard specimen T100-3.5, respectively.
2.2. Materials
The design compressive strength of concrete for the DRCB speci-
mens was 40 MPa, which were within the range of material tests of past
experimental studies ( fc′ = 27–54 MPa), whereas the design
S.W. Han, et al. Engineering Structures 196 (2019) 109307

Fig. 2. Reinforcement details and setup location of strain gauges for coupling beams.

Fig. 3. Test program.

3
S.W. Han, et al. Engineering Structures 196 (2019) 109307

Table 1
Properties of the specimens.

Aspect ratio (ln / h ) Specimen b (mm) h (mm) ln (mm) Diagonalbars Transverse bars Longitudinalbars α (°)

2.0 T100-2.0 250 525 1050 8-D22 D13@120 14-D13 20.4

T77-2.0 250 525 1050 8-D22 D13@170 14-D13 20.4
T50-2.0 250 525 1050 8-D22 D13@250 14-D13 20.4
T30-2.0 250 525 1050 8-D25 D13@300 14-D13 20.4

3.5 T100-3.5 250 300 1050 8-D25 D13@110 10-D13 8.9

T50-3.5 250 300 1050 8-D25 D13@250 10-D13 8.9
T30-3.5 250 300 1050 8-D25 D13@500 10-D13 8.9

Fig. 4. Stress-strain curves of concrete and steel reinforcing bars.

compressive strength of the top and bottom concrete blocks was
60 MPa. Naish and Wallace [2] also mentioned that concrete strength
used in tall building construction is in the range of 40 to 55 MPa. Four
concrete cylindrical specimens were made for each design compressive
strength and tested at 28 days according to ASTM C39 [25]. The height
and diameter of the specimens were 200 mm and 100 mm, respectively.
Fig. 4a shows the stress-strain curves obtained from the compressive
tests.
The average compressive strengths of the concrete used for speci-
mens with ln / h of 2.0 and 3.5 were 45 MPa and 46 MPa, respectively,
exceeding the design strength (=40 MPa), whereas the average com-
pressive strengths of the concrete used for concrete blocks with ln / h of
2.0 and 3.5 were 63 MPa and 69 MPa, respectively, which also ex-
ceeded their design strength (=60 MPa). The strain at the peak com-
pressive strength ranged from 0.0023 to 0.0028.
Tensile tests were conducted for deformed bars D13, D22, and D25,
which had diameters of 12.7 mm, 21.6 mm and 25.4 mm, respectively.
Fig. 4b shows their stress–strain curves obtained from the tests. The
yield strengths of D13, D22, and D25 were 516 MPa, 476 MPa, and
515 MPa, respectively, which were larger than their specified yield
strength (=400 MPa), which were within the range of tensile strength
of steel reinforcement used in past studies (f y = 288 − 724 MPa).
Table 2 summarizes the mechanical properties of the deformed bars
used in the DRCB specimens.
2.3. Test setup
Fig. 5 shows the test setup. The specimen was placed in a vertical
position. The specimen was tested with one concrete block fixed to the
strong floor using high strength bolts and other block bolted to the
horizontal steel loading beam. Stoppers were placed on both sides of the
bottom concrete blocks to prevent the specimen from sliding under
lateral loads.
Most coupling beams are embedded into adjoining stiff reinforced
concrete shear walls. These walls provide resistance to elongation of the
coupling beam resulting from damage due to cyclic displacements
[26,27]. Lequesne et al. [28] mentioned that the effect of the resulting
axial load on the strength and behavior of coupling beams can be sig-
nificant, and should be considered in design if a reasonable method for
estimating this force can be determined. The resistance to elongation of
coupling beams provided by adjoining shear walls could induce axial
compression on the beam [26]. Past experimental studies considered
axial restraint of coupling beams [12,20,22,27,28,29]. However, it is
complex to accurately predict the level of the axial force developed in
the coupling beams due to the restraint of adjacent shear walls. There is
no consensus on the extent of axial restraint of DRCB provided by ad-
joining shear walls during large seismic loads. In this study, beam
elongation was prevented during the test, which could induce axial
compression. Gravity loads were not considered.
To emulate the restraint of axial elongation of the DRCBs provided
by the adjoining shear walls and slabs, two guide columns were placed,

Table 2
Mechanical properties of the reinforcement.
Reinforcement Specimens using specified reinforcement Diameter (mm) Yield strength (MPa) Tensile strength (MPa)

D13 All specimens 12.7 506 620

D22 T100-2.0, T77-2.0, T50-2.0, T30-2.0 21.6 477 586
D25 T100-3.5, T50-3.5, T30-3.5 25.4 481 607

4
S.W. Han, et al.
Fig. 5. Test frame setup, LVDT setup location, and loading protocol.
which were anchored to the strong floor. Roller supports were placed
on the guide columns to prevent rotation of the loading frame. Thus, the
guide columns restrained the vertical movement of the horizontal steel
loading frame (Fig. 5a). Axial force developed in the specimens was not
measured during the tests.
The loading frame could move only in the horizontal direction
during the test. To ensure zero moment at the mid-span of the DRCB
specimens, lateral loading was applied to the specimen in the line of
action passing the mid-span of the DRCB using a hydraulic actuator that
was anchored to the strong wall. Lateral loads produced by the hy-
draulic actuator were transmitted to the DRCB through the horizontal
loading frame and the top concrete block.
Quasi-static cyclic loading was applied to the specimen. Fig. 5d
shows the displacement controlled loading history in which the chord
rotation (θ ) is defined as the lateral displacement (Δ ) normalized by the
beam length (ln ).
The lateral displacement was measured by the linear variable dif-
ferential transducer (LVDT) (Fig. 5a) installed on the top block. For
individual amplitudes of chord rotation, two consecutive loading cycles
were applied to a specimen to monitor cyclic degradation in strength
and stiffness. All specimens were tested using the same loading pro-
tocol. During the test, the magnitude of lateral loads (shear force) was
measured through a load cell installed in the actuator.
Fig. 5c shows an arrangement of the LVDTs for the specimens. Two
LVDTs (Top and Bottom) were installed on the top block to monitor the
rotation of the specimen, and one LVDT was installed on the bottom
block to monitor the sliding of the specimen. Vertical LVDTs (L1 to L4,
L9 to L14) and diagonal LVDTs (D1 to D4) were installed to measure the
flexural deformation and shear distortion. Vertical LVDTs (L5 to L8)
were installed to monitor the rotation at both ends of the specimen.
3. Test results and observations
3.1. Cyclic curves
Figs. 6 and 7 show the cyclic curves of the specimens with
ln / h = 2.0 and 3.5, respectively. The abscissa and ordinate of these
5
Engineering Structures 196 (2019) 109307
cyclic curves are the chord rotation (θ ) and the shear force (V ), re-
spectively.
From the cyclic curves, the maximum strength (Vu ), chord rotation
at Vu (θVu ), maximum chord rotation (θu ), and strength (Vf ) and chord
rotation at failure (θf ) were determined and marked in individual cyclic
curves. Maximum chord rotation (θu ) was defined as the chord rotation
when the strength of a specimen decreased by 20%. The test was ter-
minated when a sudden strength drop was monitored or an unstable
condition was imminent, which was considered as failure. Envelope
curves are also included in Figs. 6 and 7, which were constructed by
connecting the peak points from the first cycle of each loading step.
The shear strength calculated from Eq. (1) (VACI ) is denoted in these
figures, which were 556 kN and 302 kN for specimens with ln / h = 2.0
and 3.5, respectively. A limiting value of θu specified in ASCE 41–17 is
also denoted (θASCE =5%). Table 3 summarizes the strengths and chord
rotations for the DRCB specimens.
As shown in Fig. 6a, the standard DRCB specimen T100-2.0, de-
signed and detailed according to ACI 318-14, exhibited stable cyclic
behavior. Its maximum strength (Vu ) and the maximum chord rotation
(θu ) were 1087 kN and 6.2%, respectively. At a drift ratio of 7.0%, a
sudden drop in strength occurred (failure).
As shown in Fig. 6b, specimen T77-2.0 exhibited stable seismic
behavior up to θu (=6.0%). This specimen failed at a drift ratio of 6.2%.
Specimen T50-2.0 also exhibited cyclic behavior without a significant
strength drop before reaching a chord rotation (θ ) of 4.0%. When θ
reached 4%, this specimen failed due to a sudden drop in strength.
Specimen T30-2.0, which had the least transverse reinforcement, had
its maximum strength (716 kN) at a drift ratio of 2%. The maximum
drift ratio (θu ) and drift at failure (θf ) of this specimen were 3.0% and
3.5%, respectively.
The maximum strength (Vu ) of specimens T100-2.0, T77-2.0, T50-
2.0 and T30-2.0 were 1087 kN, 860 kN, 826 kN, and 815 kN, respec-
tively, and the maximum drift ratio (θu ) of these specimens were 6.2%,
6.0%, 4.0%, and 3.0%, respectively. The strength and deformation ca-
pacity decreased with a decrease in the amount of transverse re-
inforcement.
Similar observation were made for specimens with ln / h = 3.5. As
S.W. Han, et al.
Fig. 6. Cyclic and envelope curves of specimens with ln / h = 2.0.
shown in Fig. 7a, the standard concrete specimen T100-3.5, having
transverse reinforcement compliant with ACI 318-14, exhibited ex-
cellent cyclic behavior. The strength (Vu ) and drift capacity (θu ) of this
specimen were 507 kN and 9.8%, respectively. The maximum strength
(Vu ) of specimens T100-3.5, T50-3.5, and T30-3.5 were 507 kN, 374 kN
and 290 kN, respectively, and the maximum drift ratios (θu ) of these
specimens were 9.6%, 6.0%, and 3.0%, respectively.
3.2. Progress of damage and failure
Figs. 8 and 9 present the cracks developed in specimens with
ln / h = 2.0 and 3.5, respectively, according to the chord rotation. The
crack pattern at the failure stage is also presented in these figures.
(1) Specimens with ln / h = 2.0
In standard specimen T100-2.0, which was detailed according to
ACI 318-14, a horizontal crack was first detected near the beam bottom
end at a chord rotation of 0.25%. The first diagonal crack was detected
at a chord rotation (θ ) of 0.5%. At chord rotations of 2.0% and 4.0%,
diagonal cracks were as wide as 1.5 mm and 3.0 mm, respectively
(Fig. 8a). At a chord rotation of 4.0%, cover concrete started to fall off
at both corner ends. At a chord rotation of 7%, diagonal bars were
fractured and both corner ends of the specimen were significantly da-
maged with a large amount of spalled concrete; at this stage, the
strength of this specimen dropped suddenly (Fig. 6a). The specimen
failed by flexure rather than shear (Fig. 8a). All specimens exhibited
diagonal cracks on the entire beam surfaces irrespective of the amount
of transverse reinforcement. However, at failure, standard specimens
6
Engineering Structures 196 (2019) 109307
(T100-2.0 and T100-3.5) experienced significant amount of concrete
spalling at the corners of their top and bottom ends. In contrast, spe-
cimens with relatively less transverse reinforcement failed after large
amount of concrete portion fell off near the midsection. The type of
failure was classified according to final failure patterns irrespective of
crack formation observed during the tests. If concrete spalled at the
corner ends of top and bottom of a DRCB, it was considered as flexural
failure. If the concrete spalling was induced by diagonal cracks and
occurred near the midsection of the beam rather than beam ends, it was
considered as shear failure.
Specimen T77-2.0, which had 77% of the transverse reinforcement
used in specimen T100-2.0, showed similar crack pattern and failure
mode as specimen T100-2.0. This specimen exhibited cracks of almost
the same size as those in specimen T100-2.0 until a chord rotation of
4.0%. At a chord rotation of 6.0%, significant concrete spall was ob-
served at both corner ends, and subsequently the specimen lost its
strength, which was at an earlier loading stage than specimen T100-2.0
(7%). The specimen also failed by flexure, like specimen T100-2.0.
Specimens T50-2.0 and T30-2.0, which had 50% and 30% of the
transverse reinforcement used in specimen T100-2.0, respectively,
showed similar cracks as specimen T100-2.0 until a chord rotation of
0.75%. However, beyond this chord rotation, the width of the cracks on
these specimens increased more rapidly than on specimens T100-2.0
and T77-2.0. At a chord rotation of 2%, the width of the diagonal cracks
in specimens T50-2.0 and T30-2.0 was as large as 2.0 mm and 3.0 mm,
respectively. Specimens T50-2.0 and T30-2.0 failed at chord rotations
of 5.0% and 3.5%, respectively. These specimens failed by diagonal
shear unlike specimens T100-2.0 and T77-2.0 which failed by flexure.
S.W. Han, et al. Engineering Structures 196 (2019) 109307

Fig. 7. Cyclic and envelope curves of specimens with ln / h = 3.5.

(2) Specimens with ln / h = 3.5
In standard specimen T100-3.5, which was detailed according to
ACI 318-14, horizontal cracks were first detected near the beam ends at
a chord rotation of 0.25%. The first diagonal crack was detected at a
chord rotation of 0.75%. At chord rotations of 2.0% and 4.0%, diagonal
cracks were as wide as 2 mm and 5 mm, respectively (Fig. 9a). At a
chord rotation of 2.0%, cover concrete started to fall off at both corner
ends. At a chord rotation of 4.0%, a significant amount of cover con-
crete fell off at both corner ends. At a chord rotation of 10.0%, diagonal
bars were fractured and concrete in both corner ends of the specimen
was crushed; subsequently, the strength of this specimen dropped
suddenly (Fig. 9a). The specimen failed by flexure, like specimens
T100-2.0 and T77-2.0.
Specimen T50-3.5 exhibited similar crack patterns during the initial
loading stages. However, at a chord rotation of 4.0%, the width of di-
agonal cracks became as wide as 10 mm, more than twice of that ob-
served in specimen T100-3.5. Such large cracks resulted from the re-
duced transverse reinforcement in specimen T50-3.5. At a chord
rotation of 6.0%, significant portion of concrete fell off at the both
corner ends as well as at the mid-span (Fig. 9b), and subsequently the
specimen lost its strength. The specimen failed by shear unlike

Table 3
Summary of the strengths and chord rotations.
Specimen Load direction VACI (kN) Vu (kN) θVu (%) θu (%) θASCE (%) θf (%) Vf (kN)

T100-2.0 + 556 1087 5.0 6.2 5.0 7.0 432

− 1117 2.5 5.2
T77-2.0 + 860 3.0 5.7 6.0 673
− 916 3.0 5.4
T50-2.0 + 826 2.5 4.0 5.0 370
− 873 2.5 3.9
T30-2.0 + 815 2.5 3.5 3.5 503
− 863 2.0 3.1

T100-3.5 + 302 507 5.0 9.6 5.0 10.0 348

− 504 4.0 9.2
T50-3.5 + 374 2.0 6.0 6.0 181
− 376 2.5 5.1
T30-3.5 + 290 2.0 3.0 3.5 103
− 291 2.0 3.1

7
S.W. Han, et al.
Fig. 8. Crack progression and failure patterns for specimens with ln / h = 2.0.
specimen T100-3.5 (Fig. 9b).
The crack pattern of specimen T30-3.5, which had 30% of the
amount of transverse reinforcement used in specimen T100-3.5, is
shown in Fig. 9c. During the initial loading stage, this specimen had a
similar crack pattern as specimen T100-3.5. However, with a further
increase in the loading amplitude, diagonal cracks rapidly spread over
the entire beam surface.
At a chord rotation of 2.0%, the largest crack width was as large as
5 mm, 250% of that observed in specimen T100-3.5 (wic =2 mm). At a
chord rotation of 3.5%, this specimen failed by shear (Fig. 9c).
The observation of crack patterns in the specimens revealed that the
amount of transverse reinforcement significantly affected not only the
crack pattern but also the type of failure of the DRCBs.
4. Detailed investigation of transverse reinforcement on seismic
behavior of DRCBs
4.1. Strength and deformation capacity
Fig. 10 presents the maximum strength (Vu ) and chord rotation (θu )
of individual specimens extracted from their cyclic curves. In this
figure, VACI and θASCE (=0.05) are also denoted. All DRCB specimens
with ln / h = 2.0 had Vu larger than VACI regardless of different amounts
of transverse reinforcement. However, the degree of overstrength
varied according to the amount of transverse reinforcement. The ratio
Vu/ VACI ranged from 2.0 to 1.5 for specimens with ln / h = 2.0. With a
8
Engineering Structures 196 (2019) 109307
decrease in transverse reinforcement, Vu/ VACI became smaller. This in-
dicates that transverse reinforcement contributed to the strength of the
DRCBs. It is noted that Eq. (1) does not consider the contribution of the
amount of transverse reinforcement when calculating the shear strength
of DRCBs.
The ratio of θu to θASCE (θu / θASCE ) also became smaller with a de-
crease in the amount of transverse reinforcement: the θu / θASCE values of
specimens T100-2.0, T77-2.0, T50-2.0 and T30-2.0 were 1.24, 1.2, 0.8
and 0.68, respectively. The value of θf / θASCE also became smaller with a
decrease in the amount of transverse reinforcement.
A similar trend was observed for specimens with ln / h = 3.5. The
range of Vu/ VACI was between 1.68 and 0.96. Unlike specimen T30-2.0
with ln / h = 2.0, Vu/ VACI of specimen T30-3.5 with 30% of the transverse
reinforcement required by ACI 318-14 was less than 1.0. The values of
θu / θACI for specimens T100-3.5, T50-3.5 and T30-3.5 were 1.96, 1.2,
and 0.6, respectively. Unlike specimen T50-2.0, specimen T50-3.5 had a
θu / θACI value greater than 1.0.
4.2. Strain measured at transverse reinforcement according to chord
rotation
Fig. 11 shows strain (ε ) monitored at various locations of transverse
reinforcement. The strain (ε ) recorded at the transverse reinforcement
in specimens T100-2.0 and T77-2.0 did not reach their yield strain (εy ),
whereas ε measured at the transverse reinforcement in specimens T50-
2.0 and T30-2.0 exceeded εy . The locations of strain gauges (T1-T6)
S.W. Han, et al.
Fig. 9. Crack progression and failure patterns for specimens with ln / h = 3.5.
were denoted in Fig. 2.
This observation supports the crack pattern and failure mode of the
specimens. As shown in Fig. 8a and b, specimens T100-2.0 and T77-2.0
did not exhibit large diagonal cracks until failure, and they failed by
flexure. In contrast to these specimens, specimens T50-2.0 and T30-2.0
had diagonal cracks with large crack widths, inducing large strain in the
transverse reinforcement. These specimens failed by shear rather than
flexure.
Similar observations were made for specimens with ln / h = 3.5. The
transverse reinforcement in specimen T100-3.5 did not experience
yielding until failure, whereas those in specimens T50-3.5 and T30-3.5
9
Engineering Structures 196 (2019) 109307
yielded before failure.
4.3. Strength retention capacity and energy dissipation
The degree of strength retention can be estimated using secant
stiffness. At each chord rotation, secant stiffness was determined from
the cyclic curves, which is the slope of a line connecting the positive
and negative peak points in cyclic curves. Fig. 12a and b shows the
stiffness at each chord rotation normalized by the initial stiffness
measured at a chord rotation of 0.25% for specimens with ln / h = 2.0
and 3.5, respectively.
S.W. Han, et al.
Fig. 10. Shear strength (Vu ), drift capacity (θu ), and drift ratio at failure (θf ) for
DRCBs.
As expected, standard specimens T100-2.0 and T100-3.5, con-
forming to the ACI 318-14 confinement option, exhibited larger
strength retention capacity than other specimens with smaller amounts
of transverse reinforcement. With a decrease in the amount of trans-
verse reinforcement, the strength retention capacity of the specimens
became smaller. The degree of reduction in strength retention capacity
according to the reduction in the amount of transverse reinforcement
was more apparent in specimens with ln / h = 3.5 than in specimens with
ln / h = 2.0.
Fig. 13 shows the cumulative dissipated energy (ET ) with respect to
the chord rotation (θ ). The energy dissipated in each loading cycle is the
area enclosed by the cyclic curve. As the amount of transverse re-
inforcement in the DRCBs decreased, ET became smaller. Table 4
summarizes ET at failure (ETU ), which was defined as the cumulative
energy dissipation capacity.
Specimens T77-2.0, T50-2.0, and T30-2.0 had 59%, 35%, and 16%
of the ETU produced by specimen T100-2.0, respectively, whereas the
ETU values of specimens T50-3.5 and T30-3.5 were 24%, and 9% of that
produced by specimen T100-3.5, respectively. The results reveal that
ETU decreased with reducing the amount of transverse reinforcement,
but this decrement in ETU was not linear. The degree of decrease in ETU
was more significant than that of reduction in transverse reinforcement
(Table 4). For example, when specimen T50-2.0 had 50% of transverse
reinforcement placed in specimen T100-2.0, this specimen produced
only 34% of the ETU value produced by specimen T100-2.0.
Fig. 11. Strain of transverse reinforcement according to chord rotation (θ ).
10
Engineering Structures 196 (2019) 109307
5. Comparison of measured values of model parameters with
those in ASCE 41-17
Fig. 14a shows the force-chord rotation relation (backbone curve)
for DRCBs constructed according to ASCE 41-17. The chord rotation of
DRCBs is illustrated in Fig. 14b. The values of model parameters are
also denoted in Fig. 14a. The initial stiffness (kAB ), the slope between
points A and B in Fig. 14a, was estimated using Eq. (2) with 0.3 Ec Ig
specified for DRCBs in Table 10-5 of ASCE 41-17, where Ec is the
modulus of elasticity of concrete and Ig is the moment of inertia of the
gross concrete section.
12(0.3Ec Ig )
kAB =
ln3 (2)
The second stiffness (kBC ), the slope between points B and C, can be
taken as between zero and 10% of kAB . Thus, kBC was conservatively
assumed as zero. The strength at point C can be calculated using Eq. (1)
with the expected yield strength of the diagonal reinforcement, except
that the strength reduction factor ϕ shall be taken as equal to unity. The
values of chord rotations corresponding to points C and E are denoted
in Fig. 14a. Point E indicates the state that the strength decreases by
20%. The parameter d is the chord rotation corresponding to Vu
(Fig. 14a) and parameter e is the chord rotation where the strength is
reduced to 0.8Vu (Table 10-19 in ASCE 41-17). Model parameters were
also determined based on test data for other concrete members such as
beam-column joints and columns [30,31].
Fig. 14c shows cyclic curves, envelope curves, idealized backbone
curves and ASCE 41 backbone curves for the individual specimens. The
envelope curve can be found by connecting the peak points of the first
cycle for the individual loading steps, and was plotted using the dotted
line in Fig. 14c. Then an idealized backbone curve was constructed
from the envelope curves according to Section 4.3 of FEMA 440 [32].
The procedure for constructing the idealized backbone curve is as fol-
lows: (1) Assume a yield force (Vy ); (2) construct the first slope line
crossing the point in the observed envelope curve corresponding to
0.6Vy ; (3) extend the line to Vy and record a point (θy , Vy ); (4) draw the
second slope line connecting the yield point and the point corre-
sponding to Vu in the envelope curve; (5) calculate the difference be-
tween the areas of the observed and idealized envelope curves up to Vu ;
(5) repeat this process until the two areas are sufficiently close; (6)
draw a line connecting the point at Vu (point C) and the point where the
strength decreases by 20% (point E). Once an idealized backbone curve
is constructed, model parameters can be determined from the backbone
S.W. Han, et al. Engineering Structures 196 (2019) 109307

Fig. 12. Stiffness degradation.

curve, which is denoted by a thick solid line in Fig. 14c. Fig. 15a and b Table 4
shows cyclic, envelope and idealized backbone curves of specimens Cumulative energy dissipation capacities and initial stiffness.
with ln / h = 2.0 and 3.5, respectively. Specimen ETU (kN-m) NormalizedET Initial Normalized kAB
The idealized backbone curves in Fig. 15 were replotted in Fig. 16a (ET /ET (T 100) ∗ ) stiffness, kAB (kAB /kAB (T 100) )
and b with ASCE 41 backbone curves for the DRCB specimens with (kN/mm)
ln / h = 2.0 and 3.5, respectively. Table 5 summarizes important values
T100-2.0 777 1.00 137.18 1.00
extracted from Fig. 16. The use of 0.3Ec Ig significantly overestimated
T77-2.0 434 0.59 112.35 0.82
the initial stiffness (kAB ) of the DRCBs, ranging from 1.61 to 6.45 times T50-2.0 270 0.35 91.09 0.66
the measured kAB . The ratio of the second slope (kBC ) to the measured T30-2.0 128 0.16 90.49 0.65
first slope (kAB ) was between 0.05 and 0.50. The ratios (kBC /kAB ) of the T100-3.5 792 1.00 41.6 1.00
standard specimens T100-2.0 and T100-3.5, satisfying the reinforce- T50-3.5 193 0.24 35.0 0.84
T30-3.5 68 0.09 31.5 0.75
ment details specified in ACI 318-14, were 0.05 and 0.06, respectively,
which were within the range (0–0.1) specified in ASCE 41-17. *
(T100) indicates specimen T100-2.0 (or 3.5).
Chord rotations d and e , corresponding to Vu (point C in Fig. 15) and
0.8Vu (point E in Fig. 15), were also estimated from the idealized have an amount of transverse reinforcement larger than or equal to
backbone curves (Fig. 15) and are summarized in Table 5. For 77% of that required by ACI 318-14.
ln / h = 2.0, specimens T100-2.0 and T77-2.0 had values of d and e larger
than the respective values (3% and 5%) specified in ASCE 41-17. The
measured value of d for specimen T50-2.0 was less than 3% (the ASCE 6. Investigating the effect of transverse reinforcement using test
41 value for d ), whereas the measured value of e was larger than 5% data of past experimental studies
(the ASCE 41 value for e ). However, specimen T30-2.0 had measured
values of d and e less than the respective values specified in ASCE 41- To investigate the effect of the amount of transverse reinforcement
17. ( ρt ) on shear strength and deformation capacity of DRCBs, twenty-seven
For ln / h = 3.5, specimen T100-3.5 had values of both d and e larger DRCB specimens tested from ten experimental studies were collected.
than 3% and 5%, respectively. However, specimens T50-3.5 and T30- Table 6 summarizes dimensions, properties, and test results of collected
3.5 had measured values of both d and e less than their respective va- specimens.
lues specified in ASCE 41-17. Fig. 17a and b were plotted to evaluate the effect of ρt on and de-
Therefore, to satisfy the limiting values of the model parameters d formation capacity (θu ) and shear strength [Vu /(bh √ f ′c ], respectively.
and e specified in ASCE 41-17, DRCBs with ln / h = 2.0 and 3.5 should Solid lines in these figures denote values calculated from regression

Fig. 13. Cumulative energy dissipation.

11
S.W. Han, et al. Engineering Structures 196 (2019) 109307

Fig. 14. Force-chord rotation relation for DRCBs.

Fig. 15. Cyclic curves, envelope curves, and backbone curves.

equations. ρt in Table 6 was 1.52%, which is close to ρt required by ACI 318-14

As shown in Fig. 17a, ρt of DRCBs should be larger than or equal to
0.31% to produce θu exceeding 5% specified in ASCE 41-17. The values
of ρt for specimens T100-2.0 and T100-3.5, which satisfied detail re-
quirements specified in ACI 318-14, were 1.27% and 1.38%, respec-
tively.
Fig. 17b shows that with an increase in ρt , the measured shear
strength of DRCBs became larger. However, it is worthy of noting that
although DRCB designed and detailed according to ACI 318-14 had
sufficient shear strength exceeding VACI , excessive strength of DRCBs
may not be always beneficial to a coupled wall system because the
unexpected larger strength of the DRCBs could make these fuse-ele-
ments never yield during severe earthquakes. To predict the shear
strength of DRCBs, the contribution of transverse reinforcement should
be properly taken in account. It is also noted that the maximum value of
(Fig. 17). If DRCBs have heavy transverse reinforcement far exceeding
ρt required by ACI 318–14, they may fail in brittle manner and produce
small deformation capacity. These beams are beyond our scope.
To evaluate the effect of aspect ratio on θu , Fig. 18 was also plotted.
In this figure, three different groups of DRCBs were considered, which
had different ranges of Ln / h : (1) 0 < Ln / h ≤ 2, (2) 2 < Ln / h ≤ 4 , (3) all
Ln / h . It is observed that the degree of increase in θu according to ρt is
not the same for these three groups, which can be attributed to the
different levels of shear-moment interaction. However, the overall
trend is similar. With an increase in ρt , θu became larger irrespective of
different groups. The general trend of deformation capacity and shear
strength of DRCBs according to ρt observed from collected specimens is
similar with that observed from seven specimens tested in this study.

Fig. 16. Idealized backbone curves from measured envelope curves and predicted backbone curves obtained from ASCE 41-17.

12
S.W. Han, et al. Engineering Structures 196 (2019) 109307

Table 5
The values of important parameters extracted from idealized and predicted backbone curves.
specimens ASCE 41-17 modeling parameters Observed values of modeling parameters

kAB (kN/mm) from Eq. (2) ① d (%)② e (%)③ kAB (kN/mm) ④ kBC
(kBC ) ①/④ d (%) ⑤ ②/⑤ e (%) ⑥ ③/⑥
kAB

T100-2.0 313.4 3.0 5.0 68.2 0.05 4.59 5.0 0.6 6.2 0.81
(0.3Ec Ig ) (0.06Ec Ig ) (40.0)
T77-2.0 49.7 0.14 6.30 3.0 1.0 5.7 0.83
(0.05Ec Ig ) (77.1)
T50-2.0 48.6 0.27 6.45 2.5 1.2 4.0 1.25
(0.05Ec Ig ) (146.7)
T30-2.0 49.2 0.50 6.36 2.5 1.2 3.5 1.47
(0.05Ec Ig ) (271.8)

T100-3.5 57.2 3.0 5.0 22.6 0.06 2.53 5.0 0.6 9.6 0.51
(0.3Ec Ig ) (0.12Ec Ig ) (16.3)
T50-3.5 35.5 0.30 1.61 2.0 1.5 6.0 0.83
(0.18Ec Ig ) (118.8)
T30-3.5 25.4 0.18 2.25 2.0 1.5 3.0 1.67
(0.13Ec Ig ) (52.3)

7. Conclusions following conclusions and recommendations were made:

In this study, experimental tests were conducted to investigate the
effect of transverse reinforcement on the seismic behavior of DRCBs.
For this purpose, four and three DRCB specimens with aspect ratios of
2.0 and 3.5, respectively, were made and tested under quasi-static
cyclic loads. The test variables were the amount of transverse re-
inforcement and the aspect ratios. Based on the test results, the
(1) The DRCB specimens (T100-2.0 and T100-3.5) with the amount of
transverse reinforcement satisfying that required by ASCE 318-14
exhibited stable hysteretic behavior with shear strength and de-
formation capacities larger than respective limiting values of ACI
318-14 and ASCE 41-17. Specimens T100-2.0 and T100-3.5 failed
at chord rotations of 7.0% and 10%, respectively. This indicates

Table 6
Collected DRCB specimens.
No Specimen b (mm) h (mm) ln (mm) ln α (°) fc′ (MPa) f y (MPa) ρt (%) Vu (kN) Vn (kN) θu (%)
h

Kanakubo et al. [18]

1 NX7LB 240 350 980 2.8 12.9 38.1 528 0.35 377.06 187.24 6.7
Ishikawa and Kimura [19]
2 1 300 450 800 1.8 17.5 42.2 523 0.21 480.48 243.5 5.5
3 2 300 450 800 1.8 17.5 45.9 523 0.21 661.4 365.25 5.2
4 5 300 450 800 1.8 17.5 26.8 523 0.42 610.58 365.25 5.2
5 6 300 450 800 1.8 17.5 51.2 523 0.75 743.21 365.25 5.6
6 7 300 450 800 1.8 17.5 51.7 523 0.21 701.36 365.25 5.0
7 8 300 450 800 1.8 17.6 45.3 387 0.21 575.09 268.22 5.2
8 9 300 450 800 1.8 17.6 45.8 724 0.21 835.36 501.79 5.1
9 10 300 450 1125 2.5 12.7 51.7 724 0.21 669.67 364.84 5.2
Galano and Vignoli [20]
10 P05 150 400 600 1.5 28.5 39.9 567 0.27 239.78 169.99 6.8
11 P07 150 400 600 1.5 28.5 54 567 0.27 236.88 169.99 4.2
Shimazaki [21]
12 N1 200 400 1000 2.5 19.3 54 476 0.21 345.96 249.9 2.5
13 N2 200 400 1000 2.5 19.3 51 459 0.32 398.93 240.98 4.0
Naish et al. [2]
14 CB24F 304.8 381 914.4 2.4 15.7 47.3 483 0.92 668.18 606.63 9.6
15 CB33F 304.8 457.2 1524 3.3 12.3 47.3 483 0.92 556.58 477.57 8.0
Shin et al. [22]
16 1DF0Y 250 300 1050 3.5 11.4 29.2 478 0.84 471.23 382.99 10.1
Lim et al. [23]
17 CB10–1 250 500 500 1 37.6 34.5 486 1.52 1444 1201.29 5.9
18 CB20–1 300 500 1000 2 20.9 52.1 466 1.27 1040.08 860.91 7.3
Lim et al. [24]
19 CB30–DB 300 500 1500 3 14.6 38.4 465 0.71 728.2 768.35 5.9
Paulay and Binney [4]
20 316 152 787 1219 1.5 30 33.3 288 0.28 671.68 446.24 6.1
This study
21 T100-2.0 250 525 1050 2 20.4 44 490 1.27 1087 556 6.2
22 T77-2.0 250 525 1050 2 20.4 43 515 0.89 860 556 5.7
23 T50-2.0 250 525 1050 2 20.4 43 515 0.61 826 556 4.0
24 T30-2.0 250 525 1050 2 20.4 43 515 0.51 815 556 3.5
25 T100-3.5 250 300 1050 3.5 8.9 43 481 1.38 507 302 9.6
26 T50-3.5 250 300 1050 3.5 8.9 44 481 0.61 374 302 6.0
27 T30-3.5 250 300 1050 3.5 8.9 44 481 0.3 290 302 3.0

13
S.W. Han, et al.
Fig. 17. Deformation capacity (θu ) and shear strength [Vu/(bh f ′c ) ] according to ρt .
that DRCBs satisfying at ACI 318-14 design and detail requirements
could have sufficient shear strength and deformation capacities.
(2) The amount of transverse reinforcement had a significant impact on
the cyclic behavior of DRCBs including failure modes. With an in-
crease in the amount of transverse reinforcement, the cyclic beha-
vior of DRCB specimens was improved. Specimens T100-2.0, T100-
3.5 and T77-2.0 with the amount of transverse reinforcement
greater than or equal to 77% of that required by ACI 318-14 failed
by flexure, whereas specimens T50-2.0, T50-3.5, T30-2.0 and T30-
3.5 with the amount of transverse reinforcement less than 77% of
that required by ACI 318-14 failed by shear.
(3) All specimens with ln / h = 2.0 produced shear strength (Vu ) larger
than that (VACI ) calculated from the ACI 318 shear strength equa-
tion, irrespective of the amount of transverse reinforcement.
However, with an increase in the amount of transverse reinforce-
ment, the degree of overstrength (Vu /VACI ) became larger. For spe-
cimens with ln / h = 3.5, similar observations were made except that
specimen T30-3.5 had Vu less than VACI . This indicates that shear
strength of DRCBs was strongly affected by the amount of trans-
verse reinforcement. To produce the shear strength larger than that
required by ACI 318-14, DRCBs should have the amount of trans-
verse reinforcement greater than or equal to 50% of that required
by ACI 318-14.
(4) The measured shear strength of specimens T100-2.0 and T100-3.5
Fig. 18. θu with respect to ρt for three groups of DRCB with different ranges of ln / h .
14
Engineering Structures 196 (2019) 109307
was larger than twice the shear strength calculated using ACI 318-
14. Although DRCB designed and detailed according to ACI 318-14
had sufficient shear strength exceeding VACI , excessive strength of
DRCBs may be adverse impact on seismic behavior of coupled wall
system because the unexpected larger strength of the DRCBs could
make these fuse-elements never yield during severe earthquakes. It
is recommended that shear strength equation should include the
contribution of transverse reinforcement.
(5) The measured stiffness generally increased with an increase in the
amount of transverse reinforcement. The initial stiffness of the
DRCBs was significantly overestimated by the use of 0.3Ec Ig speci-
fied in ASCE 41-17. If DRCBs are modelled using 0.3Ec Ig for seismic
design, seismic force demands on DRCBs could be overestimated.
(6) For specimens with ln / h = 2.0, specimens T100-2.0 and T77-2.0
had chord rotation values of d and e larger than their respective
values (3%, 5%) specified in ASCE 41-17. The measured value of d
for specimen T50-2.0 was less than 3%, whereas the measured
value of e was larger than 5%. However, specimen T30-2.0 had
measured values of d and e less than their respective ASCE 41 va-
lues. Similar observations were made for specimens withln / h = 3.5.
To satisfy both the shear strength required by ACI 318 and the
limiting values of chord rotations specified in ASCE 41-17, DRCBs
should have the amount of transverse reinforcement greater than or
equal to 77% of that required by ACI 318-14.
S.W. Han, et al.
(7) Most experimental studies focused mainly DRCB specimens with
Ln / h < 2 . Test data on DRCB specimens with Ln / h ≥ 2 is very
limited, particularly those on DRCB specimens with full-section
confinement. Thus, the test results of this study can be an important
role on the database of DRCB specimens with Ln / h ≥ 2, which can
be used to modify the strength equations, model parameters and
limiting values for specific limit states specified in provisions of
seismic design and seismic performance evaluation such as ACI
318-14 and ASCE 41-17.
(8) Based on test data of twenty-seven DRCB specimens, it is observed
that the shear strength and deformation capacity of DRCBs became
larger with an increase in the amount of transverse reinforcement
( ρt ). To provide θu larger than 5% specified in ASCE 41-17, ρt should
be larger than 0.31%.
Acknowledgments
The research was supported by grants from the National Research
Foundation of Korea (NRF-2017R1A2B3008937), South Korea. The
valuable comments of four anonymous reviewers are greatly appre-
ciated.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109307.
References
[1] Wight JK. Reinforced concrete mechanic and design. 7th ed. London, England:
Pearson Education; 2016.
[2] Naish D, Wallace JW, Fry JA, Klemencic R. Reinforced concrete link beams: alter-
native details for improved construction. UCLA-SGEL Report 2009–06. Los Angeles,
USA: University of California; 2009.
[3] Lee J, Kim J. Seismic performance evaluation of staggered wall structures using
FEMA P695 procedure. Mag Concrete Res 2013;65(17):1023–33.
[4] Paulay T, Binney JR. Diagonally reinforced coupling beams of shear walls. ACI
Special Publ 1974;SP-42(26):579–98.
[5] Han SW, Lee CS, Kwon HW, Lee KH, Shin MS. Behaviour of fibre-reinforced beams
with diagonal reinforcement. Mag Concrete Res 2015;67(24):1287–300.
[6] Berg GV, Stratta JL. Anchorage and the Alaska earthquake of March 27. New York,
NY, USA: American Iron and Steel Institute; 1964.
[7] Paulay T. Coupling of shear walls PhD thesis Christchurch, New Zealand: University
of Canterbury; 1969.
[8] Paulay T, Santhakumar AR. Ductile behavior of coupled shear walls. J Struct Div
1976;102(ST1):93–108.
[9] Shiu KN, Barney GB, Fiorato AE, Corley WG. Reversing load tests of reinforced
concrete coupling beams. Proceedings of the central american conference on
15
Engineering Structures 196 (2019) 109307
earthquake engineering. 1978. p. 239–49.
[10] Barney GB, Shiu KN, Rabbat BG. Behavior of coupling beams under load reversals.
Skokie, IL, USA: Portland Cement Association; 1980.
[11] Fortney PJ. The next generation of coupling beams PhD. thesis Cincinnati, OH:
University of Cincinnati; 2005.
[12] Setkit M. Seismic behavior of slender coupling beams constructed with high per-
formance fiber reinforced concrete PhD. thesis An Arbor, MI, USA: University of
Michigan; 2012.
[13] Han SW, Lee CS, Shin M, Lee K. Cyclic performance of precast coupling beams with
bundled diagonal reinforcement. Eng Struct 2015;93:142–51.
[14] ACI Committee 318: ACI318-14. Building code requirements for structural concrete.
Farmington Hill, MI, USA: American Concrete Institute; 2014.
[15] Harries KA, Fortney PJ, Shahrooz BM, Brienen PJ. Practical design of diagonally
reinforced concrete coupling beams – critical review of ACI 318 requirements. ACI
Struct J 2005;102(6):876–82.
[16] ACI Committee 318: ACI 318-08. Building code requirements for structural con-
crete. Farmington Hill, MI, USA: American Concrete Institute; 2008.
[17] American Society of Civil Engineers. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing
Buildings (ASCE 41-17). Reston, VA, USA; 2017.
[18] Kanakubo T, Fujisawa M, Sako N, Sonobe Y. Ductility of short span RC beams. 11th
World conference on earthquake engineering, Acapulco, Mexico,. 1996.
[19] Ishikawa Y, Kimura H. Experimental study on seismic behavior of R/C diagonally
reinforced short beams. 11th World conference on earthquake engineering. 1996.
[20] Galano L, Vignoli A. Seismic behavior of short coupling beams with different re-
inforcement layouts. ACI Struct J 2000;97(6):876–85.
[21] Shimazaki K. De-bonded diagonally reinforced beam for good repairability. 13th
World conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada. 2004.
[22] Shin M, Gwon SW, Lee K, Han SW, Jo YW. Effectiveness of high performance fiber-
reinforced cement composites in slender coupling beams. Constand Build Mat
2014;68:476–90.
[23] Lim E, Hwang SJ, Cheng CH, Lin PY. Cyclic tests of reinforced concrete coupling
beam with intermediate span-to-depth ratio. ACI Struct J 2016;113:515–24.
https://doi.org/10.14359/51688473.
[24] Lim E, Hwang SJ, Wang TW, Chang YH. An investigation on the seismic behavior of
deep reinforced concrete coupling beams. ACI Struct J 2016;113:217–26. https://
doi.org/10.14359/51687939.
[25] ASTM. Standard test method for compressive strength of cylindrical concrete spe-
cimens (ASTM /C39M-15). West Conshohocken, PA, USA; 2015.
[26] Barbachyn S, Kurama Y, Novak LC. Analytical evaluation of diagonally reinforced
concrete coupling beams under lateral loads. ACI Struct J 2012;109(4):497–508.
[27] Poudel A, Lequesne RD, Lepage A. Diagonally reinforced concrete coupling beams:
effect of axial restraint. Report 18-3, Structural Engineering and Engineering
Materials, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA; 2018.
[28] Lequesne RD, Parra-Montesinos GJ, Wight JK. Seismic behavior and detailing of
high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete coupling beams and coupled wall sys-
tems. J Struct Eng 2012;139(8):1362–70.
[29] Han SW, Lee KH, Lee CS, Shin MS, Kwon HW. Behaviour of fibre-reinforced beams
with diagonal reinforcement. Mag Concr Res 2015;67:1287–300.
[30] Birely A, Lowes LN, Lehman DE. A model for the practical nonlinear analysis of
reinforced-concrete frames including joint flexibility. Eng Struct 2012;34:455–65.
[31] Verderame GM, Ricci P. An empirical approach for nonlinear modelling and de-
formation capacity assessment of RC columns with plain bars. Eng Struct
2018;176:539–54.
[32] Applied Technology Council. Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis
procedures. FEMA 440 report, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Washington, D.C., USA; 2005.