Large-Scale Testing of a Replaceable “Fuse” Steel

Coupling Beam
Patrick J. Fortney1; Bahram M. Shahrooz2; and Gian A. Rassati3

Abstract: When coupled core wall 共CCW兲 systems are built in regions of high seismicity, the ductility demands on the coupling beams
can be of critical concern. Steel coupling beams, whether encased in concrete or not, offer a very high degree of ductility relative to
common concrete coupling beams. Hybrid core wall systems, that is CCW systems with steel or steel/concrete composite coupling beams,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Vit University on 06/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

provide excellent lateral stiffness from the walls and coupling action, while providing excellent energy dissipation and ductility charac-
teristics of steel coupling beams. Previous research pertaining to steel coupling beams has made great strides in furthering the under-
standing of the behavior of steel coupling beams, and recommendations regarding design methodologies have been established. However,
as steel coupling beam ends are embedded in the wall piers, postdamage repair can be costly. This paper presents the results of large-scale
cyclic tests of a steel coupling beam designed and detailed based on the writers’ previous recommendations and an innovative “fuse” steel
coupling beam which provides an added feature to the steel coupling beam in that postdamage repair/replacement difficulties and expenses
are minimized.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9445共2007兲133:12共1801兲
CE Database subject headings: Coupling; Composite structures; Seismic design; Steel beams.

Introduction
Coupling beams have been shown to behave similarly to links in
eccentrically braced frames 共Roeder and Popov 1978; Malley and
Popov 1983; Kasai and Popov 1986兲. When the strength of the
coupling beams is distributed properly over the height of the
building, desirable hinge formation occurs in the beams prior to
hinge formation at the base of the wall piers 共Aktan and Bertero
1981, 1984; Aristizabal-Ochoa 1982; Fintel and Ghosh 1982;
Park and Paulay 1975兲. Therefore, formation of hinges in the
beams is critical. Steel beams have been shown to have outstand-
ing energy dissipation, provide tremendous lateral stiffness to the
coupled core wall 共CCW兲 system, and exhibit stable hysteretic
response 共Fortney 2005; Gong and Shahrooz 2001a,b; Harries
2001; Harries et al. 2000兲. Further, certainty that plastic hinge
formation in the beams as the limit state governing behavior is
significantly greater relative to the more common reinforced con-
crete coupling beams 共diagonally reinforced concrete beams兲. Ad-
ditionally, the well-known construction difficulties associated
with the placement of diagonal bar groups 共and the required trans-
verse reinforcement兲 in diagonally reinforced concrete coupling
1 internal compression struts can be provided over the embedded
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Clemson Univ., 110
Lowry Hall, Clemson, SC 29634.
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
Cincinnati, P.O. Box 210071, Cincinnati, OH 45221.
3
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of Cincinnati, P.O. Box 210071, Cincinnati, OH 45221.
Note. Associate Editor: James S. Davidson. Discussion open until
May 1, 2008. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual pa-
pers. To extend the closing date by one month, a written request must be
filed with the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper was
submitted for review and possible publication on June 14, 2006; approved
on April 9, 2007. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engi-
neering, Vol. 133, No. 12, December 1, 2007. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/
2007/12-1801–1807/$25.00.
beams are alleviated with the use of steel coupling beams.
The design methodologies for steel coupling beams are well
established, and are based on a wealth of information gathered
from past research. To ensure ductility and chord rotation capac-
ity, web stiffener plates are proportioned based on expected maxi-
mum rotations as prescribed by the American Institute of Steel
Construction 共AISC兲 design guidelines 共AISC 2005a,b兲. To maxi-
mize energy dissipation, shear critical behavior is obtained by
ensuring that the length of the beam is limited to some factor
greater than one times the ratio of the beam’s plastic moment
capacity to the beam’s plastic shear capacity.
Critical to the behavior of the steel beam is performance of the
beam’s connection to the wall piers. The connection is achieved
by embedding the beam into the wall pier. Past research has
developed recommendations for the embedment length and the
detailing of the beam along its embedded region 共Gong and
Shahrooz 2001a,b; Harries et al. 1993, 1995; Shahrooz et al.
1992, 1993兲. To improve distribution of stresses over the embed-
ded portion of the beam, auxiliary transfer bars may be connected
to flanges via half couplers welded to the top and bottom flanges
of the beam. To improve ductility and minimize degradation of
the connection, face bearing plates 共web stiffeners兲 mobilizing
region located within the wall pier’s boundary elements. Pooling
the past research shows that steel coupling beams 共SCB兲 provide
outstanding strength, stiffness, and ductility, and simultaneously
demonstrating appreciable energy dissipation. However, although
the performance of the SCB is outstanding for resisting seismic
loads, significant damage to the beam through inelastic deforma-
tions can lead to very costly postevent repair.
The writers combined the recommendations of past studies
and performed large-scale reverse cyclic testing of a wall pier–
coupling beam subassembly fitted with a SCB designed based on
these guidelines. To further enhance the advantages of the steel
coupling beam, design methodologies have been developed for

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2007 / 1801

J. Struct. Eng. 2007.133:1801-1807.


Fig. 1. Schematic drawing of fuse coupling beam
the next generation of steel coupling beams that maintain their
outstanding performance while providing an additional feature
consisting of a central “fuse” in which all inelastic deformations
and damage are concentrated. Subsequent to a seismic event, the
damaged fuse is replaced avoiding the need for replacing or re-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Vit University on 06/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
pairing the portions of the steel beam embedded in the wall piers.
The embedded regions are intended to remain elastic, whereas the
fuse reaches ultimate loads.
The fuse coupling beam 共FCB兲 design philosophy assumes
that all inelastic deformations will be concentrated in the middle
section 共fuse section兲 of the beam where a length of beam is
connected to the outer sections 共main sections兲 of steel beams via
slip critical bolted connections. Fig. 1 shows a representative
sketch of a fuse steel coupling beam. The outer beam sections are
embedded in the wall piers using the same design methodologies
as those used for the typical SCB. However, the fuse section is
designed to have a shear capacity equal to the design shear, and
the outer sections are then sized such that their shear capacity is
sufficiently greater than that of the fuse. This methodology will
ensure that the outer sections remain elastic through the inelastic
range of the fuse section, including development of its ultimate
capacity. In order to prevent damage to the interior ends of the
outer sections, where the slip-critical connections are located, the
flange and web splice plates are sized such that the moment of
inertia of a cross section at the splice location is greater than or
equal to the moment of inertia of the outer section. A sufficient
size and quantity of bolts at the slip-critical connection are pro-
vided such that the connection is robust enough to transfer the
forces computed at the splice location.
Background
Per the Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings 共AISC
2005b, Sec. 15.3b兲, when the length of a steel link is less than or
equal to that given by the following equation, intermediate web
stiffeners shall be provided at intervals not exceeding 30tw − d / 5
共tw⫽thickness of the link’s web and d⫽height of the link’s web兲
when the link rotation angle 共LRA兲 is expected to be equal to or
greater than 0.08 rad, or 52tw − d / 5, when the LRA is expected to
be 0.02 rad or less
L 艋 共1.6M p兲/V p 共1兲
M p = F yZx 共2兲
V p = 0.6Fy共h − 2t f 兲tw 共3兲
Linear interpolation is permitted when the expected LRA is
between 0.02 and 0.08 rad. In Eq. 共1兲, M p⫽calculated plastic mo-
ment capacity of the link and V p⫽calculated plastic shear capac-
ity of the link. In Eq. 共2兲, Fy⫽yield strength of the steel and
Zx⫽plastic section modulus. In Eq. 共3兲, h⫽total height of the
1802 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2007
J. Struct. Eng. 2007.133:1801-1807.
beam; t f ⫽thickness of the flange; and tw⫽thickness of the web.
Substituting Eqs. 共2兲 and 共3兲 into Eq. 共1兲, a trial section can be
established using
关共h − 2t f 兲tw兴/Zx 艋 1.6/共0.6L兲 共4兲
Note that in Eq. 共4兲, the yield strengths of the flange and web
material are assumed to be the same. To prevent local flange and
web buckling, flange and web aspect ratios are limited, respec-
tively, by
b f /2t f 艋 0.31冑Es/Fyf 共5兲
h/tw 艋 3.05冑Es/Fyf 共6兲
Once the cross-sectional design is completed, all appropriate
strength checks have been made, and the size and quantity of
intermediate web stiffeners have been determined, the length of
the embedment into the wall pier 共le兲 is determined using 共Gong
and Shahrooz 2001a,b兲
Vu = f b␤1b f le关共0.58 − 0.22␤1兲兴/关0.88 + 共a/le兲兴 共7兲
f b = 4.05冑 f ⬘c 共twall/b f 兲0.66 共8兲
In Eq. 共7兲, f b⫽stress over the embedded region of the beam
关see Eq. 共8兲兴, ␤1⫽factor relating depth of the equivalent rectan-
gular stress block to neutral axis depth; b f ⫽width of the flange of
the beam; and a⫽one-half of the clear span of the beam. Vu
should be taken as 1.5 times the nominal shear capacity of the
beam to account for strain hardening and material overstrength. In
Eq. 共8兲, twall⫽thickness of the wall in which the steel beam is
embedded and f ⬘c ⫽specified compressive strength 共MPa兲 of the
concrete in the embedded region.
A pair of stiffener plates 共on both sides of the web兲 placed
along the embedment length will mobilize compression struts in
the connection region. These stiffener plates are commonly re-
ferred to as face-bearing plates. The first face-bearing plate should
be directly outside of the confined core of wall boundary element
if present, or at the face of the wall. The distance between the
plates should be such that the angle of the compression struts is
approximately 45° 共hence, the distance between the plates should
be about equal to the clear distance between the flanges兲. To
ensure adequate contribution of face-bearing plates, the width of
each face bearing plate should be equal to the flange width on
either side of the web. Thickness of the face bearing plates can be
established based on available guidelines for detailing of shear
links in eccentrically braced frames 共AISC 2005a兲. “Auxiliary
transfer bars” should be used to facilitate transfer of bearing
stresses from the flanges to the surrounding concrete, and to allow
for a more symmetric distribution of strength and stiffness under
load reversal due to transfer of tension at the flange concrete
interface, thereby limiting separation of flange and concrete.
These bars may be connected to the flanges through mechanical
half-couplers that are welded to the top and bottom flanges. To
minimize the length of the auxiliary transfer bars while achieving
sufficient development length, terminator blocks may be used at
the end of each transfer bar. Fig. 2 shows a representative detail.
Research Objective
The objective of the research project presented in this paper was
to enhance features of steel coupling beams by providing post-
damage replacement capabilities without costly repair of the wall
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Vit University on 06/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Example of use of face-bearing plates and auxiliary transfer
bars
pier/coupling beam connections. This objective was achieved by
designing the beam such that all of the inelastic damage would be
concentrated in the middle portion of the beam where a fuse
section would be located as previously described. Subsequent to a
seismic event, the damaged fuse could be replaced.
Experimental Setup and Specimen Design
Test Setup and Loading
A specimen consisting of two wall pier segments connected with
a single coupling beam is used 共see Fig. 2兲. To simulate the
double curvature expected in a coupling beam, one of the subas-
sembly’s wall piers 共fixed wall兲 was connected to a reinforced
concrete pedestal 共posttensioned to the laboratory’s strong floor兲
by means of tensioned rods threaded into the pedestal. The other
wall pier 共load wall兲 and coupling beam were cantilevered from
the pedestal beneath the cross beam of a steel load frame.
Clamped atop the load wall pier was a very stiff I-shape beam
共load beam兲 used to transfer applied actuator load to the load
wall. To prevent load wall rotation, the load beam extended be-
neath the cross beam of a second load frame and connected to a
secondary actuator used to stabilize the system and prevent in-
plane rotation of the load wall. Fig. 3 shows a photograph of the
test apparatus with a test subassembly installed.
The test specimens were similarly loaded with sets of increas-
ing amplitudes of force or displacement in a reverse cyclic fash-
ion. Each set of cycles was followed by one cycle of decreased
amplitude to capture stiffness degradation. A representative plot
of the loading history incorporated during testing is shown in Fig.
3. To capture critical responses during loading, a sufficient num-
ber of strain gages, displacement transducers, and rotation meters
were installed.
Experimental Specimens
A SCB was designed based on past recommendations. The test
results were then compared and contrasted to the results of a steel
coupling beam fitted with a central fuse 共as described previously兲.
To evaluate the feasibility of fuse replacement, two different fuses
were tested.
The first fuse coupling beam 共FCB-2兲 utilized a fuse with a
shear capacity of 50% of that of the outer beam sections. The test
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2007 / 1803
J. Struct. Eng. 2007.133:1801-1807.
Fig. 3. South elevation of test setup with a specimen installed
protocol of FCB-2 was to load up to a point where the fuse
yielded, whereas the outer sections remained elastic. At this point,
the loading was stopped, and the damaged fuse replaced with a
new fuse 共FCB-1兲 which had a shear capacity of 70% of the outer
beam sections. Upon replacing the fuse, testing recommenced and
continued until failure.
The target shear capacity for both specimens was taken as
534 kN, which is assumed to approximate the maximum design
shear demand for a practical CCW system 共i.e., beam span-to-
depth ratio between 2.5 and 3.5, and 50 and 65% degree of cou-
pling兲. As the shear capacities of the FCB-2 fuse and the FCB-1
fuse was taken as 50 and 70%, respectively, of the outer sections,
the target shear capacities of the FCB-2 and FCB-1 fuses were
267 and 374 kN, respectively. It should be noted that the fuse
capacities of 50 and 70% of the main sections were arbitrarily
chosen based on engineering judgment as no previous data exists
for this new beam concept.
All beams had a clear span equal to 914 mm, a flange width of
127 mm, and a depth of 356 mm. The reinforcement used in the
wall piers was the same for both specimens. The specified mate-
rial strengths used for design of the specimens was also the same
for all specimens. Grade 60 steel 共Fy = 414 MPa兲 was used for all
reinforcing bars, the specified strength of the concrete was
35 MPa, and the steel plate material used to fabricate the built-up
I-shape coupling beams was A36 steel 共Fy = 248 MPa兲.
SCB Design
The SCB specimen was designed and detailed following the de-
sign methodology discussed previously 关Eqs. 共1兲–共4兲兴. As rolled
I-shapes are less likely to have the required cross-sectional prop-
erties needed in coupling beams, a built-up I-shape was designed
using A36 steel plate material 共Fy = 248 MPa兲 with the following
dimensions: t f = 25.4 mm, b f = 127 mm, and tw = 12 mm and an
overall height, d = 356 mm. The calculated shear capacity, V p, of
the SCB, using measured material strengths 共see Tables 1 and 2兲,
is 578 kN. Fig. 4共a兲 shows the cross-sectional geometry of the
SCB specimen.
The embedment length was determined using Eq. 共7兲 and tak-
ing Vu to be equal to 1.25 times the calculated plastic shear
strength of 578 kN; as the plastic shear strength equal to 578 kN
was computed using measured material strength, Vu for comput-
ing embedment length is multiplied only by 1.25 in lieu of 1.5 to
 Table 1. Measured Steel Material Properties
Fv
Component description 共MPa兲
FCB-2—fuse web 243
FCB-2—fuse flange 305
FCB-1—fuse web 264
SPCB—web plate 294
SCB, FCB-1—main section web 245
SCB, FCB-1, FCB-2—main section flange 277
account for strain hardening. The required embedment length was
determined to be 775 mm. As recommended by past research
共Gong and Shahrooz 2001a,b兲, face-bearing plates and auxiliary
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Vit University on 06/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
transfer bars were incorporated along the embedded regions of
the beam. Details of the SCB specimen are shown in elevation in
Fig. 5.
FCB Design
The outer sections of the FCB and their embedment length into
the wall piers were designed like that of the SCB. The main-fuse
connection was designed as slip critical, and the web and flange
splice connections were designed to transfer the shear and mo-
ment calculated at the location of the splice.
The design procedure for the fuse section is relatively straight-
forward. The top and bottom flanges were designed to be the
same size as that of the main sections. Thus, the flanges of both
fuses had b f = 127 mm and t f = 25.4 mm. The overall height of the
beam was the same 共h = 356 mm兲. The only section dimension
needed is the value of tw. As h = 356 mm and t f = 25.4 mm⫽same
for all the sections, the web thickness of the fuse, tw, is simply
proportional to the percentage of the design shear strength of the
main section. Hence, tw = 共0.5兲共12 mm兲 = 6 mm for the 50% fuse
and tw = 共0.7兲共12 mm兲 = 8.4 mm for the 70% fuse. The final step
involves the design of the slip-critical main/fuse connections.
To simplify the design of the flange and web splice plates, the
flange splice plates were assumed be the same size as the flanges
of the main section. Hence, tfsp = 25.4 mm and bfsp = 127 mm. To
Fig. 4. Beam cross sections 共a兲 SCB and main section of FCB; 共b兲 fuse section of FCB-1 and FCB-2
1804 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2007
J. Struct. Eng. 2007.133:1801-1807.
Table 2. Concrete Strength at the Time of Each Test
Specimen Compressive strength
name 共MPa兲
SCB 35.4
FCB 36.5
ensure that the splice connection can transfer at least a shear force
equal to the shear capacity of the main section 共V p = 578 kN兲, the
web splice plates 共one on each side of the web兲 were assumed to
have the same thickness as the main section web thickness, and
the height of the web splice plates was sized to ensure clearance
of the weld root. Clearances between the top and bottom edges of
the web splice plate and the flanges of the beam were taken as
25 mm. Hence, twsp = 12 mm and hwsp = d-50 mm= 305-50
= 255 mm. A check was then performed to ensure that Isp
艌 Imain section. The splice connection is shown in Fig. 6共d兲. Refer-
ring to Fig. 6共d兲, the moment of inertia of the splice connection,
Isp = 269,176,863 mm4 ⬎ Imain section = 206,159,425 mm4. There-
fore, the splice plate sizes are adequate.
The design shear for the connection was 578 kN 共the shear
capacity of the outer section using measured yield strength兲 and
each bolt will be in double shear. The design was based on
25.4 mm diameter A490X bolts. In order to minimize the number
of required bolts, a mean slip coefficient equal to 0.33 was as-
sumed. Per AISC, Section J6, the shear capacity of a single
25.4 mm diameter bolt was calculated to be
␾ f rst = 1.13␮TbNs = 共1.0兲共1.13兲共0.33兲共284 kN兲共2兲 = 212.3 kN
Therefore, the number of bolts required was 578 kN/
共212.3 kN/ bolt兲 = 2.7 bolts. Three 25.4 mm 共1 in.兲 diameter bolts
on each side of the web splice connection were provided. The
design moment at the end of the beam is 244 kN m. The same
size bolts used for the web splice plates were used to transfer the
total flange force developed at the location of the flange splice
plates. Assuming that two rows of bolts are required and that the
length of the fuse must be at least 356 mm long to allow room for
the splice plates, the splice was located 191 mm from the point of
zero moment 共at midspan of the beam兲. Therefore, the moment to

Fig. 5. Elevation of SCB specimen 共mm兲
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Vit University on 06/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
be resisted at the splice, M SP, is
M SP = 关共191 mm兲共244 kN m兲兴 / 共914 mm/ 2兲 = 102 kN m and the
total flange force that the bolts must transfer is
冋 冉 冊 册冒
Pfsp = M SP
h
2
bftf Imain section
Pfsp = 关共102 kN m/共1 m/1,000 mm兲兲共共127 mm兲
⫻共25.4 mm兲兲兴/206,159,425 mm4 = 284 kN
The flange splice bolts were in single shear and therefore have a
capacity equal to half of that calculated for the web splice plate
bolts 共the same size bolts are assumed兲. The capacity of one bolt
in single shear is ␾rst = 共212.3 kN/ bolt/ 2 = 106.2 kN/ bolt兲. The
number of bolts needed to transfer the force in the flange was
284 kN/ 共106.2 kN/ bolt兲 = 2.7 bolts. In the interest of having a
symmetric bolt pattern, four 25 mm diameter A490X bolts were
provided on each side of the flange splice plates.
The spacing of the bolts was determined based on minimum
distances required for entering and tightening. Bolt bearing and
block shear were not considered. This decision is considered to be
reasonable considering that for bolt bearing or block shear to
occur, the connection must slip. If slipping occurs, the intended
behavior of the beam will not be achieved.
Additionally, allowances were made for shim plates at the web
splices between the web of the fuse and the web splice plate to
make up for the difference in the web thicknesses of the main and
fuse sections. The same connections were used for both of the
fuse beam tests. However, due to the difference in the web thick-
nesses between the 50 and 70% fuses, the thickness of the shim
plates are different. Fig. 6 illustrates details of the final beam
designs.
Subassembly Design
The wall piers for the test specimens were designed to resist the
axial loads that were imparted to the walls by the clamping forces
needed to attach the fixed wall to the pedestal and to transfer the
forces in the load beam to the load wall 共see Fig. 3兲. The required
clamping forces applied to the walls were determined based on
the expected capacities of the coupling beams. The clamping
loads on the fixed and load wall piers resulted in axial forces of
0.25f ⬘c Ag and 0.34f ⬘c Ag, respectively. The wall pier reinforcement
consisted of two curtains of #4 共db = 12.7 mm兲 bars at 203 mm
intervals. See Fortney 共2005兲 for detailed discussion on the design
of the wall piers. Figs. 5 and 6 show the elevations of the final
SCB and FCB subassemblies, respectively.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2007 / 1805
J. Struct. Eng. 2007.133:1801-1807.
Experimental Results
Steel Coupling Beam
The SCB sustained 11% chord rotation with no appreciable dam-
age. Cyclic loading was applied only up to 4% due to concerns
for load frame stability 共after this test, lateral braces were added
to the test apparatus兲. The test was finished with monotonic load-
ing up to 11% rotation 关Fig. 7共a兲兴. The shear forces plotted on the
vertical axis in Fig. 7 have been normalized by dividing the ap-
plied shear force by V P 共calculated shear capacity using measured
material properties兲. As can be inferred from the shear versus
chord rotation diagram in Fig. 7共a兲, the SCB demonstrates stable
postelastic hysteretic response and excellent energy dissipation.
Using experimentally measured strains, Vyield was established as
the shear force causing first shear yielding in the web. The ratio of
Vyield to V P was 0.98 indicating that the design methodology used
for the SCB correlates very well with the experimentally mea-
sured shear capacity. Further, as can be seen in Figs. 8共a and b兲,
the SCB exhibits very good stiffness and energy-dissipation
characteristics.
Fuse Coupling Beam
The 50% fuse 共FCB-2兲 was tested up to 2% rotation at which
point the fuse had reached approximately two times its calculated
shear capacity while the main sections 共outer sections兲 had
reached approximately 96% of their calculated shear capacity
关Fig. 7共b兲兴. In Fig. 7共b兲, the normalized shear plotted on the ver-
tical axis is the applied shear force divided by the calculated shear
capacity 共using measured material properties兲. As discussed pre-
viously, the FCB-2 test was stopped at 2% chord rotation, the
loaded wall of the specimen was returned to zero force, and the
FCB-2 fuse was replaced with the FCB-1 fuse. Upon bringing the
FCB-2 test specimen to zero force, there was approximately
3.6 mm of residual vertical displacement which presented no dif-
ficulty in the replacement of the fuse. The bolts in the splice
connections were easily removed using a standard commercial
electric torque wrench. The replacement fuse 共FCB-1兲 and shim
plates were installed, and the bolts were tensioned to the desired
level. Two of the writers replaced the fuse in approximately 3 h.
With the 70% fuse in place, test FCB-1 was started and con-
tinued up to 11% rotation 关see Fig. 9共a兲兴 at which point the beam
was considered to have failed completely and the testing was
stopped. This specimen reached a maximum peak shear of
816 kN. The beam behaved as intended up to 4% rotation at
which point, slippage of the web splice connections was observed
关see Fig. 9共b兲兴. As loading continued, weld cracks formed at the
flange–web interface in the main sections 关see Fig. 9共c兲兴 and con-
tinually increased in severity for the remainder of the test. At the
end of the test, weld failures, block shear failure, and bolt bearing
failure were observed 关Fig. 9共d兲兴. It should be noted that block
shear and bolt bearing failure were not observed until well into
the 8% rotation cycles. A detailed damage record is available in
Fortney 共2005兲.
The early plastic energy dissipation of the FCB 关shown in Fig.
8共b兲兴, relative to the SCB can be attributed to the lower plastic
shear capacity of the fuse relative to the SCB 关Fig. 8共a兲兴. The
effects of lower shear capacity and hence earlier yielding in the
FCB are also evident in lower stiffness of the FCB in comparison
to the SCB, as shown in Fig. 8共a兲. At 4% chord rotation, the
plastic energy dissipation characteristics of the two specimens are
the same 关Fig. 8共b兲兴.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Vit University on 06/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. 共a兲 Elevation, enlarged; 共b兲 top view; 共c兲 elevation; and 共d兲 cross sections of FCB specimen

Conclusions in coupled core wall systems, particularly those at floors where

The SCB performed very well demonstrating that the design rec-
ommendations formulated from previous research can lead into
steel coupling beams with adequate performance. The necessary
wall clamping forces were somewhat larger than those expected
coupling beam demands are the highest. Nevertheless, very little
damage was observed at the coupling beam–wall pier interfaces,
suggesting that the auxiliary transfer bars, face-bearing plates,
and computed embedment length would result in sufficiently duc-
tile coupling beam–wall pier connections.
The design of the FCB specimen involved using main section
properties identical to those of the SCB, and using smaller web

Fig. 7. Normalized shear force versus shear angle 共applied shear

force normalized to calculated plastic shear capacity兲 Fig. 8. Stiffness and energy dissipation

1806 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2007

J. Struct. Eng. 2007.133:1801-1807.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Vit University on 06/02/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 9. FCB-1 specimen
thickness for the fuse to develop smaller shear capacities 共due to
limitations of the test setup, fuse shear capacity could not be
increased relative to the main beams兲. This approach led to early
energy dissipation and lower stiffness relative to the SCB. In
actual practice, the writers recommend that the fuse be designed
for ultimate loads and then the main section properties be in-
creased relative to the fuse. This should ensure that the system has
ultimate shear capacities at least equal to or greater than the an-
ticipated shear demands without compromising the overall phi-
losophy of the design.
Additionally, the fillet welds used in the built-up I-sections had
been terminated at the ends of the beam sections. It is the opinion
of the writers that this led to the onset of the fillet weld failures. It
should be noted that weld fractures were observed after success-
fully reaching 5% chord rotation. Providing end returns at the
ends of the beam, thereby creating continuous welds, might have
delayed the formation and propagation of the weld fractures at
very large chord rotations, and eliminated potential end effects
associated with terminated fillet welds. Moreover, providing par-
tial or full penetration groove welds in lieu of fillet welds may
minimize the potential for weld fracture and further enhance the
overall ductility of coupling beams with a central fuse. Additional
research is recommended to evaluate potential improvements in
ductility and overall performance offered by more robust welded
flange-to-web connection details.
Acknowledgments
The reported research is sponsored by the National Science Foun-
dation under Grant No. BCS-CMS-9714860, with Dr. Shih Chi
Liu as the program director. These projects were part of the fifth
phase of U.S.–Japan cooperative research program on composite
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2007 / 1807
J. Struct. Eng. 2007.133:1801-1807.
and hybrid structures. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or
recommendations expressed in this paper are of those of the writ-
ers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors.
References
Aktan, A. E., and Bertero, V. V. 共1981兲. “The Seismic resistant design of
R/C coupled shear walls.” Rep. No. UCB/EERC-81/07, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Aktan, A. E., and Bertero, V. V. 共1984兲. “Seismic response of R/C frame-
wall structures.” J. Struct. Eng., 110共ST8兲, 1803–1821.
American Institute of Steel Construction AISC. 共2005a兲. Manual of steel
construction, 13th Ed., Chicago.
American Institute of Steel Construction AISC. 共2005b兲. Seismic provi-
sions for structural steel buildings, supplement to AISC Manual of
Steel Construction, 13th Ed., Chicago.
Aristizabal-Ochoa, J. D. 共1982兲. “Dynamic response of coupled wall sys-
tem.” J. Struct. Div., 108共ST8兲, 1846–1857.
Fintel, M., and Ghosh, S. 共1982兲. “Case study of a seismic design of a
16-story coupled wall using inelastic dynamic analysis.” ACI Struct.
J., 79共3兲, 171–179.
Fortney, P. J. 共2005兲. “The next generation of coupling beams.” Disser-
tation, Univ. of Cincinnati, Cincinnati.
Gong, B., and Shahrooz, B. M. 共2001a兲. “Concrete-steel composite cou-
pling beams. I: Component testing.” J. Struct. Eng., 127共6兲, 625–631.
Gong, B., and Shahrooz, B. M. 共2001b兲. “Concrete-steel composite cou-
pling beams. II: Subassembly testing and design verification.” J.
Struct. Eng., 127共6兲, 632–638.
Harries, K. A. 共2001兲. “Ductility and deformability of coupling beams in
reinforced concrete coupled walls.” Earthquake Spectra, 17共3兲, 457–
478.
Harries, K. A., Cook, W. D., Mitchell, D., and Redwood, R. G. 共1995兲.
“The use of steel beams to couple concrete walls.” Proc., 7th Cana-
dian Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Montreal, 509–516.
Harries, K. A., Gong, B., and Shahrooz, B. M. 共2000兲. “Behavior and
design of reinforced concrete, steel, and steel-concrete coupling
beams.” Earthquake Spectra, 16共4兲, 775–799.
Harries, K. A., Mitchell, D., Cook, W. D., and Redwood, R. G. 共1993兲.
“Seismic response of steel beams coupling concrete walls.” J. Struct.
Eng., 119共12兲, 3611–3629.
Kasai, K., and Popov, E. P. 共1986兲. “A study of seismically resistant
eccentrically braced frames.” Rep. No. UCB/EERC-86/01, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Malley, J. O., and Popov, E. P. 共1986兲. “Design of links and beam to
column connections for eccentrically braced frames.” Rep. No. UCB/
EERC-83/03, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of Cali-
fornia, Berkeley, Calif.
Park, R., and Paulay, T. 共1975兲. Reinforced concrete structures, Wiley,
New York.
Roeder, C. W., and Popov, E. P. 共1978兲. “Eccentrically braced steel
frames for earthquakes.” J. Struct. Div., 104共3兲, 391–412.
Shahrooz, B. M., Remmetter, M. E., and Qin, F. 共1992兲. “Seismic re-
sponse of composite coupled structural walls.” Proc., Int. Conf. on
Concrete, 465–481.
Shahrooz, B. M., Remmetter, M. E., and Qin, F. 共1993兲. “Seismic design
and performance of composite coupled walls.” J. Struct. Eng.,
119共11兲, 2858–2896.