THE 7th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

"CIVIL ENGINEERING - SCIENCE AND PRACTICE"

GNP 2020 – Kolašin, Montenegro, 10-14 March 2020

Kenan Strujić1, Ivan Mrdak2, Marina Rakočević3

ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT MODELS FOR STRUCTURAL SYSTEM

WITH COUPLED WALLS ACCORDING TO NATIONAL
REGULATIONS AND EUROCODES

Abstract
Experiences from previous earthquakes have shown that the damage of structural systems with
RC walls experience lower level of damage during earthquake effect compared to frame
systems. Also, extreme mechanisms of floor collapse or collapse of entire buildings are rarely
registered for this system. For architectural reason, RC walls often have openings (doors,
windows, elevators esc). RC walls with openings represent two or more walls connected by
coupling beams. These assemblies, in case of regular and rational scheme of openings,
represent very efficient aseismic systems which, thanks to the coupling beams, are good places
for energy dissipation. According to Eurocode 8 (EC8) terminology, these walls are named
coupled walls. EC8 provides detailed rules for design and detailing of both coupling walls and
beams connecting the walls as primary seismic elements which are able to provide both
sufficient bearing capacity and required ductility. On the other hand in Montenegrin current
regulations the term “reinforced concrete diaphragms” is used for all structures with RC walls
and coupled walls and beams are very little elaborated. The aim of this paper is to present
guidelines for modelling, calculation of seismic forces and dimensioning of RC building
structure with coupling beams in accordance with European regulations. This was presented
trough example of seismic design of 11 story RC building with coupling walls as primary
seismic elements designed according to both Montenegrin regulations and Eurocodes with
comparative analysis of results and characteristic reinforcement details.
Key words
Coupled walls, seismic analysis, rigidity, ductility, coupling beams, dimensioning

1 Spec.Sci of civil engineering, kenan.strujic@gmail.com

2 Msc.in civ.eng, Phd student, Građevinski fakultet Univerziteta Crne Gore, Džordža Vašingtona b.b, 81000 Podgorica,
Crna Gora, ivanm@ucg.ac.me
3 PhD in civ.eng, Full proffesor, Građevinski fakultet Univerziteta Crne Gore, Džordža Vašingtona b.b, 81000

Podgorica, Crna Gora, marinara@ucg.ac.me

455
Civil En g in eerin g – S cien ce a n d Pra ctice

1. INTRODUCTION

The proportions of walls and stiffness of coupling beams determine the response of the RC
coupled walls. The coupling beams are considered to have required stiffness when relation of
length and height of beam is smaller than 4. The difference of the results of the wall with and
without coupling beams can be estimated by comparing the shear forces in the fixed end supports
(Figure 1). In addition to bending moments, additional axial forces are registered in coupled walls
which are result of shear forces in the coupling beams. These forces must, for the same external
load, be in balance with the moment in the fixed end supports of wall without opening:
M=M1+M2+T·L.

Figure 1. Comparison of internal forces at the Figure 2. Comparison of internal forces at the
base of different type of walls base uncoupled and coupled walls

The relation between moment T·L and moment of the wall without opening M, indicates the
impact of the opening on the RC wall response. In the case of strong coupling beams, the
contribution of axial forces to the total bending load capacity is significant, and the after mentioned
ratio will also be larger.
In order for the walls to be considered coupled walls according to EC8 the following
conditions must be met: Coupled walls is structural element composed of two or more single walls,
connected in a regular pattern by adequately ductile beams (“coupling beams”), able to reduce at
least 25% the sum of the base bending moments of the individual walls if working separately.
(M1’+M2’) - (M1+M2) = min25% (M1’+M2’). (Figure 2).

2. MODELLING OF STRUCTURE USING FINITE ELEMENT

METHOD (FEM)

The numerical example is business-residential building with ground floor and ten floors
with rectangular base of dimensions 30x30 m. Geometric characteristics of elements and material
properties are adopted in accordance with European and Montenegrin regulations. The load-
bearing structure of building is consisted from RC frames, RC slabs and coupled walls (Figure 3).
Thickness of slabs is 16cm, dimension on beams b/h=30/60cm, columns are rectangular 60x60cm,
the thickness of walls is 30cm and dimension of coupling beams is b/h=30/100cm.

456
 GNP 2 0 2 0

Figure 3. Layout and 3D model of analysed building

The structure was modelled in software Etabs 2013 (Computer and Structures Inc.). Two
3D models of structure were produced:
1. First model in accordance with Montenegrin regulations
2. Second model in accordance with Eurocodes (EC2 and EC8)
Both models had three variants of modelling of coupling beams:
- the coupling beams are modelled as 1D finite element;
- the coupling beams are modelled as 2D finite element;
- the coupled walls are modelled with 1D (frame) elements with corresponding rigidity.

Figure 4. Different models of coupled walls

Material for concrete in the analysis was taken as ideally elastic. Designed concrete quality
is C 30/37 in accordance with EC2 regulations, which corresponds to MB40 in accordance with
PBAB ’87.
Unless a more accurate analysis of the cracked elements is performed, in accordance with
the guidelines of EC8 the flexural and shear stiffness properties of RC elements should be
modelled taking into account the effect of cracking of concrete. In accordance with this the elastic
flexural and shear stiffness properties of concrete elements were taken to be equal to one-half of
the corresponding stiffness of the uncracked elements. In accordance with this bending and shear
stiffness of the walls, columns and beams (including coupling beams) in EC8 model was reduced
by 50%. According to Montenegrin regulations there are no provisions related to this so the

457
Civil En g in eerin g – S cien ce a n d Pra ctice

elements were modelled with unreduced stiffness. It is also noted that in other international
regulations adopt different values for coupling beams property modifiers for shear and bending
stiffness from 20-65% of stiffness of uncracked cross section depending also from adopted type of
reinforcement details (regular or diagonal reinforcement).
The mass taken into account in determining the dynamic characteristics of the structure
corresponds to the sum of the total dead load and the live load reduced by a coefficient that takes
into account the probability of the occurrence of the total load at the time of the earthquake.
Domestic seismic regulations include live load in a mass with a unique value of 50%, while EC8
prescribes values from 0 to 80% depending on the live load type.
This influence the dynamic characteristics (modal periods and shapes) of models prepared
according to different regulations. The results of modal periods for first mode in X and Y direction
is given in table 1.
Table 1. First mode period for different models of coupling walls according to Montenegrin
and European regulations

Oscillation Substitution
Regulation Frame FE Area FE Difference (%)
period (sec) frame
PIOVSP‘81 Tx=Ty 1,1 1,073 1,118 4,19
EC 8 Tx=Ty 1,484 1,446 1,381 7,46

3. CALCULATION OF SEISMIC EFFECTS ACCORDING TO

NATIONAL REGULATIONS (PIOVS ’81) AND EUROCODES (EC8)

Taking into consideration that effective modal mass of first mode is dominant and the
structure is regular in plane and height, the calculation of seismic forces according to both
regulations was performed in accordance with linear static methods: the equivalent static method
(ESO according to Montenegrin regulations) and the lateral force method (LFM in accordance with
EC8). The structures have been calculated with seismicity coefficient corresponding to the IX
seismic zone according to Montenegrin regulations, which corresponds to a maximum soil PGA of
0.36g per EC8, and based on compacted and semi-solid gravel deposits.

3.1. MONTENEGRIN REGULATIONS

According to the local regulations, the seismic effects were calculated in accordance with
the "Rulebook on Technical Standards for the Construction of Buildings in Seismic Areas, Official
Gazette of the SFRJ No. 31/1981". The building is classified as a modern mixed-system RC
structure and accordingly following values of coefficient were adopted:
- ductility and damping coefficient Kp = 1;
- Seismic intensity coefficient for zone IX is Ks = 0.1;
- the object belongs to the II category of importance, which corresponds to the coefficient
of the object category K0 = 1;
- and the soil is classified as soil category II

458
 GNP 2 0 2 0

The dynamic coefficient, as defined above, introduces the dynamic characteristics of the
object into the calculation taking into account the type of soil. The reference method of calculation
is the "Equivalent static load method" which takes into account only the first characteristic
oscillation period in the appropriate direction. In accordance with above given coefficients the total
seismic force for both directions in accordance with Montenegrin regulations is:
S x  S y  4666 kN
From total value of force 15% was applied on top level and remaining value was distributed
with linear distribution over height of structure.

3.2. EUROPEAN REGULATIONS

In accordance with EC8, in order to calculate the parameters necessary for calculation of
seismic forces, it is essential to determine the type of structural system. Analysis was performed
and 93% of total shear force at foundation level was transferred to walls, and in accordance with
this structure system was classified as “wall system” or system with coupled walls. For DCM
ductility class calculated behaviour factor was calculated with value q=3.6.
As the building is a business-residential building, it belongs to the II class of importance
with the factor of building importance γ1=1,0. The seismic force for each horizontal direction was
determined by the formula Fb=Sd(T1)∙m∙λ and total calculated seismic force is Fb=6779,2 kN.
Seismic force was distributed in linearly over the height of structure. On the chart below
there is distribution of forces over the height for Montenegrin and European regulations.

roof 1019.6
1291.6
10th floor 1026.2
601.3
9th floor 926.1
542.6
8th floor 826
483.9
7th floor 725.9
425.3
625.8
LFM
6th floor 366.6
ESO
5th floor 525.6
308
4th floor 425.5
249.3
3rd floor 325.4
190.6
Figure2nd Seismic forces on225.3
5. floor each floor calculated in accordance with ESO and LFM
132
methods
1st floor 127.9
74.8
459
Civil En g in eerin g – S cien ce a n d Pra ctice

4. DIMENSIONING OF COUPLING BEAMS AND COUPLED WALLS

According to Montenegrin regulations coupling beams are dimensioned in the same way as
other beams. The section of the beam is dimensioned on bending moments that are obtained from
analysis and the beam is conventionally reinforced.
EC 8 applies capacity design provisions on the design of coupling walls and beams. The
coupling beams can be designed with the same provisions as conventional beams when cracking in
both directions in unlikely to happen (verified by formula 5.48 in EC8), and prevailing flexural
mode of failure is ensured (An acceptable application rule is l / h  3 ). If the provisions are not
met, than diagonally reinforcement details are applied in the form of elements resembling columns.
When this type of detailing is applied the inelastic behaviour of beam is expected along full length
of beam and whole beam is plastic region for dissipation of energy. Considering that beams is
subjected on large shear forces, diagonally reinforced beams behaves like a truss, no protection
from shear failure is needed. Redistribution of seismic effects between coupling beams of different
floors up to 20% is allowed, providing that the seismic axial force at the base of each individual
wall (the resultant of the shear forces in the coupling beams) is not affected. Formula for
calculating the required amount of reinforcement in diagonal columns according to EC8 is:
ν Ed
A sj  where,
2  f yd  sinα
ν Ed is the design shear force in the coupling element ( ν Ed  2  M Ed / l );
A sj is the total area of steel bars in each diagonal direction;
 is the angle between the diagonal bars and the axis of the beam.

Substitution frame
27.54
Montenegrin
33.05 2D finite element
regulations
29.4
1D finite element

54.86
European
45.71
regulations
43.88
Figure 6. Required amount of longitudinal reinforcement (cm2) in outside edge element for
various models of coupling beams

For diagonally reinforced beams longitudinal and transverse reinforcement should only be
provided on the sides of the beam in the amount of 0.1%∙A, and should not be anchored in coupled
wall but be extended max 150mm. That means that there is no reinforcement calculation to
accommodate bending moments for such elements. Many experiments conducted in the world in
recent years have shown that diagonal reinforced coupling beams show significantly greater
resistance to the cyclical effect of earthquake than those that are classically reinforced. In figures 7
and 8 reinforcement details in accordance with EC8 and Montenegrin regulations is presented.

460
 GNP 2 0 2 0

Figure 7. Reinforcement details of coupling Figure 8. Reinforcement details of coupling

beam on 1st floor in accordance with EC8 beam on 1st floor in accordance with MR

Montenegrin regulations provides design for earthquake walls that are predominantly
subject to combined bending in the plane of the wall itself. The design is performed as for
corresponding rectangular section in which the section width corresponds to the wall thickness, and
the height of the section corresponds to the assigned length of the section. All the sections of wall
are provided to be dimensioned on effects for corresponding load combinations. Specific rules of
coupled walls are not listed.

Figure 9. Layout of longitudinal reinforcement at base of walls according to PBAB ’87

EC8 provides capacity design procedure for walls and also specific rules for design of
critical regions, plastic joints. By applying the capacity design method defined by EC8, the aim is
to provide such a hierarchy of resistance to different types of fractures and appropriate
reinforcement details in critical locations, to make the behaviour of RC walls ductile. This means
that the mode of energy dissipation should be the yielding of reinforcement under tension at the
action of bending moment in the plastic joints located at the base of the wall. In the case of coupled
wall systems with coupling beams, beside plastic joints at the base of the walls, the plastic joints
should also appear in the coupling beams. EC8 provides rules in order to prevent non-ductile
failures of walls, such as diagonal compression failure, diagonal tension failure, sliding sheer
failure esc. Also rules for minimum dimensions edge wall elements are provided in order to
provide required confinement and prevent deflection. In accordance with this edge elements on the
outer side of coupled walls designed in accordance with EC8 are thickened and the total length of
wall is larger.
EC8 provides rules for redistribution of seismic effects for walls with openings, where
moments and shears should be redistributed from the wall(s) which are under low compression or
under net tension, to those which are under high axial compression. It is provided that shear forces
should be redistributed along with the bending moments, so that in the individual walls the ratio of
bending moments to shear forces is not appreciably affected. The design bending moment diagram
along the height of the wall should be given by an envelope of the bending moment diagram from
the analysis, vertically displaced (tension shift).

461
Civil En g in eerin g – S cien ce a n d Pra ctice

Figure 10. Layout of longitudinal reinforcement in the base of walls according to EC8
and PBAB ’87

5. CONCLUSION

 In Montenegrin regulations and corresponding literature coupled walls are very little
elaborated. The design process of the walls and coupling beams is performed in the same way
as for conventional beams. European regulations, on the other hand, provide guidelines for
capacity design, sizing and reinforcement for critical regions (energy dissipation regions) such
as plastic hinges in the base of the wall and locations of coupling beams;
 In the presented numerical example total seismic force obtained by EC8 is 40% higher
than by Montenegrin regulation. Adopted reinforcement in the edge elements of walls
at the base of wall according to EC8 is 94% higher. Also the thickness of outer edge
element of wall according to was thickened in order to provide required confinement;
 For different models of coupling beams in (2d and 1d element) of the structure the
difference in results of 5% and in accordance with this either model can be utilised;
 According to Eurocodes the coupling beams can be designed with the same provisions
as conventional beams when cracking in both directions in unlikely to happen and
prevailing flexural mode of failure is ensured. If these provisions are not met, than
reinforcement details with diagonal reinforcement are applied in the form of elements
resembling columns in order to provide protection from shear failure and to provide
for the whole beam to be plastic region for dissipation of energy.

LITERATURE

[1] Eurocode 8 : Design of structures for earthquake resistance

[2] Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures
[3] PIOVSP, Sl. List br. 31/81, 1981
[4] S. Janković: Skripta iz predmeta “Aseizmičko projektovanje”, GF Univerziteta Crne Gore, Podgorica
[5] Pravilnik za beton i armirani beton, PBAB ’87, knjiga 1 i 2
[6] Mr. Matthew James Fox, Dr. Timothy John Sullivan & Dr. Katrin Beyer: Capacity Design of Coupled
RC Walls, Journal of Earthquake Engineering · March 2014
[7] T. Paulay, M. Priestlay: Seismic Design Of Reinforced Concrete And Masonry Buildings, 1992
[8] V. Alendar: Projektovanje seizmički otpornih konstrukcija kroz primere, GF u Beogradu, 2004
[9] Manual for Etabs 2013
[10] Manual for Tower

462