The 3rd International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Disaster Mitigation 2016 (ICEEDM-III 2016)

Cyclic Tests and Strength Analysis for Reinforced Concrete Coupling

Beams with Span-to-Depth Ratio Equals 1.0
Erwin Lima*, Shyh-Jiann Hwangb, Ting-Wei Wangc
a
Institut Teknologi Bandung, Jln. Ganesha 10, Bandung, Indonesia
b
National Taiwan University, No. 1, Sec. 4, Roosevelt Road, Taipei City, Taiwan
c
CECI Engineering Counsultant, No. 323 Yangguang St., Neihu District, Taipei City, Taiwan

Abstract
The use of coupling beam in high rise building is inevitable, especially for locations where openings are needed. As the
whole structural system, the presence of coupling beams would allow better energy dissipation along with the formation
of plastic hinges at the beam ends and bottom of shear walls. This research tested four coupling beams with span-to-
depth ratio equal one, each with different layout of reinforcement. Test results showed that beams detailed with diagonal
reinforcement possessed superior deformation capacity and failed in flexural shear failure, while beams without diagonal
bars failed in brittle shear. This paper also showed that the maximum strength of a diagonally reinforced coupling beam
can be best estimated using its flexural strength. Furthermore, the lower bound theory of plasticity can be used to
estimate the shear strength of deep coupling beams with conservative result.

Keywords: concrete contribution, cyclic test, deep coupling beam, seismic behavior, shear capacity.

1. INTRODUCTION

The ACI 318-11 [1] design provision for deep coupling beam (  n h  2.0 ) follows the recommendation by Paulay
and Binney [2] to use two groups of diagonal bars intersecting at the mid-span of the beam. Each group of these
diagonal bars must consist of at least four bars and be properly confined to restrain buckling at the large deformation.
The shear strength of a diagonally reinforced coupling beam Vn_ACI can be estimated using Eq. (1):
Vn _ ACI  2 Avd f y sin  (1)
where Avd is total area of one group of diagonal bars, fy is the yielding strength of diagonal bar, and  is the inclination
angle of diagonal bars with respect to beam longitudinal axis.
In the ACI 318-11 shear design equation (Eq. 1), the shear is resisted entirely by the diagonal bars and contribution of
concrete is totally ignored. Designing a coupling beam solely based on Eq. 1 might cause over design and create a heavy
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +62-812-5353-1860
E-mail address: erwin_petrus@yahoo.com
amount detailing of diagonal bars [3]. The presence of these diagonal bars may create constructability problem because
these bars need to be anchored into the wall segment. The diagonal bars extension within the wall segment would likely
bump into the reinforcement within the wall itself.
Tassios et al. [4], and Galano and Vignoli [5] conducted experimental work to find the efficient layout for inclined
reinforcement bars. They suggested an alternative layout, i.e. rhombic layout, to detail coupling beams to achieve equal
or better seismic behavior compared to the diagonal layout adopted in ACI 318-11. However, shear resistance depended
mainly on the contribution from inclined reinforcement bars and no sound conclusion on the contribution of concrete to
the shear strength was mentioned.
In 2005, Canbolat et al. [6] made the use of fiber reinforced concrete as a replacement for ordinary reinforced concrete.
This replacement resulted in a reduction of the amount of diagonal bars while maintaining the shear and deformation
capacity. However, in the practice, the use of fiber reinforced concrete has not been regulated by the ACI 318 building
code. Nevertheless, the authors believe that concrete should contribute to the total shear resistance, irrespective of the
presence of fiber steel in concrete mixture.
In this study, the authors tested four deep coupling beam specimens with shear span-to-depth ratio equals 1.0. One
specimen was assigned as a standard specimen detailed in traditional way, where the main longitudinal reinforcement
bars were lumped at the top and bottom of the sections. Some modifications to improve the shear and flexural behavior of
the traditional reinforcement layout are used as the test parameters in the other three specimens. In the end, using the
strut-and-tie model, the role of concrete contribution to the shear strength of coupling beam can be identified
quantitatively.

2. TEST PROGRAM

2.1. Test Specimens

In total, four specimens were built and tested in year 2011 [7]. All of these specimens were designed using concrete
compressive strength of 28MPa and Grade 60 steel. All of these specimens were casted horizontally together with the
concrete reaction block as a monolith structure. The size of the specimens is 250  500  500 mm
(width  depth  length). The clear cover for each of the test specimens was 40 mm for top and bottom; 20 mm for the left
and right of the sections. The reinforcement bars were extended to the far end of the concrete block and anchored with T-
head to ensure that enough development length was provided for all of them. Meanwhile, the stirrups were detailed such
that it conforms to the seismic requirement based on ACI 318-11. The details of each specimen are presented in Fig. 1.
Specimen CB10-1 was the standard specimen in which the beam was detailed traditionally by putting the main
longitudinal reinforcement at top and bottom of the section. As many as 2 No. 8 (D25) and one No. 9 (D32) bars are used
as both tension and compression reinforcement, with four No. 4 (D13) bars as skin reinforcement. In many researches [2],
[4], [6], this type of detailing was proven to be inadequate.
In the specimens CB10-2, improvement on the detailing was made following the recommendation of ACI 318-11. The
main reinforcement in this specimen were arranged diagonally, with each group of diagonal bar consisted of four No. 8
(D25) bars. In order to hold the stirrups and ties, as many as ten No. 3 (D10) bars were distributed along the beam inner
perimeter. This detailing provided similar nominal flexural strength with that of CB10-1. This detailing was expected to
improve the shear behavior of the coupling beam.
In next two specimens, CB10-3 and CB10-4, improvement on the standard beam was made by improving its flexural
behavior by distributing the main reinforcement bars vertically as suggested by Wong et al. [8]. In these two specimens,
six No. 8 bars distributed into two layers at top and bottom of the sections and four No. 6 (D19) bars were used as skin
reinforcement. One of the main advantages of this layout is to ease the severe bond stress demand experienced by main
longitudinal bars concentrated at both top and bottom of the beam section. The amount of transverse reinforcement
provided for specimen CB10-3 was similar to specimen CB10-1 and CB10-2. Meanwhile, in specimen CB10-4,
improvement on the bond behavior was used by using spiral reinforcement cages. The pitch for the spiral reinforcement
was fixed at 50 mm.
 stirrups stirrups
250 mm #4@100 mm
250 mm
#4@100 mm
2-#8 + 1-#9 4-#8
3-#3

500 mm

500 mm
2-#4 2-#3
26o
2-#4 2-#3

3-#3
2-#8 + 1-#9 4-#8

a) b)

stirrups stirrups
250 mm 250 mm #4@100 mm
#4@100 mm
3-#8 3-#8
3-#8 3-#8
500 mm

500 mm
2-#6 2-#6
2-#6 2-#6
3-#8 3-#8
3-#8 3-#8

spiral
#3-p50 mm

c) d)

Fig. 1. (a) CB10-1; (b) CB10-2; (c) CB10-3, (d) CB10-4

2.2. Test Configuration

In the laboratory, the coupling beam specimens were oriented vertically and tested using a stiff L-shape steel frame
and four actuators as illustrated in Fig. 2a. The lateral load was provided by two horizontal actuators fixed on the strong
wall, which each actuator capable of providing maximum force of 1000 kN. One of these two actuators is displacement
controlled using the loading protocol recommended by ACI 374-05[9] (Fig. 2b). Meanwhile, the other actuator is force-
controlled so that they produce similar forces. The displacement input for the loading protocol is determined from the
readings of actuator itself. The real lateral displacement of the specimen was measured by LVDTs. In the vertical
direction, two actuators were also used. One of them was force-controlled, to ensure no axial load was exerted on the
specimens. Meanwhile, the other one was set as a displacement-controlled actuator, to ensure that double curvature
bending with no rotation at the top concrete block was produced.

10
L-shape Steel Loading Frame 8
6
4
Steel 3
Drift Ratio (%)

block 2
1 1.5
Vertical Actuator

Vertical Actuator

Reaction block Horizontal Actuator 0.25 0.5

- - cycle
 0.375 0.75
h
Reaction block

Concrete
block

(a) (b)

Fig. 2. (a) Loading Configuration; (b) Loading Protocol

The test instrumentations include two LVDTs at top and bottom of the reaction block to measure the real lateral
displacement of each specimen, two dial gauges mounted diagonally on the beam to measure the shear distortion, and
additional two tilt meters mounted on the concrete foundation to check if any rotation occurred on the concrete
foundation. Also, strain gages were used to measure the strain of steel bars (longitudinal, diagonal, and stirrups).
3. TEST RESULTS

3.1. Material Properties

The concrete compressive strength of each specimen was obtained by averaging the compressive strength of three
cylinder specimens tested on the same day as the specimen test. The concrete strengths for specimens CB10-1 to CB10-4
are 36.1MPa, 34.4MPa, 36.5MPa, and 35.3MPa. The yielding strength of reinforcement bars were carried out using the
tensile strength test. During the test, complete stress-strain curve for each steel bar was obtained. For each size of rebar,
three samples were tested and the summary of the average yielding strengths are as follows: yield strengths of #4 bar, #6
bar, #8 bar, and #9 bar are 468 MPa, 470 MPa, 486 MPa, and 439 MPa, respectively.

3.2. Load Deflection Curves and Crack Propagation

The load-deflection curve for each specimen is presented on Fig. 3 with indication of several important points. Also,
Fig. 4 shows the crack development photos for each specimen. Specimen CB10-1 performed elastically until it reached
the maximum force of 873.6kN at DR equals 1.66%. Within the linear range, the maximum measured diagonal crack
width was around 0.8 mm. Once the beam reached its capacity, the crack widened up significantly to 4 mm. At the same
time, strain gage reading also showed yielding of stirrups. From the crack photos in Fig. 4, a lot of cracks had developed
at this loading stage. The capacity then dropped dramatically during the second cycle of DR 1.66%. At the next drift ratio
(DR=3.64%), a great amount of concrete cover spalled off. The test was carried on until drift ratio of 6% where the
remaining strength was less than 20% of the maximum attained capacity. No yielding of longitudinal reinforcement bars
were measured for this specimen. The failure mode for this specimen was defined as shear failure.

Drift Ratio (%)

-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
1500
1200 (5.76%;
1443.8kN)
900 (1.66%;873.6kN)

600
300 6%

0
-300
Lateral Force (kN)

-600
-900 stirrups yields stirrups yields
-1200 peak force diagonal bar yields
a) CB10-1 b) CB10-2 peak force
1500
1200
(1.71%; 918.0kN) (1.96%; 884.0kN)
900
600 8.0%
300 8.0%

0
-300
-600
-900 stirrups yields stirrups yields
peak force peak force
-1200 c) CB10-3 d) CB10-4

-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

Lateral Displacement (mm)

Fig. 3. Load-deformation curves of (a) CB10-1; (b) CB10-2; (c) CB10-3; (d) CB104
 The overall hysteretic behavior of CB10-2 shows an excellent energy dissipation capacity with a well-rounded shape
at the second and fourth quadrant. During the early drift ratio (0%-2%), the maximum measured width of diagonal crack
was around 0.15mm. During the end of elastic range period, the strain gages attached on the diagonal bars indicated first
yielding. At the drift ratio equals 2.82%, strain gages reading showed yielding of stirrups. The crack width corresponding
to that drift ratio was 0.35 mm. However, at this point, no particular major diagonal crack was observed yet. The
specimen reached its maximum strength of 1443.8kN at the first cycle of drift ratio equals 5.76%. The failure mode of
specimen CB10-2 was flexure-shear failure. Although the concrete cover still remained mostly intact, some crushing of
concrete at the corner started to occur. The specimen lost its capacity drastically during the second and third cycle.
Finally, the test was terminated after the completion of the third cycle. The measurement of the real lateral displacement
from LVDTs indicated that the drift ratio at this point reached 8% and crushing of concrete at the corner became evident.

1.7% (max) 6.0% 5.8% (max) 7.2% 3.48% (max) 5.84% 3.24% (max) 5.56%

a) CB10-1 b) CB10-2 c) CB10-3 d) CB10-4

Fig. 4. Crack Patterns at Different Drift Ratios

The seismic behavior of specimens CB10-3 and CB10-4 were almost identical. The specimens behaved elastically up
to 2% drift ratio and degraded slowly afterwards. Specimen CB10-3 attained its shear capacity (918.0 kN) at DR equals
1.71%, while CB10-4 reached its peak lateral force of 884.0 kN at DR equals 1.96%. The crack observations at this stage
indicated a clear bottle-shape strut was formed. The corresponding maximum crack width was around 2.5 mm. As the
loading progressed, the strength dropped gradually and the crack widths got wider. Finally, the test was terminated at DR
reaching 8% when the residual strength was less than 40% of the maximum shear capacity. At this termination point,
severe spalling of concrete cover occurred for both specimens.
The brief summary of the test result is presented in Table 1. It includes the maximum lateral force achieved by each
specimen and its corresponding drift ratio (Vmax and  max ), normalized shear stress, and the observed failure mode. It can
be seen that the maximum shear stress achieved by all of these specimens have exceeded the ACI 318-11 requirement of
0.83 f c .

Table 1. Summary of Test Results

Vmax , max, Shear stress
Spec. Failure Mode
kN % f c MPa
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
CB10-1 873.6 1.66 1.34 Shear
CB10-2 1443.8 5.76 2.64 Flexural-Shear
CB10-3 918.0 1.71 1.59 Shear
CB10-4 884.0 1.96 1.56 Shear

4. DISCUSSION

Specimen CB10-1 failed in a brittle shear failure before reaching yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement.
Meanwhile, the diagonally reinforced beam gave the best performance in both strength and deformation capacity. This
specimen was able to develop its flexural capacity prior to shear failure. Despite the enhancement on the flexural
behavior and bond condition, specimens CB10-3 and CB10-4 were not able to develop their flexural capacity.
In Fig. 3, it clearly indicates that the shear strength degradation for traditionally reinforced deep coupling beam
(CB10-1) was the most severe among the four specimens. On the other hand, it was evident that improvement on the
shear strength through the presence of diagonal bars resulted in better seismic performance compared to improvement on
the flexural and bond behavior. Although the vertically distributed main reinforcements and enhancement on bond
condition showed better post strength behavior, but generally their seismic behavior did not improve significantly.
One of the most notable differences between the hysteretic loop of specimen CB10-2 and other specimens’ was the
absence of pinching. This pinching behavior was explained well by Hsu and Mo [10] and is briefly discussed below and
illustrated in Fig 5. Figures 5a and 5b plot the load-deflection curve of the first cycle at a DR of 5% for specimens CB10-
1 and CB10-2, respectively.
1500 1500
1200 5% A
1200
900 900

600 600
5%

Force (kN)
300
Force (kN)

300 A
0
B
0
B
C -300
-300
-600 C
-600
-900
-900
-1200
-1200 -1500
-1500 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9
Drift Ratio (%)
-9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9
Drift Ratio (%)
c c c c
c
t c t t t
t t
= + =
0
0 = + =
t 0 t t t
c t t 0 c c c
c c

a) b)

Fig. 5. (a) Presence of Pinching of CB10-1; (b) Absence of Pinching of CB10-2

As more displacement was imposed on specimen CB10-1, the cracks continued to grow and open up. During reversed
loading, the cracks that had opened closed up, but were not necessarily perfectly in contact and left gaps. Due to these
gaps, little resistance was expected from concrete under the reloading (from point B to C). Examination of a small shear
element in its principal direction also indicated a small resistance contribution from the orthogonally placed steel bars.
Due to the principal compression stress, the orthogonally placed steel bars were subjected to compression; meanwhile, in
the perpendicular principal direction, the steel bars were subjected to tensile stress and therefore cancelled one another
(Fig. 5a). Since neither the steel bars nor concrete provided shear resistance, severe pinching was observed near the
origin. When a coupling beam with diagonal bars (CB10-2) was reloaded (point B to C), although little resistance was
contributed by the concrete due to the gap, the diagonally placed steel bars did provide resistance as illustrated in the
shear element of Fig. 5b. In the principle directions, the resistance from these steel bars did not cancel one another,
resulting in the absence of pinching.

5. STRENGTH ANALYSIS

5.1 Evaluation of The ACI 318-11 Provision

The shear strength of CB10-2 calculated using Eq. (1) is presented in column (3) of Table 2. It shows that there is a
large discrepancy between the shear strength predicted using Eq. (1) and the maximum attained lateral force Vmax. In
other words, if Eq. (1) is used as a design tool to proportion the required amount of diagonal reinforcement, overstrength
factors of 1.67 (1443.8/862.7) can be expected. The main reason for this overstrength is due to the fact that Eq. (1)
neglects the concrete and leaves out the examination of any flexural strength that may have developed at the low
deformation level. Since the roles of diagonal bars as flexural and shear reinforcement are coupled, this overly provided
shear strength would further increase the flexural strength which might cause the yielding mechanisms of the coupling
beam to occur at a much higher force level. This overstrength would later contribute as a larger axial load to the wall and
ultimately, increase the wall flexural capacity and its corresponding shear demand. This phenomenon needs a further
investigation.
On the other hand, the maximum lateral load (Vmax) attained by the CB10-2 (diagonally reinforced specimen) can be
more reasonably estimated using flexural strength [3]. Column (4) of Table 2 shows the shear corresponding to the
nominal flexural strength of a beam (Vmn), which is given by:

2 Mn
Vmn  (2)
n

where Mn denotes the flexural moment strength defined when the extreme compression fiber of concrete reaches 0.003
and n is the beam clear span. The calculated Vmn for CB10-2 is 1411.6 kN, which is close to the maximum test value
Vmax. However, the calculated flexural strength is only good to estimate specimens failing in flexure. The calculated Vmn
for specimens failing in shear (CB10-1, CB10-3, and CB10-4) was too high and not appropriate. The strength of
specimens failing in shear can be better estimated using a strut-and-tie model.

Table 2. Strength Analysis

Vmax , Vn_ACI, Vmn, VACI_STM, Vmax
min Vmn ;VACI _ STM 
Spec. kN kN kN kN

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

CB10-1 873.6 - 1614.4 569.7 1.53
CB10-2 1443.8 862.7 1411.6 1409.2 1.02
CB10-3 918.0 - 2432.0 645.5 1.42
CB10-4 884.0 - 2422.8 627.1 1.41

5.2 Shear Strength Evaluation using ACI 318 Strut-and-Tie Model (STM)

Strut-and-tie model (STM) is one of several available analytical tools to estimate the shear strength of a deep RC
element. The ACI 318-11 STM was claimed to be an appropriate tool for shear strength prediction if the macro modeling
suited the structural behavior of the examined element [11].
The macromodel of a coupling beams can be illustrated using Fig. 6. If diagonal bars exists, the total shear strength
VACI _ STM is contributed by both concrete and diagonal bars; in case of coupling beams without diagonal bars, the shear
strength estimation simply ignores the contribution from diagonal bars. Mathematically, the total shear strength can be
expressed using Eq. (3):

VACI _ STM  0.85 s fcAs sin   2 Avd f y sin  (3)

where  s is a factor used to account for the effect of concrete cracking calculated per ACI 318-11 [1], f c is the
compressive strength of concrete, As is the strut area calculated per Eq. (4),  is the inclination angle of concrete strut
calculated using Eq. (5) and shown in Fig. 6:
As  kd  b (4)

 h  2 kd 3 
  tan 1   (5)
 n 

where h is the beam height, b is beam width, kd is the depth of elastic compression zone and k is derived from singly
reinforced section [11]. The calculated shear strength is shown in Column (5) of Table 2.
Finally, the estimated strengths for each specimen can be taken as the smaller between the calculated flexural strength
(Eq. 2) and the calculated shear strength (Eq. 3) as presented in Column (6) of Table 2. The estimated strengths show that
all specimens would have failed in shear theoritically. This prediction of failure mode is appropriate for CB10-1, CB10-3,
and CB10-4. The calculated strength ratios are 1.52, 1.42, and 1.41 for CB10-1, CB10-3, and CB10-4, respectively. This
conservatism causes CB10-2 which failed in flexure-shear according to the experimental study, was predicted to have
failed in shear.

hd

+ 

a)

n
b
Avd f y sin 
kd

hd


+ Avd f y sin 
kd/3

b)

Fig. 6. (a) Total Shear Strength; (b) Macro Model

CONCLUSION

1. Diagonally reinforced deep coupling beam, despite its constructability problem, possessed superior structural
behavior indicating by a more ductile failure mode and robust hysteretic loop.

2. The ACI 318 shear strength design equation for a diagonally reinforced coupling beam underestimate the
maximum attained strength. Consequently, it might cause overdesign of reinforcement which leads to
constructability issue.

3. The maximum attained strength of a diagonally reinforced coupling beam failing in flexure-shear can be more
reasonably estimate using flexural moment strength.

4. The shear capacity of deep coupling beam is contributed not solely from the diagonal reinforcement, but also
from the concrete. The contribution of these two can be estimated quantitatively using strut-and-tie model

5. The strut-and-tie model proposed in ACI 318 can conservatively estimate the shear strength of deep reinforced
concrete coupling beam.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to express their gratitude National Science Council of Taiwan for the research grant and
National Center Research on Earthquake Engineering for the laboratory facility and financial support.
REFERENCES

[1] ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary,
American Concrete Institute, 503 pp., 2011.
[2] Paulay, T., and Binney, J. R., Diagonally Reinforced Coupling Beams of Shear Walls, ACI Special Publication
(SP-42), pp. 579-598, 1974.
[3] Lim, E., Hwang, S.J., Wang, T.W., An Investigation on the Seismic Behavior of Deep Reinforced Concrete
Coupling Beams, ACI Structural Journal, V. 113, No. 2, pp. 217-226, 2016.
[4] Tassios, T. P., Moretti, M., and Bezas, A., On the Behavior and Ductility of Reinforced Concrete Coupling Beams
of Shear Walls, ACI Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 6, pp. 1-10, 1996.
[5] Galano, L., and Vignoli, A., Seismic Behavior of Short Coupling Beams with Different Reinforcement Layouts,
ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 6, pp. 876-885, 2000.
[6] Canbolat, B. A., Parra-Montesinos, G. J., and Wight, J. K., Experimental Study on Seismic Behavior of High-
Performance Fiber-Reinforced Cement Composite Coupling Beams, ACI Structural Journal, V. 102, No. 1, pp.
159-166, 2005.
[7] Wang, T. W., Seismic Detailings of Reinforced Concrete Coupling Beams for Shear Walls, Master Thesis, Dept. of
Civil Engineering, National Taiwan University, 234 pp., 2011. (in Chinese)
[8] Wong, P. K. C., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R., Seismic Resistance of Frames with Vertically Distributed
Longitudinal Reinforcement in Beams, ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 4, pp.488-498, 1990.
[9] ACI Committee 374, Acceptance Criteria for Moment Frames Based on Structural Testing (ACI 374.1-05) and
Commentary, American Concrete Institute, 9 pp., 2005.
[10] Hsu, T. T. C., and Mo, Y. L., Unified Theory of Concrete Structures, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 500 pp., 2010.
[11] Lim, E, and Hwang, S. J., Modeling of strut-and-tie parameters of deep beams for shear strength prediction,
Engineering Structures, V. 108, pp. 104-112, 2016.