-
Hindawi Publishing CorporationISRN Civil EngineeringVolume 2013, Article ID 161502, 28 pageshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/161502
Research ArticleA Conceptual Design Approach of Coupled Shear Walls
Dipendu Bhunia,1 Vipul Prakash,2 and Ashok D. Pandey3
1 Civil Engineering Group, BITS, Pilani 333031, India2Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, India3 Department of Earthquake Engineering, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, India
Correspondence should be addressed to Vipul Prakash; [email protected]
Received 27 May 2013; Accepted 6 July 2013
Academic Editors: N. D. Lagaros and I. Smith
Copyright Β© 2013 Dipendu Bhunia et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons AttributionLicense, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properlycited.
Earthquake causes considerable damage to a large number of RCC high-rise buildings and tremendous loss of life. Therefore,designers and structural engineers should ensure to offer adequate earthquake resistant provisions with regard to planning, design,and detailing in high-rise buildings to withstand the effect of an earthquake and minimize disaster. As an earthquake resistantsystem, the use of coupled shear walls is one of the potential options in comparison with moment resistant frame (MRF) and shearwall frame combination systems in RCC high-rise buildings. Furthermore, it is reasonably well established that it is uneconomicalto design a structure considering its linear behavior during earthquake. Hence, an alternative design philosophy needs to be evolvedin the Indian context to consider the postyield behavior wherein the damage state is evaluated through deformation considerations.In the present context, therefore, performance-based seismic design (PBSD) has been considered to offer significantly improvedsolutions as compared to the conventional design based on linear response spectrum analysis.
1. Introduction
The growth of population density and shortage of land inurban areas are two major problems for all developing coun-tries including India. In order tomitigate these two problems,the designers resort to high-rise buildings, which are rapidlyincreasing in number, with various architectural configura-tions and ingenious use of structural materials. However,earthquakes are the most critical loading condition for allland based structures located in the seismically active regions.The Indian subcontinent is divided into different seismiczones as indicated by IS 1893 (Part 1) [1], facilitating thedesigner to provide adequate protection against earthquake.A recent earthquake in India on January 26th, 2001 causedconsiderable damage to a large number of RCC high-risebuildings (number of storey varies from 4 to 15) and tremen-dous loss of life. The reasons were (a) most of the buildingshad soft andweak ground storey that provided open space forparking, (b) poor quality of concrete in columns, and (c) poordetailing of the structural design (http://www.nicee.org/eqe-iitk/uploads/EQR Bhuj.pdf). Therefore, this particular inci-dent has shown that designers and structural engineers
should ensure to offer adequate earthquake resistant provi-sions with regard to planning, design, and detailing in high-rise buildings to withstand the effect of an earthquake tominimize disaster.
As an earthquake resistant system, the use of coupledshear walls is one of the potential options in comparisonwith moment resistant frame (MRF) and shear wall framecombination systems in RCC high-rise buildings. MRF sys-tem and shear wall frame combination system are controlledby both shear behavior and flexural behavior; whereas, thebehavior of coupled shearwalls system is governed by flexuralbehavior. However, the behavior of the conventional beamboth in MRF and shear wall frame combination systemsis governed by flexural capacity, and the behavior of thecoupling beam in coupled shear walls is governed by shearcapacity. During earthquake, infilled brick masonry cracksin a brittle manner although earthquake energy dissipatesthrough both inelastic yielding in beams and columns forMRF and shear wall frame combination systems; whereas,in coupled shear walls, earthquake energy dissipates throughinelastic yielding in the coupling beams and at the base ofthe shear walls. Hence, amount of dissipation of earthquake
-
2 ISRN Civil Engineering
energy and ductility obtained from both MRF and shearwall frame combination systems are less than those ofcoupled shear walls system in the high-rise buildings [2β11]. However, the Indian codes of practice governing theearthquake resistant design, such as IS 1893 (Part 1) [1] andIS 4326 [12], do not provide specific guidelines with regardto earthquake resistant design of coupled shear walls. On theother hand, IS 13920 [13] gives credence to the coupled shearwalls as an earthquake resistant option but it has incorporatedvery limited design guidelines of coupling beams that areinadequate for practical applications. It requires furtherinvestigations and elaborations before practical use.
Further, it is reasonably well established that it is uneco-nomical to design a structure considering its linear behaviorduring earthquake as is recognized by the Bureau of IndianStandards [1, 12, 13] currently in use. Hence, an alternativedesign philosophy needs to be evolved in the Indian contextto consider the postyield behavior, wherein the damage stateis evaluated through deformation considerations.
In the present context, therefore, performance-basedseismic design (PBSD) can be considered to offer significantlyimproved solutions as compared to the conventional designbased on linear response spectrum analysis. Performance-based seismic design (PBSD) implies design, evaluation,and construction of engineered facilities whose performanceunder common and extreme loads responds to the diverseneeds and objectives of owners, tenants, and societies atlarge. The objective of PBSD is to produce structures withpredictable seismic performance. In PBSD, multiple levelsof earthquake and corresponding expected performancecriteria are specified [16]. This aspect emphasizes nonlinearanalyses for seismic design verification of any structure. Thisprocedure gives some guidelines for estimating the possiblelocal and global damages of structures. A retrofitted structurecan be evaluated with the help of PBSD. Similarly, economicsin the form of life-cycle cost along with construction cost ofthe structure is inherently included in PBSD [21].
On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, an effort has beenmade in this paper to develop a comprehensive procedure forthe design of coupled shear walls.
2. Investigation of Coupling Beam
Coupled shear walls consist of two shear walls connectedintermittently by beams along the height. The behavior ofcoupled shear walls is mainly governed by the couplingbeams. The coupling beams are designed for ductile inelasticbehavior in order to dissipate energy. The base of theshear walls may be designed for elastic or ductile inelasticbehaviors. The amount of energy dissipation depends on theyield moment capacity and plastic rotation capacity of thecoupling beams. If the yield moment capacity is too high,then the coupling beams will undergo only limited rotationsand dissipate little energy. On the other hand, if the yieldmoment capacity is too low, then the coupling beams mayundergo rotations much larger than their plastic rotationcapacities.Therefore, the coupling beams should be providedwith an optimum level of yield moment capacities. Thesemoment capacities depend on the plastic rotation capacity
available in beams. The geometry, rotations, and momentcapacities of coupling beams have been reviewed based onprevious experimental and analytical studies in this paper. Ananalytical model of coupling beam has also been developedto calculate the rotations of coupling beam with diagonalreinforcement and truss reinforcement.
2.1. Geometry of Coupling Beam. The behavior of the rein-forced concrete coupling beam may be dominated by (1)shear or by (2) flexure as per ATC40 [16], FEMA273 [14], andFEMA 356 [15]. Shear is dominant in coupling beams whenπ β€ 2 [5] or πΏπ/ππ β€ 4.
There are various types of reinforcements in RCC cou-pling beams described as follows.
2.1.1. Conventional Reinforcement. Conventional reinforce-ment consists of longitudinal flexural reinforcement andtransverse reinforcement for shear. Longitudinal reinforce-ment consists of top and bottom steel parallel to the longitu-dinal axis of the beam. Transverse reinforcement consists ofclosed stirrups or ties. If the strength of these ties ππ 1 β₯ 3/4required shear strength of the beam and the spacing these tiesβ€ π/3over the entire length of the beam, then stable hysteresisoccurs, and such transverse reinforcement is said to beconforming to the type nowmandatory for new construction.If the transverse reinforcement is deficient either in strengthor spacing then it leads to pinched hysteresis, and suchreinforcement is said to be nonconforming [14β16].
According to IS 13920 [13], the spacing of transversereinforcement over a length of 2π at either end of a beam shallnot exceed (a)π/4 and (b) 8 times the diameter of the smallestlongitudinal bar; however, it need not be less than 100mm.Elsewhere, the beam shall have transverse reinforcement ata spacing not exceeding π/2. Whereas, the shear force to beresisted by the transverse reinforcement shall be the maxi-mum of (1) calculated factored shear force as per analysis and(2) shear force due to formation of plastic hinges at both endsof the beam plus the factored gravity load on the span.
2.1.2. Diagonal Reinforcement. Diagonal reinforcement con-sists of minimum four bars per diagonal. It gives a betterplastic rotation capacity compared to conventional couplingbeam during an earthquake when πΏπ/ππ < 1.5 as per Penelisand Kappos [5]. The provisions for diagonal reinforcementaccording to different codes have already been shown inTable 1. If the diagonal reinforcement is subjected to compres-sive loading itmay buckle, in which case it cannot be relied onto continue resisting compressive loading. Under the actionof reversing loads, reinforcement that buckles in compressionwith loading in one direction may be stressed in tensionwith loading in the opposite direction. This action maylead to low-cycle fatigue failure, so that the reinforcementcannot continue to resist tensile forces. For this reason,it is necessary to ensure that this reinforcement does notbuckle. To prevent buckling due to compressive loading, thespacing between two adjacent diagonal bars should be greaterthan (πΏπ/12) [based on buckling condition of a column].It has also been noticed from Englekirk [3] that diagonal
-
ISRN Civil Engineering 3
Table 1: Rotation capacities for coupling beams controlled by flexure as per FEMA 273 [14] and FEMA 356 [15].
Type of coupling beam Conditions Plastic Rotation Capacity (Radians)Shear/π‘π€πΏπ€βππ IO LS CP
Conventional longitudinal reinforcement withconforming transverse reinforcement
β€3 0.006 0.015 0.025β₯6 0.005 0.010 0.015
Conventional longitudinal reinforcement withnon-conforming transverse reinforcement
β€3 0.006 0.012 0.020β₯6 0.005 0.008 0.010
Diagonal Reinforcement NA 0.006 0.018 0.030
Flexure dominant steel coupling beamππ/2π‘π β€ 52/βπΉπ¦ and β/π‘π€ β€ 418/βπΉπ¦ 1ππ¦ 6ππ¦ 8ππ¦ππ/2π‘π β₯ 65/βπΉπ¦ and β/π‘π€ β₯ 640/βπΉπ¦ 0.25ππ¦ 2ππ¦ 3ππ¦
reinforcement should not be attempted in walls that are lessthan 16 in. (406.4mm) thick. Unless strength is an overridingconsideration, diagonally reinforced coupling beams shouldnot be used.
2.1.3. Truss Reinforcement. Truss reinforcement represents asignificant and promising departure from traditional cou-pling beam reinforcements.The primary load transfer mech-anism of the system is represented by the truss taken to itsyield capacity. A secondary load path is created by the globalstrut and tie. The load transfer limit state will coincide withthe yielding of all of the tension diagonals, provided the so-produced compression loads do not exceed the capacity ofthe concrete compression strut. The yield strength of theprimary truss is governed by the tensile strength of its diag-onal; whereas, the primary truss transfer mechanism mustinclude the shear travelling along the compression diagonal.According to Penelis and Kappos [5] and Galano and Vignoli[17], when 1.5 β€ πΏπ/ππ β€ 4, truss reinforcement offersbest seismic performance in comparison with conventionaland diagonal reinforcements. This type of reinforcement hasnot been used till now. Detailing and placement problemsmust be carefully studied if their use is contemplated. Clearly,additional experimentation is required because the systemappears to have merit, especially in thin walls [3].
When the postyield rotational level is much highercompared to rotational level for truss reinforcement, thensteel beam can be provided as a coupling beam.There are twotypes of steel beams which are provided as coupling beamsbased on the following factors as per Englekirk [3], AISC [26],AISC [27], and AISC [28].
(a) Shear Dominant. In this beam, the shear capacity ππ π isattained, and the corresponding bending moment is equalto ππ π Γ π/2 which must be less than 0.8ππ. The postyielddeformation is accommodated by shear and it is presumedπ β€ 1.6ππ/ππ π; where e = clear span of the coupling beam +2 Γ concrete cover of shear wall, ππ = moment capacity ofcoupling beam, and ππ π = shear capacity of coupling beam.
(b) Flexure Dominant. In this beam, the bending momentcapacityππ is attained, and the corresponding shear force isequal to 2ππ/πwhich must be less than 0.8ππ π. The postyielddeformation is accommodated by flexure and it is presumedπ β₯ 2.6ππ/ππ π.
2.2. Moment Capacity of Coupling Beam. The bendingmoment capacity of coupling beam depends on the geometryand material property of coupling beam. Bending momentcapacity and shear force capacity of the coupling beam arerelated with each other. Englekirk [3], Park, and Paulay [4],Paulay [29], Harries et al. [30], AISC [26], AISC [27] andAISC [28] describe these capacities as follows.
2.2.1. Reinforced Concrete Coupling Beam. Shear capacityof coupling beam with conventional reinforcement can becalculated as
ππ π =
2ππ
πΏπ
=
2π΄ π ππ¦ (π β π)
πΏπ
.
(1)
Whereas, shear capacity of coupling beam with diagonalreinforcement can be calculated as
ππ π = ππ + ππ1
=
2ππ
πΏπ
+ 2π1 sin π
=
2π΄ π ππ¦ (π β π)
πΏπ
+
4π΄
π ππ¦ ((ππ/2) β π
)
πΏπ
,
(2)
and shear capacity of coupling beamwith truss reinforcementis as
ππ π = 2π1 + π2
= 2ππ (π β π
πΏπ1
) + 2π(π β π
πΏπ2
)
=
2π΄
π ππ¦ (π β π
)
πΏπ1
+
2 (π΄ π β π΄
π ) ππ¦ (π β π
)
πΏπ2
,
(3)
where, πΏπ1 = β(πΏπ/2)2+ (π β π
)2 and πΏπ2 =
β(πΏπ)2+ (π β π
)2. All three shear capacities must
be less than equal to [(0.35πππππ€(π β π
)/πΏππ0] or
[(0.35π
πππ(0.25πΏπ)(π β π
)/πΏππ0] or [(0.08π
πππ(π β π
)/π0]
-
4 ISRN Civil Engineering
Table 2: Rotation capacities for coupling beams controlled by shear as per FEMA 273 [14] and FEMA 356 [15].
Type of coupling beam Conditions Plastic Rotation Capacity (Radians)Shear/π‘π€πΏπ€βππ IO LS CP
Conventional longitudinal reinforcement withconforming transverse reinforcement
β€3 0.006 0.012 0.015β₯6 0.004 0.008 0.010
Conventional longitudinal reinforcement withnon-conforming transverse reinforcement
β€3 0.006 0.008 0.010β₯6 0.004 0.006 0.007
Shear dominant steel coupling beam 0.005 0.11 0.14
Table 3: Rotation capacities for coupling beams controlled by flexure as per ATC 40 [16].
Type of coupling beam Conditions Plastic Rotation Capacity (Radians)Shear/π
π€πβπ
πIO LS CP
Conventional longitudinal reinforcement withconforming transverse reinforcement
β€3 0.006 0.015 0.025β₯6 0.005 0.010 0.015
Conventional longitudinal reinforcement withnon-conforming transverse reinforcement
β€3 0.006 0.012 0.020β₯6 0.005 0.008 0.010
Diagonal reinforcement NA 0.006 0.018 0.030
which is based on the statement, that is, capacity of a concretestrut in cylindrical elements will diminish to a level of 30 to35% of π
πas cracking increases, where, π0 is member over
strength factor of 1.25.
2.2.2. Shear Dominant Steel Coupling Beam. For I-sectiontype of steel coupling beam, shear capacity (permissible shearresisted by web only) for shear dominant steel coupling beamis denoted as ππ π = 0.6πΉπ¦π‘π€(π· β 2π‘π) and moment capacityisππ = πππΉπ¦; where, πΉπ¦ is yield stress of structural steel, π‘π€is web thickness, π· is the overall depth of the section, π‘π isflange thickness, and ππ is plastic section modulus.
2.2.3. Flexure Dominant Steel Coupling Beam. The transfer-able shear force (πππ) for flexure dominant steel couplingbeam is the lesser of 2ππ/π andππ π; where,ππ is themomentcapacity which is πππΉπ¦.
2.3. Rotational Capacity of Coupling Beam. The rotationcapacity in coupling beams depends upon the type of cou-pling beam. When the rotational demand is greater thanrotational capacity of RCC coupling beam with conventionalflexural and shear reinforcement then diagonal or trussreinforcement type of coupling beam could be provideddepending on the πΏπ/ππ ratio. The steel coupling beam couldbe used when the rotational limit due to lateral loadingexceeds the rotation capacity of RCC coupling beam withtruss reinforcement. Various research works conducted byPaulay [31, 32], Hindi, and Sexsmith [33], FEMA356 [15],Xuan et al. [34] describe these capacities. ATC 40 [16], FEMA273 [14], FEMA 356 [15], Galano and Vignoli [17], Chao etal. [35] and Englekirk [3] describe the following rotationalcapacities for various types of coupling beams considering thebehavior controlled by flexure and shear during earthquake.
Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 show these different rotationalcapacities for various coupling beams.
Shear/π‘π€πΏπ€βππ or Shear/ππ€πβππ β€ 3 or β₯ 6 is basedon the aspect ratio (πΏπ/ππ) of coupling beam and ππ/2π‘π β€52/βπΉπ¦ and β/π‘π€ β€ 418/βπΉπ¦ or ππ/2π‘π β₯ 65/βπΉπ¦ and
β/π‘
π€β₯ 640/βπΉπ¦ are the conditions of the flexure dominant
steel coupling beam to prevent local buckling.Specifications in Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 can be questioned on
the basis of the following observations:
(1) As per Tables 1 and 2, the rotational capacities of beamdepends on size of wall (π‘π€, πΏπ€) which is illogical.
(2) When shear span to depth ratio π β€ 2 or aspect ratioπΏπ/ππ β€ 4, the behavior of RCC coupling beams iscontrolled by shear. For this reason, as aspect ratio(πΏπ/ππ) of diagonally reinforced beam is less than1.5, it means that the behavior of diagonally rein-forced beam is controlled by shear. Whereas, Tables1 and 3 show that diagonally reinforced couplingbeam behavior is controlled by flexure which is notacceptable.
(3) Conventional longitudinal reinforcement with non-conforming transverse reinforcement is not acceptedfor new construction.
(4) If the behavior of coupling beam is controlled byflexure [aspect ratio (πΏπ/ππ) is greater than 4], thelength of the coupling beam is quite larger. Accordingto Munshi and Ghosh [36], weakly coupled shearwalls can be obtained for larger span of the cou-pling beam and the design results of this type ofcoupled shear walls are inconsistent with regard to theductility and energy dissipation during earthquakemotion. Hence, it can be said that rotational capacity
-
ISRN Civil Engineering 5
Table 4: Rotation capacities for coupling beams controlled by shear as per ATC 40 [16].
Type of coupling beam Conditions Plastic Rotation Capacity (Radians)Shear/ππ€πβππ IO LS CP
Conventional longitudinal reinforcement withconforming transverse reinforcement
β€3 0.006 0.012 0.015β₯6 0.004 0.008 0.010
Conventional longitudinal reinforcement withnon-conforming transverse reinforcement
β€3 0.006 0.008 0.010β₯6 0.004 0.006 0.007
Table 5: Rotation capacities for coupling beams as per Galano and Vignoli [17].
Type of coupling beam Aspect ratio Rotation Capacity (Radians)πΏπ/ππ πLu
Conventional reinforcement 1.5 0.051Diagonal reinforcement 1.5 0.062Truss reinforcement 1.5 0.084
of coupling beams controlled by flexure as per ATC40 [16], FEMA 273 [14], and FEMA 356 [15] cannotbe accepted.
Similarly, specifications in Tables 5 and 6 can also be ques-tioned on the basis of following observation.
For aspect ratio πΏπ/ππ = 1.5, Galano and Vignoli [17]show different results regarding the ultimate rotation ofvarious RCC coupling beams in comparison with the resultsmade by Englekirk [3].
2.4. Analytical Program. The above study shows the incon-sistent modeling parameters and inconsistent evaluativeparameters. However, the behavior of coupled shear walls iscontrolled by the characteristics of various coupling beams.These characteristics depend on the following parameters:
(1) Beam span to depth ratio.(2) Reinforcement details.
For this reason, more study is required to investigate into thelimitations on behavior of coupling beams. Since computerprogramme ATENA2D [18] has some advantages in com-parison with other software packages like SAP V 10.0.5 [23],ATENA2D [18] was considered to carry out this study. Theadvantages as well as disadvantage of ATENA2D [18] are asfollows.
2.5. Advantages of ATENA2D Are
(i) Material, element, and reinforcement can bemodeledindividually, and
(ii) Geometric andmaterial nonlinearity can be provided.
2.6. Disadvantage of ATENA2D Is
(i) Only static loading in one direction can be applied.
2.7. Reinforcement Layouts. There were eighteen RCC cou-pling beams and three different reinforcement layouts con-sidered in the analytical program using ATENA2D [18]: (a)
longitudinal with conforming transverse ties, (b) diagonalwith conforming transverse ties around themain bars, and (c)truss with conforming transverse ties around the main bars.For each layout, the cross section of the coupling beam wasconsidered as 600mm (depth, ππ) Γ 300mm (width, ππ) andthe beam span-depth ratio (πΏπ/ππ) was considered as 1, 1.5,and 2.
2.8. Materials. The concrete (M20 grade) and steel (Fe 415grade) were considered as twomaterials tomodel the coupledshear walls. The Poissonβs ratio was considered as 0.2. Theunit-weight of concrete was considered as 23 kN/m3 andthe unit-weight of steel was considered as 78.5 kN/m3. Bothcoupling beam and shear wall elements were assigned as 4-noded quadrilateral elements; material in coupling beamwasassigned as SBeta (inelastic), whereas, material in shear wallwas assigned as plane stress elastic isotropic.
2.9. Investigative Model. Figure 1 and Table 7 describe theinvestigative models considered for ATENA2D [18] analysis.The behaviors of all eighteen coupling beams were governedby shear.The load (F) was calculated based on the shear forcein beam and other parameters according to the provisions ofFEMA 273 [14] and FEMA 356 [15].
The depth of the wall is considered as πΏπ€ = 4m, thicknessof the wall is considered as π‘π€ = 300mm, and minimumreinforcement in the shear wall is taken as 0.25% of its grossarea @450 c/c.
Here, Youngβs modulus for concrete in beam = πΈππ =2.24 Γ 10
4MPa, Youngβs modulus for steel in beam = πΈπ π =2.1 Γ 10
5MPa, Youngβs modulus for concrete in wall = πΈππ€ =2.24Γ10
4MPa, and Youngβs modulus for steel in wall = πΈπ π€ =2.1 Γ 10
5MPa.
2.10. Results and Discussions. The results using ATENA2D[18] have been tabulated in Table 8. It shows the comparisonof rotational limit at CP level among FEMA 273 [14], FEMA356 [15], and ATENA2D [18]. There are a lot of differencesamong the results of FEMA 273 [14], FEMA 356 [15], andATENA2D [18]. The comparison has also been extended
-
6 ISRN Civil Engineering
Table 6: Rotation capacities for coupling beams as per Englekirk [3].
Type of coupling beam Aspect ratio Rotation Capacity (Radians)πΏπ/ππ ππ’,max
Conventional reinforcement 1.5 0.02Diagonal reinforcement 1.5 0.04Truss reinforcement 1.5 0.06
Table 7: (a) investigative model of coupling beam in ATENA2D [18] as per IS 13920 [13], IS 456 [19], SP-16 [20], FEMA 273 [14], and FEMA356 [15]. (b) investigative model of coupling beam in ATENA2D [18] as per IS 13920 [13], IS 456 [19], SP-16 [20], FEMA 273 [14], and FEMA356 [15]. (c) investigative model of coupling beam in ATENA2D [18] as per IS 13920 [13], IS 456 [19], SP-16 [20], FEMA 273 [14], and FEMA356 [15].
(a)
Coupling beam
Type πΏπ (m) Shear/π‘π€πΏπ€βππ πΉ (kN)Reinforced steel
Longitudinal Transverse
Conventional beam with longitudinal andtransverse conforming reinforcement
0.6 β€3 585.4 8β10π 2-legged 16π@200 c/cβ₯6 1171 8β20π 2-legged 25π@200 c/c
0.9 β€3 623.5 8β10π 2-legged 16π@200 c/cβ₯6 1247 8β20π 2-legged 25π@200 c/c
1.2 β€3 661.7 8β10π 2-legged 16π@200 c/cβ₯6 1323 8β20π 2-legged 25π@200 c/c(b)
Coupling beam
Type πΏπ (m) Shear/π‘π€πΏπ€βππ πΉ (kN)Reinforced steel
Longitudinal Transverse
Beam with diagonal reinforcement
0.6 β€3 585.4 8β10π + 4β20π as one diagonal 2-legged 16π@200 c/cβ₯6 1171 8β20π + 4β30π as one diagonal 2-legged 25π@200 c/c
0.9 β€3 623.5 8β10π + 4β25π as one diagonal 2-legged 16π@200 c/cβ₯6 1247 8β20π + 4β30π as one diagonal 2-legged 25π@200 c/c
1.2 β€3 661.7 8β10π + 4β25π as one diagonal 2-legged 16π@200 c/cβ₯6 1323 8β20π + 4β35π as one diagonal 2-legged 25π@200 c/c
(c)
Beam
Type πΏπ (m) Shear/π‘π€πΏπ€βππ πΉ (kN)Reinforced steel
Longitudinal Transverse
Beam with truss reinforcement
0.6 β€3 585.4 8β10π + 4β30π as one truss 2-legged 16π@200 c/cβ₯6 1171 8β20π + 4β45π as one truss 2-legged 25π@200 c/c
0.9 β€3 623.5 8β10π + 4β30π as one truss 2-legged 16π@200 c/cβ₯6 1247 8β20π + 4β40π as one truss 2-legged 25π@200 c/c
1.2 β€3 661.7 8β10π + 4β30π as one truss 2-legged 16π@200 c/cβ₯6 1323 8β20π + 4β40π as one truss 2-legged 25π@200 c/c
for considering ATC 40βs [16] provisions. There are also bigdifferences between the results of ATC40 [16] andATENA2D[18] shown in Table 9. It may be because of the limitations ofATENA2D [18] software. However, it is unexpected in FEMA273 [14], FEMA 356 [15], and ATC 40 [16] that the rotationallimit ismore or less same,whereas, the parameters consideredfor calculation of shear strength are different. Therefore, itcan be said that the parameters given in FEMA 273 [14],FEMA 356 [15], and ATC 40 [16] are questionable which
have already been discussed in this paper. It has also beenobserved from Tables 8 and 9 that crack width in beam isquite significant although the rotational values in ATENA2D[18] are unexpectedly varyingwith FEMA273 [14], FEMA356[15], and ATC 40 [16].
Hence, the results obtained from the above study usingATENA2D [18] were found unsatisfactory. Therefore, a newmodel has been created with some assumptions in themanner shown in Figure 2 to carryout further study.
-
ISRN Civil Engineering 7
where, V is shear force in the beam
WallBeam
F
F
Lw LwLb
hs = 3mV =
F Γ LwLw + Lb
,
Figure 1: Initial sketch of the analytical model.
db2
Γ πb
db2
Γ πb
Lb
db
Figure 2: Schematic diagram of coupling beam.
2.11. Assumptions
(i) The effect of gravity loads on the coupling beams hasbeen neglected.
(ii) Deflection of the coupling beam occurs due to lateralloading.
(iii) Contra flexure occurs at the mid-span of the couplingbeam.
(iv) The confined concrete, due to the confining action isprovided by closely spaced transverse reinforcementin concrete, is assumed to govern the strength.
Total elongation in the horizontal direction (Figure 2) due tolateral loading can be written as
ΞπΏπ = ππ Γ ππ, (4)
and strain in the concrete
ππ =ΞπΏπ
πΏπ
. (5)
Hence, considering (4) and (5) the following equation can bewritten as
coupling beam rotation, ππ =ππ Γ πΏπ
ππ
. (6)
The results, considering (6) withmaximum strain in confinedconcrete (πcu) of 0.02 (Confining action is provided by closelyspaced transverse reinforcement in concrete as per ATC 40[16]), have been tabulated in Table 10.
It can be observed from Table 10 that the values obtainedas per (6) have similar trend with the values specified by ATC40 [16], FEMA 273 [14], FEMA 356 [15], Galano and Vignoli[17], and Englekirk [3].
Based on the above study, Table 11 has been preparedcontaining modified parameters governing the couplingbeam characteristics, which are also considered for thedevelopments of the design technique discussed below. Asdesign technique is based on collapse prevention (CP) levelof structure, plastic rotation capacity given in Table 11 is forCP level only.
3. Proposed Design Technique
In this paper an attempt has beenmade to develop a techniqueto design coupled shear walls considering its ideal seismicbehavior (stable hysteresis with high earthquake energy dis-sipation). For preparing this design technique, symmetricalcoupled shear walls have been considered. Design/capacitycurve of coupled shear walls is obtained at the collapsemechanism of the structure based on this technique. Thistechnique is applied to both fixed base and pinned basecoupled shear walls. To start with, this technique is useful inselecting the preliminary dimensions of symmetrical coupledshear walls and subsequently arrives at a final design stage.Further, this technique is particularly useful for designer,consultant and practicing engineer who have no access tosophisticated software packages. A case study has been doneimplementing the technique with the help of Microsoft ExcelSpreadsheet and the results have also been validated.
3.1. Proposed Formulation. In Figure 3, the coupled shearwalls are subjected to a triangular variation of loading withamplitude πΉ1 at the roof level. The value of πΉ1 is obtainedcorresponding to the CP level of structure. Subsequently, thebase shear and roof displacement can be determined. Theprocedure involving Figure 3, the assumptions, steps, andmathematical calculation with initial value ofπΉ1 as unity havebeen illustrated as in Figure 3.
-
8 ISRN Civil Engineering
Table8:Com
pare
theM
odelingParametersa
ndNum
ericalAc
ceptance
Criteria
with
FEMA273[14
]and
FEMA356[15].
Long
itudinalreinforcementand
transverse
reinforcem
ent
Shear/π‘π€πΏπ€βπ π
Rotatio
nallim
itatcollapsep
reventionlevel(CP
)inradians
Crackwidth
incoup
lingbeam
atCP
levelinmetersb
yAT
ENA2D
[18]
Mem
berc
ontro
lled
byflexu
reMem
berc
ontro
lled
byshear
ATEN
A2D
[18]
FEMA
273[14
]FE
MA
356[15]
FEMA
273[14
]FE
MA
356[15]
πΏπ=0.6m
πΏπ=0.9m
πΏπ=1.2m
πΏπ=0.6m
πΏπ=0.9m
πΏπ=1.2m
Con
ventionallon
gitudinalreinforcement
with
conformingtransverse
reinforcem
ent
β€3
0.025
0.025
0.015
0.020
0.00
0881
0.00104
0.002325
0.00
0263
0.00
0306
0.00
0559
β₯6
0.015
0.02
0.010
0.016
0.00348
0.00528
0.00886
0.00
07125
0.001726
0.003124
Diagonal
β€3
0.03
0.03
ββ
0.00235
0.011
0.0111
0.00
0494
0.00
4315
0.00372
β₯6
0.03
0.03
ββ
0.00292
0.00833
0.00
978
0.00
05724
0.002961
0.003228
Truss
β€3
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.00117
60.00
0422
0.00
093
0.00
03144
0.00
0106
60.00
0204
β₯6
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.001413
0.00297
0.0029
0.00
0344
0.00
07514
0.00
066
-
ISRN Civil Engineering 9
Table9:Com
pare
theM
odelingParametersa
ndNum
ericalAc
ceptance
Criteria
with
ATC40
[16].
Long
itudinalreinforcementand
transverse
reinforcem
ent
Shear/ππ€πβπ π
Rotatio
nallim
itatcollapsep
reventionlevel(CP
)inradians
Crackwidth
incoup
lingbeam
atCP
levelinmetersb
yAT
ENA2D
[18]
Mem
ber
controlled
byflexu
re
Mem
ber
controlled
byshear
ATEN
A2D
[18]
ATC40
[16]
ATC40
[16]
πΏπ=0.6m
πΏπ=0.9m
πΏπ=1.2m
πΏπ=0.6m
πΏπ=0.9m
πΏπ=1.2m
Con
ventionallon
gitudinalreinforcement
with
conformingtransverse
reinforcem
ent
β€3
0.025
0.018
0.00
01023
0.00
0784
0.00198
0.00
00001308
0.00
050.001613
β₯6
0.015
0.012
0.00
02423
0.001944
0.00344
0.00163
0.00136
0.00297
Diagonal
β€3
0.03
β0.00
012
0.00
0416
0.00
055
0.00
00194
0.00
02184
0.00
021
β₯6
0.03
β0.00
0415
0.00
0422
0.001533
0.00
01795
0.00
01483
0.00
093
-
10 ISRN Civil Engineering
Wall 2
Wall 1
F1
F1 Γ (H β hs)/H
F1 Γ (H β 2hs)/H
F1 Γ (H β 3hs)/H
F1 Γ (H β 4hs)/H
F1 Γ (H β 5hs)/H
F1 Γ (H β (N β 3i)hs)/H
F1 Γ (H β (N β 2i)hs)/H
F1 Γ (H β (N β i)hs)/H
I, A
I, A
db
hs
H
i
Lw LwLb
(a)
l
Mid-point of LbC/L of wall 1 C/L of wall 2
πΌF1 V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
π½F1
Wg
Wg
H
x
MMVw Vw
B
T C = T
A
(b)
Figure 3: (a) Coupled shear walls. (b) Free body diagram of coupled shear walls.
Table 10: Maximum rotations in radians.
Type ofreinforcement πΏπ/ππ Value as per (6)
Galano andVignoli [17] Englekirk [3]
ATC40 [16], FEMA273 [14] and FEMA
356 [15]Diagonal
-
ISRN Civil Engineering 11
Table 11: Modified parameters governing the coupling beam characteristics controlled by shear.
Type of couplingbeam Shear span to depth ratio πΏπ/ππ Type of detailing
Plastic Rotation Capacity (Radians)Shear/ππ€πβππ CP
Reinforced concretecoupling beam π β€ 2
No limit Conventional longitudinal reinforcementwith conforming transverse reinforcementβ€3 0.015β₯6 0.010
-
12 ISRN Civil Engineering
Therefore, based on the Assumption (9) shear force incoupling beam at each storey is
π =βπ
π=1ππ
π. (14)
Step 4. After obtaining πΌ, π½, and π at each storey for theparticular value of πΉ1, bending moment values in each storeycould be determined for each wall. Subsequently, curvaturediagram for each wall is generated by using moment areamethod as adopted in the Microsoft excel spreadsheet; whichis required to determine the wall rotation in each storey.The following equations are considered to calculate the wallrotation.
Overturning moment at a distance βπ₯β from base withrespect to each wall can be written as
πot (π₯) =πβπ
β
π=0
{0.5 ΓπΉ1
π»(π» β πβπ ) (π» β π₯ β πβπ )} , (15)
where, π is storey number and it is considered from the baseas 0, 1, 2, 3, . . . , π.
Resisting moment in wall due to shear force in thecoupling beam at a distance βπ₯β from base can be written as
πwr (π₯) = (πΏπ€
2+πΏπ
2)
π
β
π=π
ππ, (16)
where, net moment in the wall at a distance βπ₯β from base,generated due to overturning moment and moment due toshear force in the coupling beam, can be written as
πnet (π₯) = πot (π₯) β πwr (π₯) . (17)
Wall rotation at πth storey for fixed base can be written as
ππ€π =
β«πβπ
0πnet (π₯) ππ₯
πΈππΌ, (18)
where,
πΌ =π‘π€ Γ πΏ
3
π€
12. (19)
For plastic hinge rotation at the fixed base of wall or rotationat the pinned base of wall, (18) could be written as
ππ€π =
β«πβπ
0πnet (π₯) ππ₯
πΈππΌ+ ππ€0,
(20)
where, ππ€0 is the plastic hinge rotation at the fixed base of wallor rotation at the pinned base of wall.
Step 5. Consider (i) Tensile forces at the base of wall 1 (π)as well as compressive forces at the base of wall 2 (πΆ) arecalculated due to lateral loading.
(ii) Compressive loads at the bases of wall 1 and wall 2 arecalculated due to gravity loading.
Lw Lb Lw
πwi
πwiπbi
Lb2
Figure 4: Deformed shape of a πth storey symmetrical coupled shearwalls.
(iii) Net axial forces at the bases of wall 1 and wall 2 arecalculated, that is, Net axial force = Tensile or Compressiveforce due to lateral loading (π or πΆ) Β± Compressive load dueto gravity loading.
(iv) Then, according to these net axial forces for theparticular values of πππ, ππ, π, and π, the yield moment valuesat the bases of wall 1 and wall 2 can be determined fromπ-π interaction curve [2, 19]. Where πππ, ππ, π, and π areyield strength of concrete, breadth of a section, depth of thatsection and percentage of minimum reinforcement in thatparticular section, respectively; and π is the axial force andπ is the moment; here, net axial force is considered as π inthe π-π interaction curve.
(v) Therefore, if calculated bending moment value at anybase of the two walls is greater than yield moment value,plastic hinge at that base would be formed, otherwise noplastic hinge would be formed.
Step 6. The rotation of coupling beam in each storey isdetermined in Figure 4.
Rotation of coupling beam at πth storey for symmetricalwalls [3] as per Figure 4 is given by
πππ = ππ€π (1 +πΏπ€
πΏπ
) , (21)
where, ππ€π is rotation of wall at πth storey and can becalculated as per (18), πΏπ€ = depth of wall, πΏπ = length ofcoupling beam.
For plastic hinge rotation at the fixed base of wall or realhinge rotation at the pinned base of wall, (21) could bewrittenas:
πππ = πΏπ€π {ππ€π} , (22)
where, ππ€π can be calculated as per (20) for fixed base of wallor for pinned base of wall and
πΏπ€π = (1 +πΏπ€
πΏπ
) . (23)
Step 7. The rotational limit for collapse prevention level ofdifferent types of RCC coupling beams and steel beams aregiven in Table 11. The task was to check whether the rotationsof beams attained their rotational limit of CP level at thecollapse mechanism of the structure simultaneously.
-
ISRN Civil Engineering 13
9 m 9 m 9 m 9 m
5 m
5 m
a
a
Lw
Lw
Lb
(a)
Wall 2
Wall 1
Lw LwLb
I, A
I, A
H
db
hs
(b)
Figure 5: (a) Plan view of building. (b) Coupled shear walls at section βa-aβ.
Step 8. The roof displacement can be calculated as per thefollowing equations
Ξ roof = βπ Γ (π
β
π=0
ππ€π) , (24)
where, displacement at πth storey can be calculated as
Ξ π = βπ Γ (
π
β
π=0
ππ€π) . (25)
The base shear can be calculated as follows:
ππ΅ =πΉ1 Γ (π + 1)
2. (26)
Step 9. The πΉ1 is modified as follows when the condition ofStep 7 is not satisfied.
To obtain the collapse mechanism of the structure, itis required to increase πΉ1 with equal increment until allcoupling beams attain their rotation limit of CP level simul-taneously.
3.5. Validation of the Proposed Design Technique. The follow-ing numerical example has been considered to validate thepropose design technique. In this study, plan and elevationwith dimensions andmaterial properties of the coupled shearwalls have been adopted as given in Chaallal et al. [37].
3.6. Numerical Example. The coupled shear walls consideredhere are part of a 20-storey office building (Figure 5). Itis subjected to triangular variation of lateral loading. Thedimension and material properties are tabulated in Table 13.Dead loads and live loads are discussed in the following sec-tion. A comparison of the results regarding design/capacitycurve (Figure 7) and ductility (27) obtained from the pro-posed design technique with the results obtained in SAPV 10.0.5 [23] and DRAIN-3DX [22] software packages may,thus, be required. For obtaining more perfection about theresults, these two softwares have been considered in Table 13simultaneously.
Figures 5(a) and 5(b) show the plan and sectional eleva-tion of the coupled shear wall building, respectively.
Table 13:Dimensions andmaterial properties of coupled shearwallsfor validation of proposed design technique.
Depth of the wall (πΏπ€) 4mLength of coupling beam (πΏπ) 1.8mDepth of coupling beam (ππ) 600mmNumber of storeys (π) 20Wall thickness (π‘
π€) 300mm
Width of coupling beam (ππ) 300mmStorey height (βπ ) 3.0mModulus of concrete (πΈπ) 27.0GPaModulus of steel (πΈπ ) 200.0GPaSteel yield strength (ππ¦) 415Mpa
3.6.1. Loading Consideration. Dead loads (DL) of 6.7 kN/m2and live loads (LL) of 2.4 kN/m2 have been considered assuggested in Chaallal et al. [37]. Total gravity loading oncoupled shear walls at section βa-aβ has been calculated as thesum of dead load plus 25% LL as per IS 1893 (part 1) [1] forfloor; however, in case of roof only dead load is considered.
3.6.2. Modeling of Coupled Shear Walls in Proposed DesignTechnique. The modeling of coupled shear walls involvingFigure 3, assumptions, and steps with mathematical calcula-tion are already described in Section 3.1.
3.6.3. Modeling of Coupled Shear Walls in SAP and DRAIN-3DX. Wide column frame analogy [38] has been consideredfor modeling of coupled shear walls in SAP V 10.0.5 [23]and DRAIN-3DX [22] as given in Figure 6. In this analogy,shear walls are represented as two line elements (centre lineof shear wall), and beams are represented as line elements(centre line of beam) by joining with each other with rigidlink. Beam column elastic element (Type-17) and inelasticelement (Type-15) are considered for modeling.
3.6.4. Calculation of Ductility. The obtained design/capacitycurve from the proposed design technique, SAP V 10.0.5[23], and DRAIN-3DX [22] is bilinearized. The bilinear
-
14 ISRN Civil Engineering
Coupling beam
Rigid link
0.5Lw Lb 0.5Lw
Figure 6: Modeling in SAP V 10.0.5 [23] and DRAIN-3DX [22].
Base
shea
r
Roof displacement
Capacity
VB,yield
Ki
o
Area a1
Area a2
Ξ roof,yield Ξ roof,CP
Figure 7: Bilinear representation for Capacity Curve.
representation is prepared in the manner shown in Figure 7based on the concepts given in ATC 40 [16].
It can be seen from Figure 7 that bilinear representationcan be due to the basis of initial tangent stiffness and equalenergies (Area a1 = Area a2). Subsequently, ductility of thecoupled shear walls has been calculated as
πΞ =Ξ roof,CP
Ξ roof,yield, (27)
where,Ξ roof,CP andΞ roof,yield can be calculated from (24);πΞ isthe ductility which represents how much earthquake energydissipates during an earthquake.
3.7. Results and Discussions. Coupled shear walls at sectionβa-aβ as shown in Figure 5 are considered for conducting thestudy.
3.8. RCC Coupling Beam with Conventional LongitudinalReinforcement and Conforming Transverse Reinforcement.
Table 14: Ductility of coupled shear walls considering differentapproaches.
Method DuctilityFixed base Pinned base
Proposed Design Technique 7 7.5DRAIN-3DX [22] 6.75 7.45SAP V 10.0.5 [23] 6.92 7.47
RCC coupling beam with Conventional longitudinal rein-forcement and conforming transverse reinforcement in eachstorey has been selected as per Step 1 for the study.The resultsof this study for fixed base as well as pinned base conditionshave been shown in Figure 8 and Table 14.
3.8.1. Discussions of Numerical Results. Figure 8(b) showsthat the results obtained from proposed design technique forpinned base conditions are almost similar with the resultsobtained from DRAIN-3DX [22] and SAP V 10.0.5 [23].Whereas, Figure 8(a) is showing a bit differences about theresults obtained from proposed design technique, DRAIN-3DX [22], and SAP V 10.0.5 [23] although same dimensions,same material properties, and same loading were consideredin all the three techniques. However, the differences werenot very high (5β10%). Table 14 is showing the results aboutductility obtained for fixed and pinned base conditions withthe help of the Figures 8(a) and 8(b) and Section 3.6.4. It isnoticed that ductility for pinned base condition is greater thanfixed base conditions. Itmeans that stable hysteresis with highearthquake energy dissipation can be obtained for coupledshear walls with pinned base.
The results obtained from the proposed design techniqueare satisfactory.However, it is necessary to find the limitationsof the proposed design technique.Therefore, in the followingsection, parametric study is elaborately discussed to detectthe limitations of the proposed design technique.
4. Parametric Study
It has been observed from theCSA [25] andChaallal et al. [37]that the behavior of the ductile coupled shear walls depend ondegree of coupling, where degree of coupling depends upondepth and length of the coupling beam as well as depth andheight of the coupled shear walls [4, 10].
Therefore, this study has been restricted on length of thecoupling beam and number of stories as basic variables andother parameters are considered as constant. These param-eters have been considered in proposed method to makeout effect on the behavior of coupled shear walls. Further,modifications to achieve ideal seismic behavior according tothe proposed method have been included in this study.
4.1. Model for Parametric Study. A typical building withsymmetrical coupled shear walls is shown in Figures 9(a)and 9(b). Coupled shear walls at section βa-aβ have beenconsidered to carry out the parametric study.
-
ISRN Civil Engineering 15
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
1500
1000
500
0
SAP V 10.0.5Drain-3DXDesign technique
Roof displacement (m)
Base
shea
r (kN
)
(a)
SAP V 10.0.5Drain-3DXDesign technique
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
900
600
300
0
Roof displacement (m)0.4
Base
shea
r (kN
)
(b)
Figure 8: (a) Capacity curve for fixed base condition. (b) Capacity curve for pinned base condition.
9 m 9 m 9 m 9 m
5 m
5 m
a
a
Lw
Lw
Lb
(a)
Wall 2
Wall 1
Lw LwLb
I, A
I, A
db
hs
H
(b)
Figure 9: (a) Plan view of building with symmetrical coupled shear walls. (b) Coupled shear walls at section βa-aβ.
4.2. Loading Consideration. Dead loads (DL) of 6.7 kN/m2and live loads (LL) of 2.4 kN/m2 have been considered asper the suggestions made by in Chaallal et al. [37]. Totalgravity loading on coupled shear walls at section βa-aβ hasbeen calculated as the sum of dead load plus 25% LL as per IS1893 (part 1) [1] for floor; however, in case of roof only deadload is considered.
4.3. Parameters. Table 15 mentions the different parameterswith dimensions and material properties which have beenconsidered to carry out the parametric study.
4.4. Analysis Using Proposed Design Technique. The abovemen-tioned building has been studied by the design tech-nique. The results for different parameters have beendescribed in this section.
4.5. Observed Behavior. To study the influence of length ofthe coupling beam (πΏπ) on the behavior of coupled shearwalls, length of the coupling beam is considered as 1m, 1.5m
Table 15:Dimensions andmaterial properties of coupled shearwallsfor parametric study.
Depth of the wall (πΏπ€) 4mLength of beam (πΏ
π) 1m, 1.5m and 2m
Depth of beam (ππ) 800mmNumber of stories (π) 10, 15 and 20Wall thickness (π‘π€) 300mmWidth of coupling beam (ππ) 300mmStorey height (βπ ) 3.6mModulus of concrete (πΈπ) 22.4GPaYield strength of steel (ππ¦) 415MPa
and 2m for both fixed and pinned base conditions. RCCcoupling beamwith conventional longitudinal reinforcementwith conforming transverse reinforcement has been selected.Shear capacity in the coupling beam is calculated as per Step 1.The rotational limit of coupling beam has been selected as perStep 7.The study has been performed for coupled shear walls
-
16 ISRN Civil Engineering
with number of stories 20, 15, and 10 for both fixed and pinnedbase conditions.
4.5.1. For Number of Stories π = 20. For more details, seeFigures 10, 11, 12, and 13.
4.5.2. Discussion of Results for π = 20. The deflection forthe case of pinned base condition is much higher than thecase of fixed base (Figure 10); however, the base shear for thecase of pinned base condition is lower than the case of fixedbase (Figure 13). It shows satisfactory results based on thebehavior of coupled shear walls. Because, coupled shear wallswith pinned base deflected more subjected to lesser lateralloading in comparisonwith the coupled shearwalls with fixedbase and base shear is directly varying with the lateral loading(26). Since wall rotation is directly varying with the lengthof the beam (Figure 11) and deflection is the summation ofthe wall rotation (25), deflection is directly varying with thelength of the beam (Figure 10). It has been also observedthat all beams reach to their rotational limit of CP level forpinned base condition; however, very few beams reach totheir rotational limit of CP level for fixed base condition(Figure 12). Hence, it can be said that coupled shear walls arebehaving as a rigid body motion for pinned base condition;which is expected. The explanations for fixed base condition(Figure 12) are given in the following manner:
(i) The rotation of the cantilever wall is maximum at thefree end of the wall. This rotation decreases towardsthe base of the wall and is zero at the base for fixity.
(ii) Fixed base coupled shear walls with short span cou-pling beam is behaving as a cantilever wall (πΏπ =1m of Figure 11). It is also one of the behaviors ofa coupled shear walls. However, fixed base coupledshear walls with long span coupling beam does notshow cantilever wall (πΏπ = 1.5m and πΏπ = 2m ofFigure 11) behavior.
(iii) Beam rotation is proportional to the wall rotation.Therefore, it can be said from the above observations thatcoupled shear walls with short span coupling beam (πΏπ =1m) can be acceptable in comparison with the long spancoupling beam (πΏπ = 1.5m and πΏπ = 2m) although thebehavior of all three coupling beams is governed by shearaccording to Table 11.
With the help of Section 3.6.4 and Figure 13, ductility forpinned base condition and fixed base condition has beencalculated in Table 16.
It has been observed from Table 16 that ductility is morefor pinned base condition in comparison with the fixed basecondition and ductility increases with increase in length ofthe coupling beam ((24) and (27), Figures 10, 11, and 13).
4.5.3. For Number of Stories π = 15. For more details, seeFigures 14, 15, 16, and 17.
4.5.4. Discussion of Results for π = 15. With the help ofSection 3.6.4 and Figure 17, ductility for pinned base condi-tion and fixed base condition has been calculated in Table 17.
Table 16: Ductility of coupled shear walls forπ = 20.
Base condition Length of the coupling beam (πΏπ) Values
Fixed1m 3.331.5m 4.82m 6.3
Pinned1m 5.111.5m 6.352m 7.1
Table 17: Ductility of coupled shear walls forπ = 15.
Base condition Length of the coupling beam (πΏπ) Values
Fixed1m 2.931.5m 4.02m 5.9
Pinned1m 4.51.5m 5.852m 6.87
It has been observed from Figures 14 to 17 and Table 17that the results obtained for π = 15 are similar with theresults of π = 20 for fixed base condition and pinned basecondition.
4.5.5. For Number of Stories π = 10. For more details, seeFigures 18, 19, 20, and 21.
4.5.6. Discussion of Results for π = 10. Figures 20 and21 show that beam rotation and capacity curve reach CPlevel for the case of πΏπ = 1m with pinned base conditiononly. However, beam rotation and capacity curve do notreach the CP level for the other cases while shear capacitiesin all coupling beams have been achieved. It means thatideal seismic behavior (stable hysteresis with high earthquakeenergy dissipation) of coupled shear walls has only beenachieved for πΏπ = 1mwith pinned base condition. Proposeddesign technique does not show ideal seismic behavior ofcoupled shear walls for πΏπ = 1m, 1.5m and 2m with fixedbase condition and πΏπ = 1.5m, and 2m with pinned basecondition. Now, remedial action has been considered in thefollowing manner to obtain the ideal seismic behavior.
4.5.7. Remedial Action for π = 10. The remedy for the casesof πΏπ = 1m, 1.5m, and 2m with fixed base condition andπΏπ = 1.5m and 2m with pinned base condition to achieveCP level is mentioned in (Figures 22, 23, 24 and 25). To obtainthe CP level, it is required to increase the wall rotation. Sincewall rotation ((18) and (19)) is inversely varying to the πΏ3
π€,
it is required to decrease the πΏπ€. It has been observed fromFigure 25 that the ideal seismic behavior of coupled shearwalls has been achieved.
4.5.8. Discussion of the Above Results. Figures 24 and 25show that beam rotation and capacity curve reach CP levelfor all cases although the results are not satisfactory for
-
ISRN Civil Engineering 17
Stor
ey h
eigh
t (m
)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4Displacement (m)
Lb = 1mLb = 1.5mLb = 2m
0
24
48
72
(a)
Stor
ey h
eigh
t (m
)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4Displacement (m)
Lb = 1mLb = 1.5mLb = 2m
0
24
48
72
(b)
Figure 10: (a) Storey displacement for fixed base condition at CP level. (b) Storey displacement for pinned base condition at CP level.
0
24
48
72
Stor
ey h
eigh
t (m
)
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008Wall rotation (rad)
Lb = 1mLb = 1.5mLb = 2m
(a)
0
24
48
72St
orey
hei
ght (
m)
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008Wall rotation (rad)
Lb = 1mLb = 1.5mLb = 2m
(b)
Figure 11: (a) Wall rotation for fixed base condition at CP level. (b) Wall rotation for pinned base condition at CP level.
Lb = 1mLb = 1.5mLb = 2m
0
24
48
72
Stor
ey h
eigh
t (m
)
0 0.01 0.02 0.03Beam rotation (rad)
(a)
Lb = 1mLb = 1.5mLb = 2m
0
24
48
72
Stor
ey h
eigh
t (m
)
0 0.008 0.016 0.024Beam rotation (rad)
(b)
Figure 12: (a) Beam rotation for fixed base condition at CP level. (b) Beam rotation for pinned base condition at CP level.
-
18 ISRN Civil Engineering
Lb = 1mLb = 1.5mLb = 2m
0
600
1200Ba
se sh
ear (
kN)
0 0.2 0.4Roof displacement (m)
(a)
Lb = 1mLb = 1.5mLb = 2m
0
375
750
Base
shea
r (kN
)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5Roof displacement (m)
(b)
Figure 13: (a) Capacity curve for fixed base condition. (b) Capacity curve for pinned base condition.
0
18
36
54
Stor
ey h
eigh
t (m
)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6Displacement (m)
Lb = 1mLb = 1.5mLb = 2m
(a)
0
18
36
54St
orey
hei
ght (
m)
0 0.28 0.56Displacement (m)
Lb = 1mLb = 1.5mLb = 2m
(b)
Figure 14: (a) Storey displacement for fixed base condition at CP level. (b) Storey displacement for pinned base condition at CP level.
Lb = 1mLb = 1.5mLb = 2m
0
18
36
54
Stor
ey h
eigh
t (m
)
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008Wall rotation (rad)
(a)
Lb = 1mLb = 1.5mLb = 2m
0
18
36
54
Stor
ey h
eigh
t (m
)
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008Wall rotation (rad)
(b)
Figure 15: (a) Wall rotation for fixed base condition at CP level. (b) Wall rotation for pinned base condition at CP level.
-
ISRN Civil Engineering 19
Lb = 1mLb = 1.5mLb = 2m
0
18
36
54
Stor
ey h
eigh
t (m
)
0 0.008 0.016 0.024Beam rotation (rad)
(a)
Lb = 1mLb = 1.5mLb = 2m
0
18
36
54
Stor
ey h
eigh
t (m
)
0 0.016 0.032Beam rotation (rad)
(b)
Figure 16: (a) Beam rotation for fixed base condition at CP level. (b) Beam rotation for pinned base condition at CP level.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Base
shea
r (kN
)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3Roof displacement (m)
Lb = 1mLb = 1.5mLb = 2m
(a)
Base
shea
r (kN
)
Roof displacement (m)0 0.2 0.4
0
375
750
Lb = 1mLb = 1.5mLb = 2m
(b)
Figure 17: (a) Capacity curve for fixed base condition. (b) Capacity curve for pinned base condition.
0
18
36
Stor
ey h
eigh
t (m
)
0 0.006 0.012Displacement (m)
Lb = 1mLb = 1.5mLb = 2m
(a)
0
18
36
Stor
ey h
eigh
t (m
)
Displacement (m)0 0.04 0.08 0.12
Lb = 1mLb = 1.5mLb = 2m
(b)
Figure 18: (a) Storey displacement for fixed base condition at CP level. (b) Storey displacement for pinned base condition at CP level.
-
20 ISRN Civil Engineering
0
18
36
Stor
ey h
eigh
t (m
)
0 0.0004 0.0008Wall rotation (rad)
Lb = 1mLb = 1.5mLb = 2m
(a)
0
18
36
Stor
ey h
eigh
t (m
)
Wall rotation (rad)0 0.0055 0.011
Lb = 1mLb = 1.5mLb = 2m
(b)
Figure 19: (a) Wall rotation for fixed base condition at CP level. (b) Wall rotation for pinned base condition at CP level.
Stor
ey h
eigh
t (m
)
0
18
36
0 0.002 0.004Beam rotation (rad)
Lb = 1mLb = 1.5mLb = 2m
(a)
0
18
36St
orey
hei
ght (
m)
0 0.016 0.032Beam rotation (rad)
Lb = 1mLb = 1.5mLb = 2m
(b)
Figure 20: (a) Beam rotation for fixed base condition at CP level. (b) Beam rotation for pinned base condition at CP level.
Base
shea
r (kN
)
0 0.006 0.012 0.018Roof displacement (m)
0
500
1000
Lb = 1mLb = 1.5mLb = 2m
(a)
Base
shea
r (kN
)
0 0.11 0.22Roof displacement (m)
0
425
850
Lb = 1mLb = 1.5mLb = 2m
(b)
Figure 21: (a) Capacity curve for fixed base condition. (b) Capacity curve for pinned base condition.
-
ISRN Civil Engineering 21St
orey
hei
ght (
m)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6Displacement (m)
Lb = 1m and Lw = 2m for fixed and 4 m for pinnedLb = 1.5m and Lw = 3mLb = 2m and Lw = 3m
0
18
36
(a)
Stor
ey h
eigh
t (m
)
0
18
36
0 0.12 0.24Displacement (m)
Lb = 1m and Lw = 2m for fixed and 4 m for pinnedLb = 1.5m and Lw = 3mLb = 2m and Lw = 3m
(b)
Figure 22: (a) Storey displacement for fixed base condition at CP level. (b) Storey displacement for pinned base condition at CP level.
Stor
ey h
eigh
t (m
)
0
18
36
0 0.006 0.01Wall rotation (rad)
Lb = 1m and Lw = 2m for fixed and 4 m for pinnedLb = 1.5m and Lw = 3mLb = 2m and Lw = 3m
(a)
Stor
ey h
eigh
t (m
)
0
18
36
0 0.006 0.012Wall rotation (rad)
Lb = 1m and Lw = 2m for fixed and 4 m for pinnedLb = 1.5m and Lw = 3mLb = 2m and Lw = 3m
(b)
Figure 23: (a) Wall rotation for fixed base condition at CP level. (b) Wall rotation for pinned base condition at CP level.
Stor
ey h
eigh
t (m
)
0
18
36
0 0.015 0.03Beam rotation (rad)
Lb = 1m and Lw = 2m for fixed and 4 m for pinnedLb = 1.5m and Lw = 3mLb = 2m and Lw = 3m
(a)
Beam rotation (rad)
Stor
ey h
eigh
t (m
)
0
18
36
0 0.008 0.016 0.024
Lb = 1m and Lw = 2m for fixed and 4 m for pinnedLb = 1.5m and Lw = 3mLb = 2m and Lw = 3m
(b)
Figure 24: (a) Beam rotation for fixed base condition at CP level. (b) Beam rotation for pinned base condition at CP level.
-
22 ISRN Civil EngineeringBa
se sh
ear (
m)
0
500
1000
0 0.3 0.6Roof displacement (rad)
Lb = 1m and Lw = 2m for fixed and 4 m for pinnedLb = 1.5m and Lw = 3mLb = 2m and Lw = 3m
(a)
Base
shea
r (m
)
Roof displacement (rad)
0
425
850
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Lb = 1m and Lw = 2m for fixed and 4 m for pinnedLb = 1.5m and Lw = 3mLb = 2m and Lw = 3m
(b)
Figure 25: (a) Capacity curve for fixed base condition. (b) Capacity curve for pinned base condition.
Table 18:Dimensions andmaterial properties of coupled shearwallsfor nonlinear static analysis.
Depth of the wall (πΏπ€) 4mLength of beam (πΏπ) 1mDepth of beam (ππ) 800mmNumber of stories (π) 20 and 15Wall thickness (π‘π€) 300mmWidth of coupling beam (ππ) 300mmStorey height (βπ ) 3.6mModulus of concrete (πΈπ) 22.4GPaModulus of steel (πΈπ ) 200.0GPaSteel yield strength (ππ¦) 415MPa
fixed base condition according to the explanations given inSection 4.5.1.
Hence, it can be said from the above results that proposeddesign technique is useful to design the coupled shear wallsduring earthquake motion. To confirm it more, nonlinearstatic analysis is considered in the following manner to assessthe proposed design technique.
5. Assessment of Proposed Design TechniqueUsing Nonlinear Static Analysis
In this paper, nonlinear static analysis is carried out todetermine the response reduction factors of coupled shearwalls at different earthquake levels.
5.1. Design Example. The following design example is pre-sented for carrying out the nonlinear static analysis ofcoupled shear walls. These walls are subjected to triangularvariation of lateral loading. The base of the walls isassumed as fixed. Table 18 mentions the different parameterswith dimensions and material properties which have beenconsidered to carry out the study. Figures 26(a) and 26(b)
show the plan and sectional elevation of the coupled shearwall building, respectively.Theplace considered for this studyis Roorkee and soil type for this place is medium (Type II);maximum considered earthquake (MCE) level and designbasis earthquake level (DBE) are considered for the study.
5.2. Loading Consideration. Dead loads (DL) of 6.7 kN/m2and live loads (LL) of 2.4 kN/m2 have been considered asgiven in Chaallal et al. [37]. Total gravity loading on coupledshear walls at section βa-aβ has been calculated as the sum ofdead load plus 25% LL as per IS 1893 (part 1) [1] for floor;however, in case of roof only dead load is considered.
5.3. Results and Discussions. The results and discussions aredescribed in Figure 27.
5.3.1. Calculation of Performance Point. Place consideredhere is Roorkee which belongs to the seismic zone IV andZ is 0.24 as per IS 1893 (part 1) [1]. 5% damped elasticresponse spectra as per IS 1893 (part 1) [1] are consideredhere as demand curve. DBE and MCE levels are consideredfor calculation of performance point (pp). Capacity curvesare already obtained in Figure 27.The performance point hasbeen calculated with the help of capacity spectrummethod ofATC 40 [16] which is shown in Figure 28.
In this case, modal mass co-efficient πΌ1 = 0.616 andMode participation factor PF1 = 1.51 derived with the help ofmodal analysis in SAP V 10.0.5 [23]. Figure 28 shows that ppis the performance point. The base shear at the performancepoint (pp), πb,pp = 1173.1 kN and roof displacement at theperformance point (pp), Ξ roof,pp = 0.31m.
In this case,modalmass co-efficientπΌ1 = 0.616 andModeparticipation factor PF1 = 1.51. Figure 29 shows that pp isthe performance point. The base shear at the performancepoint (pp), πb,pp = 957.6 kN and roof displacement at theperformance point (pp), Ξ roof,pp = 0.097m.
-
ISRN Civil Engineering 23
9 m 9 m 9 m 9 m
5 m
5 m
a
a
Lw
Lw
Lb
(a)
Wall 2
Wall 1
Lw LwLb
I, A
I, A
db
hs
H
(b)
Figure 26: (a) Plan view of building with coupled shear walls. (b) Coupled shear walls at section βa-aβ.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Base
shea
r (kN
)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4Roof displacement (m)
(a)
Base
shea
r (kN
)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3Roof displacement (m)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
(b)
Figure 27: (a) Capacity curve forπ = 20. (b) Capacity curve forπ = 15.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Sa
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9Sd
pp
Straight linetangent to thecapacity curve
5% demandresponse spectra
Capacity curve
Reduced demandspectra
Figure 28: Performance point at the MCE level forπ = 20.
-
24 ISRN Civil Engineering
pp
Straight line tangent to the Capacity curve
5% demand response spectra
Capacity curve
Reduced demand response spectra
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Sa
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45Sd
Figure 29: Performance point at the DBE level forπ = 20.
Straight line tangent to the capacity curve
5% demand response spectra
Capacity curve
Reduced demand response spectra
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Sa
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9Sd
pp
Figure 30: Performance point at the MCE level forπ = 15.
pp
Straight line tangent to the capacity curve
5% demand response spectra
Capacity curve
Reduced demand response spectra
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Sa
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45Sd
Figure 31: Performance point at the DBE level forπ = 15.
-
ISRN Civil Engineering 25
Table 19: Response Reduction Factors for DBE and MCE levels.
Parameters πΞπ1[24] πΞπ2 [24] π ππ [24]
π πIDRS [Firstmethod of
Energy-DuctilityBased ResponseReduction] [24]
π πIDRS [Secondmethod of
Energy-DuctilityBased ResponseReduction] [24]
π π as per CSA[25]
π = 20DBE 1.04 1.004 1.02 1.04 1.004 1.5 or 2 for coupled
shear walls withconventionalreinforced couplingbeam
MCE 2.05 1.2 1.58 2.05 1.34
π = 15DBE 1.01 1.00 1.002 1.01 1.00
MCE 1.87 1.13 1.39 1.87 1.22
In this case,modalmass co-efficientπΌ1 = 0.644 andModeparticipation factor PF1 = 1.485. Figure 30 shows that pp isthe performance point. The base shear at the performancepoint (pp), πb,pp = 1455.3 kN and roof displacement at theperformance point (pp), Ξ roof,pp = 0.259m.
In this case,modalmass co-efficientπΌ1 = 0.644 andModeparticipation factor PF1 = 1.485. Figure 31 shows that pp isthe performance point. The base shear at the performancepoint (pp), πb,pp = 1251.5 kN and roof displacement at theperformance point (pp), Ξ roof,pp = 0.101m.
5.3.2. Calculation of Response Reduction Factor at the Per-formance Point. Table 19 shows different response reductionfactors for MCE and DBE levels. These are calculated atdifferent performance points (Figures 28β31).
FromTable 19, response reduction factor of coupled shearwalls is varying between 1.22 to 2.05 for maximum consid-ered earthquake (MCE) level; which is almost same as theprovision of CSA [25] for coupling beam with conventionalreinforcement.
6. Conclusions
From the above studies, the following recommendations havebeen made for the design of coupled shear walls underearthquake motion.
(i) Design technique should be adopted for fixing thedimensions of coupled shear walls.
(ii) Coupled shear walls with π β₯ 15 with equal storeyheight βπ = 3.6m can be designed with an optimumratio of πΏπ/πΏπ€ = 0.25 for πΏπ/ππ = 1.25 and πΌπ/πΌ = 8Γ10β03 to obtain consistency between the behaviorwith
respect to the wall rotation and earthquake energydissipations.
(iii) Pinned base condition can be provided at the baseof the shear wall as this type of base condition offersbetter nonlinear behavior in compare to the fixed basecondition.
(iv) The behavior of coupling beam should be governed byshear.
Notations
π΄: Area of symmetrical coupled shear wallsπ΄ππ€: Area of concrete section of an Individual pier,
horizontal wall segment, or coupling beamresisting shear in in2 as per ACI 318 [39]
π΄π: Gross area of concrete section in in2 For a
hollow section, π΄π is the area of the concreteonly and does not include the area of thevoid(s) as per ACI 318 [39]
π΄
π : Reinforcing steel in one diagonal as per
Englekirk [3]π΄ π : Area of nonprestressed tension reinforcement
as per Englekirk [3]π΄ π π: Reinforcement along each Diagonal of
Coupling beam as per IS 13920 [13]π΄Vπ: Total area of reinforcement in each group of
diagonal bars in a diagonally reinforcedcoupling beam in in2 as per ACI 318 [39]
ππ: Width of coupling beamππ: Flange width of I-beam as per FEMA 273 [14]
and FEMA 356 [15]ππ€: Web width of the coupling beam as per FEMA
273 [14] and FEMA 356 [15]πΆ: Compressive axial force at the base of wall 2CP: Collapse prevention levelπ·: Overall depth of the steel I-coupling beam
sectionDC: Degree of couplingDL: Dead loadsDBE: Design basis earthquakeπ: Effective depth of the beamππ: Depth of the coupling beamπ: Distance from extreme compression fiber to
centroid of compression reinforcement as perEnglekirk [3]
Ξ π: Displacement at ππΞ π: Elastic displacement (β ππ)Ξ π: Displacement at limiting responseΞ roof: Roof displacementΞ roof,CP: Roof displacement at CP levelΞ roof,yield: Roof displacement at yield levelΞ π’: Displacement at ultimate strength capacityΞ π¦: Displacement at yield strength capacityΞ π¦π
: Actual displacement at ππ¦π
-
26 ISRN Civil Engineering
πΈc: Modulus of elasticity of concreteπΈππ: Youngβs modulus for concrete in beamπΈcw: Youngβs modulus for concrete in wallEPP: Elastic-perfectly-plasticEQRD: Earthquake resistant designπΈπ : Modulus of elasticity of steel as per FEMA 273
[14] and FEMA 356 [15]πΈπ π: Youngβs modulus for steel in beamπΈπ π€: Youngβs modulus for steel in wallπ: Clear span of the coupling beam + 2 Γ concrete
cover of shear wall as per Englekirk [3]ππ: Strain in concreteπΉ: ForceπΉ1: Maximum amplitude of triangular variation of
loadingFEMA: Federal emergency management agencyπΉπ’: Ultimate forceπΉπ¦: Yield stress of structural steelπ
π: Specified compressive strength of concrete
cylinderπππ: Characteristic compressive strength of concrete
cubeππ¦: Specified yield strength of reinforcementπ»: Overall height of the coupled shear wallsβ: Distance from inside of compression flange to
inside of tension flange of I-beam as per FEMA273 [14] and FEMA 356 [15]
βπ : Storey heightπΌ: Moment of inertia of symmetrical coupled
shear wallsπΌπ: Moment of inertia of coupling beamIO: Immediate occupancy levelπ: Storey numberπ: Unloading stiffnessπ1: Postyield stiffnessππ: Elastic stiffnessππ: Initial stiffnessπsec: Secant stiffnessπΏπ: Length of the coupling beamπΏπ: Diagonal length of the memberLL: live loadsLS: Life safety levelπΏπ€: Depth of coupled shear wallsπ: Distance between neutral axis of the two wallsπ0: Member over strength factor as per Englekirk
[3]π: Moment of symmetrical coupled shear wallsπ1: Moment at the base of the wall 1π2: Moment at the base of the wall 2MCE: Maximum considered earthquakeMDOF: Multi-degree of freedomππ: Nominal flexural strength at section in lb-in as
per ACI 318 [39]ππ: Moment capacity of coupling beam as per
Englekirk [3]πot: Total overturning moment due to the lateral
loadingMRF: Moment resistant frame
π: Displacement ductility capacity relied on in thedesign as per NZS 3101 [40]
πΞ: DuctilityπΞπ1: Energy based proposal for ductility under
monotonic loading and unloadingπΞπ2: Energy based proposal for ductility under
cyclic loadingπ: Total number of storeysNA: Not applicableNEHRP: National earthquake hazard reduction programNSP: Non-linear static procedureπ: Axial force as per IS 456 [19]PBSD: Performance based seismic designπ: Percentage of minimum reinforcementπ: Shear span to depth ratiopp: Performance pointπ : Response reduction factorRCC: Reinforced cement concreteπ π: Ductility related force modification factorπ π: Ductility factorπ π : Redundancy factorπ π : Overstrength factorππ: Spectral accelerationππ: Spectral displacementSDOF: Single-degree of freedomπ: Tensile axial force at the base of wall 1π1: Tensile strength of One diagonal of a diagonal
reinforced coupling beamππ: Tensile strength of truss reinforced coupling
beamβs diagonal as per Englekirk [3]π: The residual chord strength as per Englekirk [3]
π‘π: Flange thickness of steel I-coupling beam as perEnglekirk [3]
π: Inclination of diagonal reinforcement incoupling beam
ππ: Coupling beam rotationπππ’: Rotational value at ultimate pointππ’,max: Maximum rotational valueππ€: Wall rotationππ¦: Yield rotation as per FEMA 273 [14] and FEMA
356 [15]π‘π€: Wall thicknessπ‘π€ : Web thickness of steel I-coupling beamπ: Shear force in the coupling beamπ1: The shear or vertical component of one
diagonal in a primary truss travelled along thecompression diagonal as per Englekirk [3]
π2: The shear in a secondary truss produced by theresidual tension reinforcement activated theload transfer mechanism as per Englekirk [3]
ππ΅: Base shearππ: Non-factored design base shearππ: Factored design base shear may be less than or
greater than ππ¦π
ππ: Base shear for elastic responseππ: Base shear at limiting responseππ: Nominal shear strength in lb as per ACI 318
[39]
-
ISRN Civil Engineering 27
πππ: The transferable shear force for flexuredominant steel coupling beam as per Englekirk[3]
ππ π: Shear capacity of coupling beam as perEnglekirk [3]
ππ 1: Shear strength of closed stirrups as per ATC 40[16], FEMA 273 [14] and FEMA 356 [15]
ππ’: Capacity corresponding to Ξ π’ (may be themaximum capacity)
ππ’1: Factored shear force as per IS 13920 [13]ππ’2: Factored shear force at section in lb as per ACI
318 [39]ππ€: Shear force at the base of the shear wallππ€1: Shear force at the base of wall 1ππ€2: Shear force at the base of wall 2ππ¦: Base shear at idealized yield levelππ¦π
: Actual first yield levelVπ: Total nominal shear stress in MPa as per NZS
3101 [40]ππ: Total gravity loading for symmetrical coupled
shear wallsπ€: Compressive strut width as per Englekirk [3]π: Zone factorππ: Plastic section modulus of steel coupling beam.
References
[1] Bureau of Indian Standards, βCriteria for earthquake resistantdesign of structures, part 1: general provisions and buildings,βTech. Rep. IS-1893, part 1, Bureau of Indian Standards, NewDelhi, India, 2002.
[2] A. K. Jain, Reinforced Concrete Limit State Design, Nem Chand& Bros, Roorkee, India, 1999.
[3] R. E. Englekirk, Seismic Design of Reinforced and PrecastConcrete Buildings, John Wiley, New York, NY, USA, 2003.
[4] R. Park and T. Paulay, Reinforced Concrete Structures, JohnWiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA, 1975.
[5] G. G. Penelis and A. J. Kappos, Earthquake-Resistant ConcreteStructures, E&FN SPON, New York, NY, USA, 1997.
[6] B. S. Smith and A. Coull, Tall Building Structures (Analysis andDesign), John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, USA, 1991.
[7] P. J. Fortney and B. M. Shahrooz, βBoundary detailing ofcoupled core wall system wall piers,β Advances in StructuralEngineering, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 299β310, 2009.
[8] K. A. Harries and D. S. McNeice, βPerformance-based designof high-rise coupled wall systems,β Structural Design of Tall andSpecial Buildings, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 289β306, 2006.
[9] S. El-Tawil, K. A. Harries, P. J. Fortney, B. M. Shahrooz, and Y.Kurama, βSeismic design of hybrid coupled wall systems: stateof the art,β Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 122, no. 12, pp.1453β1458, 2010.
[10] T. Paulay and M. J. N. Priestley, Seismic Design of ReinforcedConcrete andMasonry Buildings, JohnWiley & Sons, New York,NY, USA, 1992.
[11] F. Naiem, The Seismic Design Handbook, Kluwer Academic,Boston, Mass, USA, 2001.
[12] Bureau of Indian Standards, βEarthquake resistant design andconstruction of buildingsβcode of practice,β Tech. Rep. IS-4326, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, 1993.
[13] Bureau of Indian Standards, βDuctile detailing of reinforcedconcrete structures subjected to seismic forcesβcode of prac-tice,β Tech. Rep. IS-13920, Bureau of Indian Standards, NewDelhi, India, 1993.
[14] Federal Emergency Management Agency, βNEHRP guidelinesfor the seismic rehabilitation of buildings,β Tech. Rep. FEMA-273, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington,DC, USA, 1997.
[15] Federal Emergency Management Agency, βPrestandard andcommentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings,β Tech.Rep. FEMA-356, Federal Emergency Management Agency,Washington, DC, USA, 2000.
[16] Applied Technology Council, βSeismic evaluation and retrofitof concrete buildings,β Tech. Rep. ATC-40, Applied TechnologyCouncil, Redwood City, Calif, USA, 1996, Volume I.
[17] L. Galano and A. Vignoli, βSeismic behavior of short couplingbeams with different reinforcement layouts,β ACI StructuralJournal, vol. 97, no. 6, pp. 876β885, 2000.
[18] ATENA2D: Version 3.3.0.3,Nonlinear Finite Element IntegratedAnalysis, Cervenka Consulting, Praha, Czech Republic, 2006.
[19] Bureau of Indian Standards, βPlain and reinforced concreteβcode of practice,β Tech. Rep. IS-456, Bureau of Indian Standards,New Delhi, India, 2000.
[20] Bureau of Indian Standards: IS-456, βDesign aids for reinforcedconcrete,β Tech. Rep. SP-16, Bureau of Indian Standards, NewDelhi, India, 1978.
[21] V. Prakash, βWhither performance-based engineering inIndia?β ISET Journal, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 201β222, 2004.
[22] V. Prakash, G. H. Powell, and S. Campbell, DRAIN-3DXBase Program User Guide Version 1.10, Structural Engineering,Mechanics andMaterials, Department of Civil EngineeringUC,Berkeley, Calif, USA, 1993.
[23] SAP2000: Advanced 10.0.5, Static and Dynamic Finite ElementAnalysis of Structures, Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley,Calif, USA, 2006.
[24] S. M. Pore, Performance Based Seismic Design of Low toMediumRise RC Framed Buildings for India, Department of EarthquakeEngineering, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, India, 2007.
[25] Canadian Standards Association, βDesign of concrete struc-tures for buildings,β CSA CAN3-A23. 3-M94, Canadian Stan-dards Association, Rexdale, Canada, 1994.
[26] American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Seismic Provi-sions for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute of SteelConstruction, Inc, Chicago, Ill, USA, 1997.
[27] American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Seismic Provi-sions for Structural Steel Buildings, Supplement No. 2, AmericanInstitute of Steel Construction, Inc., Chicago, Ill, USA, 2000.
[28] American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Seismic Provi-sions for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute of SteelConstruction, Inc, Chicago, Ill, USA, 2005.
[29] T. Paulay, βThe design of ductile reinforced concrete structuralwalls for earthquake resistance,β Earthquake Spectra, vol. 2, no.4, pp. 783β823, 1986.
[30] K. A. Harries, D. Mitchell, W. D. Cook, and R. G. Redwood,βSeismic response of steel beams coupling concrete walls,βJournal of Structural Engineering, vol. 119, no. 12, pp. 3611β3629,1993.
[31] T. Paulay, βA displacement-focused seismic design of mixedbuilding systems,β Earthquake Spectra, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 689β718, 2002.
-
28 ISRN Civil Engineering
[32] T. Paulay, βThe displacement capacity of reinforced concretecoupled walls,β Engineering Structures, vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 1165β1175, 2002.
[33] R. A. Hindi and R. G. Sexsmith, βA proposed damage model forRC bridge columns under cyclic loading,β Earthquake Spectra,vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 261β281, 2001.
[34] G. Xuan, B. M. Shahrooz, K. A. Harries, and G. A. Rassati,βA performance-based design approach for coupled core wallsystems with diagonally reinforced concrete coupling beams,βAdvances in Structural Engineering, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 265β280,2008.
[35] S. Chao, K. Khandelwal, and S. El-Tawil, βDuctile web fractureinitiation in steel shear links,β Journal of Structural Engineering,vol. 132, no. 8, pp. 1192β1200, 2006.
[36] J. A. Munshi and S. K. Ghosh, βDisplacement-based seismicdesign for coupled wall systems,β Earthquake Spectra, vol. 16,no. 3, pp. 621β642, 2000.
[37] O. Chaallal, D. Gauthier, and P. Malenfant, βClassificationmethodology for coupled shear walls,β Journal of StructuralEngineering, vol. 122, no. 12, pp. 1453β1458, 1996.
[38] I. A. Macleod, Lateral Stiffness of Shear Walls with Openings,Department of Civil Engineering, GlasgowUniversity, Glasgow,UK, 1966.
[39] American Concrete Institute, βBuilding code requirements forreinforced concrete and commentary,β Tech. Rep. ACI 318-05/ACI 318R-05, American Concrete Institute, FarmingtonHills, Mich, USA, 2005.
[40] New Zealand Standard, βThe design of concrete structures,βTech. Rep. NZS, 3101 (part 1), New Zealand Standard, Welling-ton, New Zealand, 1995.
-
International Journal of
AerospaceEngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
RoboticsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Active and Passive Electronic Components
Control Scienceand Engineering
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
International Journal of
RotatingMachinery
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com
Journal ofEngineeringVolume 2014
Submit your manuscripts athttp://www.hindawi.com
VLSI Design
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Shock and Vibration
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Civil EngineeringAdvances in
Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Journal of
Advances inOptoElectronics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com
Volume 2014
The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
SensorsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Modelling & Simulation in EngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and
Propagation
International Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Navigation and Observation
International Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
DistributedSensor Networks
International Journal of