A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN APPROACH OF COUPLED SHEAR

WALLS
Dipendu Bhunia1 , Vipul Prakash2 and Ashok D. Pandey3
1

Asssistant Professor, Civil Engineering Group, BITS Pilani,

[email protected]
2
Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Roorkee
3
Assistant Professor, Department of Earthquake Engineering, IIT Roorkee

ABSTRACT
A recent earthquake in India on 26 th January, 2001 caused considerable damage to a
large number of RCC high-rise buildings (number of storey varies from 4 to 15) and
tremendous loss of life. The reasons were: (a) most of the buildings had soft and weak
ground storey that provided open space for parking; (b) poor quality of concrete in
columns and (c) poor detailing of the structural design. Therefore, this particular
incident has shown that 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 resistant system, the use of coupled shear walls is one of the potential
options in comparison with moment resistant frame (MRF) and shear wall frame
combination systems in RCC high-rise buildings. Further, it is reasonably well
established that it is uneconomical to design a structure considering its linear behavior
during earthquake. Hence an alternative design philosophy needs to be evolved in the
Indian context to consider the post- yield behavior wherein the damage state is evaluated
through deformation considerations. In the present context, therefore, performancebased seismic design (PBSD) has been considered to offer significantly improved
solutions as compared to the conventional design based on linear response spectrum
analysis.
Since coupling beam mainly governs the behavior of coupled shear walls, this paper
investigates the behavior of coupling beam through an analytical model. The next step is
to develop a design technique to obtain an adequate ductility of coupled shear walls
considering its ideal seismic behavior (stable hysteresis with high earthquake energy
dissipation). Parametric study is carried out to find the limitations along with remedial
action of this technique. Finally, nonlinear static analysis is considered to assess the
proposed design technique. It has been recemmended that proposed design technique
can be considered to design the coupled shear walls under earthquake motion.
KEYWORD: Performance-based seismic design, coupled shear walls, coupling beam,
RCC, design technique

INTRODUCTION
The growth of population density and shortage of land in urban areas are two major
problems for all developing countries including India. In order to mitigate these two

problems the designers resort to high-rise buildings, which are rapidly increasing in
number, with various architectural configurations and ingenious use of structural
materials. However, earthquakes are the most critical loading condition for all land
based structures located in the seismically active regions. The Indian subcontinent is
divided into different seismic zones as indicated by IS 1893 (Part 1) (2002), facilitating
the designer to provide adequate protection against earthquake. A recent earthquake in
India on 26th January, 2001 caused considerable damage to a la rge number of RCC
high-rise buildings (number of storey varies from 4 to 15) and tremendous loss of life.
The reasons were: (a) most of the buildings had soft and weak ground storey that
provided open space for parking; (b) poor quality of concrete in columns and (c) poor
detailing
of
the
structural
design
(http://www.nicee.org/eqeiitk/uploads/EQR_Bhuj.pdf). Therefore, this particular incident has shown that
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 to minimize disaster.
As an earthquake resistant system, the use of coupled shear walls is one of the potential
options in comparison with moment resistant frame (MRF) and shear wall frame
combination systems in RCC high-rise buildings. MRF system and shear wall frame
combination system are controlled by both shear behavior and flexural behavior;
whereas, the behavior of coupled shear walls system is governed by flexural behavior.
However, the behavior of the conventional beam both in MRF and shear wall frame
combination systems is governed by flexural capacity and the behavior of the coupling
beam in coupled shear walls is governed by shear capacity. During earthquake, infilled
brick masonry cracks in a brittle manner although earthquake energy dissipates through
both inelastic yielding in beams and columns for MRF and shear wall frame
combination systems; whereas, in coupled shear walls earthquake energy dissipates
through inelastic yielding in the coupling beams and at the base of the shear walls.
Hence, amount of dissipation of earthquake energy and ductility obtained from both
MRF and shear wall frame combination systems are less than coupled shear walls
system in the high-rise buildings [Jain (1999), Englekirk (2003), Park and Paulay
(1975), Penelis and Kappos (1997), Smith and Coull (1991), Naeim (2001), Fortney and
Shahrooz (2009), Harries and McNeice (2006), El- Tawil et al. (2010) & Paulay and
Priestley (1992)]. However, the Indian codes of practice governing the earthquake
resistant design, such as IS 1893 (Part 1) (2002) and IS 4326 (1993) do not provide
specific guidelines with regard to earthquake resistant design of coupled shear walls. On
the other hand, IS 13920 (1993) gives credence to the coupled shear walls as an
earthquake resistant option but it has incorporated very limited design guidelines of
coupling beams that are inadequate for practical applications. It requires further
investigations and elaborations before practical use.
Further, it is reasonably well established that it is uneconomical to design a structure
considering its linear behavior during earthquake as is recognized by the Bureau of
Indian Standards [IS 4326 (1993), IS 13920 (1993) and IS 1893 (Part 1) (2002)]
currently in use. Hence an alternative design philosophy needs to be evolved in the
Indian context to consider the post- yield behavior wherein the damage state is evaluated
through deformation considerations.
In the present context therefore, performance-based seismic design (PBSD) can be
considered to offer significantly improved solutions as compared to the conventional
design based on linear response spectrum analysis. Performance-based seismic design

(PBSD) implies design, evaluation, and construction of engineered facilities whose

performance under common and extreme loads responds to the diverse needs and
objectives of owners, tenants and societies at large. The objective of PBSD is to produce
structures with predictable seismic performance. In PBSD multiple levels of earthquake
and corresponding expected performance criteria are specified [ATC 40 (1996)]. This
aspect emphasizes nonlinear analyses for seismic design verification of any structure.
This procedure gives some guidelines for estimating the possible local and global
damages of structures. A retrofitted structure can be evaluated with the help of PBSD.
Similarly, economics in the form of life-cycle cost along with construction cost of the
structure is inherently included in PBSD [Prakash (2004)].
On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, an effort has been made in this paper to
develop a comprehensive procedure for the design of coupled shear walls.
INVESTIGATION OF COUPLING BEAM
Coupled shear walls consist of two shear walls connected intermittently by beams along
the height. The behavior of coupled shear walls is mainly governed by the coupling
beams. The coupling beams are designed for ductile inelastic behavior in order to
dissipate energy. The base of the shear walls may be designed for elastic or ductile
inelastic behavior. The amount of energy dissipation depends on the yield moment
capacity and plastic rotation capacity of the coupling beams. If the yield moment
capacity is too high, then the coupling beams will undergo only limited rotations and
dissipate little energy. On the other hand, if the yield moment capacity is too low, then
the coupling beams may undergo rotations much larger than their plastic rotation
capacities. Therefore, the coupling beams should be provided with an optimum level of
yield moment capacities. These moment capacities depend on the plastic rotation
capacity available in beams. The geometry, rotations and moment capacities of coupling
beams have been reviewed based on previous experimental and analytical studies in this
paper. An analytical model of coupling beam has also been developed to calculate the
rotations of coupling beam with diagonal reinforcement and truss reinforcement.
Geometry of Coupling Beam
The behavior of the reinforced concrete coupling beam may be dominated by (1) shear
or by (2) flexure as per ATC 40 (1996), FEMA 273 (1997) and FEMA 356 (2000).
Shear is dominant in coupling beams when 2 [Penelis and Kappos (1997)]
or Lb d b 4 .
There are various types of reinforcements in RCC coupling beams described as follows:
i.

Conventional reinforcement

Conventional reinforcement consists of longitudinal flexural reinforcement and

transverse reinforcement for shear. Longitudinal reinforcement consists of top and
bottom steel parallel to the longitudinal axis of the beam. Transverse reinforcement
consists of closed stirrups or ties. If the strength of these ties Vs1 3 4 required shear
strength of the beam and the spacing these ties d 3 over the entire length of the beam,
then stable hysteresis occurs, and such transverse reinforcement is said to be
conforming to the type now mandatory for new construction. If the transverse
reinforcement is deficient either in strength or spacing then it leads to pinched

hysteresis, and such reinforcement is said to be non-conforming [ATC 40 (1996),

FEMA 273 (1997) and FEMA 356 (2000)].
According to IS 13920 (1993), the spacing of transverse reinforcement over a length of
2 d at either end of a beam shall not exceed (a) d 4 , and (b) 8 times the diameter of the
smallest longitudinal bar; however, it need not be less than 100 mm. Elsewhere, the
beam shall have transverse reinforcement at a spacing not exceeding d 2 . Whereas, the
shear force to be resisted by the transverse reinforcement shall be the maximum of:
(1) calculated factored shear force as per analysis, and (2) shear force due to formation
of plastic hinges at both ends of the beam plus the factored gravity load on the span.
ii. Diagonal reinforcement

Diagonal reinforcement consists of minimum four bars per diagonal. It gives a better
plastic rotation capacity compared to conventional coupling beam during an earthquake
when Lb 1.5 as per Penelis and Kappos (1997). The provisions for diagonal
db

reinforcement according to different codes have already been shown in

Table 1.1. If the diagonal reinforcement is subjected to compressive loading it may
buckle, in which case it cannot be relied on to continue resisting compressive loading.
Under the action of reversing loads, reinforcement that buckles in compression with
loading in one direction may be stressed in tension with loading in the opposite
direction. This action may lead to low-cycle fatigue failure, so that the reinforcement
cannot continue to resist tensile forces. For this reason, it is necessary to ensure that this
reinforcement does not buckle. To prevent buckling due to compressive lo ading the
L
spacing between two adjacent diagonal bars should be greater than d [based on
12
buckling condition of a column]. It has also been noticed from Englekirk (2003) that
diagonal reinforcement should not be attempted in walls that are less than 16 in.
(406.4 mm) thick. Unless strength is an overriding consideration, diagonally reinforced
coupling beams should not be used.
iii. Truss reinforcement

Truss reinforcement represents a significant and promising departure from traditional

coupling beam reinforcements. The primary load transfer mechanism of the system is
represented by the truss taken to its yield capacity. A secondary load path is created by
the global strut and tie. The load transfer limit state will coincide with yielding of a ll of
the tension diagonals, provided the so-produced compression loads do not exceed the
capacity of the concrete compression strut. The yield strength of the primary truss is
governed by the tensile strength of its diagonal; whereas, the primary truss transfer
mechanism must include the shear travelling along the compression diagonal.
According to Penelis and Kappos (1997) & Galano and Vignoli (2000), when 1.5
Lb
d b 4, truss reinforcement offers best seismic performance in comparison with

conventional and diagonal reinforcements. This type of reinforcement has not been used
till now. Detailing and placement problems must be carefully studied if its use is
contemplated. Clearly additional experimentation is required because the system
appears to have merit, especially in thin walls [Englekirk (2003)].

When the post yield rotational level is much higher compared to rotational level for
truss reinforcement then steel beam can be provided as a coupling beam. There are two
types of steel beams which are provided as coupling beams based on the following
factors as per Englekirk (2003), AISC (1997), AISC (2000) and AISC (2005).
a. Shear dominant

In this beam, the shear capacity Vsp is attained and the corresponding bending mo ment
e
is equal to Vsp which must be less than 0.8 M p . The post yield deformation is
2
1.6M p
accommodated by shear and it is presumed e
; where e = clear span of the
Vsp

coupling beam+2 concrete cover of shear wall, M p = moment capacity of coupling

beam and Vsp = shear capacity of coupling beam.
b. Flexure dominant

In this beam, the bending moment capacity M p is attained and the corresponding shear
force is equal to

2M p
e

which must be less than 0.8 Vsp . The post yield deformation is

accommodated by flexure and it is presumed e

2.6M p
Vsp

Moment Capacity of Coupling Beam

The bending moment capacity of coupling beam depends on the geometry and material
property of coupling beam. Bending moment capacity and shear force capacity of the
coupling beam are related with each other. Englekirk (2003), Park and Paulay (1975),
Paulay (1986), Harries et al. (1993), AISC (1997), AISC (2000) and AISC (2005)
describe these capacities as follows:
i.

Reinforced concrete coupling beam

Shear capacity of coupling beam with conventional reinforcement can be calculated as:
2M p
Vsp
Lb
(1)
2 As f y d d '

Lb
Whereas, shear capacity of coupling beam with diagonal reinforcement can be
calculated as:

Vsp V f Vd 1
2M p

Lb

2T1 sin

(2)

d
4 As'' f y b d '
2

Lb
Ld
and shear capacity of coupling beam
Vsp 2V1 V2
2 As f y d d '

with

truss

reinforcement

d d'
d d'
2T '

2Td
Ld 1
Ld 2
2 As" f y d d ' 2 As As" f y d d '

Ld 1
Ld 2

is

as:

(3)

2
2
L
2
Ld 2 Lb d d ' . All three shear
Where, Ld 1 b d d ' and
2
capacities
must
be
less
than
equal
'
'
'
'
'
'
0.35 f c bb wd d 0.35 f c bb 0.25Ld d d 0.08 f c bb d d
to
or
or
which is
Ld 0
Ld 0
0

based on the statement, i.e. capacity of a concrete strut in cylindrical elements will
dimnish to a level of 30 to 35% of f c' as cracking increases, where, 0 is member over
strength factor of 1.25.

ii. Shear dominant steel coupling beam

For I-section type of steel coupling beam, shear capacity (permissible shear resisted by
web only) for shear dominant steel coupling beam is denoted as Vsp 0.6 Fy tw D 2t f
and moment capacity is M p = Z p Fy ; where, Fy is yield stress of structural steel, t w is
web thickness, D is the overall depth of the section, t f is flange thickness and Z p is
plastic section modulus.
iii. Flexure dominant steel coupling beam

The transferable shear force ( Vnf ) for flexure dominant steel coupling beam is the lesser
of

2M p
e

and Vsp ; where, M p is the moment capacity which is Z p F y .

Rotational Capacity of Coupling Beam

The rotation capacity in coupling beams depends upon the type of coupling beam. When
the
rotational
demand
is
greater
than
rotational
capacity
of
RCC coupling beam with conventional flexural and shear reinforcement then diagonal
or truss reinforcement type of coupling beam could be provided depending on the

Lb
ratio. The steel coupling beam could be used when the rotational limit due to lateral
db

loading exceeds the rotation capacity of RCC coupling beam with truss reinforcement.
Various research works conducted by Paulay (2002), Hindi and Sexsmith (2001),
FEMA356 (2000), Xuan et al. (2008) describe these capacities. ATC 40 (1996),
FEMA 273 (1997), FEMA 356 (2000), Galano and Vignoli (2000), Chao et al. (2006)
and Englekirk (2003) describe the following rotational capacities for various types of
coupling beams considering the behavior controlled by flexure and shear during
earthquake. Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6 show these different
rotational capacities for various coupling beams.
Table 1: Rotation capacities for coupling beams controlled by flexure as per
FEMA 273 (1997) and FEMA 356 (2000)
Plastic Rotation
Capacity (Radi ans)

Conditi ons
Type of coupling beam

Shear
t w Lw f c'

IO

LS

CP

Conventi onal
longitudi nal
reinforcement wi th
conforming trans verse
reinforcement
Conventi onal
longitudi nal
reinforcement wi th nonconforming trans verse
reinforcement

0.006

0.015

0.025

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.006

0.012

0.020

0.005

0.008

0.010

Diagonal Reinforcement

NA

0.006

0.018

0.030

bf

Flexure dominant steel

coupling beam

2t f
bf
2t f

52

65

Fy

Fy

and

h
418

t w
Fy

1 y

6 y

8 y

and

h
640

t w
Fy

0.25 y

2 y

3 y

Table 2: Rotation capacities for coupling beams controlled by shear as per

FEMA 273 (1997) and FEMA 356 (2000)
Conditi ons
Type of coupling beam

Plastic Rotation
Capacity (Radi ans)

Shear
t w Lw f c'

IO

LS

CP

Conventi onal
longitudi nal
reinforcement wi th
conforming trans verse
reinforcement

0.006

0.012

0.015

0.004

0.008

0.010

Conventi onal
longitudi nal
reinforcement wi th
non-conforming
trans verse
reinforcement

0.006

0.008

0.010

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 (1996)
Conditi ons
Type of coupling beam

Shear
bw d f c'

Plastic Rotation
Capacity (Radi ans)
IO

LS

CP

Conventi onal
longitudi nal
reinforcement wi th
conforming trans verse
reinforcement
Conventi onal
longitudi nal
reinforcement wi th nonconforming trans verse
reinforcement

0.006

0.015

0.025

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.006

0.012

0.020

0.005

0.008

0.010

Diagonal Reinforcement

NA

0.006

0.018

0.030

Table 4: Rotation capacities for coupling beams controlled by shear as per

ATC 40 (1996)
Conditi ons
Type of coupling beam

Plastic Rotation
Capacity (Radi ans)

Shear
bw d f c'

IO

LS

CP

Conventi onal
longitudi nal
reinforcement wi th
conforming trans verse
reinforcement

0.006

0.012

0.015

0.004

0.008

0.010

Conventi onal
longitudi nal
reinforcement wi th
non-conforming
trans verse
reinforcement

0.006

0.008

0.010

0.004

0.006

0.007

Table 5: Rotation capacities for coupling beams as per Galano and Vignoli (2000)

Type of coupling beam

Aspect
Ratio

Rotation
Capacity
(Radi ans)

Lb
db

Lu

Conventi onal
Reinforcement

1.5

0.051

Diagonal
Reinforcement

1.5

0.062

Truss Reinforcement

1.5

0.084

Table 6: Rotation capacities for coupling beams as per Englekirk (2003)

Aspect
Ratio

Rotation Capacity
(Radi ans)

Lb
db

u , m ax

Conventi onal
Reinforcement

1.5

0.02

Diagonal
Reinforcement

1.5

0.04

Truss
Reinforcement

1.5

0.06

Type of coupling
beam

Shear or Shear 3 or 6 is based on the aspect ratio (

t w Lw f c'
bw d f c'
bf
2t f

52
Fy

and

h
418

t w
Fy

or

bf
2t f

65
Fy

and

h
640

t w
Fy

Lb
) of coupling beam and
db

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 beam depends on size of wall
( t w , Lw ) which is illogical.
2. When shear span to depth ratio 2 or aspect ratio Lb d b 4 , the behavior of
RCC coupling beams is controlled by shear. For this reason, as aspect ratio

Lb

db

of

diagonally reinforced beam is less than 1.5, it means that the behavior of diagonally
reinforced
beam
is
controlled
by
shear.
Whereas,
Tables 1 and 3 show that diagonally reinforced coupling beam behavior is controlled
by flexure which is not acceptable.
3. Conventional longitudinal reinforcement with no n-conforming transverse
reinforcement is not accepted for new construction.
4. If the behavior of coupling beam is controlled by flexure [aspect ratio Lb is greater
d
b

than 4], the length of the coupling beam is quite larger. According to
Munshi and Ghosh (2000), weakly coupled shear walls can be obtained for larger
span of the coupling beam and the design results of this type of coupled shear walls
are inconsistent with regard to the ductility and energy dissipation during earthquake
motion. Hence, it can be said that rotational capacity of coupling beams controlled

by flexure as per ATC 40 (1996), FEMA 273 (1997) and

FEMA 356 (2000) cannot be accepted.
Similarly, specifications in Tables 5 and 6 can also be questioned on the basis of
following observation:
For aspect ratio

Lb
= 1.5 Galano and Vignoli (2000) shows different results regarding
db

the ultimate rotation of various RCC coupling beams in comparison with the results
made by Englekirk (2003).
Analytical Program
The above study shows the inconsistent modeling parameters and inconsistent
evaluative parameters. However, the behavior of coupled shear walls is controlled by
the characteristics of various coupling beams. These characteristics depend on the
following parameters, i.e.
1) Beam span to depth ratio, and
2) Reinforcement details
For this reason, more study is required to investigate into the limitations on behavior of
coupling beams. Since computer programme ATENA2D (2006) has some advantages in
comparison with other software packages like SAP V 10.0.5 (2000); ATENA2D (2006)
was considered to carry out this study. The advantages as well as disadvantage of
ATENA2D (2006) are:
Advantages of ATENA2D

i)
ii)

Material, element and reinforcement can be modeled individually; and

Geometric and material nonlinearity can be provided.

Disadvantage of ATENA2D

i)

Only static loading in one direction can be applied.

Reinforcement Layouts

There were eighteen RCC coupling beams and three different reinforcement layouts
considered
in
the
analytical
program
using
ATENA2D
(2006):
(a) longitudinal with conforming transverse ties; (b) diagonal with conforming
transverse ties around the main bars; and (c) truss with conforming transverse ties
around the main bars. For each layout, the cross section of the coupling beam was
considered as 600 mm (depth, db ) 300 mm (width, b b) and the beam span-depth ratio
(

Lb
) was considered as 1, 1.5 and 2.
db

Materials

The concrete (M20 grade) and steel (Fe 415 grade) were considered as two materials to
model the coupled shear walls. The Poissons ratio was considered as 0.2. The
unit-weight of concrete was considered as 23kN/m3 and the unit-weight of steel was
considered as78.5 kN/m3 . Both coupling beam and shear wall elements were assigned as

4-noded quadrilateral elements; material in coupling beam was assigned as SBeta

(inelastic), whereas, material in shear wall was assigned as plane stress elastic isotropic.

Investigative model

Figure 1 and Table 7 describe the investigative models considered for

ATENA2D (2006) analysis. The behaviors of all eighteen coupling beams were
governed by shear. The load (F) was calculated based on the shear force in beam and
other parameters according to the provisions of FEMA 273 (1997) and
FEMA 356 (2000).
Wall

Beam

F
hs = 3m

F Lw
Lw Lb

(4)

Lw

Where, V is shear force in the beam

Lb

Lw

Figure 1: Initial sketch of the analytical model

The depth of the wall is considered as Lw = 4m, thickness of the wall is considered as
t w = 300mm and minimum reinforcement in the shear wall is taken as 0.25% of its
gross area @450 c/c.
Here, Youngs modulus for concrete in beam = Ecb = 2.24x104 MPa, Youngs modulus
for
steel
in
beam
=
Esb
=
2.1x105
MPa,
Youngs modulus for concrete in wall = Ec w = 2.24x104 MPa and Youngs modulus for
steel in wall = Esw = 2.1x105 MPa.
Table 7(a): Investigative Model of Coupling Beam in ATENA2D (2006) as per IS13920
(1993), IS456 (2000), SP-16 (1978), FEMA273 (1997) and FEMA356(2000)
Coupling Beam
Type

Conventional
beam with
longitudinal and
transverse
conforming
reinforcement

Lb
(m)
0.6
0.9
1.2

Shear
t w Lw f c'

F
(kN)

585.4
1171
623.5
1247
661.7
1323

6
3
6
3
6

Reinforced Steel
Longitudinal

Transverse

8-10
8-20
8-10
8-20
8-10

2-legged 16 @200 c/c

2-legged 25 @200 c/c
2-legged 16 @200 c/c
2-legged 25 @200 c/c
2-legged 16 @200 c/c

8-20

2-legged 25 @200 c/c

Table 7(b): Investigative Model of Coupling Beam in ATENA2D (2006) as per IS13920
(1993), IS456 (2000), SP-16 (1978), FEMA273 (1997) and FEMA356 (2000)
Coupling Beam
Type

Lb
(m)

Reinforced Steel

Shear
t w Lw f c'

F (kN)

585.4

1171

623.5

1247

661.7

1323

0.6

Beam with
diagonal
reinforcement

0.9

1.2

Longitudinal
8-10 + 4-20 as one
diagonal
8-20 + 4-30 as one
diagonal
8-10 + 4-25 as one
diagonal
8-20 + 4-30 as one
diagonal
8-10 + 4-25 as one
diagonal
8-20 + 4-35 as one
diagonal

Transverse
2-legged 16 @200 c/c
2-legged 25 @200 c/c
2-legged 16 @200 c/c
2-legged 25 @200 c/c
2-legged 16 @200 c/c
2-legged 25 @200 c/c

Table 7(c): Investigative Model of Coupling Beam in ATENA2D (2006) as per IS13920
(1993), IS456 (2000), SP-16 (1978), FEMA273 (1997) and FEMA356 (2000)
Beam
Type

Lb
(m)

Shear
t w Lw f c'

F (kN)

585.4

1171

623.5

1247

661.7

1323

0.6

Beam with
truss
reinforcement

0.9

1.2

Reinforced Steel
Longitudinal
8-10 + 4-30 as
one truss
8-20 + 4-45 as
one truss
8-10 + 4-30 as
one truss
8-20 + 4-40 as
one truss
8-10 + 4-30 as
one truss
8-20 + 4-40 as
one truss

Transverse
2-legged 16 @200 c/c
2-legged 25 @200 c/c
2-legged 16 @200 c/c
2-legged 25 @200 c/c
2-legged 16 @200 c/c
2-legged 25 @200 c/c

Results and Discussions

The results using ATENA2D (2006) have been tabulated in Table 8. It shows the
comparison of rotational limit at CP level among FEMA 273 (1997),
FEMA 356 (2000) and ATENA2D (2006). There are a lot of diffeamong the results of
FEMA 273 (1997), FEMA 356 (2000) and ATENA2D (2006). The comparison has also
been extended for considering ATC 40s (1996) provisions. There are also big
differences between the results of ATC 40 (1996) and ATENA2D (2006) shown in
Table 9. It may be because of limitations of ATENA2D (2006) software. However, it is
unexpected in FEMA 273 (1997), FEMA 356 (2000) and ATC 40 (1996) that the
rotational limit is more or less same, whereas, the parameters considered for calculation
of shear strength are different. Therefore, it can be said that the parameters given in
FEMA 273 (1997), FEMA 356 (2000) and ATC 40 (1996) are questionable which have
already been discussed in this paper. It has also been observed from
Tables 8 and 9 that crack width in beam is quite significant although the rotational
values
in
ATENA2D
(2006)
are
unexpectedly
varying
with
FEMA
273
(1997),
FEMA
356
(2000)
and
ATC
40
(1996).

Table 8: Compare the Modeling Parameters and Numerical Acceptance Criteria with FEMA 273 (1997) and FEMA 356 (2000)
Longitudinal

Rotational limit at collapse prevention level (CP) in radians

reinforcement

Shear

and transverse

t w Lw f c'

Member controlled by flexure

Member controlled by shear

Crack width in coupling beam at CP level in meters

AT ENA2D

by ATENA2D

FEMA273

FEMA356

FEMA273

FEMA356

Lb 0.6m

Lb 0.9m

Lb 1.2m

Lb 0.6m

Lb 0.9m

Lb 1.2m

0.025

0.025

0.015

0.020

0.000881

0.00104

0.002325

0.000263

0.000306

0.000559

0.015

0.02

0.010

0.016

0.00348

0.00528

0.00886

0.0007125

0.001726

0.003124

0.03

0.03

0.00235

.011

.0111

.000494

.004315

.00372

0.03

0.03

.00292

.00833

.00978

.0005724

.002961

.003228

NA

NA

NA

NA

.001176

.000422

.00093

.0003144

.0001066

.000204

NA

NA

NA

NA

.001413

.00297

.0029

.000344

.0007514

.00066

reinforcement
Conventional
longitudinal
reinforcement
with conforming
transverse
reinforcement
Diagonal

Truss

Table 9: Compare the Modeling Parameters and Numerical Acceptance Criteria with ATC 40 (1996)
Longitudinal reinforcement
and transverse reinforcement

Conventional longitudinal

Shear
bw d

f c'

Rotational limit at collapse prevention level (CP) in radians

Member controlled by
flexure

Member controlled by shear

Crack width in coupling beam at CP level in

AT ENA2D

meters by ATENA2D

AT C 40

AT C 40

Lb 0.6m

Lb 0.9m

Lb 1.2m

Lb 0.6m

Lb 0.9m

Lb 1.2m

0.025

0.018

0.0001023

0.000784

0.00198

0.0000001308

0.0005

0.001613

0.015

0.012

0.0002423

0.001944

0.00344

0.00163

0.00136

0.00297

0.03

0.00012

.000416

.00055

.0000194

.0002184

.00021

0.03

.000415

.000422

.001533

.0001795

.0001483

.00093

reinforcement with
conforming transverse
reinforcement
Diagonal

Hence, the results obtained from the above study using ATENA2D (2006) were found
unsatisfactory. Therefore, a new model has been created with some assumptions in the following
manner to carryout further study.

db

db

db

Lb

Figure 2: Schematic diagram of coupling beam

Assumptions:
The effect of gravity loads on the coupling beams has been neglected.
Deflection of the coupling beam occurs due to lateral loading.
Contra flexure occurs at the mid-span of the coupling beam.
The confined concrete, due to the confining action is provided by closely spaced
transverse reinforcement in concrete, is assumed to govern the strength.
Total elongation in the horizontal direction (Figure 2) due to lateral loading can be written as:
Lb db b
(5)
L
and strain in the concrete, c b
(6)
Lb
Hence, considering Equations (5) and (6) the following equation can be written as:
L
coupling beam rotation, b c b
(7)
db
The results, considering Equation (7) with maximum strain in confined concrete ( cu ) of 0.02
[Confining action is provided by closely spaced transverse reinforcement in concrete as per ATC
40 (1996)], have been tabulated in Table 10.

Table 10: Maximum rotations in radians

Lb
db

Value as per
Equation (2.7)

Galano and Vignoli (2000)

Englekirk (2003)

AT C40 (1996),
FEMA273 (1997) and
FEMA356 (2000)

Diagonal

< 1.5

< 0.03

0.062

0.04

0.03

Truss

1.5 to 4.0

0.03 to 0.08

0.084

0.06

Type of
Reinforcement

It can be observed from Table 10 that the values obtained as per Equation (7) have similar trend
with
the
values
specified
by
ATC
40
(1996),
FEMA
273
(1997),
FEMA 356 (2000), Galano and Vignoli (2000) & Englekirk (2003).
Based on the above study, Table 11 has been prepared containing modified parameters governing
the coupling beam characteristics, which are also considered for developments of the design
technique discussed below. As design technique is based on collapse prevention (CP) level of
structure, plastic rotation capacity given in Table 11 is for CP level only.
Table 11: Modified Parameters governing the coupling beam characteristics controlled by shear
Type of
coupling
beam

Shear
Span
to
Depth
Ratio

Lb
db

Steel
coupling
beam

Type of detailing
Shear

CP

bw d f c'
3

0.015

0.010

< 1.5

Diagonal Reinforcement
(strength is an overriding
consideration and thickness
of wall should be greater than
406.4 mm)

< 0.03

1.5 to 4.0

Truss
Reinforcement(additional
experimentation is required)

0.03-0.08

Shear dominant

0 .15
Lb

No limit
Reinforced
concrete
coupling
beam

Plastic Rotation
Capacity (Radi ans)

1 .6 M p
V sp

Conventional longitudinal
reinforcement with
conforming transverse
reinforcement

PROPOSED DESIGN TECHNIQUE

In this paper an attempt has been made to develop a technique to design coupled shear walls
considering its ideal seismic behavior (stable hysteresis with high earthquake energy
dissipation). For preparing this design technique, symmetrical coupled shear walls have been
considered. Design/capacity curve of coupled shear walls is obtained at the collapse mechanism
of the structure based on this technique. This technique is applied to both fixed base and pinned
base coupled shear walls. To start with, this technique is useful in selecting the preliminary

dimensions of symmetrical coupled shear 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 to sophisticated software packages. A case study has been done
implementing the technique with the help of Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet and the results have
also been validated.
Proposed Formulation
In Figure 3, the coupled shear walls are subjected to a triangular variation of loading with
amplitude F1 at the roof level. The value of F1 is obtained corresponding to the CP level of
structure. Subsequently, the base shear and roof displacement can be determined. The procedure
involving Figure 3, the assumptions, steps and mathematical calculation with initial value of F 1
as unity has been illustrated as follows.
Mid-point of Lb
C/L of Wall 2

C/L of Wall 1
F1

F1

F1(H-h s)/H

hs

F1(H-2hs)/H

Wall 1

F1(H-3hs)/H

I, A

F1

V
Wg
V

I, A

db

F1(H-4h s)/H

Wg

F1(H-5h s)/H

H
V

F1(H-(N-3i)h s)/H

F1(H-(N-2i)h s)/H
F1(H-(N-i)h s)/H

Wall 2

A
LW

Lb

LW

B
l

Vw
T

Figure 3 (a): Coupled shear walls

Vw
C =T

Figure 3 (b): Free body diagram

of coupled shear walls

Assumptions

The following assumptions are adopted for the design technique to obtain the ideal seismic
behavior of coupled shear walls.
1. The analytical model of coupled shear walls is taken as two-dimensional entity.
2. Coupled shear walls exhibit flexural behavior.
3. Coupling beams carry axial forces, shear forces and moments.
4. The axial deformation of the coupling beam is neglected.
5. The effect of gravity loads on the coupling beams is neglected.
6. The horizontal displacement at each point of wall 1 is equal to the horizontal displacement at
each corresponding point of wall 2 due to the presence of coupling beam.
7. The curvatures of the two walls are same at any level.
8. The point of contra flexure occurs at mid point of clear span of the beam.

9. The seismic design philosophy requires formation of plastic hinges at the ends of the
coupling beams. All coupling beams are typically designed identically with identical plastic
moment capacities. Being lightly loaded under gravity loads they will carry equal shear
forces before a collapse mechanism is formed. All coupling beams are, therefore, assumed to
carry equal shear forces.
10. In the collapse mechanism for coupled shear walls, plastic hinges are assumed to form at the
base of the wall and at the two ends of each coupling beam. In the wall the elastic
displacements shall be small in comparison to the displacements due to rotation at the base of
the wall. If the elastic displacements in the wall are considered negligible then a triangular
displaced
shape
occurs.
This
is
assumed
to
be
the
distribution
displacement/velocity/acceleration along the height. The acceleration times the mass/weight
at any floor level gives the lateral load. Hence, the distribution of the lateral loading is
assumed as a triangular variation, which conforms to the first mode shape pattern.
Steps

The following iterative steps are developed in this thesis fo r the design of coupled shear walls.
1) Selection of a particular type of coupling beam and determining its shear capacity.
2) Determining the fractions of total lateral loading subjected on wall 1 and wall 2.
3) Determining shear forces developed in coupling beams for different base conditions.
4) Determining wall rotations in each storey.
5) Checking for occurrence of plastic hinges at the base of the walls when base is fixed. For
walls pinned at the base this check is not required.
6) Calculating coupling beam rotation in each storey.
7) Checking whether coupling beam rotation lies at collapse prevention level.
8) Calculating base shear and roof displacement.
9) Modifying the value of F1 for next iteration starting from Step (2) if Step (7) is not satisfied.
Mathematical Calculation

The steps which are described in above have been illustrated in this section as follows:
Step 1

The type of coupling beam can be determined as per Table 11 and shear capacity can be
calculated as per section Moment Capacity of Coupling Beam.
Step 2

In Figure 3(b), free body diagram of coupled shear walls has been shown; and are fractions
of total lateral loading incident on wall 1 and wall 2, respectively, such that,
+ =1.0
(8)
For symmetrical coupled shear walls, moments of inertias of two walls are equal for equal depths
and thicknesses at any level. Further, curvatures of two walls are equal at any level. Hence based
on the Assumption (7), Equation (8) can be written as:
= = 0.5
(9)

Step 3

In this step, it is explained how to calculate the shear force developed in the coupling beams for
different types of boundary conditions. CSA (1994) and Chaallal et al. (1996) defined the degree
of coupling which is written as,
T l
DC
(10)
M ot
where, l Lw Lb ; T is the axial force due to lateral loading; Mot is total overturning moment at
the base of the wall produced due to lateral loading. For fixed base condition DC varies from 0 to
1 and Equation (10) can also be written as:
d b a

(10a)
DC k
Lw b Lb c
The above Equation (10a) is proposed by Chaallal et al. (1996); N is the total number of storeys,
k is constant and a, b and c are exponents which are given in
Table 12.
Table 12: Values of constant k and exponents a, b and c
N

6
10
15
20
30
40

2.976
2.342
1.697
1.463
1.293
1.190

0.706
0.512
0.352
0.265
0.193
0.145

0.615
0.462
0.345
0.281
0.223
0.155

0.698
0.509
0.279
0.190
0.106
0.059

So based upon the above criteria and considering Equations (10) and (10a), shear force
developed in the coupling beam could be determined as follows:
Fixed base condition:
For fixed base condition following equation can be written as:
N

C T Vi
i 1

db
M ot
k
l
Lw b Lb c
a

(11)

where, Mot is total overturning moment at the base due to the lateral loading.
Therefore, based on the Assumption (9) shear force in coupling beam at each storey is,
N

V
i 1

(12)
N
Pinned base condition:
In this study, pinned base condition has been introduced as one of the possible boundary
conditions for coupled shear walls. It can be constructed by designing the foundation for axial
load and shear force without considering bending moment. It is expec ted that stable hysteresis
with high earthquake energy dissipation can be obtained for considering this kind of base
condition.
DC is 1 for pinned base condition from the equation (10). Hence, the equation can be written as:
N
M
C T Vi ot
(13)
l
i 1
Therefore, based on the Assumption (9) shear force in coupling beam at each storey is,

V
i 1

(14)

Step 4

After obtaining , and V at each storey for the particular value of F 1 , bending moment values
in each storey could be determined for each wall. Subsequently, curvature diagram for each wall
is generated by using moment area method as adopted in the Microsoft excel spreadsheet; which
is required to determine the wall rotation in each storey. The following equations are considered
to calculate the wall rotation.
Overturning moment at a distance x from base with respect to each wall can be written as:
N i

M ot x 0.5
j 0

F1
H jh s H x jh s
H

(15)

where, i is storey number and it is considered from the base as 0, 1, 2, 3 N.

Resisting moment in wall due to shear force in the coupling beam at a distance x from base can
be written as:

Lw Lb N
M wr x
V j
2 j i
2

(16)

where, net moment in the wall at a distance x from base, generated due to overturning moment
and moment due to shear force in the coupling beam, can be written as:
Mnet (x) = Mot (x) M wr x
(17)
Wall rotation at i th storey for fixed base can be written as:
ih s

M x dx
net

wi

(18)

Ec I

t w L3w
where, I
(19)
12
For plastic hinge rotation at the fixed base of wall or rotation at the pinned base of wall, Equation
(18) could be written as:
ihs

M x dx
net

wi

Ec I

w0

(20)

where, w0 is the plastic hinge rotation at the fixed base of wall or rotation at the pinned base of
wall.
Step 5

i.

Tensile forces at the base of wall 1 (T) as well as compressive forces at the base of wall 2 (C)
are calculated due to lateral loading.
ii. Compressive loads at the bases of wall 1 and wall 2 are calculated due to gravity loading.

iii. Net axial forces at the bases of wall 1 and wall 2 are calculated, i.e.
Net axial force = Tensile or Compressive force due to lateral loading (T or C)
Compressive load due to gravity loading.
iv. Then, according to these net axial forces for the particular values of f ck, bb , d and p, the yield
moment values at the bases of wall 1 and wall 2 can be determined from
P-M interaction curve [IS 456 (1978) & Jain (1999)]. Where f ck, bb , d and p are yield strength
of concrete, breadth of a section, depth of that section and percentage of minimum
reinforcement in that particular section, respectively; and P is the axial force and M is the
moment;
here
net
axial
force
is
considered
as
P
in
the
P-M interaction curve.
v. Therefore, if calculated bending moment value at any base of the two walls is greater than
yield moment value, plastic hinge at that base would be formed, otherwise no plastic hinge
would be formed.
Step 6

The rotation of coupling beam in each storey is determined as follows:

Lw

Lb

Lw

wi

wi

bi
Lb
2

Figure 4: Deformed shape of a i th storey symmetrical coupled shear walls

Rotation of coupling beam at i th storey for symmetrical walls [Englekirk (2003)] as per Figure 4
is given by

L
bi wi 1 w
(21)
Lb

where, wi is rotation of wall at i th storey and can be calculated as per Equation (18), Lw =
depth of wall, L b = length of coupling beam.
For plastic hinge rotation at the fixed base of wall or real hinge rotation at the pinned base of
wall, Equation (21) could be written as:
bi Lwb wi
(22)

where, wi can be calculated as per Equation (20) for fixed base of wall or for pinned base of
wall and

L
(23)
Lwb = 1 w
Lb

Step 7

The rotational limit for collapse prevention level of different types of RCC coupling beams and
steel beams are given in Table 11. The task was to check whether the rotations of beams attained
their rotational limit of CP level at the collapse mechanism of the structure simultaneously.
Step 8

The roof displacement can be calculated as per the following equations:

N

roof hs wi
i 0

where, displacement at i th storey can be calculated as:

i

i hs wj
j 0

The base shear can be calculated as follows:

F N 1
VB 1
2

(24)

(25)

(26)

Step 9

The F1 is modified as follows when the condition of Step 7 is not satisfied:

To obtain the collapse mechanism of the structure, it is required to increase F 1 with equal
increment until all coupling beams attain their rotation limit of CP level simultaneously.

Validation of the Proposed Design Technique

The following numerical example has been considered to validate the propose design technique.
In this study plan and elevation with dimensions and material properties of the coupled shear
walls have been adopted as given in Chaallal et al. (1996).
Numerical Example

The coupled shear walls considered here is part of a 20-storey office building
(Figure 5). It is subjected to triangular variation of lateral loading. The dimension and material
properties are tabulated in Table 13. Dead loads and live loads are discussed in the following
section.
A
comparison
of
the
results
regarding
design/capacity
curve
(Figure 7) and ductility [Equation (27)] obtained from the proposed design technique with the
results obtained in SAP V 10.0.5 (2000) and DRAIN-3DX (1993) software packages may, thus,

be required. For obtaining more perfection about the results, these two softwares have been
considered here simultaneously.
Table 13: Dimensions and material properties of coupled shear walls for validation of proposed
design technique
Depth of the wall (Lw)

4m

Width of coupling beam

(bb)

300 mm

Length of coupling
beam (Lb )

1.8 m

Storey height (hs )

3.0 m

Depth of coupling
beam (db)

Modulus of concrete (Ec)

27.0 GPa

600 mm

Modulus of steel (Es )

200.0 GPa

Number of storeys (N)

20
Steel yield strength (fy )

415 MPa

Wall thickness (tw)

300 mm

Figure 5(a) and Figure 5(b) show the plan and sectional elevation of the coupled shear wall
building, respectively.
a
hs
5m

Wall 1

Lw

I, A

I, A
db

Lb
Lw

5m
9m

9m

9m

Wall 2

9m

Figure 5(a): Plan view of building

LW

Lb

LW

Figure 5(b): Coupled shear walls at

section a-a

Loading Consideration

Dead loads (DL) of 6.7 kN/m2 and live loads (LL) of 2.4 kN/m2 have been considered as
suggested in Chaallal et al. (1996). Total gravity loading on coupled shear walls at section a-a
has been calculated as the sum of dead load plus 25 % LL as per
IS 1893 (part 1) (2002) for floor; however, in case of roof only dead load is considered.
Modeling of Coupled Shear Walls in Proposed Design Technique

The modeling of coupled shear walls involving Figure 3, assumptions and steps with
mathematical calculation is already described in Section Proposed Formulation.

Modeling of coupled shear walls in SAP and DRAIN-3DX

Wide column frame analogy [Mcleod (1966)] has been considered for modeling of coupled shear
walls in SAP V 10.0.5 (2000) and DRAIN-3DX (1993) as given in
Figure 6. In this analogy, shear walls are represented as two line elements (centre line of shear
wall) and beams are represented as line elements (centre line of beam) by joining with each other
with rigid link. Beam column elastic element (Type-17) and inelastic element (Type-15) are
considered for modeling.

Coupling beam
Rigid link

0.5L w

L b 0.5L w

Figure 6: Modeling in SAP V 10.0.5 (2000) and DRAIN-3DX (1993)

Calculation of Ductility

The obtained
design/capacity curve
from the proposed
design
technique,
SAP V 10.0.5 (2000) and DRAIN-3DX (1993) is bilinearized. The bilinear representation is
prepared
in
the
following
manner
based
on
the
concepts
given
in
ATC 40 (1996).

Capacity
curve

Figure 7: Bilinear Representation for Capacity Curve

It can be seen from Figure 7 that bilinear representation can be due to the basis of initial tange nt
stiffness and equal energies (Area a1 = Area a2 ). Subsequently, ductility of the coupled shear
walls has been calculated as:

roof , CP
(27)
roof , yield
where, roof , CP and roof , yield can be calculated from the Equation (24); is the ductility which

represents how much earthquake energy dissipates during an earthquake.

Results and Discussions

Coupled shear walls at section a-a as shown in Figure 5 are considered for conducting the
study.
RCC coupling beam with Conventional longitudinal reinforcement and conforming
transverse reinforce ment: RCC coupling beam with Conventional longitudinal reinforcement
and conforming transverse reinforcement in each storey has been selected as per Step 1 for the
study. The results of this study for fixed base as well as pinned base conditions have been shown
in the following manner.
900

1500

600

1000

SAP V 10.0.5

SAP V 10.0.5
DRAIN-3DX

500

DRAIN-3DX

300

DESIGN

DESIGN

TECHNIQUE

0.1

0.2

0.3

TECHNIQUE

0.1

0.3

Roof Displacement (m)

Roof Displacement (m)

Figure 8(a):
Capacity curve for fixed base condition

0.2

Figure 8(b):
Capacity curve for pinned base condition

Table 14: Ductility of coupled shear walls considering different approaches

Ductility
Method
Fixed base
Pinned base
Proposed Design Technique

7.5

DRAIN-3DX (1993)

6.75

7.45

SAP V 10.0.5 (2000)

6.92

7.47

0.4

Discussions of numerical results:

Figure 8(b) shows that the results obtained from proposed design technique for pinned base
conditions are almost similar with the results obtained from DRAIN-3DX (1993) and SAP V
10.0.5 (2000). Whereas, Figure 8(a) is showing a bit differences about the results obtained from
proposed design technique, DRAIN-3DX (1993) and SAP V 10.0.5 (2000) although same
dimensions, same material properties and same loading were considered in all the three
techniques. However, the differences were not very high (5-10%). Table 14 is showing the
results about ductility obtained for fixed and pinned base conditions with the help of the Figures
8(a) and 8(b) and Section Calculation of Ductility. It is noticed that ductility for pinned base
condition is greater than fixed base conditions. It means that stable hysteresis with high
earthquake energy dissipation can be obtained for coupled shear walls with pinned base.
The results obtained from the proposed design technique are satisfactory. However, it is
necessary to find the limitations of the proposed design technique. Therefore, in the following
section, parametric study is elaborately discussed to detect the limitations of the proposed design
technique.
PARAMETRIC STUDY
It has been observed from the CSA (1994) and Chaallal et al. (1996) that the behavior of the
ductile coupled shear walls depends on degree of coupling, where degree of coupling depends
upon depth and length of the coupling beam as well as depth and height of the coupled shear
walls [Park and Paulay (1975) & Paulay and Priestley (1992)].
Therefore, this study has been restricted on length of the coupling beam and number of stories
as basic variables and other parameters are considered as constant. These parameters have been
considered in proposed method to make out effect on the behavior of coupled shear walls.
Further, modifications to achieve ideal seismic behavior according to the proposed method have
been included in this study.
Model for Parametric Study
A typical building with symmetrical coupled shear walls is shown in
Figures 9(a) and (b). Coupled shear walls at section a-a have been considered to carry out the
parametric study.

a
hs
5m

Wall 1

Lw

I, A

I, A
db

Lb
Lw

5m
9m

9m

9m

Wall 2

9m

Figure 9(a): Plan view of building with

symmetrical coupled shear
walls

LW

Lb

LW

Figure 9(b): Coupled shear walls

at section a-a

Loading Consideration

Dead loads (DL) of 6.7 kN/m2 and live loads (LL) of 2.4 kN/m2 have been considered as per the
suggestions made by in Chaallal et al. (1996). Total gravity loading on coupled shear walls at
section
a-a
has
been
calculated
as
the
sum
of
dead
load
plus 25 % LL as per IS 1893 (part 1) (2002) for floor; however, in case of roof only dead load is
considered.
Parameters

Table 15 mentions the different parameters with dimensions and material properties which have
been considered to carry out the parametric study.
Table 15: Dimensions and material properties of coupled shear walls for parametric study
Depth of the wall
Width of coupling beam
4m
300 mm
(Lw)
(bb)
Length of beam (Lb) 1 m, 1.5 m and 2 m
Storey height (hs )
3.6 m
Depth of beam (db)
Number of stories
(N)
Wall thickness (tw)

800 mm

Modulus of concrete (Ec)

22.4 GPa

10, 15 and 20

Yield strength of steel

(fy)

415 MPa

300 mm

Analysis Using Proposed Design Technique

The above mentioned building has been studied by the design technique. The results for different
parameters have been described in this section.

Observed Behavior

To study the influence of length of the coupling beam (Lb) on the behavior of coupled shear
walls, length of the coupling beam is considered as 1 m, 1.5 m and 2 m for both fixed and pinned
base conditions. RCC coupling beam with conventional longitudinal reinforcement with
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 per Step 7.
The study has been performed for coupled shear walls with number of stories 20, 15 and 10 for
both fixed and pinned base conditions.
For Number of Stories N = 20

Lb = 1m

Lb = 1m

Lb = 1.5 m

Lb = 1.5 m

Lb = 2 m

Lb = 2 m

Figure 10(a):
Storey displacement for fixed base condition
at CP level

Lb = 1m

Figure 10(b):
Storey displacement for pinned base condition
at CP level

Reduced
demand
Reduced
response
demand
Reduced
spectra
response
demand
spectra
response
spectra

Lb = 1m

Lb = 1.5 m

Lb = 1.5 m

Lb = 2 m

Lb = 2 m

Figure 11(a):
Figure 11(b):
Wall rotation for fixed base condition at CP Wall rotation for pinned base condition at CP
level
level

Lb = 1m
Lb = 1.5 m
Lb = 2 m

Reduced
demand
Reduced
response
demand
Reduced
spectra
response
demand
spectra
response
spectra

Lb = 1m
Lb = 1.5 m
Lb = 2 m

Figure 12(a):
Figure 12(b):
Beam rotation for fixed base condition at CP Beam rotation for pinned base condition at CP
level
level

Lb = 1m
L = 1.5 m

b
Reduced
Lb = 2 m
demand
Reduced
response
demand
Reduced
spectra
response
demand
spectra
response

Reduced
demand
Reduced
response
demand
Reduced
spectra
response
demand
spectra
response
spectra

Lb = 1m
Lb = 1.5 m
Lb = 2 m

spectra

Figure 13(a):
Capacity curve for fixed base condition

Figure 13(b):
Capacity curve for pinned base condition

Discussion of results for N = 20

The deflection for the case of pinned base condition is much higher than the case of fixed base
(Figure 10); however, the base shear for the case of pinned base condition is lower than the case
of fixed base (Figure 13). It shows satisfactory results based on the behavior of coupled shear
walls. Because, coupled shear walls with pinned base deflected more s ubjected to lesser lateral
loading in comparison with the coupled shear walls with fixed base and base shear is directly
varying with the lateral loading (Equation 26). Since wall rotation is directly varying with the
length of the beam (Figure 11) and deflection is the summation of the wall rotation (Equation
25), deflection is directly varying with the length of the beam (Figure 10). It has been also
observed that all beams reach to their rotational limit of CP level for pinned base condition;
however, very few beams reach to their rotational limit of CP level for fixed base condition
(Figure 12). Hence, it can be said that coupled shear walls is behaving 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 the free end of the wall. This rotation
decreases towards the base of the wall and is zero at the base for fixity.
ii) Fixed base coupled shear walls with short span coupling beam is behaving as a cantilever
wall (Lb = 1m of Figure 11). It is also one of the behaviors of a coupled shear walls.
However, fixed base coupled shear walls with long span coupling beam does not show
cantilever wall (Lb = 1.5m and Lb = 2m of Figure 11) behavior.
iii) Beam rotation is proportional to the wall rotation.
Therefore, it can be said from the above observations that coupled shear walls with short span
coupling beam (Lb = 1m) can be acceptable in comparison with the long span co upling beam (Lb
= 1.5m and Lb = 2m) although the behavior of all three coupling beams is governed by shear
according to Table 11.
With the help of Section Calculation of Ductility and Figure 13, ductility for pinned base
condition and fixed base condition has been calculated in the following table.
Table 16: Ductility of coupled shear walls for N = 20
Base
condition

Length of the coupling beam

(Lb)

Values

1m
1.5m
2m
1m
1.5m
2m

3.33
4.8
6.3
5.11
6.35
7.1

Fixed
Pinned

It has been observed from the above table that ductility is more for pinned base condition in
comparison with the fixed base condition and ductility increases with increase in length of the
coupling beam (Equations 24 and 27, Figures 10, 11 & 13).
For Number of Stories N = 15

Lb = 1m
Lb = 1.5 m
Lb = 2 m

Reduced
demand
Reduced
response
demand
Reduced
spectra
response
demand
spectra
response

Lb = 1m
Lb = 1.5 m
Lb = 2 m

spectra

Figure 14(a):
Storey displacement for fixed base condition
at CP level

Figure 14(b):
Storey displacement for pinned base condition
at CP level

Lb = 1m
Lb = 1.5 m
Lb = 2 m

Reduced
demand
Reduced
response
demand
Reduced
spectra
response
demand
spectra
response

Lb = 1m
Lb = 1.5 m
Lb = 2 m

spectra

Figure 15(a):
Figure 15(b):
Wall rotation for fixed base condition at CP Wall rotation for pinned base condition at CP
level
level

Lb = 1m

Lb = 1m

Lb = 1.5 m

Lb = 1.5 m

Lb = 2 m

Lb = 2 m

Figure 16(a):
Figure 16(b):
Beam rotation for fixed base condition at CP Beam rotation for pinned base condition at CP
level
level

Lb = 1m

Lb = 1m

Lb = 1.5 m

Lb = 1.5 m

Lb = 2 m

Lb = 2 m

Figure 17(a):
Capacity curve for fixed base condition

Figure 17(b):
Capacity curve for pinned base condition

Discussion of results for N = 15

With the help of Section Calculation of Ductility and Figure 17, ductility for pinned base
condition and fixed base condition has been calculated in the following table.
Table 17: Ductility of coupled shear walls for N = 15
Base condition

Length of the coupling beam (Lb)

Values

1m

2.93

1.5m

4.0

2m

5.9

1m

4.5

1.5m

5.85

2m

6.87

Fixed

Pinned

It has been observed from Figures 14 to 17 and Table 17 that the results obtained for N=15 are
similar with the results of N = 20 for fixed base condition and pinned base condition.

For Number of Stories N = 10

Lb = 1m
Lb = 1.5 m
Lb = 2 m

Figure 18(a):
Storey displacement
condition at CP level

for

fixed

Lb = 1m

Reduced
demand
response
spectra

Lb = 1.5 m
Lb = 2 m

Figure 18(b):
base Storey displacement for pinned base condition
at CP level

Reduced
demand
Reduced
response
demand
Reduced
spectra
response
demand
spectra
response

Lb = 1m
Lb = 1.5 m
Lb = 2 m

Figure 19(a):
Wall rotation for fixed base condition at
CP level

Lb = 1m
Lb = 1.5 m

Lb = 1m
Lb = 1.5 m
Lb = 2 m

spectra

Figure 19(b):
Wall rotation for pinned base condition at
CP level

Reduced
demand
Reduced
response
demand
Reduced
spectra
response
demand
spectra
response
spectra

Lb = 2 m

Lb = 1m
Lb = 1.5 m
Lb = 2 m

Figure 20(a):
Figure 20(b):
Beam rotation for fixed base condition at Beam rotation for pinned base condition at
CP level
CP level

LbReduced
= 1m

demand
LbReduced
= 1.5 m
response
demand
Reduced
Lbspectra
=2 m
response
demand
spectra
response
spectra

Reduced
demand
Reduced
response
demand
spectra
Reduced
response
demand
spectra
response
spectra

Lb = 1m
Lb = 1.5 m
Lb = 2 m

F
Figure 21(a):
Capacity curve for fixed base condition

Figure 21(b):
Capacity curve for pinned base condition

Discussion of results for N = 10

Figures 20 and 21 show that beam rotation and capacity curve reach CP level for the case of Lb =
1 m with pinned base condition only. However, beam rotation and capacity curve do not reach
the CP level for the other cases while shear capacities in all coupling beams have been achieved.
It means that ideal seismic behavior (stable hysteresis with high earthquake energy dissipation)
of coupled shear walls has only been achieved for Lb = 1 m with pinned base condition. Proposed
design technique does not show ideal seismic behavior of coupled shear walls for Lb = 1 m, 1.5
m and 2 m with fixed base condition and Lb = 1.5 m and 2 m with pinned base condition. Now,
remedial action has been considered in the following manner to obtain the ideal seismic
behavior.
Remedial Action for N = 10

The remedy for the cases of Lb = 1 m, 1.5 m and 2 m with fixed base condition and
Lb = 1.5 m and 2 m with pinned base condition to achieve CP level is mentioned below (Figures
22 to 25). To obtain the CP level, it is required to increase the wall rotation. Since wall rotation
[Equations (18) and (19)] is inversely varying to the L w3 , it is required to decrease the L w. It has
been observed from Figure 25 that the ideal seismic behavior of coupled shear walls has been
achieved.

Reduced demand
response spectra
Reduced
demand
Reduced
response
demand
spectra
response
spectra

Figure 22(a):
Storey displacement
condition at CP level

for

fixed

Figure 22(b):
base Storey displacement for pinned base condition
at CP level

Figure 23(a):
Figure 23(b):
Wall rotation for fixed base condition at CP Wall rotation for pinned base condition at CP
level
level

Figure 24(a):
Figure 24(b):
Beam rotation for fixed base condition at CP Beam rotation for pinned base condition at CP
level
level

Figure 25 (a):
Capacity curve for fixed base condition

Figure 25(b):
Capacity curve for pinned base condition

Discussion of the above results

Figures 24 and 25 show that beam rotation and capacity curve reach CP level for all cases
although the results are not satisfactory for fixed base condition according to the explanations
given in Section For Number of Stories N = 20.
Hence, it can be said from the above results that proposed design technique is useful to design
the coupled shear walls during earthquake motion. To confirm it more, nonlinear static analysis
is consisdered in the following manner to assess the proposed design technique.
ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED DESIGN TECHNIQUE USING NONLINEAR STATIC
ANALYSIS
In this paper, nonlinear static analysis is carried out to determine the response reduction factors
of coupled shear walls at different earthquake levels.
Design Example
The following design example is presented for carrying out the non linear static analysis of
coupled shear walls. These walls are subjected to triangular variation of lateral loading. The base
of the walls is assumed as fixed. Table 18 mentions the different parameters with dimensions and
material properties which have been considered to carry out the study. Figure 26(a) and Figure
26(b) show the plan and sectional elevation of the coupled shear wall building, respectively. The
place considered for this study is Roorkee and soil type for this place is medium (Type II);
maximum considered earthquake (MCE) level and design basis earthquake level (DBE) are
considered for the study.

Table 18: Dimensions and material properties of coupled shear walls for nonlinear static
analysis
Depth of the wall (Lw)

4m

Width of coupling beam

(bb)

300 mm

Length of beam (Lb)

1m

Storey height (hs )

3.6 m

Modulus of concrete (Ec)

22.4 GPa

Depth of beam (db)

800 mm
Modulus of steel (Es )

200.0
GPa

Steel yield strength (fy )

415 MPa

Number of stories (N)

20 and 15

Wall thickness (tw)

300 mm

a
hs
5m

Wall 1

Lw

I, A

I, A
db

Lb
Lw

5m
9m

9m

9m

Wall 2

9m

Figure 26(a): Plan view of building with

coupled shear walls

LW

Lb

LW

Figure 26(b): Coupled shear walls

at section a-a

Loading consideration

Dead loads (DL) of 6.7 kN/m2 and live loads (LL) of 2.4 kN/m2 have been considered as given
in Chaallal et al. (1996). Total gravity loading on coupled shear walls at section a-a has been
calculated
as
the
sum
of
dead
load
plus
25
%
LL
as
per
IS 1893 (part 1) (2002) for floor; however, in case of roof only dead load is considered.
Results and discussions

The results and discussions are described in the following manner.

Figure 27(a): Capacity curve for N = 20

Figure 27(b): Capacity curve for N = 15

Calculation of performance point

Place considered here is Roorkee which belongs to the seismic zone IV and Z is 0.24 as per IS
1893
(part1)
(2002).
5%
damped
elastic
response
spectra
as
per
IS 1893 (part1) (2002) are considered here as demand curve. DBE and MCE levels are
considered for calculation of performance point (pp). Capacity curves are already obtained in
Figure 27. The performance point has been calculated with the help of capacity spectrum method
of ATC 40 (1996) which is as follows:

Figure 28: Pe rformance point at the MCE level for N = 20

In this case, modal mass co-efficient 1 = 0.616 and Mode participation factor
PF1 = 1.51 derived with the help of modal analysis in SAP V 10.0.5 (2000). Figure 28 shows that
pp is the performance point. The base shear at the performance point (pp), Vb,pp = 1173.1 kN and
roof displacement at the performance point (pp), roof, pp = 0.31 m.

5% demand response
spectra

Capacity curve

Straight line
tangent to the
Capacity curve

Reduced demand
response spectra

pp

Figure 29: Pe rformance point at the DBE level for N = 20

In this case, modal mass co-efficient 1 = 0.616 and Mode participation factor
PF1 = 1.51. Figure 29 shows that pp is the performance point. The base shear at the performance
point (pp), Vb,pp = 957.6 kN and roof displacement at the performance point (pp), roof,pp = 0.097
m.

5% demand response
spectra

Capacity curve
Straight line tangent to
the capacity curve
Reduced demand
response spectra

Figure 30: Pe rformance point at the MCE level for N = 15

In this case, modal mass co-efficient 1 = 0.644 and Mode participation factor
PF1 = 1.485. Figure 30 shows that pp is the performance point. The base shear at the performance
point (pp), Vb,pp = 1455.3 kN and roof displacement at the performance point (pp), roof,pp =
0.259 m.

5% demand response
spectra

Capacity curve

Straight line tangent to the

capacity curve

Reduced demand response

spectra

pp

Figure 31: Pe rformance point at the DBE level for N = 15

In this case, modal mass co-efficient 1 = 0.644 and Mode participation factor
PF1 = 1.485. Figure 31 shows that pp is the performance point. The base shear at the performance
point (pp), Vb,pp = 1251.5 kN and roof displacement at the performance point (pp), roof,pp =
0.101 m.
Calculation of response reduction factor at the performance point

Table 19 shows different response reduction factors for MCE and DBE level. These are
calculated at different performance points (Figures 28-31).

Table 19: Response Reduction Factors for DBE and MCE levels
Paramete rs

e1 [Pore
(2007)]

e 2 [Pore

R [Pore

R IDRS

R IDRS

(2007)]

(2007)]

[First Method of Energy-

[Second Method of

Ductility Based Response

Energy-Ductility Based

Reduction] [Pore (2007)]

Response Reduction]

R d as per CSA
(1994)

[Pore (2007)]
DBE

1.04

1.004

1.02

1.04

1.004

MCE

2.05

1.2

1.58

2.05

1.34

N=20

1.5 or 2 for coupled

shear walls with
conventional
DBE

1.01

1.00

1.002

1.01

1.00
reinforced coupling

N=15
MCE

1.87

1.13

1.39

1.87

1.22

beam

From the above table, response reduction factor of coupled shear walls is varying between
1.22 to 2.05 for maximum considered earthquake (MCE) level; which is almost same as the
provision of CSA (1994) for coupling beam with conventional reinforcement.
CONCLUSIONS
From the above studies, the following recommendations have been made for the design of
coupled shear walls under earthquake motion.
(i) Design technique should be adopted for fixing the dimensions of coupled shear walls.
(ii) Coupled shear walls with N 15 with equal storey height h s 3.6m can be designed with
I
L
L
an optimum ratio of b 0.25 for b 1.25 and b 8 10 03 to obtain consistency
Lw
db
I
between the behavior with respect to the wall rotation and earthquake energy dissipation.
(iii)Pinned base condition can be provided at the base of the shear wall as this type of base
condition offers better nonlinear behavior in compare to the fixed base condition.
(iv) The behavior of coupling beam should be governed by shear.

NOTATIONS

Area of Symmetrical Coupled Shear Walls

Acw

Area of Concrete Section of an Individual Pier, Horizontal Wall

Segment, or Coupling Beam Resisting Shear in in2 as per
ACI 318 (2005)

Ag

Gross Area of Concrete Section in in2 For a Hollow Section, Ag is

the Area of The Concrete Only and does not Include the Area of
the Void(S) as per ACI 318 (2005)

As"

Reinforcing Steel in One Diagonal as per Englekirk (2003)

As

Area of Nonprestressed Tension Reinforcement as per Englekirk (2003)

Asd

Reinforcement along each Diagonal of Coupling Beam as per

IS 13920 (1993)

Avd

Total Area of Reinforcement in Each Group of Diagonal Bars in

a diagonally reinforced coupling beam in in2 as per
ACI 318(2005)

bb

Width of Coupling Beam

bf

Flange width of I-beam as per FEMA 273 (1997) and FEMA 356 (2000)

bw

Web Width of the Coupling Beam as per FEMA 273 (1997) and
FEMA 356 (2000)

Compressive Axial Force at the Base of Wall 2

CP

Collapse Prevention Level

Overall Depth of the Steel I-Coupling beam Section

DC

Degree of Coupling

DL

Dead Loads

DBE

Design Basis Earthquake

Effective Depth of the Beam

db

Depth of the Coupling Beam

Distance from Extreme Compression Fiber to Centroid of Compressio n

Reinforcement as Per Englekirk (2003)

Displacement at V b

Elastic displacement (Ve)

Displacement at Limiting Response

roof

Roof Displacement

roof , CP

Roof Displacement at CP Level

roof , yield

Roof Displacement at Yield Level

Displacement at Ultimate Strength Capacity

Displacement at Yield Strength Capacity

ya

Actual displacement at Vya

Ec

Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete

Ecb

Youngs Modulus for Concrete in Beam

E cw

Youngs Modulus for Concrete in Wall

EPP

Elastic-Perfectly-Plastic

EQRD

Earthquake Resistant Design

Es

Modulus of Elasticity
FEMA 356 (2000)

E sb

Youngs Modulus for Steel in Beam

E sw

Youngs Modulus for Steel in Wall

Clear Span of the Coupling Beam+2 Concrete Cover of Shear Wall as per
Englekirk (2003)

Strain in Concrete

of

Steel

as

per

FEMA

273

(1997)

and

Force

F1

Maximum Amplitude of Triangular Variation of Loading

FEMA

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Fu

Ultimate Force

Fy

Yield stress of Structural Steel

f c'

Specified Compressive Strength of Concrete Cylinder

f ck

Characteristic Compressive Strength of Concrete Cube

fy

Specified Yield Strength of Reinforcement

Overall Height of the Coupled Shear Walls

Distance from inside of compression flange to inside of tension flange of

I-beam as per FEMA 273 (1997) and FEMA 356 (2000)

hs

Storey Height

Moment of Inertia of Symmetrical Coupled Shear Walls

Ib

Moment of Inertia of Coupling Beam

IO

Immediate Occupancy Level

Storey Number

Unloading Stiffness

k1

Post Yield Stiffness

ke

Elastic Stiffness

ki

Initial Stiffness

k sec

Secant Stiffness

Lb

Length of the Coupling Beam

Ld

Diagonal Length of the Member

LL

Live Loads

LS

Life Safety Level

Lw

Depth of Coupled Shear Walls

Distance between Neutral Axis of the Two Walls

Member Over strength factor as per Englekirk (2003)

Moment of Symmetrical Coupled Shear Walls

M1

Moment at the Base of the Wall 1

M2

Moment at the Base of the Wall 2

MCE

Maximum Considered Earthquake

MDOF

Multi-Degree of Freedom

Mn

Nominal Flexural Strength at Section in lb- in as per

ACI 318 (2005)

Mp

Moment Capacity of Coupling Beam as per Englekirk (2003)

Mot

Total Overturning Moment due to the Lateral Loading

MRF

Moment Resistant Frame

Displacement Ductility Capacity Relied on in the Design as per

NZS 3101 (1995)

Ductility

e1

Energy based proposal for ductility under monotonic loading and

Unloading

e 2

Energy based proposal for ductility under Cyclic Loading

Total Number of Storeys

NA

Not Applicable

NEHRP

National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program

NSP

Non-linear Static Procedure

Axial Force as per IS 456 (1978)

PBSD

Performance Based Seismic Design

Percentage of Minimum Reinforcement

Shear span to depth ratio

pp

Performance Point

Response Reduction Factor

RCC

Reinforced Cement Concrete

Rd

Ductility Related Force Modification Factor

Ductility Factor

RR

Redundancy Factor

Rs

Overstrength Factor

Sa

Spectral Acceleration

Sd

Spectral Displacement

SDOF

Single-Degree of Freedom

Tensile Axial Force at the Base of Wall 1

T1

Tensile Strength of One Diagonal of a Diagonal Reinforced Coupling Beam

Td

Tensile Strength of Truss Reinforced Coupling Beams Diagonal as per

Englekirk (2003)

T'

The Residual Chord Strength as per Englekirk (2003)

tf

Flange Thickness of Steel I-Coupling beam as per Englekirk (2003)

Inclination of Diagonal Reinforcement in Coupling Beam

Coupling Beam Rotation

Rotational Value at Ultimate Point

Lu

u , m ax

Maximum Rotational Value

Wall Rotation

Yield Rotation as per FEMA 273 (1997) and FEMA 356 (2000)

tw

Wall Thickness

t w'

Web Thickness of Steel I-Coupling beam

Shear Force in the Coupling Beam

V1

The Shear or Vertical Component of One Diagonal in a Primary Truss Travelled

along the Compression Diagonal as per Englekirk (2003)

V2

The Shear in a Secondary Truss produced by the Residual Tension

Reinforcement Activated the Load Transfer Mechanism as per
Englekirk (2003)

VB

Base Shear

Vb

Non-factored design base shear

Vd

Factored design base shear may be less than or greater than Vya

Ve

Base shear for elastic response

Vl

Base shear at limiting response

Vn

Nominal Shear Strength in lb as per ACI 318 (2005)

Vnf

The transferable shear force for flexure dominant steel coupling beam as per
Englekirk (2003)

Vsp

Shear Capacity of Coupling Beam as per Englekirk (2003)

V s1

Shear Strength of Closed Stirrups

FEMA 273 (1997) and FEMA 356 (2000)

Vu

Capacity corresponding to u (may be the maximum capacity)

Vu 1

Factored Shear Force as per IS 13920 (1993)

Vu 2

Factored Shear Force at Section in lb as per ACI 318 (2005)

Vw

Shear Force at the Base of the Shear Wall

Vw1

Shear Force at the Base of Wall 1

Vw 2

Shear Force at the Base of Wall 2

Vy

Base shear at idealized yield level

as

per

ATC

40

(1996),

V ya

Actual first yield level

vn

Total Nominal Shear Stress in MPa as per NZS 3101 (1995)

Wg

Total Gravity Loading for Symmetrical Coupled Shear Walls

Compressive Strut Width as per Englekirk (2003)

Zone Factor

Zp

Plastic Section Modulus of Steel Coupling Beam

REFERENCES
1. American Concrete Institute: ACI 318-05/ACI 318R-05 (2005), Building code requirements
for reinforced concrete and commentary, Farmington Hills, Mich.
2. American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. (1997), Seismic Provisions for Structural
Steel Buildings, Chicago, IL.
3. American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. (2000), Seismic Provisions for Structural
Steel Buildings, Supplement No. 2, Chicago, IL.
4. American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. (2005), Seismic Provisions for Structural
Steel Buildings, Chicago, IL.
5. Applied Technology Council: ATC-40 Report (1996): Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of
Concrete Buildings, Volume I, Redwood City, California.
6. ATENA2D: Version 3.3.0.3 (2006), Nonlinear Finite Element Integrated Analysis,
Cervenka Consulting, Praha, Czech Republic.
7. Bureau of Indian Standards: IS-456 (2000), Plain and Reinforced Concrete Code of
Practice, New Delhi, India.
8. Bureau of Indian Standards: IS-4326 (1993), Earthquake Resistant Design and Construction
of Buildings - Code of Practice, New Delhi, India.
9. Bureau of Indian Standards: IS-13920 (1993), Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete
Structures Subjected to Seismic Forces Code of Practice, New Delhi, India.
10. Bureau of Indian Standards: IS-1893, part 1 (2002), Criteria for Earthquake Resistant
Design of Structures: Part 1 General provisions and Buildings, New Delhi, India.
11. Canadian Standards Association: CAN3-A23.3-M94, CSA (1994), Design of Concrete
Structures for Buildings, Rexdale, Ontario, Canada.
12. Chaallal, O., Gauthier, D., and Malenfant, P. (1996), Classification methodology for
coupled shear walls, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 122(12), 1453-1458.
13. Chao, S. -H., Khandelwal, K., and El-Tawil, S. (2006). Ductile fracture initiation in shear
link webs, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 132(8), 11921200.
14. El-Tawil, S., Harries, K.A., Fortney, P.J., Shahrooz, B. M. and Kurama, Y. (2010), Seismic
Design of Hybrid Coupled Wall Systems: State of the Art, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, 122(12), 1453-1458.

15. Englekirk, R.E. (2003), Seismic Design of Reinforced and Precast Concrete Buildings, John
Wiley, NY.
16. Federal Emergency Management Agency: FEMA-273 (1997), NEHRP Guidelines for the
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Washington, DC, U.S.A.
17. Federal Emergency Management Agency: FEMA-356 (2000), Prestandard and
Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Washington, DC, U.S.A.
18. Fortney, P. J., and Shahrooz, B. M. (2009). Boundary detailing of coupled core wall system
wall piers, Journal in Advances in Structural Engineering, 12(3), 299310.
19. Galano, L., and Vignoli, A. (2000), Seismic Behavior of Short Coupling Beams with
Different Reinforcement Layouts, ACI Structural Journal, 97(6), 876-885.
20. Harries, K.A., Mitchell, D., Cook, W.D., and Redwood, R.G. (1993), Seismic Response of
Steel Beams Coupling Concrete Walls, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 119(12),
3611-3629.
21. Harries, K. A., and McNeice, D. S. (2006), Performance-based design of high-rise coupled
wall systems. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Structures, 15(3), 289306.
22. Hindi, A., and Sexsmith, R. (2001), A Proposed Damage Model for R/C Bridge Columns
under Cyclic Loading, Earthquake Spectra, 17 (2), 261281.
23. http://www.nicee.org/eqe-iitk/uploads/EQR_Bhuj.pdf
24. Jain, A.K. (1999), Reinforced Concrete Limit State Design, Nem Chand & Bros, Roorkee.
25. Munshi, J.A., and Ghosh, S.K. (2000), Displacement-Based Seismic Design for Coupled
Wall Systems, Earthquake Spectra, 16(3), 621-642.
26. New Zealand Standard: NZS 3101 (part 1) (1995). "The Design of Concrete Structures"
Wellington, NZ.
27. Park, R., and Paulay, T. (1975), Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
NY.
28. Paulay, T. (1986), The Design of Ductile Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls for
Earthquake Resistance, Earthquake Spectra, 2(4).
29. Paulay, T. and Priestley, M.J.N. (1992), Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and
Masonry Buildings, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NY.
30. Paulay, T. (2002), A Displacement-Focused Seismic Design of Mixed Building System,
Earthquake Spectra, 18 (4), 689718.
31. Paulay, T. (2002), The displacement capacity of reinforced concrete coupled walls,
Engineering Structures, 24, 11651175.
32. Penelis, G.G., and Kappos, A.J. (1997), Earthquake-resistant concrete structures, E&FN
SPON, NY.
33. Pore, S.M. (2007), Performance Based Seismic Design of Low to Medium Rise RC Framed
Buildings for India, Department of Earthquake Engineering, IIT Roorkee.
34. Prakash, V., Powell, G.H. and Campbell, S. (1993), DRAIN-3DX Base Program User
Guide Version 1.10, Structural Engineering, Mechanics and Materials, Department of Civil
Engineering UC, Berkeley, California, USA.
35. Prakash, V. (2004), Whither Performance-Based Engineering in India?, ISET Journal,
41(1), 201-222.
36. SAP2000: Advanced 10.0.5 (2006), Static and Dynamic Finite Element Analysis of
Structures, Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley, CA.
37. Smith, B.S., and Coull, A. (1991), Tall Building Structures (Analysis and Design), John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.

38. Xuan, G., Shahrooz, B. M., Harries, K. A. and Rassati, G. A. (2008), A Performance-Based
Design Approach for Coupled Core Wall Systems with Diagonally Reinforced Concrete
Coupling Beams, Advances in Structural Engineering, 11 (3), 265-280.