Title:
Reinforced Concrete Coupling Beams with High-Strength Steel Bars
Author(s):
Andres Lepage, Remy D. Lequesne, and Alexander S. Weber-Kamin
Publication:
Structural Journal
Volume:
122
Issue:
3
Appears on pages(s):
173-186
Keywords:
chord rotation capacity; confining reinforcement; deformation capacity; force-deformation envelope; hoop spacing; reinforcement grade; reversed cyclic displacements
DOI:
10.14359/51745464
Date:
5/1/2025
Abstract:
Eleven large-scale reinforced concrete coupling beam specimens
were tested under reversed cyclic displacements of increasing
magnitude. The main variables included yield stress (fy) of the
primary longitudinal reinforcement (Grade 80, 100, or 120 ksi
[550, 690, or 830 MPa]), span-depth (aspect) ratio (1.5, 2.5, or
3.5), and layout of the primary longitudinal reinforcement (diagonal
[D] or parallel [P]). Specimens had the same nominal
concrete strength (8000 psi [55 MPa]) and cross section (12
x 18 in. [310 x 460 mm]) and were designed for nominal shear
stresses of 8 √__f c′ psi (0.67 √__f c′ MPa) for D-type beams and 6√
__f c′ psi (0.5 √ __f c′ MPa) for P-type beams. Transverse reinforcement was Grade 80 (550) in all but one beam (D120-2.5), which had Grade 120 (830) reinforcement. Test results show that, on average, D-type beams had chord rotation capacities in excess of 5%, 6%, and 7% for beams with aspect ratios of 1.5, 2.5, and 3.5, respectively. P-type beams with Grade 80 or 100 (550 or 690) longitudinal bars, tested only for an aspect ratio of 2.5, had chord rotation capacities of approximately 4%. Based on these results, the authors recommend permitting the use of high strength steel, Grade 80 (550) and higher, in D-type and P-type coupling beams for earthquake-resistant design. The spacing of confining reinforcement should be limited to 5db for fy = 80 ksi (550 MPa) and 4db for fy = 100 or 120 ksi (690 or 830 MPa). Consistent with prior findings, the results show that deformation capacity is correlated with span-depth ratio and more sensitive to spacing of the confining reinforcement than to uniform elongation of the longitudinal reinforcement. Finally, the test results illustrate the effects of reinforcement grade on stiffness and energy dissipation of pseudostatically loaded coupling beams.
Related References:
1. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary (ACI 318R-14),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2014, 520 pp.
2. Rautenberg, J. M.; Pujol, S.; Tavallali, H.; and Lepage, A., “Drift Capacity of Concrete Columns Reinforced with High-Strength Steel,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 110, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2013, pp. 307-318.
3. Cheng, M.-Y., and Giduquio, M. B., “Cyclic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Flexural Members Using High-Strength Flexural Reinforcement,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 111, No. 4, July-Aug. 2014, pp. 893-902. doi: 10.14359/51686632
4. Tavallali, H.; Lepage, A.; Rautenberg, J. M.; and Pujol, S., “Concrete Beams Reinforced with High-Strength Steel Subjected to Displacement Reversals,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 111, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2014, pp. 1037-1048. doi: 10.14359/51686967
5. Cheng, M.-Y.; Hung, S.-C.; Lequesne, R. D.; and Lepage, A.,
“Earthquake-Resistant Squat Walls Reinforced with High-Strength Steel,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 113, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2016, pp. 1065-1076. doi: 10.14359/51688825
6. Sokoli, D., and Ghannoum, W. M., “High-Strength Reinforcement in Columns under High Shear Stresses,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 113, No. 3, May-June 2016, pp. 605-614. doi: 10.14359/51688203
7. Weber-Kamin, A. S.; Lequesne, R. D.; and Lepage, A., “Reinforced Concrete Coupling Beams with High-Strength Steel Bars,” SM Report No. 143, The University of Kansas Center for Research, Inc., Lawrence, KS, 2020, 602 pp.
8. Ameen, S.; Lequesne, R. D.; and Lepage, A., “Diagonally Reinforced Concrete Coupling Beams with Grade 120 (830) High-Strength Steel Bars,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 117, No. 6, Nov. 2020, pp. 199-210.
9. To, D. V., and Moehle, J. P., “Special Moment Frames with High-Strength Reinforcement—Part 1: Beams,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 117, No. 2, Mar. 2020, pp. 239-252.
10. Huq, M. S.; Burgos, E. A.; Lequesne, R. D.; and Lepage, A., “High-Strength Steel Bars in Earthquake-Resistant Reinforced Concrete T-Shaped Walls,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 118, No. 1, Jan. 2021, pp. 215-226.
11. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-19) and Commentary (ACI 318R-19) (Reapproved 2022),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2019, 624 pp.
12. Paulay, T., and Binney, J. R., “Diagonally Reinforced Coupling Beams of Shear Walls,” Shear in Reinforced Concrete, SP-42, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1974, pp. 579-598.
13. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 408, “Bond and Development of Straight Reinforcing Bars in Tension (ACI 408R-03),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2003, 49 pp.
14. NIST GCR 14-917-30, “Use of High-Strength Reinforcement in Earthquake-Resistant Concrete Structures,” National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 2014, 231 pp.
15. ASTM C39/C39M-17a, “Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017.
16. ASTM A370-17, “Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017.
17. ASTM E8/E8M-16a, “Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2016.
18. ASTM A615/A615M-16, “Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain Carbon-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2016.
19. ASTM A1035/A1035M-16b, “Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain, Low-Carbon, Chromium, Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2016.
20. ASCE/SEI 41-17, “Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings,” American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2017.
21. Poudel, A.; Ameen, S.; Lequesne, R. D.; and Lepage, A., “Diagonally Reinforced Concrete Coupling Beams: Effects of Axial Restraint,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 118, No. 6, Nov. 2021, pp. 293-303.
22. Lepage, A.; Lequesne, R. D.; Weber-Kamin, A. S.; Ameen, S.; and Cheng, M.-Y., “Chord Rotation Capacity and Strength of Diagonally Reinforced Concrete Coupling Beams,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 120, No. 6, Nov. 2023, pp. 137-150.
23. Park, R., “State-of-the-Art Report: Ductility Evaluation from Laboratory and Analytical Testing,” Proceedings of the Ninth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (9WCEE), Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, 1988, pp. 605-616.
24. Chin, C.-H.; Cheng, M.-Y.; Lepage, A.; and Lequesne, R. D., “Shake Table Tests to Compare the Seismic Response of Concrete Frames with Conventional and High‐Strength Reinforcement,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, V. 53, No. 1, 2024, pp. 89-115. doi: 10.1002/eqe.4008
25. Naish, D.; Fry, A.; Klemencic, R.; and Wallace, J., “Reinforced Concrete Coupling Beams—Part II: Modeling,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 110, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2013, pp. 1067-1075.
26. Otani, S., “Hysteresis Models of Reinforced Concrete for Earthquake Response Analysis,” The University of Tokyo Journal of the Faculty of Engineering, V. 36, No. 2, 1981, pp. 125-159.