Advertisement

International Journal of Civil Engineering

, Volume 16, Issue 5, pp 567–582 | Cite as

Tall Hybrid Coupled Structural Walls: Seismic Behavior and Design Suggestions

  • Chung-Chan Hung
  • Wei-Ting Lu
Research Paper

Abstract

The seismic behavior of tall hybrid coupled wall systems is studied. For this purpose, nonlinear time history analyses are carried out to investigate the seismic response of eight example systems that are designed in accordance with the current design regulations. The results show that the shear and overturning moment magnification values are 1.6 and 1.4 for 10-story systems, and 1.8 and 1.2 for 30-story systems, due to the dynamic effect. In light of the analysis results, design suggestions are made for the system base shear, lateral force distribution, and coupling beams. In particular, based on the obtained detailed structural response and yielding mechanism, the necessity of adopting different coupling beam designs elaborately tuned to meet the actual vertical beam demand distribution along the structural height is discussed. It is found that a tall coupled wall structure with uniform steel coupling beam sections over the structural height ultimately leads to an average proportion of yielding coupling beams about 80%, which is as satisfactorily as the one with the beam designs carefully tuned according to the vertical demand distribution obtained using effective lateral load analysis.

Keywords

Coupled wall systems RC structural walls Steel coupling beams Seismic behavior Computational analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research described herein was sponsored in part by the Ministry of Science and Technology under Grant No. 103-2221-E-006-268. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsor.

Funding

The research described herein was sponsored in part by the Ministry of Science and Technology under Grant No. 103-2221-E-006-268.

References

  1. 1.
    El-Tawil S, Harries KA, Fortney PJ, Shahrooz BM, Kurama Y (2010) Seismic design of hybrid coupled wall systems—state-of-the-art. J Struct Eng ASCE 136(7):755–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harries KA (2001) Ductility and deformability of coupling beams in reinforced concrete coupled walls. Earthq Spect 17(3):457–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harries KA, Mitchell D, Redwood RG, Cook WD (1998) Nonlinear seismic response predictions of walls coupled with steel and concrete beams. Can J Civil Eng 25(5):803–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hung CC, El-Tawil S (2011) Seismic behavior of a coupled wall system with HPFRC materials in critical regions. J Struct Eng ASCE 137(2):1395–1636Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hung CC (2012) Modified full operator hybrid simulation algorithm and its application to the seismic response simulation of a composite coupled wall system. J Earthquake Eng 16(6):759–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lequesne RD, Parra-Montesinos GJ, Wight JK (2013) Seismic behavior and detailing of high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete coupling beams and coupled wall systems. J Struct Eng ASCE 139:1362–1370 (Special issue)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wallace JW, Wada A (2000) Hybrid wall systems. US-Japan research proceedings of 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering Auckland New Zealand JanuaryGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Choi HK, Bae BI, Choi CS (2016) Lateral resistance of unreinforced masonry walls strengthened with engineered cementitious composite. Int J Civ Eng 14(6):411–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shaheen YB, Etman ZA, Ramadan AG (2016) Characteristics of ferrocement lightweight wall. Int J Civ Eng 1–13. doi: 10.1007/s40999-016-0061-y (online version)
  10. 10.
    Mashhadiali N, Gholhaki M, Kheyroddin A, Zahiri-Hashemi R (2016) Analytical evaluation of the vulnerability of framed tall buildings with steel plate shear wall to progressive collapse. Int J Civ Eng 14(8):595–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hung CC, Su YF (2013) On modeling coupling beams incorporating strain-hardening cement-based composites. Comput Concrete 12(4):243–259Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chaallal O, Gauthier D, Malenfant P (1996) Classification methodology for coupled shear walls. J Struct Eng ASCE 122(12):1453–1458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    El-Tawil S, Kuenzli CM (2002) Pushover of hybrid coupled walls Part II: Analysis and behavior. J Struct Eng ASCE 128(10):1282–1289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harries KA, Moulton D, Clemson R (2004) Parametric study of coupled wall behavior—implications for the design of coupling beams. J Struct Eng ASCE 130(3):480–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hung CC, Lu WT (2016) A Performance-Based Design Method for Coupled Wall Structures. J Earthq Eng 1–25. doi: 10.1080/13632469.2016.1172379 (published online)
  16. 16.
    Hung CC (2010) Computational and hybrid simulation of high performance fiber reinforced concrete coupled wall systems. PhD Dissertation University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MichiganGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Aristizabal-Ocfaoa JD (1987) Seismic behavior of slender coupled wall systems. J Struct Eng ASCE 113(10):2221–2234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rossi P (1997) High performance multimodal fiber reinforced cement composites (HPMFRCC): the LCPC experience. ACI Mater J 94(6):478–483Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Parra-Montesinos GJ, Peterfreund SW, Chao SH (2005) Highly damage-tolerant beam-column joints through use of high-performance fiber-reinforced cement composites. ACI Struct J 102(3):487–495Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hung CC, Chen YS (2016) Innovative ECC jacketing for retrofitting shear-deficient RC members. Constr Build Mater 111:408–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hung CC, Yen WM, Yu KH (2016) Vulnerability and improvement of reinforced ECC flexural members under displacement reversals: experimental investigation and computational analysis. Constr Build Mater 107:287–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hung CC, Chueh CY (2016) Cyclic behavior of UHPFRC flexural members reinforced with high-strength steel rebar. Eng Struct 122:108–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hung CC, Su YF, Yu KH (2013) Modeling the shear hysteretic response for high performance fiber reinforced cementitious composites. Constr Build Mater 41:37–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hung CC, Li SH (2013) Three-dimensional model for analysis of high performance fiber reinforced cement-based composites. Composites Part B 45:1441–1447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hung CC, El-Tawil S (2010) Hybrid rotating/fixed-crack model for high performance fiber reinforced cementitious composites. ACI Mater J 107(6):569–577Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hung CC, Yen WM (2014) Experimental evaluation of ductile fiber reinforced cement-based composite beams incorporating shape memory alloy bars. Procedia Eng 79:506–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hung CC, Su YF (2016) Medium-term self-healing evaluation of engineered cementitious composites with varying amounts of fly ash and exposure durations. Constr Build Mater 118:194–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nie JG, Hu HS, Eatherton MR (2014) Concrete filled steel plate composite coupling beams: experimental study. J Constr Steel Res 94:49–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hu HS, Nie J, Eatherton MR (2014) Internal force and deformation of concrete-filled steel plate composite coupling beams. J Constr Steel Res 92:150–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Harries KA, Mitchell D, Cook WD, Redwood RG (1993) Seismic response of steel beams coupling concrete walls. J Struct Eng ASCE 119(12):3611–3629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hung CC, Lu WT (2015) Towards achieving the desired seismic performance for hybrid coupled structural walls. Earthq Struct 9(6):1251–1272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) (2010) Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Canadian Standards Association (CSA) (2010) CSA A233-04 Design of Concrete Structures. Canadian Standards Association (CSA), RexdaleGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    US–Japan Planning Group, (1992) Recommendations for US–Japan Cooperative Research Program Phase 5-Composite and Hybrid Structures. Report No UMCEE 92–29, University of Michigan, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    FEMA-450 (2003) NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and other Structures. BSSC, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 318 (2014) ACI 318 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (318–14). ACI-318, Farmington HillsGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R (1988) Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete. J Struct Eng ASCE 114(8):1804–1826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    OpenSees version 24 User Manual (2013) Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center University of California Berkeley. http://opensees.berkeley.edu
  39. 39.
    ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) (2013) 41–13: seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers, RestonGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) (2010) SEI/ASCE 7–10: Minimum Design Loads For Buildings and Other Structures. American Society of Civil Engineers, RestonGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Paulay T, Priestley MJN (1992) Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Chao S, Goel SC, Lee S (2007) A seismic design lateral force distribution based on inelastic state of structures. Earthq Spect 23(3):547–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Iran University of Science and Technology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringNational Cheng Kung UniversityTainanTaiwan, Republic of China

Personalised recommendations