Composite Structures 206 (2018) 550–562

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composite Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Cyclic behavior of diagonally reinforced slender HPFRCC coupling beams T

with reduced diagonal and transverse reinforcement
⁎
Sang Whan Han , Jin Wook Kang, Chang Seok Lee
Department of Architectural Engineering, Hanyang University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Slender diagonally reinforced coupling beams (DRCBs) have been increasingly used for coupled shear wall
Coupling beam systems in high-rise buildings, which can reduce the height of buildings and associated construction costs.
HPFRCC However, in practice, it is difficult to make slender DRCBs according to current design provisions due to heavy
Cyclic behavior reinforcement congestion. To alleviate the reinforcement congestion problem and improve the cyclic behavior of
Reinforcement
the coupling beams, High Performance Fiber-Reinforced Cementitious Composite (HPFRCC) DRCBs with new
Experiment
Shear strength
reinforcement arrangements or a reduced amount of reinforcement have been developed. The objective of this
study is to explore the cyclic behavior of slender DRCBs made of HPFRCC with polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) fibers.
Experimental tests were conducted with six DRCB specimens with a length-to-height (ln / h ) of 3.5 to investigate
the effect of the HPFRCC and the amount of diagonal and transverse reinforcement on the cyclic behavior of
slender DRCBs. In this study, an empirical equation for predicting the shear strength of slender HPFRCC DRCBs
was also proposed, considering the contributions of the HPFRCC and the amounts of diagonal and transverse
reinforcements. The proposed equation was verified by using HPFRCC DRCB specimens with ln / h ranging from
2.0 to 3.5.

1. Introduction Most of the experimental research on coupling beams has been

The shear wall system is one of the most promising force resisting
systems [1]. Since shear walls have large lateral strength and stiffness,
they can be efficiently used as a seismic force resisting system for mid-
and high-rise buildings. Openings in the shear walls are often required
to provide open spaces due to architectural demands such as windows,
doors, and mechanical and electrical equipment.
Individual shear walls separated by openings can be connected
using coupling beams. When coupling beams are properly designed in
compliance with current design codes [2], they can act as a seismic fuse
in coupled shear wall systems that dissipates most of the input earth-
quake energy during earthquakes and improve the seismic behavior of
the coupled shear wall systems.
In the 1964 Alaska earthquake, reinforced concrete (RC) coupling
beams with a reinforcement arrangement used in conventional RC
beams experienced a brittle sliding shear failure. To improve the
seismic behavior of coupling beams, Paulay and Binney [3] proposed
the use of coupling beams with diagonal reinforcement. Many re-
searchers have conducted experimental tests with concrete diagonally
reinforced coupling beams (DRCBs). It was reported that DRCBs had
excellent seismic behavior without brittle sliding shear failure [3–8].
conducted with deep DRCBs. However, in recent years, slender DRCBs
have often been used in building construction because the height of the
buildings and construction costs can be reduced by using slender cou-
pling beams [9]. However, slender DRCBs have less inner space than
deep DRCBs, resulting in significant reinforcement congestion and in-
terference. Therefore, it is difficult to construct slender DRCBs in con-
struction sites due to heavy reinforcement congestion [10].
To reduce the construction difficulties arising with the use of
DRCBs, High Performance Fiber Reinforced Cement Composites
(HPFRCC) with simplified reinforcement arrangements have been de-
veloped. Experimental studies were conducted to investigate the cyclic
behavior of newly developed DRCBs [7,11–13]. According to these
studies, the cyclic behavior of DRCBs could be improved by the use of
HPFRCC. They also reported that when using HPFRCC DRCBs, a simple
reinforcement arrangement with a reduced amount of reinforcement
could be used without deteriorating the cyclic behavior of the DRCBs.
Han et al. [13] reported that transverse reinforcement was reduced
by the use of HPFRCC. However, to the best of our knowledge, there has
been no study to investigate the effect of both transverse and diagonal
reinforcement on the cyclic behavior of slender HPFRCC DRCBs. Han
et al. [13] also reported that the observed shear strength of HPFRCC

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: swhan82@gmail.com (S.W. Han).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.08.079
Received 22 March 2018; Received in revised form 13 July 2018; Accepted 27 August 2018
Available online 29 August 2018
0263-8223/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.W. Han et al.
DRCBs was much larger than the shear strength calculated using the
equation specified in ACI 318-14 [2], which only considers the con-
tribution of the diagonal reinforcement. The underestimation of the
shear strength for DRCBs may prevent the DRCBs from acting as a
seismic fuse element that dissipates most energy during large earth-
quakes, causing significant and unexpected damage to neighboring
walls during large earthquakes.
In order to explore the cyclic behavior of HPFRCC slender DRCBs
with different amounts of diagonal and transverse reinforcement, this
study conducted experimental tests with six slender DRCB specimens.
The HPFRCC was made with polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) fibers. Based on
experimental test results on HPFRCC DRCBs, an empirical equation was
proposed by combining two previous models to accurately calculate the
shear strength of HPFRCC DRCBs that can properly consider the con-
tributions of the HPFRCC, as well as the diagonal and transverse re-
inforcement. The proposed equation was verified with ten DRCB spe-
cimens including two RC and eight HPFRCC specimens.
2. Diagonally reinforced coupling beam details
According to ACI 318-14 (Section 18.10.7.2) [2], coupling beams
with a beam length-to-height ratio (ln / h ) less than 2 and an average
shear stress greater than 0.33 fc′ (MPa) should be reinforced with di-
agonal reinforcement, where fc′ is the compressive strength of concrete.
The diagonal reinforcement should be placed approximately symme-
trically in the beam section in two or more layers (ACI 318-14) (Fig. 1a
and b). It is ineffective to place diagonal bars in very slender coupling
beams (ln / h⩾ 4) due to their small inclination. In these beams, re-
inforcement is placed according to reinforcement details specified for
special moment frame (SMF) beams (Fig. 1c) in ACI 318-14 instead of
placing diagonal bars. For slender beams with ln / h ranging from 2 to 4,
both diagonal and SMF beam reinforcement details are permitted in ACI
318-14.
ACI 318-14 [2] specifies two alternative confinement options for
DRCBs as shown in Fig. 1. For the first option, each group of diagonal
bars should be enclosed by rectilinear transverse reinforcement
(Fig. 1a), whereas for the second option, transverse reinforcement
should be placed around the beam perimeter as shown in Fig. 1b. Al-
though the second confinement option has less reinforcement conges-
tion than the first confinement option, interference between diagonal
and transvers bars still exists.
To reduce the reinforcement congestion in DRCBs and to improve
their cyclic behavior, DRCBs can be made of HPFRCC. HPFRCC does not
generally contain coarse aggregates [14] and possesses a relatively high
strain-capacity while generating multiple micro-cracks and a strain-
hardening response [15,16]. Previous studies reported that HPFRCC
members had larger shear strengths, deformation capacities and da-
mage tolerances than conventional RC members [17,18]. HPFRCC
Fig. 1. Coupling beam details specified in ACI 318-14 [2].
551
Composite Structures 206 (2018) 550–562
members also require less transverse reinforcement due to the con-
tribution of HPFRCC to concrete confinement. In HPFRCC DRCBs, a
simple reinforcement arrangement with a reduced amount of reinfor-
cing bars can be used compared with RC DRCBs without losing their
strength and deformation capacities [7,11–13].
3. Experimental test program
3.1. Test specimens
This study focused on slender HPFRCC DRCBs. The contributions of
the HPFRCC, and the diagonal and transverse bars to the cyclic beha-
vior of DRCBs were explicitly explored by conducting experimental
tests. For this purpose, six DRCB specimens were made (two RC and
four HPFRCC DRCB specimens) (Fig. 2) and tested with quasi-static
cyclic loading. The aspect ratio (ln / h ) of all specimens was 3.5. The test
variables were (1) the amount of transverse reinforcement, (2) the
amount of diagonal reinforcement, and (3) the application of HPFRCC.
Fig. 2 shows the reinforcement details of the specimens.
The width (b ), height (h ) and length (ln ) of all specimens were 250,
300 and 1050 mm, respectively. The specified compressive strength of
concrete and HPFRCC used for specimens was 40 MPa, and the specified
yield strength of the reinforcement was 420 MPa.
All specimens were designed to have a shear stress (νn ) equal to
0.5 fc′ (MPa) where νn is calculated as the shear strength (Vn ) of a DRCB
divided by its cross sectional area (b × h ). Harries et al. [19] reported
that it is difficult to place reinforcing bars in DRCBs when the νn of
DRCBs exceed 0.5 fc′ (MPa) due to reinforcement congestion and in-
terference. The shear strength (Vn ) of a DRCB can be calculated using
Eq. (1) (ACI 318-14 Section 18.10.7.4 [2]).
Vn = VACI = 2Avd f yd sin α ⩽ 0.83 fc′ Acw (1)
where Avd is the total area of reinforcement in each group of diagonal
bars (mm2), f yd is the yield strength of the diagonal reinforcement
(MPa), and α is the angle between the diagonal bars and the long-
itudinal axis of the coupling beam. In this study, the second confine-
ment option (Fig. 1b) was used to place the reinforcing bars in the
DRCB specimens. The sufficiently long development length was used for
diagonal bars to avoid the possibility of pull-out failure, because the
development length was not considered as a test variable in this study.
Specimen D1-T1-RC was the standard RC specimen (Fig. 2a) de-
signed and detailed according to ACI 318-14 [2]. Deformed bars with
diameters of 25 mm (D25) and 13 mm (D13) were used for diagonal
and transverse reinforcement, respectively. The spacing of transverse
reinforcement was 110 mm. Specimen D1-T1-HP was an HPFRCC DRCB
with the same reinforcement details as specimen D1-T1-RC (Fig. 2c).
The effect of the HPFRCC on the cyclic behavior of DRCBs can be
S.W. Han et al.
Fig. 2. Reinforcement details and setup location of strain gauges for coupling beams.
evaluated by comparing the test results of specimens D1-T1-RC and D1-
T1-HP.
Specimen D0.5-T1-HP (Fig. 2e) was a specimen identical to spe-
cimen D1-T1-HP except for the amount of the diagonal reinforcement.
The amount of diagonal reinforcement in this specimen was half that of
specimen D1-T1-HP. This specimen was made to evaluate the effect of
diagonal reinforcement in HPFRCC DRCBs. In specimen D0.5-T1-HP,
deformed bars with a diameter of 19 mm (D19) were used for diagonal
reinforcement.
To evaluate the effect of transverse reinforcement in DRCBs, spe-
cimens D1-T0.5-RC (Fig. 2b) and D1-T0.5-HP were made, which had
only half the amount of transverse reinforcement as that in specimens
D1-T1-RC and D1-T1-HP. In specimen D0.5-T0.5-HP (Fig. 2f), both di-
agonal and transverse reinforcement were reduced to half the amount
of those reinforcement used in specimens D1-T1-RC and D1-T1-HP. The
spacing of the transverse reinforcement (D13) for specimens D1-T0.5-
RC and D0.5-T0.5-HP was 250 mm. Fig. 3 shows a summary of the test
program and the specimen identification nomenclature. Table 1 sum-
marizes the properties of all of the specimens.
552
Composite Structures 206 (2018) 550–562
3.2. Test setup
Fig. 4 shows the test setup, where specimens were vertically placed.
The top and bottom concrete blocks were fixed to the horizontal steel
frame and the strong floor using high strength bolts, respectively.
Stoppers were placed on both sides of the concrete blocks to prevent the
specimen from sliding under lateral loads. To prevent axial elongation
in the DRCB specimens, two guide columns were placed to sustain the
horizontal steel loading frame as shown in Fig. 4, which emulated the
restraint of axial elongation of DRCBs provided by the adjoining shear
walls and slabs [20]. These columns were anchored to the strong floor.
Roller supports were installed on the guide columns to prevent rotation
of the loading frame. Thus, the loading frame could move only in the
horizontal direction during the test. To ensure zero moment at the mid-
span of the DRCB specimens, lateral loading was applied to the spe-
cimen in the line of action passing the mid-span of the DRCBs using a
hydraulic actuator. Lateral loads produced by the hydraulic actuator
were transmitted to the DRCB through the horizontal loading frame and
top concrete block.
Quasi-static displacement-controlled cyclic loading was applied to
the specimen. Fig. 5a shows the loading history in which the “drift
ratio” is defined as the lateral displacement normalized by beam length
S.W. Han et al. Composite Structures 206 (2018) 550–562

Fig. 3. Test program.

(ln ). The lateral displacement was measured by the linear variable dif-
ferential transducer (LVDT) (Fig. 5b) installed on the top block. For
individual drift amplitudes, two consecutive loading cycles were ap-
plied to a specimen to monitor cyclic degradation in strength and
stiffness occurring the specimen. The same loading protocol was ap-
plied to all specimens. The magnitude of lateral loads (shear force) was
measured through a load cell installed in the actuator.
Fig. 5b shows an arrangement of the LVDTs for the specimens. Two
LVDTs (Top and Bottom) were installed on the top block to monitor the
rotation of the specimen, and one LVDT was installed on the bottom
block to monitor the sliding of the specimen. Vertical LVDTs (L1 to L4,
L9 to L14) and diagonal LVDTs (D1 to D4) were installed to measure the
flexural deformation and shear distortion. Vertical LVDTs (L5 to L8)
were installed to monitor the rotation at both ends of the specimen.
3.3. Material tests
Compressive and direct tensile tests were conducted to estimate the
mechanical properties of the HPFRCC with polyvinyl alcohol fibers
(PVA). Polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) fibers are newly developed high per-
formance fibers, used in engineered cementitious composites to help
achieving high tensile strain capacity, toughness and structural in-
tegrity [21]. The unique microstructure of PVA fibers causes the for-
mation of a strong bond with the cementitious matrix. HPFRCC with
PVA fibers exhibits larger tensile strain capacity than HPFRCC with
steel fibers. Tables 2 and 3 summarize the mix proportions of normal
concrete and HPFRCC, respectively. The dimensions and physical
properties of PVA fibers are given in Table 4. The same mix proportion
of HPFRCC as that provided in [22] was also used in this study, which
was the best mix propoertion for HPFRCC found from coupon tests with
various trial mixes. The volume fraction of PVA fibers was 2.0%, and
calcium carbonate was used as a filler. Calcium carbonate generally
improves the toughness, ductility and strength of the cement-matrix
better than other fillers such as silica sand [22].
Compressive tests were conducted with four normal concrete (beam
and block) and four HPFRCC cylindrical specimens according to ASTM
C39 [23]. The height and diameter of the specimens were 200 mm and
100 mm, respectively. The direct tensile test was also conducted with
five dog-bone-shaped specimens with section size of 25 mm × 50 mm.
Fig. 6 shows the stress-strain curves obtained from the compressive and
direct tensile tests.
The average compressive strengths of the concrete and HPFRCC
were 44 MPa and 46 MPa, respectively, exceeding the design strength of
40 MPa. The average compressive strength of normal concrete used for
loading concrete blocks was 69 MPa, exceeding the design strength of
60 MPa. Table 5 summarizes the mechanical properties of the concrete
and HPFRCC obtained from the material tests. The compressive strain at
the peak strength for the HPFRCC was 0.0040, which was 1.7 times
larger than that of normal concrete (=0.0023). A high strain at the
peak strength of HPFRCC was mainly due to the matrix of HPFRCC
which did not contain coarse aggregate [24]. However, the secant
elastic modulus of HPFRCC measured at 40% of the compressive
strength was about 81% of that of the normal concrete. As shown in
Fig. 6a, explosive spalling was not observed in HPFRCC sample, unlike
normal concrete (Fig. 6a).
The average direct tensile strength of HPFRCC was 3.6 MPa. The
HPFRCC exhibited ductile behavior with multiple events of micro-
cracking on the surface before failure without crack localization. This
could be attributed to fiber bridging effects that could efficiently
transfer loads between cracks in the cement matrix through fibers, re-
sulting in spreading cracks on the entire surface of the cement matrix.
At the final stage, the cracks in the weakest region of the matrix became
wider, and failure was initiated by the slip of fibers in this region.
Table 6 summarizes the mechanical properties of the deformed bars
used in the DRCB specimens.
4. Test results
4.1. Cyclic curves of RC and HPFRCC DRCB specimens
Fig. 7 shows the cyclic and envelop curves of six DRCB specimens.
The ordinate and abscissa represent shear force and drift ratio,

Table 1
Properties of specimen.
Specimen b (mm) h (mm) ln (mm) ln / h Diagonal bars Transverse bars (mm) Longitudinal bars α (°) Material type

D1-T1-RC 250 300 1050 3.5 8-D25 D13@110 10-D13 8.9 Concrete
D1-T1-HP 250 300 1050 3.5 8-D25 D13@110 10-D13 8.9 HPFRCC
D0.5-T1-HP 250 300 1050 3.5 8-D19 D13@110 10-D13 9.2 HPFRCC
D1-T0.5-RC 250 300 1050 3.5 8-D25 D13@250 10-D13 8.9 Concrete
D1-T0.5-HP 250 300 1050 3.5 8-D25 D13@250 10-D13 8.9 HPFRCC
D0.5-T0.5-HP 250 300 1050 3.5 8-D19 D13@250 10-D13 9.2 HPFRCC

553
S.W. Han et al. Composite Structures 206 (2018) 550–562

Fig. 4. Test setup.

respectively. For individual specimens, the yield drift ratio (θy ), max- Table 2
imum strength (Vu ) and drift ratios (θu ) were determined according to Normal concrete mixture proportions (kg/m3).
the procedure proposed by Pan and Moehle [25] and marked in Fig. 7.
Cement Sand Gravel Water Water-reducing admixtures
The envelope of cyclic curves was idealized by an elastoplastic re-
lation. The initial slope of idealized relation was a secant through the 480 785 939 143 4.32
measured relation at a load equal to two-thirds of the measured
strength (Vu ). The plastic portion of the idealized relation passed
through the maximum load (Vu ). The intersection between these two Table 3
lines defined yield drift ratio (θy ). The yield strength (Vy ) was de- HPFRCC mixture proportions (kg/m3).
termined as a strength corresponding to the incidence of yielding in Cement Silica Fly ash Filler Super- Water W/Ba Fiber
diagonal reinforcement. The maximum drift ratio θu was defined as a fume (CaCO3) plasticizer volume
drift when Vu is reduced by 20%. A point for shear strength and drift fraction

ratio at failure (Vf , θf ) was defined as a point in the cyclic curve where a 489 32.6 374.9 684.6 3.3 366.8 0.21 PVA 2.0%
sudden drop has occurred.
The shear strength calculated using Eq. (1) (VACI ) is also marked in a
W/B: water-to-binder material (cement + silica fume + fly ash + filler)
Fig. 7 using a dashed line. Table 7 summarizes these strengths and drift ratio.
ratios of the DRCB specimens. For convenient comparison, Fig. 8 is
plotted, which presents the values for Vu , θu , and θf of all DRCB speci- transverse reinforcement required by ACI 318-14 [2], this specimen
mens. produced Vu larger than VACI . The observed shear strength (Vu ) of D1-
The maximum strength (Vu ) of all of the specimens was significantly T0.5-HP and D0.5-T0.5-HP significantly exceeded VACI . In order to ac-
larger than VACI (Fig. 8). It is noted that in Eq. (1), the contribution of curately predict the shear strength of DRCBs, it is important to consider
diagonal reinforcement in DRCBs is only considered to calculate their not only the contribution of diagonal reinforcement but also the con-
shear strength. Although RC specimen D1-T0.5-RC had only 50% of tributions of transverse reinforcement and HPFRCC. It is noted that the

Fig. 5. Loading and measurement: (a) Loading history; (b) LVDT arrangement.

554
S.W. Han et al. Composite Structures 206 (2018) 550–562

Table 4 Nevertheless, HPFRCC DRCBs exhibited better damage control perfor-

Properties of PVA fibers. mance than corresponding RC DRCBs with the same amount of diagonal
Length Diameter Density (g/ Tensile Tensile elasticity and transverse reinforcement.
(mm) (mm) cm3) strength (MPa) (GPa)

12 0.039 1.3 1600 25

4.3. Stiffness deterioration and energy dissipation

At each drift ratio, stiffness was determined from the cyclic curves,
underestimation of the shear strength for DRCBs can be un-conservative
which was the slope of a line connecting the points in the cyclic curves
in capacity design context.
corresponding to the positive and negative peak drifts. Fig. 10a shows
Standard specimen D1-T1-RC, detailed according to ACI 318-14 [2],
the stiffness at each drift ratio normalized by the initial stiffness mea-
had Vu of 507 kN and θu of 9.8%. This specimen exhibited stable cyclic
sured at a drift ratio of 0.25%. The 1st loading cycle was used for
behavior without a sudden strength drop (Fig. 7a), indicating that
calculating the stiffness. It is noted that if a load-displacement curve for
slender DRCBs designed according to the second confinement option
one complete cycle is not symmetric, the secant stiffness may not pass
(Fig. 1b) had excellent cyclic behavior. All specimens had a maximum
through the origin (0,0).
drift ratio (θu ) larger than 5% except for D0.5-T0.5-HP (θu = 3.0%). A
As shown in this figure, the stiffness deteriorated with an increase in
drift ratio of 5% is the acceptance criteria (θASCE ) for DRCBs for collapse
the drift ratio. Stiffness deterioration is an index measuring the strength
prevention level specified in ASCE 41 [26]. Note that θASCE for CP level
retention capacity for a specimen. As expected, the HPFRCC specimen
is analogous to θu which was estimated when the shear strength of a
D1-T1-HP exhibited the largest strength retention capacity among the
DRCB was decreased by 20% [10].
specimens, whereas HPFRCC specimen D0.5-T0.5-HP had the smallest
strength retention capacity. As pointed out in the previous section, the
4.2. Crack propagation and failure
presence of HPFRCC alone could not completely compensate for 50%
reduction in both diagonal and transverse reinforcement in the slender
Fig. 9 shows crack patterns according to the drift ratio. The inclined
DRCB specimens.
crack widths (wic ) at specified drift ratios are listed for all specimens in
Fig. 10b shows the cumulative dissipated energy at each drift ratio.
Fig. 9. The crack pattern at failure stage was drawn for individual
The energy dissipated in each loading cycle is the area enclosed by the
specimens and is included in Fig. 9. Concrete spalling was observed in
cyclic curve. Similarly, specimen D1-T1-HP had the largest energy
all specimens before failure.
dissipation capacity among the specimens. However, unlike stiffness
Considering RC and HPFRCC DRCB specimens with the same diag-
deterioration, RC specimen D1-T0.5-RC rather than HPFRCC specimen
onal and transverse reinforcement (D1-T1-RC versus D1-T1-HP; D1-
D0.5-T0.5-HP had the smallest energy dissipation capacity. Transverse
T0.5-RC versus D1-T0.5HP), the inclined crack width (wic ) of HPFRCC
reinforcement confines the concrete core of DRCBs sustaining com-
specimens was less than that of corresponding RC specimens. The
pressive forces developed by diagonal bars and neighboring stiff walls;
amount of concrete spalling in HPFRCC specimens was also less than
thus, a desirable ductility in a DRCB may be achieved by placing an
that of corresponding RC specimens. The shear strength produced by
adequate amount of transverse reinforcement. In addition, transverse
concrete in HPFRCC coupling beams is induced by the strain-hardening
reinforcement directly contributes to the shear strength of DRCBs.
response of HPFRCC materials with a fiber bridging stress equal to the
Therefore, transverse reinforcement in DRCBs play an important role on
post-cracking material strength. At a given drift ratio, D1-T1-HP had
energy dissipation capacity of DRCBs. HPFRCC specimen D1-T0.5-HP
the smallest wic among the specimen. Although HPFRCC produced a
had an energy dissipation capacity slightly larger than standard RC
positive contribution to the shear strength of DRCBs, wic observed in
specimen D1-T1-RC due to the effect of the HPFRCC.
specimen D0.5-T0.5-HP was the largest. It is noted that specimen D0.5-
T0.5-HP had only 50% of both the diagonal and transverse reinforce-
ment used in standard specimen D1-T1-RC. This indicates that the shear
strength contribution of HPFRCC due to the strain-hardening response
of HPFRCC cannot completely compensate for 50% reduction in both
diagonal and transverse reinforcement in DRCB specimens.

Fig. 6. Stress-strain curves of normal concrete and HPFRCC: (a) Compressive tests; (b) Direct tensile tests.

555
S.W. Han et al.
Table 5
Summary of material test.
Material Average compressive strength Compressive strain at peak
(MPa)
Concrete for DRCBs 44 0.0023
Concrete for blocks 69 0.0028
HPFRCC 46 0.0040
Table 6
Mechanical properties of reinforcement.
Reinforcement Diameter (mm) Yield stress (MPa) Tensile strength (MPa)
D13 12.7 516 668
D19 19.1 476 606
D25 25.4 515 636
5. Detailed investigation of the effect of HPFRCC, diagonal and
transverse reinforcement
5.1. Effect of HPFRCC
To evaluate the effect of HPFRCC on the cyclic responses of the
DRCBs, the test results of two RC (D1-T1-RC, D1-T0.5-RC) and two
HPFRCC (D1-T1-HP, D1-T0.5-HP) specimens were considered. The
shear strengths (Vu ) of specimen D1-T1-RC and D1-T1-HP were 507 kN
and 614 kN, respectively, while Vu of D1-T0.5-RC and D1-T0.5-HP were
376 kN and 562 kN, respectively. The increase in shear strength due to
the inclusion of HPFRCC was more distinctive in DRCBs with less
transverse reinforcement (D1-T0.5-RC versus D1-T0.5-HP) (Fig. 8).
Specimens D1-T1-RC and D1-T1-HP produced an excellent drift
capacity. The maximum drift ratio (θu ) of specimens D1-T1-RC and D1-
T1-HP were 9.8% and 7.9%, respectively. The drift ratios (θf ) at failure
for specimens D1-T1-RC and D1-T1-HP were 10.1% and 11.9% (Fig. 7a
and c), respectively. In these specimens, the contribution of HPFRCC on
the drift capacity was not significant. However, a distinctive increase in
drift capacity was observed due to the use of the HPFRCC for specimens
with a 50% reduced transverse reinforcement: θu of specimens D1-T0.5-
RC and D1-T0.5-HP were 4.8% and 7.0%, respectively. (Fig. 7b and d).
In summary, the use of HPFRCC is more effective in increasing Vu
and θu for slender DRCBs having a reduced amount of transverse re-
inforcement.
The inclined crack widths (wic ) of specimens D1-T1-RC and D1-T1-
HP at a drift ratio of 4% were 2.5 mm and 2.0 mm, respectively, while
wic of D1-T0.5-RC and D1-T0.5-HP were 8.0 mm and 3.0 mm, respec-
tively. Therefore, the crack width of DRCBs decreased by using HPFRCC
(Fig. 9). This phenomenon was more prominent in specimens with less
transverse reinforcement (D1-T0.5-RC versus D1-T0.5-HP). In addition,
HPFRCC DRCBs exhibited more cracks that spread widely in the entire
DRCB surface compared to RC DRCBs. At a drift ratio of 4%, the spal-
ling of concrete occurred in specimen D1-T1-RC and D1-T0.5-RC,
whereas concrete spalling did not occur in specimens D1-T1-HP and D1-
T0.5-HP at the same drift ratio (Fig. 9).
The initial stiffness of specimens was increased by using HPFRCC.
However, the degree of stiffness increment was not distinctively af-
fected by the amount of transverse reinforcement. Similarly, the
strength retention capacities of HPFRCC specimens were larger than
those of the corresponding RC specimens. The energy dissipation ca-
pacity (Et ) of slender DRCB specimens was increased by the use of
HPFRCC. The increase in energy dissipation capacity due to the use of
HPFRCC was more noticeable in DRCBs with less transverse re-
inforcement: Et of D1-T1-RC and D1-T1-HP was 791.5 kN-m and
1120.5 kN-m, respectively, whereas Et of D1-T0.5-RC and D1-T0.5-HP
was 192.9 kN-m and 766.5 kN-m, respectively.
Drift ratios which caused yielding in diagonal and transverse
556
Composite Structures 206 (2018) 550–562
Modulus of elasticity Average tensile strength Maximum tensile strain (%)
(GPa) (MPa)
22.2 – –
30.1 – –
18.0 3.6 2.3
reinforcement were monitored. Fig. 11a shows drift ratios causing
yielding in these reinforcement. It is observed that RC specimens ex-
perienced yielding earlier than corresponding HPFRCC specimens (D1-
T1-RC versus D1-T1-HP; D1-T0.5RC versus D1-T0.5HP). Fig. 11b shows
the strains of transverse reinforcement measured at a drift ratio of 2%
using strain gauges. The stain of specimen D1-T1-RC was larger than
that of specimen D1-T1-HP. A Similar observation was made for the
strains of specimens D1-T0.5-RC and D1-T0.5-HP, indicating that the
HPFRCC shared the role of the confinement of concrete, along with
transverse reinforcement.
5.2. Effect of diagonal reinforcement
To evaluate the effect of diagonal reinforcement on the cyclic be-
havior of HPFRCC DRCBs, specimens D1-T1-HP, D0.5-T1-HP, D1-T0.5-
HP and D0.5-T0.5-HP were considered. If the amount of diagonal re-
inforcement is reduced by 50%, the shear strength (VACI ) calculated
using Eq. (1), is also reduced by 50%.
Although specimen D0.5-T1-HP had 50% of the amount of diagonal
reinforcement in specimen D1-T1-HP, the Vu of specimen D0.5-T1-HP
(Vn = 614 kN) was only 21% (< 50%) less than Vu of specimen D1-T1-
HP (Vn = 485 kN). Both specimens had the same amount of transverse
reinforcement satisfying the requirement specified in ACI 318-14 [2]. A
similar observation was made for specimens D1-T0.5-HP (Vn = 562 kN)
and D0.5-T0.5-HP(Vn = 426 kN) having 50% reduced transverse re-
inforcement. This indicates that although the amount of diagonal re-
inforcement was reduced by 50%, Vu did not decrease by 50% unlike
the prediction using Eq. (1) due to the contributions of the HPFRCC as
well as transverse reinforcement.
The maximum drift ratios (θu ) of specimens D1-T1-HP and D0.5-T1-
HP were 7.9% and 5.9%, respectively, while specimens D1-T0.5-HP and
D0.5-T0.5-HP had θu of 5.9% and 3.0%, respectively. This indicates that
θu decreased with a 50% reduction in the diagonal reinforcement,
which was more prominent for specimens with a 50% reduced trans-
verse reinforcement. It is worthwhile to note that specimen D0.5-T1-HP
had θu (=5.9%) smaller than RC specimens D1-T1-RC (θu = 9.8%).
Therefore, HPFRCC alone could not compensate for a decrease in Vu and
θu resulting from a 50% reduction in diagonal reinforcement. It is noted
that there is no limitation on the minimum amount of diagonal re-
inforcement specified in ACI 318-14 [2].
At a drift ratio of 4%, wic of specimens D1-T1-HP and D0.5-T1-HP
were 2.5 mm and 3.5 mm, respectively, while specimens D1-T0.5-HP
and D0.5-T0.5-HP produced wic values of 3.0 mm and 20.0 mm, re-
spectively. Therefore, wic increased with the 50% reduction in diagonal
reinforcement (Fig. 9), which was more prominent in specimens with a
50% reduced transverse reinforcement.
5.3. Effect of the transverse reinforcement
To investigate the effect of the transverse reinforcement on the
cyclic behavior of DRCBs six slender DRCB specimens were considered,
which had different amounts of transverse reinforcement. Specimens
D1-T1-RC, D1-T1-HP and D0.5-T1-HP had an amount of transverse
reinforcement satisfying the requirement specified in ACI318-14 [2],
whereas specimens D1-T0.5-RC, D1-T0.5-HP and D0.5-T0.5-HP had
transverse reinforcement reduced by 50%.
S.W. Han et al.
Fig. 7. Cyclic and envelope curves of specimens.
As summarized in Table 7, Vu of specimens D1-T1-RC(=507 kN),
D1-T1-HP (=614 kN), and D0.5-T1-HP (=485 kN) were larger than
those of corresponding specimens, D1-T0.5-RC (=376 kN), D1-T0.5-HP
(=562 kN), and D0.5-T0.5-HP (=426 kN). This indicates that Vn de-
creases by reducing the amount of transverse reinforcement. In con-
trast, VACI does not change according to the amount of transverse re-
inforcement: VACI of specimens D1-T1-RC and D1-T1-HP was calculated
as 302 kN, and VACI of specimens D0.5-T1-HP and D0.5-T0.5-HP was
557
Composite Structures 206 (2018) 550–562
174 kN. Therefore, VACI significantly underestimated the actual shear
strength (Vu ) of slender DRCB specimens.
The maximum drift ratios (θu ) of specimens D1-T1-RC, D1-T1-HP,
and D0.5-T1-HP were 9.8%, 7.9%, and 5.9%, respectively, whereas
those of specimens D1-T0.5-RC, D1-T0.5-HP, and D0.5-T0.5-HP were
4.8%, 7.0%, and 3.0%, respectively. This indicates that θu decreased
with a 50% reduction in transverse reinforcement.
To evaluate the effect of HPFRCC on the cyclic behavior of DRCBs
S.W. Han et al. Composite Structures 206 (2018) 550–562

Table 7 behave in elastic range during large earthquakes whereas the adjacent
Summary of experimental test result. shear walls could experience unexpected significant damage. To avoid
Specimen Load direction θ y (%) Vy (kN) θu (%) Vu (kN) θf (%) Vf (kN) such a problem, it is important to accurately predict the shear strength
of DRCBs.
D1-T1-RC + 2.0 437 9.8 507 10.1 421 Han et al. [27] proposed Eq. (2), which can calculate the shear
− 2.0 469 9.9 504 10.0 348 strength of the RC coupling beam (Vn − RC ) considering the contribution
D1-T0.5-RC + 1.7 347 5.9 374 6.0 256
of diagonal reinforcement and transverse reinforcement. They reported
− 1.7 341 4.8 376 5.9 181
D1-T1-HP + 3.9 517 7.9 573 11.9 284 that the contribution of transverse reinforcement on the shear strength
− 3.9 561 7.9 614 11.9 279 was significantly affected by the transverse reinforcement ratio ( ρt ) and
D1-T0.5-HP + 2.3 466 9.9 484 10.0 385 ln / h . To account for the effect of ρt and ln / h , γ factor is multiplied to the
− 2.5 531 7.0 562 10.1 340 shear strength provided by the transverse reinforcement (Vs ) in Eq. (2).
D0.5-T1-HP + 3.9 419 6.9 465 12.0 192
− 4.0 445 5.9 485 12.0 160
An empirical equation for γ was proposed based on the test results of
D0.5-T0.5-HP + 1.9 357 3.5 404 7.0 173 DRCBs by conducting multiple-regression analyses [Eq. (4)].
− 2.0 394 3.0 426 7.0 139
Vn − RC = γVs + VACI (2)

Vs = Av f yt d/ s (3)

γ = 1.6524(ρt )−0.3112 (ln / h)−1.167 (4)

where Av is the area of transverse reinforcement within the center-to-

center spacing (s ) of the transverse reinforcement, f yt is the yield
strength of the transverse reinforcement, and d is the effective beam
depth. It is noted that Eq. (4) was proposed based on the test results of
fifteen DRCBs obtained from nine different experimental studies. The
transverse reinforcement ratios ( ρt ) of these beams ranged from 0.15 to
0.38 whereas their diagonal reinforcement ratios ranged from 2.5% to
5.5%. The span-to-depth ratios of these specimens (ln / h ) were between
2.0 and 3.5.
Kanakubo et al. [28] proposed the shear strength equation of beams
using HPFRCC with PVA fibers having a volume fraction ranging from
1.5% to 2.0% based on the test results of beam specimens with different
volume fraction of fibers and different transverse reinforcements.
Vf = b·jt ·vt ·σt ·cot ϕ (5)

Fig. 8. Shear strength (Vu ), drift capacity (θu ), and drift ratio a failure (θf ) for
DRCBs.
with 50% reduced transverse reinforcement, RC specimen D1-T1-RC
and HPFRCC specimen D1-T0.5-HP, both with a 50% reduced trans-
verse reinforcement, were considered. Although the amount of trans-
verse reinforcement in HPFRCC specimen D1-T0.5-HP was only half
that of RC specimen D1-T1-RC, Vu of specimen D1-T0.5-HP (=562 kN)
was larger than that of specimen D1-T1-RC (=507 kN), indicating that
the use of HPFRCC could compensate for a decrease in Vu due to the
reduction in transverse reinforcement unlike the case of the reduction
in diagonal reinforcement. Both specimens had θu larger than 5%,
which is the acceptance criteria for DRCBs specified in ASCE 41 [26].
The drift ratio at failure (θf ) of the both specimens exceeded 10%. The
strength retention and energy dissipation capacities of both specimens
were also almost identical. Therefore, the use of HPFRCC could com-
pensate for the effect of a 50% reduction in transverse reinforcement as
a result of the improved cyclic behavior of slender DRCBs.
6. Shear strength equation of slender diagonally reinforced
coupling beams using HPFRCC
As observed in the previous sections, the shear strength of DRCBs
calculated from Eq. (1) significantly underestimated the actual shear
strength of the DRCBs (Fig. 7). It is noted that Eq. (1) only considers the
contribution of diagonal reinforcement in calculating the shear strength
of DRCBs rather than considering the contributions of transverse re-
inforcement and the inclusion of HPFRCC, resulting in an under-
estimation of the shear strength. Han et al. [22] reported that transverse
reinforcement affected the shear strength of DRCBs. If the shear
strength of DRCBs are underestimated in the design stage, DRCBs may
2.0
⎧
⎪
cot ϕ = min jt /(h·tan θ)
⎨
⎪ v·σB /(ρt ·f yt )−1 (6)
⎩
tan θ = (ln / h)2 + 1 −(ln / h) (7)
v = 1.70σB−0.333 (8)
where Vf is the shear strength contribution HPFRCC, jt is the distance
between compression and tension bars, vt is the reduction factor for
tensile strength of HPFRCC (=0.5) [28], which reflects the non-uni-
formity of the tensile stress at the crack surface, σt is the tensile strength
of HPFRCC obtained from direct tensile tests, ϕ is the angle of the
compressive strut, θ is the angle of the arch mechanism, v is the ef-
fective coefficient of compressive strength of ECC, and σB is the com-
pressive strength of the ECC.
In Eq. (5), cot ϕ reflects the tendency that the contribution of
HPFRCC to shear strength increases with a reduction in the amount of
transverse reinforcement up to a certain limit. Beyond this limit, the
contribution of HPFRCC does not change with a further reduction in the
transverse reinforcement. Zhang et al. [29] also reported that the
bridging effect produced by HPFRCC decreased with an increase in the
amount of transverse reinforcement because the number of cracks in
HPFRCC beams that initiate the bridging effect of HPFRCC decreased
with increasing transverse reinforcement. It was also observed from this
study that the contribution of HPFRCC on the shear strength of DRCBs
was more significant for specimens with 50% reduced transverse re-
inforcement. Note that the difference in shear strength between speci-
mens D1-T1-RC and D1-T1-HP was 107 kN, whereas that between
specimens D1-T0.5-RC and D1-T0.5-HP was 186 kN.
To consider the contribution of transverse reinforcement and the
inclusion of HPFRCC, as well as the contribution of diagonal

558
S.W. Han et al. Composite Structures 206 (2018) 550–562

Fig. 9. Crack progression and failure patterns.

reinforcement, Eq. (9) was proposed, which is simply a linear combi- To verify the accuracy of Eq. (9), the shear strengths of HPFRCC
nation of Eqs. (2) and (5). DRCB specimens were calculated using Eq. (9) and compared with their
actual shear strengths (Table 8). DRCB specimens tested in the previous
Vn = γVs + VACI + Vf (9) study [13,22] are also included in Table 8.

559
S.W. Han et al. Composite Structures 206 (2018) 550–562

Fig. 10. Stiffness degradation and cumulative energy dissipation: (a) Stiffness degradation; (b) Cumulative energy dissipation.

Fig. 11. Yield drift ratio and strain: (a) Drift ratio at yielding in diagonal reinforcement; (b) Strain of transverse reinforcement at a drift ratio of 2%.

Table 8
Predicted and actual shear strengths of specimens in previous studies and this study.
Author Specimen Material VACI Eq. (1) γVs Vf Vn Eq. (9) Vn − test Vu/ Vpr

This study D1-T1-RC RC 302 158 – 460 507 0.908

D1-T1-HP HPFRCC 323 158 137 618 614 1.007
D1-T0.5-RC RC 302 90 – 392 376 1.043
D1-T0.5-HP HPFRCC 302 90 191 583 562 1.037
D0.5-T1-HP HPFRCC 174 158 137 470 485 0.968
D0.5-T0.5-HP HPFRCC 174 90 191 455 426 1.068

Han et al. [22] HRC-500 HPFRCC 302 34 191 527 486 1.084
HRC-NO HPFRCC 302 – 191 493 452 1.091

Han et al. [13] FC-0.5-2.0 HPFRCC 473 318 393 1184 1117 1.060
FC-0-2.0 HPFRCC 473 – 393 866 909 0.953

Average All specimens 1.022

HPFRCC specimens 1.033

Coefficient of variation All specimens 0.061

HPFRCC specimens 0.052

560
S.W. Han et al.
Fig. 12. Contribution and verification of shear strength: (a) Contribution of shear strength; (b) Verification of predicted shear strength.
The contributions of the transverse reinforcement (γVs ), diagonal
reinforcement (VACI ), and HPFRCC (Vf ) on the shear strength of in-
dividual specimens are plotted Fig. 12a. Fig. 12b shows the degree of
fitness between actual and calculated shear strength. The average ratio
of actual to calculated shear strength was 1.022 and its coefficient of
variation was 0.051, indicating that Eq. (9) accurately predicts the
shear strength of HPFRCC DRCBs.
Since Eq. (5) was derived for HPFRCC with PVA fibers [28], this
equation is applicable to DRCBs made of HPFRCC with PVA fibers.
Caution is required to apply Eq. (9) for DRCBs made of HPFRCC with
different types of fibers.
7. Conclusions
To investigate the cyclic behavior of HPFRCC slender DRCBs, six
specimens were made and tested. The variables of the experimental test
were the application of HPFRCC, the amount of diagonal reinforcement,
and the amount of transverse reinforcement. An equation for calcu-
lating the shear strength of HPFRCC slender DRCBs was also proposed.
The conclusions of this study are as follows:
(1) The shear strength and the deformation capacity of slender DRCBs
were improved by the use of HPFRCC instead of normal concrete.
HPFRCC slender DRCB specimens exhibited significantly larger
energy dissipation capacity and strength retention capacity than RC
DRCB specimens due to less stiffness degradation.
(2) The cyclic performance of HPFRCC DRCB specimens, with their
transverse reinforcement reduced by 50% relative to standard RC
specimen, was superior to the standard RC specimen. Therefore, the
transverse reinforcement specified in ACI 318-14 could be alle-
viated for HPFRCC slender DRCBs.
(3) The shear strength, deformation capacity, strength retention capa-
city, and energy dissipation capacity of slender DRCBs decreased by
reducing the amount of diagonal reinforcement in the DRCBs by
about 50%. Although, the use of HPFRCC increased the shear
strength and deformation capacity of DRCBs with a 50% reduced
diagonal reinforcement, the inclusion of HPFRCC alone could not
compensate for a 50% reduction in diagonal reinforcement.
(4) Since the cyclic behavior of slender DRCBs was affected by the
amount of diagonal reinforcement, it is recommended that a lower
bound regarding the amount of diagonal reinforcement needs to be
specified for slender DRCBs.
561
Composite Structures 206 (2018) 550–562
(5) The shear strength equation for slender HPFRCC DRCBs proposed in
this study can properly consider the contribution of diagonal re-
inforcement, transverse reinforcement, and the inclusion of
HPFRCC. It was shown that the shear strengths of slender DRCBs
calculated using the proposed equation accurately matched the
actual shear strength of the slender DRCBs.
Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge financial supports from by the National
Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2017R1A2B3008937).
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the
online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.08.079.
References
[1] ASCE/SEI 7-16. Minimum design loads for buildings and associated criteria for
buildings and other structures. Reston (VA): American Society of Civil Engineers;
2017.
[2] ACI 318-14. Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary.
Building code and commentary. American Concrete Institute (ACI); 2014.
[3] Paulay T, Binney JR. Diagonally reinforced coupling beams of shear walls. ACI Spec
Publ 1974;42:579–98.
[4] Barney GB, Shiu KN, Rabbat BG, Fiorato AE, Russell HG, Corley WG. WG. Behavior
of coupling beams under load reversals. Portl Cem Assoc 1980;vol:10.
[5] Tassios TP, Moretti M, Bezas A. On the behavior and ductility of reinforced concrete
coupling beams of shear walls. ACI Struct J 1996;93(6):711–20.
[6] Galano L, Vignoli A. Seismic behavior of short coupling beams with different re-
inforcement layouts. ACI Struct J 2000;97(6):876–85.
[7] Canbolat BA, Parra-Montesinos GJ, Wight JK. Experimental study on seismic be-
havior of high-performance fiber-reinforced cement composite coupling beams. ACI
Struct J 2005;102(1):159–66.
[8] Fortney PJ. The next generation of coupling beams PhD Dissertation Cincinnati:
University of Cincinnati; 2005.
[9] Wallace JW. Behavior, design, and modeling of structural walls and coupling beams
– lessons from recent laboratory tests and earthquakes. Int J Concr Struct Mater
2012;6(1):3–18.
[10] Naish D, Wallace JW, Fry JA, Klemencic R. Reinforced concrete link beams: alter-
native details for improved construction UCLA-SGEL Report 2009-06 Los Angeles:
University of California; 2009
[11] Lequesne RD, Setkit M, Parra-Montesinos GJ, Wight JK. Seismic detailing and be-
havior of coupling beams with high-peformance fiber-reinforced concrete. ACI Spec
Publ 2010;272:205–22.
[12] Setkit M. Seismic behavior of slender coupling beams constructed with high-per-
formance fiber-reinforced concrete PhD. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan; 2012.
[13] Han SW, Lee CS, Kwon HW, Lee KH, Shin MS. Behaviour of fibre-reinforced beams
S.W. Han et al.
with diagonal reinforcement. Mag Concr Res 2015;67(24):1287–300.
[14] Li VC. Engineered cementitious composites (ECC)-material, structural and dur-
ability performance. In: Nawy E, editor. Concrete construction engineering hand-
book. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2007 [chapter 24].
[15] Naaman AE, Reinhardt HW. Characterization of high performance fiber reinforced
cement composites. Proceeding of second international symposium on high per-
formance fiber reinforced cementitious composites. 1996. p. 1–24.
[16] Naaman AE. High performance fiber reinforced cement composites: classification
and applications. CBM-CI international workshop, Karachi, Pakistan. 2007. p.
389–401.
[17] Fischer G, Li VC. Effect of matrix ductility on deformation behavior of steel-re-
inforced ECC flexural members under reversed cyclic loading conditions. ACI Struct
J 2002;99(6):781–90.
[18] Parra-Montesinos GJ. High-performance fiber-reinforced cement composites: an
alternative for seismic design of structures. ACI Struct J 2005;102(5):668–75.
[19] Harries KA, Fortney PJ, Shahrooz BM, Brienen PJ. Practical design of diagonally
reinforced concrete coupling beams-critical review of ACI 318 requirements. ACI
Struct J 2005;102(6):876–82.
[20] Barbachyn S, Kurama Y, Novak LC. Analytical evaluation of diagonally reinforced
concrete coupling beams under lateral loads. ACI Struct J 2012;109(4):497–508.
[21] Akkari A. Evaluation of a polyvinyl alcohol fiber reinforced engineered cementi-
tious composite for a thin-bonded pavement overlay Report MN/RC 2011-11 St
Paul (MN): Minnesota Department of Transportation; 2011.
562
Composite Structures 206 (2018) 550–562
[22] Han SW, Kang JW, Lee CS. Seismic behavior of slender HPFRCC diagonally re-
inforced coupling beams with limited transverse bars. Earthq Spectra
2018;34(1):77–98.
[23] ASTM C39/C39M-15. Standard test method for compressive strength of cylindrical
concrete specimens. West Conshohocken (PA): ASTM; 2015.
[24] Li Y, Liu Z. Behavior of high performance PVA fiber reinforced cement composites
under uniaxial compressive load. Appl Mech Mater 2012;174–177:687–91. ISSN:
1662-7482.
[25] Pan A, Moehle JP. Lateral displacement ductility of reinforced concrete flat plates.
ACI Struct J 1989;3(86):250–8.
[26] American Society of Civil Engineers. ASCE/SEI 41–13 seismic evaluation and ret-
rofit of existing buildings. Reston (Virginia): American Society of Civil Engineers;
2014.
[27] Han SW, Lee CS, Han CH, Moon KH. Cyclic behaviour of slender diagonally re-
inforced coupling beams with various amounts of transverse reinforcement. Mag
Concr Res 2018;70(13):671–84.
[28] Kanakubo T, Shimizu K, Nagai S, Kanda T. Shear transmission on crack surface of
ECC. Proceedings of the 7th fracture mechanics for concrete and concrete struc-
tures, Jeju, Korea. 2010.
[29] Zhang R, Matsumoto K, Hirata T, Ishizeki Y, Niwa J. Shear behavior of poly-
propylene fiber reinforced ECC beams with varying shear reinforcement ratios. J
JSCE 2014;2(1):39–53.