You are on page 1of 13

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


conducted with deep DRCBs. However, in recent years, slender DRCBs
The shear wall system is one of the most promising force resisting have often been used in building construction because the height of the
systems [1]. Since shear walls have large lateral strength and stiffness, buildings and construction costs can be reduced by using slender cou-
they can be efficiently used as a seismic force resisting system for mid- pling beams [9]. However, slender DRCBs have less inner space than
and high-rise buildings. Openings in the shear walls are often required deep DRCBs, resulting in significant reinforcement congestion and in-
to provide open spaces due to architectural demands such as windows, terference. Therefore, it is difficult to construct slender DRCBs in con-
doors, and mechanical and electrical equipment. struction sites due to heavy reinforcement congestion [10].
Individual shear walls separated by openings can be connected To reduce the construction difficulties arising with the use of
using coupling beams. When coupling beams are properly designed in DRCBs, High Performance Fiber Reinforced Cement Composites
compliance with current design codes [2], they can act as a seismic fuse (HPFRCC) with simplified reinforcement arrangements have been de-
in coupled shear wall systems that dissipates most of the input earth- veloped. Experimental studies were conducted to investigate the cyclic
quake energy during earthquakes and improve the seismic behavior of behavior of newly developed DRCBs [7,11–13]. According to these
the coupled shear wall systems. studies, the cyclic behavior of DRCBs could be improved by the use of
In the 1964 Alaska earthquake, reinforced concrete (RC) coupling HPFRCC. They also reported that when using HPFRCC DRCBs, a simple
beams with a reinforcement arrangement used in conventional RC reinforcement arrangement with a reduced amount of reinforcement
beams experienced a brittle sliding shear failure. To improve the could be used without deteriorating the cyclic behavior of the DRCBs.
seismic behavior of coupling beams, Paulay and Binney [3] proposed Han et al. [13] reported that transverse reinforcement was reduced
the use of coupling beams with diagonal reinforcement. Many re- by the use of HPFRCC. However, to the best of our knowledge, there has
searchers have conducted experimental tests with concrete diagonally been no study to investigate the effect of both transverse and diagonal
reinforced coupling beams (DRCBs). It was reported that DRCBs had reinforcement on the cyclic behavior of slender HPFRCC DRCBs. Han
excellent seismic behavior without brittle sliding shear failure [3–8]. 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. Composite Structures 206 (2018) 550–562

DRCBs was much larger than the shear strength calculated using the members also require less transverse reinforcement due to the con-
equation specified in ACI 318-14 [2], which only considers the con- tribution of HPFRCC to concrete confinement. In HPFRCC DRCBs, a
tribution of the diagonal reinforcement. The underestimation of the simple reinforcement arrangement with a reduced amount of reinfor-
shear strength for DRCBs may prevent the DRCBs from acting as a cing bars can be used compared with RC DRCBs without losing their
seismic fuse element that dissipates most energy during large earth- strength and deformation capacities [7,11–13].
quakes, causing significant and unexpected damage to neighboring
walls during large earthquakes.
3. Experimental test program
In order to explore the cyclic behavior of HPFRCC slender DRCBs
with different amounts of diagonal and transverse reinforcement, this
3.1. Test specimens
study conducted experimental tests with six slender DRCB specimens.
The HPFRCC was made with polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) fibers. Based on
This study focused on slender HPFRCC DRCBs. The contributions of
experimental test results on HPFRCC DRCBs, an empirical equation was
the HPFRCC, and the diagonal and transverse bars to the cyclic beha-
proposed by combining two previous models to accurately calculate the
vior of DRCBs were explicitly explored by conducting experimental
shear strength of HPFRCC DRCBs that can properly consider the con-
tests. For this purpose, six DRCB specimens were made (two RC and
tributions of the HPFRCC, as well as the diagonal and transverse re-
four HPFRCC DRCB specimens) (Fig. 2) and tested with quasi-static
inforcement. The proposed equation was verified with ten DRCB spe-
cyclic loading. The aspect ratio (ln / h ) of all specimens was 3.5. The test
cimens including two RC and eight HPFRCC specimens.
variables were (1) the amount of transverse reinforcement, (2) the
amount of diagonal reinforcement, and (3) the application of HPFRCC.
2. Diagonally reinforced coupling beam details Fig. 2 shows the reinforcement details of the specimens.
The width (b ), height (h ) and length (ln ) of all specimens were 250,
According to ACI 318-14 (Section 18.10.7.2) [2], coupling beams 300 and 1050 mm, respectively. The specified compressive strength of
with a beam length-to-height ratio (ln / h ) less than 2 and an average concrete and HPFRCC used for specimens was 40 MPa, and the specified
shear stress greater than 0.33 fc′ (MPa) should be reinforced with di- yield strength of the reinforcement was 420 MPa.
agonal reinforcement, where fc′ is the compressive strength of concrete. All specimens were designed to have a shear stress (νn ) equal to
The diagonal reinforcement should be placed approximately symme- 0.5 fc′ (MPa) where νn is calculated as the shear strength (Vn ) of a DRCB
trically in the beam section in two or more layers (ACI 318-14) (Fig. 1a divided by its cross sectional area (b × h ). Harries et al. [19] reported
and b). It is ineffective to place diagonal bars in very slender coupling that it is difficult to place reinforcing bars in DRCBs when the νn of
beams (ln / h⩾ 4) due to their small inclination. In these beams, re- DRCBs exceed 0.5 fc′ (MPa) due to reinforcement congestion and in-
inforcement is placed according to reinforcement details specified for terference. The shear strength (Vn ) of a DRCB can be calculated using
special moment frame (SMF) beams (Fig. 1c) in ACI 318-14 instead of Eq. (1) (ACI 318-14 Section 18.10.7.4 [2]).
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 Vn = VACI = 2Avd f yd sin α ⩽ 0.83 fc′ Acw (1)
318-14.
ACI 318-14 [2] specifies two alternative confinement options for where Avd is the total area of reinforcement in each group of diagonal
DRCBs as shown in Fig. 1. For the first option, each group of diagonal bars (mm2), f yd is the yield strength of the diagonal reinforcement
bars should be enclosed by rectilinear transverse reinforcement (MPa), and α is the angle between the diagonal bars and the long-
(Fig. 1a), whereas for the second option, transverse reinforcement itudinal axis of the coupling beam. In this study, the second confine-
should be placed around the beam perimeter as shown in Fig. 1b. Al- ment option (Fig. 1b) was used to place the reinforcing bars in the
though the second confinement option has less reinforcement conges- DRCB specimens. The sufficiently long development length was used for
tion than the first confinement option, interference between diagonal diagonal bars to avoid the possibility of pull-out failure, because the
and transvers bars still exists. development length was not considered as a test variable in this study.
To reduce the reinforcement congestion in DRCBs and to improve Specimen D1-T1-RC was the standard RC specimen (Fig. 2a) de-
their cyclic behavior, DRCBs can be made of HPFRCC. HPFRCC does not signed and detailed according to ACI 318-14 [2]. Deformed bars with
generally contain coarse aggregates [14] and possesses a relatively high diameters of 25 mm (D25) and 13 mm (D13) were used for diagonal
strain-capacity while generating multiple micro-cracks and a strain- and transverse reinforcement, respectively. The spacing of transverse
hardening response [15,16]. Previous studies reported that HPFRCC reinforcement was 110 mm. Specimen D1-T1-HP was an HPFRCC DRCB
members had larger shear strengths, deformation capacities and da- with the same reinforcement details as specimen D1-T1-RC (Fig. 2c).
mage tolerances than conventional RC members [17,18]. HPFRCC The effect of the HPFRCC on the cyclic behavior of DRCBs can be

Fig. 1. Coupling beam details specified in ACI 318-14 [2].

551
S.W. Han et al. Composite Structures 206 (2018) 550–562

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- 3.2. Test setup
T1-HP.
Specimen D0.5-T1-HP (Fig. 2e) was a specimen identical to spe- Fig. 4 shows the test setup, where specimens were vertically placed.
cimen D1-T1-HP except for the amount of the diagonal reinforcement. The top and bottom concrete blocks were fixed to the horizontal steel
The amount of diagonal reinforcement in this specimen was half that of frame and the strong floor using high strength bolts, respectively.
specimen D1-T1-HP. This specimen was made to evaluate the effect of Stoppers were placed on both sides of the concrete blocks to prevent the
diagonal reinforcement in HPFRCC DRCBs. In specimen D0.5-T1-HP, specimen from sliding under lateral loads. To prevent axial elongation
deformed bars with a diameter of 19 mm (D19) were used for diagonal in the DRCB specimens, two guide columns were placed to sustain the
reinforcement. horizontal steel loading frame as shown in Fig. 4, which emulated the
To evaluate the effect of transverse reinforcement in DRCBs, spe- restraint of axial elongation of DRCBs provided by the adjoining shear
cimens D1-T0.5-RC (Fig. 2b) and D1-T0.5-HP were made, which had walls and slabs [20]. These columns were anchored to the strong floor.
only half the amount of transverse reinforcement as that in specimens Roller supports were installed on the guide columns to prevent rotation
D1-T1-RC and D1-T1-HP. In specimen D0.5-T0.5-HP (Fig. 2f), both di- of the loading frame. Thus, the loading frame could move only in the
agonal and transverse reinforcement were reduced to half the amount horizontal direction during the test. To ensure zero moment at the mid-
of those reinforcement used in specimens D1-T1-RC and D1-T1-HP. The span of the DRCB specimens, lateral loading was applied to the spe-
spacing of the transverse reinforcement (D13) for specimens D1-T0.5- cimen in the line of action passing the mid-span of the DRCBs using a
RC and D0.5-T0.5-HP was 250 mm. Fig. 3 shows a summary of the test hydraulic actuator. Lateral loads produced by the hydraulic actuator
program and the specimen identification nomenclature. Table 1 sum- were transmitted to the DRCB through the horizontal loading frame and
marizes the properties of all of the specimens. 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

552
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- C39 [23]. The height and diameter of the specimens were 200 mm and
ferential transducer (LVDT) (Fig. 5b) installed on the top block. For 100 mm, respectively. The direct tensile test was also conducted with
individual drift amplitudes, two consecutive loading cycles were ap- five dog-bone-shaped specimens with section size of 25 mm × 50 mm.
plied to a specimen to monitor cyclic degradation in strength and Fig. 6 shows the stress-strain curves obtained from the compressive and
stiffness occurring the specimen. The same loading protocol was ap- direct tensile tests.
plied to all specimens. The magnitude of lateral loads (shear force) was The average compressive strengths of the concrete and HPFRCC
measured through a load cell installed in the actuator. were 44 MPa and 46 MPa, respectively, exceeding the design strength of
Fig. 5b shows an arrangement of the LVDTs for the specimens. Two 40 MPa. The average compressive strength of normal concrete used for
LVDTs (Top and Bottom) were installed on the top block to monitor the loading concrete blocks was 69 MPa, exceeding the design strength of
rotation of the specimen, and one LVDT was installed on the bottom 60 MPa. Table 5 summarizes the mechanical properties of the concrete
block to monitor the sliding of the specimen. Vertical LVDTs (L1 to L4, and HPFRCC obtained from the material tests. The compressive strain at
L9 to L14) and diagonal LVDTs (D1 to D4) were installed to measure the the peak strength for the HPFRCC was 0.0040, which was 1.7 times
flexural deformation and shear distortion. Vertical LVDTs (L5 to L8) larger than that of normal concrete (=0.0023). A high strain at the
were installed to monitor the rotation at both ends of the specimen. peak strength of HPFRCC was mainly due to the matrix of HPFRCC
which did not contain coarse aggregate [24]. However, the secant
3.3. Material tests elastic modulus of HPFRCC measured at 40% of the compressive
strength was about 81% of that of the normal concrete. As shown in
Compressive and direct tensile tests were conducted to estimate the Fig. 6a, explosive spalling was not observed in HPFRCC sample, unlike
mechanical properties of the HPFRCC with polyvinyl alcohol fibers normal concrete (Fig. 6a).
(PVA). Polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) fibers are newly developed high per- The average direct tensile strength of HPFRCC was 3.6 MPa. The
formance fibers, used in engineered cementitious composites to help HPFRCC exhibited ductile behavior with multiple events of micro-
achieving high tensile strain capacity, toughness and structural in- cracking on the surface before failure without crack localization. This
tegrity [21]. The unique microstructure of PVA fibers causes the for- could be attributed to fiber bridging effects that could efficiently
mation of a strong bond with the cementitious matrix. HPFRCC with transfer loads between cracks in the cement matrix through fibers, re-
PVA fibers exhibits larger tensile strain capacity than HPFRCC with sulting in spreading cracks on the entire surface of the cement matrix.
steel fibers. Tables 2 and 3 summarize the mix proportions of normal At the final stage, the cracks in the weakest region of the matrix became
concrete and HPFRCC, respectively. The dimensions and physical wider, and failure was initiated by the slip of fibers in this region.
properties of PVA fibers are given in Table 4. The same mix proportion Table 6 summarizes the mechanical properties of the deformed bars
of HPFRCC as that provided in [22] was also used in this study, which used in the DRCB specimens.
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 4. Test results
calcium carbonate was used as a filler. Calcium carbonate generally
improves the toughness, ductility and strength of the cement-matrix 4.1. Cyclic curves of RC and HPFRCC DRCB specimens
better than other fillers such as silica sand [22].
Compressive tests were conducted with four normal concrete (beam Fig. 7 shows the cyclic and envelop curves of six DRCB specimens.
and block) and four HPFRCC cylindrical specimens according to ASTM 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. Composite Structures 206 (2018) 550–562

Table 5
Summary of material test.
Material Average compressive strength Compressive strain at peak Modulus of elasticity Average tensile strength Maximum tensile strain (%)
(MPa) (GPa) (MPa)

Concrete for DRCBs 44 0.0023 22.2 – –


Concrete for blocks 69 0.0028 30.1 – –
HPFRCC 46 0.0040 18.0 3.6 2.3

Table 6 reinforcement were monitored. Fig. 11a shows drift ratios causing
Mechanical properties of reinforcement. yielding in these reinforcement. It is observed that RC specimens ex-
Reinforcement Diameter (mm) Yield stress (MPa) Tensile strength (MPa)
perienced yielding earlier than corresponding HPFRCC specimens (D1-
T1-RC versus D1-T1-HP; D1-T0.5RC versus D1-T0.5HP). Fig. 11b shows
D13 12.7 516 668 the strains of transverse reinforcement measured at a drift ratio of 2%
D19 19.1 476 606 using strain gauges. The stain of specimen D1-T1-RC was larger than
D25 25.4 515 636
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
5. Detailed investigation of the effect of HPFRCC, diagonal and HPFRCC shared the role of the confinement of concrete, along with
transverse reinforcement transverse reinforcement.

5.1. Effect of HPFRCC 5.2. Effect of diagonal reinforcement

To evaluate the effect of HPFRCC on the cyclic responses of the To evaluate the effect of diagonal reinforcement on the cyclic be-
DRCBs, the test results of two RC (D1-T1-RC, D1-T0.5-RC) and two havior of HPFRCC DRCBs, specimens D1-T1-HP, D0.5-T1-HP, D1-T0.5-
HPFRCC (D1-T1-HP, D1-T0.5-HP) specimens were considered. The HP and D0.5-T0.5-HP were considered. If the amount of diagonal re-
shear strengths (Vu ) of specimen D1-T1-RC and D1-T1-HP were 507 kN inforcement is reduced by 50%, the shear strength (VACI ) calculated
and 614 kN, respectively, while Vu of D1-T0.5-RC and D1-T0.5-HP were using Eq. (1), is also reduced by 50%.
376 kN and 562 kN, respectively. The increase in shear strength due to Although specimen D0.5-T1-HP had 50% of the amount of diagonal
the inclusion of HPFRCC was more distinctive in DRCBs with less reinforcement in specimen D1-T1-HP, the Vu of specimen D0.5-T1-HP
transverse reinforcement (D1-T0.5-RC versus D1-T0.5-HP) (Fig. 8). (Vn = 614 kN) was only 21% (< 50%) less than Vu of specimen D1-T1-
Specimens D1-T1-RC and D1-T1-HP produced an excellent drift HP (Vn = 485 kN). Both specimens had the same amount of transverse
capacity. The maximum drift ratio (θu ) of specimens D1-T1-RC and D1- reinforcement satisfying the requirement specified in ACI 318-14 [2]. A
T1-HP were 9.8% and 7.9%, respectively. The drift ratios (θf ) at failure similar observation was made for specimens D1-T0.5-HP (Vn = 562 kN)
for specimens D1-T1-RC and D1-T1-HP were 10.1% and 11.9% (Fig. 7a and D0.5-T0.5-HP(Vn = 426 kN) having 50% reduced transverse re-
and c), respectively. In these specimens, the contribution of HPFRCC on inforcement. This indicates that although the amount of diagonal re-
the drift capacity was not significant. However, a distinctive increase in inforcement was reduced by 50%, Vu did not decrease by 50% unlike
drift capacity was observed due to the use of the HPFRCC for specimens the prediction using Eq. (1) due to the contributions of the HPFRCC as
with a 50% reduced transverse reinforcement: θu of specimens D1-T0.5- well as transverse reinforcement.
RC and D1-T0.5-HP were 4.8% and 7.0%, respectively. (Fig. 7b and d). The maximum drift ratios (θu ) of specimens D1-T1-HP and D0.5-T1-
In summary, the use of HPFRCC is more effective in increasing Vu HP were 7.9% and 5.9%, respectively, while specimens D1-T0.5-HP and
and θu for slender DRCBs having a reduced amount of transverse re- D0.5-T0.5-HP had θu of 5.9% and 3.0%, respectively. This indicates that
inforcement. θu decreased with a 50% reduction in the diagonal reinforcement,
The inclined crack widths (wic ) of specimens D1-T1-RC and D1-T1- which was more prominent for specimens with a 50% reduced trans-
HP at a drift ratio of 4% were 2.5 mm and 2.0 mm, respectively, while verse reinforcement. It is worthwhile to note that specimen D0.5-T1-HP
wic of D1-T0.5-RC and D1-T0.5-HP were 8.0 mm and 3.0 mm, respec- had θu (=5.9%) smaller than RC specimens D1-T1-RC (θu = 9.8%).
tively. Therefore, the crack width of DRCBs decreased by using HPFRCC Therefore, HPFRCC alone could not compensate for a decrease in Vu and
(Fig. 9). This phenomenon was more prominent in specimens with less θu resulting from a 50% reduction in diagonal reinforcement. It is noted
transverse reinforcement (D1-T0.5-RC versus D1-T0.5-HP). In addition, that there is no limitation on the minimum amount of diagonal re-
HPFRCC DRCBs exhibited more cracks that spread widely in the entire inforcement specified in ACI 318-14 [2].
DRCB surface compared to RC DRCBs. At a drift ratio of 4%, the spal- At a drift ratio of 4%, wic of specimens D1-T1-HP and D0.5-T1-HP
ling of concrete occurred in specimen D1-T1-RC and D1-T0.5-RC, were 2.5 mm and 3.5 mm, respectively, while specimens D1-T0.5-HP
whereas concrete spalling did not occur in specimens D1-T1-HP and D1- and D0.5-T0.5-HP produced wic values of 3.0 mm and 20.0 mm, re-
T0.5-HP at the same drift ratio (Fig. 9). spectively. Therefore, wic increased with the 50% reduction in diagonal
The initial stiffness of specimens was increased by using HPFRCC. reinforcement (Fig. 9), which was more prominent in specimens with a
However, the degree of stiffness increment was not distinctively af- 50% reduced transverse reinforcement.
fected by the amount of transverse reinforcement. Similarly, the
strength retention capacities of HPFRCC specimens were larger than
5.3. Effect of the transverse reinforcement
those of the corresponding RC specimens. The energy dissipation ca-
pacity (Et ) of slender DRCB specimens was increased by the use of
To investigate the effect of the transverse reinforcement on the
HPFRCC. The increase in energy dissipation capacity due to the use of
cyclic behavior of DRCBs six slender DRCB specimens were considered,
HPFRCC was more noticeable in DRCBs with less transverse re-
which had different amounts of transverse reinforcement. Specimens
inforcement: Et of D1-T1-RC and D1-T1-HP was 791.5 kN-m and
D1-T1-RC, D1-T1-HP and D0.5-T1-HP had an amount of transverse
1120.5 kN-m, respectively, whereas Et of D1-T0.5-RC and D1-T0.5-HP
reinforcement satisfying the requirement specified in ACI318-14 [2],
was 192.9 kN-m and 766.5 kN-m, respectively.
whereas specimens D1-T0.5-RC, D1-T0.5-HP and D0.5-T0.5-HP had
Drift ratios which caused yielding in diagonal and transverse
transverse reinforcement reduced by 50%.

556
S.W. Han et al. Composite Structures 206 (2018) 550–562

Fig. 7. Cyclic and envelope curves of specimens.

As summarized in Table 7, Vu of specimens D1-T1-RC(=507 kN), 174 kN. Therefore, VACI significantly underestimated the actual shear
D1-T1-HP (=614 kN), and D0.5-T1-HP (=485 kN) were larger than strength (Vu ) of slender DRCB specimens.
those of corresponding specimens, D1-T0.5-RC (=376 kN), D1-T0.5-HP The maximum drift ratios (θu ) of specimens D1-T1-RC, D1-T1-HP,
(=562 kN), and D0.5-T0.5-HP (=426 kN). This indicates that Vn de- and D0.5-T1-HP were 9.8%, 7.9%, and 5.9%, respectively, whereas
creases by reducing the amount of transverse reinforcement. In con- those of specimens D1-T0.5-RC, D1-T0.5-HP, and D0.5-T0.5-HP were
trast, VACI does not change according to the amount of transverse re- 4.8%, 7.0%, and 3.0%, respectively. This indicates that θu decreased
inforcement: VACI of specimens D1-T1-RC and D1-T1-HP was calculated with a 50% reduction in transverse reinforcement.
as 302 kN, and VACI of specimens D0.5-T1-HP and D0.5-T0.5-HP was To evaluate the effect of HPFRCC on the cyclic behavior of DRCBs

557
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 2.0


DRCBs.
cot ϕ = min jt /(h·tan θ)

⎪ v·σB /(ρt ·f yt )−1 (6)
with 50% reduced transverse reinforcement, RC specimen D1-T1-RC ⎩
and HPFRCC specimen D1-T0.5-HP, both with a 50% reduced trans-
tan θ = (ln / h)2 + 1 −(ln / h) (7)
verse reinforcement, were considered. Although the amount of trans-
verse reinforcement in HPFRCC specimen D1-T0.5-HP was only half v = 1.70σB−0.333 (8)
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 where Vf is the shear strength contribution HPFRCC, jt is the distance
the use of HPFRCC could compensate for a decrease in Vu due to the between compression and tension bars, vt is the reduction factor for
reduction in transverse reinforcement unlike the case of the reduction tensile strength of HPFRCC (=0.5) [28], which reflects the non-uni-
in diagonal reinforcement. Both specimens had θu larger than 5%, formity of the tensile stress at the crack surface, σt is the tensile strength
which is the acceptance criteria for DRCBs specified in ASCE 41 [26]. of HPFRCC obtained from direct tensile tests, ϕ is the angle of the
The drift ratio at failure (θf ) of the both specimens exceeded 10%. The compressive strut, θ is the angle of the arch mechanism, v is the ef-
strength retention and energy dissipation capacities of both specimens fective coefficient of compressive strength of ECC, and σB is the com-
were also almost identical. Therefore, the use of HPFRCC could com- pressive strength of the ECC.
pensate for the effect of a 50% reduction in transverse reinforcement as In Eq. (5), cot ϕ reflects the tendency that the contribution of
a result of the improved cyclic behavior of slender DRCBs. 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
6. Shear strength equation of slender diagonally reinforced transverse reinforcement. Zhang et al. [29] also reported that the
coupling beams using HPFRCC bridging effect produced by HPFRCC decreased with an increase in the
amount of transverse reinforcement because the number of cracks in
As observed in the previous sections, the shear strength of DRCBs HPFRCC beams that initiate the bridging effect of HPFRCC decreased
calculated from Eq. (1) significantly underestimated the actual shear with increasing transverse reinforcement. It was also observed from this
strength of the DRCBs (Fig. 7). It is noted that Eq. (1) only considers the study that the contribution of HPFRCC on the shear strength of DRCBs
contribution of diagonal reinforcement in calculating the shear strength was more significant for specimens with 50% reduced transverse re-
of DRCBs rather than considering the contributions of transverse re- inforcement. Note that the difference in shear strength between speci-
inforcement and the inclusion of HPFRCC, resulting in an under- mens D1-T1-RC and D1-T1-HP was 107 kN, whereas that between
estimation of the shear strength. Han et al. [22] reported that transverse specimens D1-T0.5-RC and D1-T0.5-HP was 186 kN.
reinforcement affected the shear strength of DRCBs. If the shear To consider the contribution of transverse reinforcement and the
strength of DRCBs are underestimated in the design stage, DRCBs may 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. Composite Structures 206 (2018) 550–562

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 (5) The shear strength equation for slender HPFRCC DRCBs proposed in
reinforcement (VACI ), and HPFRCC (Vf ) on the shear strength of in- this study can properly consider the contribution of diagonal re-
dividual specimens are plotted Fig. 12a. Fig. 12b shows the degree of inforcement, transverse reinforcement, and the inclusion of
fitness between actual and calculated shear strength. The average ratio HPFRCC. It was shown that the shear strengths of slender DRCBs
of actual to calculated shear strength was 1.022 and its coefficient of calculated using the proposed equation accurately matched the
variation was 0.051, indicating that Eq. (9) accurately predicts the actual shear strength of the slender DRCBs.
shear strength of HPFRCC DRCBs.
Since Eq. (5) was derived for HPFRCC with PVA fibers [28], this Acknowledgement
equation is applicable to DRCBs made of HPFRCC with PVA fibers.
Caution is required to apply Eq. (9) for DRCBs made of HPFRCC with The authors acknowledge financial supports from by the National
different types of fibers. Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2017R1A2B3008937).

7. Conclusions Appendix A. Supplementary material

To investigate the cyclic behavior of HPFRCC slender DRCBs, six Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the
specimens were made and tested. The variables of the experimental test online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.08.079.
were the application of HPFRCC, the amount of diagonal reinforcement,
and the amount of transverse reinforcement. An equation for calcu- References
lating the shear strength of HPFRCC slender DRCBs was also proposed.
The conclusions of this study are as follows: [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.
(1) The shear strength and the deformation capacity of slender DRCBs [2] ACI 318-14. Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary.
were improved by the use of HPFRCC instead of normal concrete. Building code and commentary. American Concrete Institute (ACI); 2014.
HPFRCC slender DRCB specimens exhibited significantly larger [3] Paulay T, Binney JR. Diagonally reinforced coupling beams of shear walls. ACI Spec
Publ 1974;42:579–98.
energy dissipation capacity and strength retention capacity than RC [4] Barney GB, Shiu KN, Rabbat BG, Fiorato AE, Russell HG, Corley WG. WG. Behavior
DRCB specimens due to less stiffness degradation. of coupling beams under load reversals. Portl Cem Assoc 1980;vol:10.
(2) The cyclic performance of HPFRCC DRCB specimens, with their [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.
transverse reinforcement reduced by 50% relative to standard RC
[6] Galano L, Vignoli A. Seismic behavior of short coupling beams with different re-
specimen, was superior to the standard RC specimen. Therefore, the inforcement layouts. ACI Struct J 2000;97(6):876–85.
transverse reinforcement specified in ACI 318-14 could be alle- [7] Canbolat BA, Parra-Montesinos GJ, Wight JK. Experimental study on seismic be-
havior of high-performance fiber-reinforced cement composite coupling beams. ACI
viated for HPFRCC slender DRCBs.
Struct J 2005;102(1):159–66.
(3) The shear strength, deformation capacity, strength retention capa- [8] Fortney PJ. The next generation of coupling beams PhD Dissertation Cincinnati:
city, and energy dissipation capacity of slender DRCBs decreased by University of Cincinnati; 2005.
reducing the amount of diagonal reinforcement in the DRCBs by [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
about 50%. Although, the use of HPFRCC increased the shear 2012;6(1):3–18.
strength and deformation capacity of DRCBs with a 50% reduced [10] Naish D, Wallace JW, Fry JA, Klemencic R. Reinforced concrete link beams: alter-
diagonal reinforcement, the inclusion of HPFRCC alone could not native details for improved construction UCLA-SGEL Report 2009-06 Los Angeles:
University of California; 2009
compensate for a 50% reduction in diagonal reinforcement. [11] Lequesne RD, Setkit M, Parra-Montesinos GJ, Wight JK. Seismic detailing and be-
(4) Since the cyclic behavior of slender DRCBs was affected by the havior of coupling beams with high-peformance fiber-reinforced concrete. ACI Spec
amount of diagonal reinforcement, it is recommended that a lower Publ 2010;272:205–22.
[12] Setkit M. Seismic behavior of slender coupling beams constructed with high-per-
bound regarding the amount of diagonal reinforcement needs to be formance fiber-reinforced concrete PhD. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan; 2012.
specified for slender DRCBs. [13] Han SW, Lee CS, Kwon HW, Lee KH, Shin MS. Behaviour of fibre-reinforced beams

561
S.W. Han et al. Composite Structures 206 (2018) 550–562

with diagonal reinforcement. Mag Concr Res 2015;67(24):1287–300. [22] Han SW, Kang JW, Lee CS. Seismic behavior of slender HPFRCC diagonally re-
[14] Li VC. Engineered cementitious composites (ECC)-material, structural and dur- inforced coupling beams with limited transverse bars. Earthq Spectra
ability performance. In: Nawy E, editor. Concrete construction engineering hand- 2018;34(1):77–98.
book. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2007 [chapter 24]. [23] ASTM C39/C39M-15. Standard test method for compressive strength of cylindrical
[15] Naaman AE, Reinhardt HW. Characterization of high performance fiber reinforced concrete specimens. West Conshohocken (PA): ASTM; 2015.
cement composites. Proceeding of second international symposium on high per- [24] Li Y, Liu Z. Behavior of high performance PVA fiber reinforced cement composites
formance fiber reinforced cementitious composites. 1996. p. 1–24. under uniaxial compressive load. Appl Mech Mater 2012;174–177:687–91. ISSN:
[16] Naaman AE. High performance fiber reinforced cement composites: classification 1662-7482.
and applications. CBM-CI international workshop, Karachi, Pakistan. 2007. p. [25] Pan A, Moehle JP. Lateral displacement ductility of reinforced concrete flat plates.
389–401. ACI Struct J 1989;3(86):250–8.
[17] Fischer G, Li VC. Effect of matrix ductility on deformation behavior of steel-re- [26] American Society of Civil Engineers. ASCE/SEI 41–13 seismic evaluation and ret-
inforced ECC flexural members under reversed cyclic loading conditions. ACI Struct rofit of existing buildings. Reston (Virginia): American Society of Civil Engineers;
J 2002;99(6):781–90. 2014.
[18] Parra-Montesinos GJ. High-performance fiber-reinforced cement composites: an [27] Han SW, Lee CS, Han CH, Moon KH. Cyclic behaviour of slender diagonally re-
alternative for seismic design of structures. ACI Struct J 2005;102(5):668–75. inforced coupling beams with various amounts of transverse reinforcement. Mag
[19] Harries KA, Fortney PJ, Shahrooz BM, Brienen PJ. Practical design of diagonally Concr Res 2018;70(13):671–84.
reinforced concrete coupling beams-critical review of ACI 318 requirements. ACI [28] Kanakubo T, Shimizu K, Nagai S, Kanda T. Shear transmission on crack surface of
Struct J 2005;102(6):876–82. ECC. Proceedings of the 7th fracture mechanics for concrete and concrete struc-
[20] Barbachyn S, Kurama Y, Novak LC. Analytical evaluation of diagonally reinforced tures, Jeju, Korea. 2010.
concrete coupling beams under lateral loads. ACI Struct J 2012;109(4):497–508. [29] Zhang R, Matsumoto K, Hirata T, Ishizeki Y, Niwa J. Shear behavior of poly-
[21] Akkari A. Evaluation of a polyvinyl alcohol fiber reinforced engineered cementi- propylene fiber reinforced ECC beams with varying shear reinforcement ratios. J
tious composite for a thin-bonded pavement overlay Report MN/RC 2011-11 St JSCE 2014;2(1):39–53.
Paul (MN): Minnesota Department of Transportation; 2011.

562