ABSTRACT Traditionally, the sandwich beam has been used as the continuous model that best represents the structural behavior of coupled shear walls. However, the errors found in the structural analysis of coupled shear walls with low slenderness have limited and, in some cases, prevented its use in engineering practice. Seeking to improve the accuracy of the classical continuous model, several generalized continuous models have recently been proposed. These introduce an additional deformation mechanism due to the local shear deformation of the walls, absent in the classical formulation, and significantly improve accuracy while generalizing the behavior of the classical continuous model. Although these generalized continuous models have been established in the literature, there are no studies integrating the global structural analysis or rigorously examine their precision and accuracy for safe application in engineering practice. Therefore, in this critical review of the literature, a rigorous synthesis of the proposed analytical solutions is presented, together with a comprehensive parametric analysis to define the range of applicability of each generalized continuous model in the static, dynamic, and stability analysis of uniform coupled shear walls. A comprehensive critical review of the literature identifies three generalized continuous models: the parallel coupling between a global Timoshenko beam and a local Timoshenko beam (MSB beam), the parallel coupling between an extensible Timoshenko beam and a global shear beam (GCTB beam), and the series coupling between the classical sandwich beam and a local shear beam (GSB beam). Owing to the similarity between the equilibrium and motion equations and their boundary conditions, generalized analytical solutions are proposed for the computation of the horizontal displacement, the fundamental natural period, and the critical buckling load of the three generalized continuous beams. The results indicate that, when modeling the coupled shear wall under the equivalent frame approach, the GSB beam provides higher accuracy and precision compared with the MSB and GCTB beams, with maximum errors of 3.30%, 3.17%, and 5.75% for static, dynamic, and stability analyses (approximate solution), respectively, all remaining on the side of structural safety.
Mao Cristian Pinto‐Cruz (Wed,) studied this question.