THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2015)

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tal). DOI: 10.1002/tal.1231

Dynamic shear force amplication in regular framewall systems

lker Kazaz1* and Polat Glkan2

1
Erzurum Technical University, Department of Civil Engineering, Erzurum, Turkey
2
ankaya University, Department of Civil Engineering, Ankara, Turkey

SUMMARY
A parametric study is conducted to investigate the dynamic shear amplication factor (DAF) in low-to-
mid-rise framewall systems in which the reinforcement curtailment along the height matches the required code
strength. The level of framewall interaction is varied by changing the wall index, dened as the ratio of the
total wall area to the oor plan area, in a generic framewall system, and its correlation with the DAF is
investigated. Wall index values ranging in the 0.2% to 2% interval are selected. Walls with lengths of
3m , 5 m and 8 m are used in the design of model buildings of 4, 8 and 12 stories. Shearexure beam
continuum formulation is used in design and modeling. The global behavior is analyzed using nonlinear
response history procedure using spectrum compatible ground motions. It is found that the primary source
of amplication is the level of inelastic demand on the system. Walls designed for code-specied force
reduction factor R = 6 experienced an average base shear force amplication in the order of 1.64 with standard
deviation of 0.19 with respect to design shear force. Amplication diminishes with decreasing R. An expression
for the dynamic amplication factor as a function of the number of stories and force reduction factor R is
proposed. Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 23 June 2014; Revised 1 May 2015; Accepted 04 July 2015

KEY WORDS: dynamic amplication factor; shear wall; framewall; dual system; behavior factor; shear envelope

1. INTRODUCTION

Structural walls constitute the lateral load resisting elements in reinforced concrete buildings. Recent
code rules lay down a condition to use a minimum amount of shear walls in most newly constructed
reinforced concrete structures. Buildings with shear walls as their lateral load resisting system can
be constructed with different technologies. The structural forms used in these buildings to resist verti-
cal and lateral effects can lead to different behavior attributes. Framewall (dual) systems are preferred
in earthquake resistant design because the interaction of these two distinct structural forms enables the
control of drifts in the building due to their inherent characteristics.
Low-to-mid-rise reinforced concrete moment-resisting frame buildings form a large portion of the
building inventory in many countries including Turkey. Following the M7.4 Kocaeli Earthquake in
1999, use of shear walls in combination with reinforced concrete moment-resisting frames has seen
a boost. These buildings are constructed mostly with 4 to 12 stories in regions of high seismicity
and are used for residential accommodation.
In earthquake resistant design of dual systems and wall-type structures, the shear forces along the
height of a wall are magnied with empirical factors in order to prevent non-ductile failure mecha-
nisms and to ensure the development of plastic hinges at the wall base. Nonlinear response history
analyses on wall-type structures have shown that this is a good design strategy (Ghosh, 1992). The
principal reason for considering amplication is the contribution of higher modes to the dynamic

*Correspondence to: lker Kazaz, Erzurum Teknik niversitesi, naat Mh. Bl., Havaalan Yolu zeri 2. Km 25050,
Yakutiye, Erzurum, Turkey.
E-mail: ilkerkazaz@erzurum.edu.tr

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

 . KAZAZ AND P. GLKAN

response. This behavior cannot be incorporated in the equivalent static method (ESM) that mimics
the distribution of the earthquake loads along the height of the structure dominated by the rst
mode. The modal response spectrum (MRS) analysis that permits a more accurate distribution of de-
mand on the structure is preferred because it considers the contribution of higher modes to response.
For regular and medium height buildings, the total seismic base shear obtained from MRS analysis
is generally smaller than that from ESM. Paulay and Priestley (1992) have stated that the contribu-
tion of higher modes to base shear will increase as the fundamental period of the structure increases,
in the same way as the number of stories.
The formation of a plastic hinge at the base of the wall modies the contribution of higher modes of
vibration, and the centroid of inertia forces over the height of the building may be at a signicantly
lower elevation than that is predicted by conventional static analysis. If the fundamental mechanism
for the shear amplication resulting from higher mode effects is the hinging of the wall base, then
the criteria to be considered in assessing the order of amplication should be associated with the level
of nonlinearity in the system (Rad and Adebar, 2008). Shear force amplication is stronger in inelastic
walls, because the inelastic action mainly affects the rst mode response. As a result, the period of the
rst mode becomes longer, and the corresponding spectral acceleration decreases. The relative impor-
tance of shear resulting from higher modes therefore increases. Priestley et al. (2007) showed that one
can compute the shear forces including higher mode effects based on the assumption that the shear
forces of the rst mode are reduced by the force reduction factor R while the shear forces of the higher
modes are equal to the shear forces in the elastic structure. This makes the base shear force reduction
factor R an important variable in the investigation of dynamic amplication.
Heuristic approaches have been proposed to calibrate the design seismic shear force using a
dynamic shear amplication factor. Earthquake design codes employ expressions to account for the
dynamic shear amplication for the design of walls. NZS3101 (2006) is one of the earliest codes that
have addressed this problem. The expression for the dynamic shear amplication is given as

v 0:9 N=10 N 6 (1a)

v 1:3 N=30 N >6 (1b)

where N is the number of stories. Equation (1) is valid for N < 15, and the limiting value of amplica-
tion factor is given as v < 1.8. Eurocode 8 (CEN, 2004) adopts the equation by Eibl and Keintzel
(1988)
s
  
Rd M Rd 2 Se T c 2
q  0:1 q (2)
q M Ed S e T 1

where Rd = 1.2 is a factor to account for over-strength due to strain hardening, MRd is the design ex-
ural resistance at the base of the wall and MEd is the corresponding moment from analysis. Here,
q = behavior factor analogous to R, T1 = fundamental period of vibration of the building, Tc = upper
limit period of the constant spectral acceleration region of Eurocode 8 (CEN, 2004) and Se(T) = ordi-
nate of the elastic response spectrum. The equation accounts for the effects of both over-strength
due to the development of a plastic hinge at the base and higher modes, which is the second term
within the square root.
The Turkish Seismic Code (TSC, 2007) adopts a constant value for the dynamic amplication factor
in dual systems, with v = 1.5. If the earthquake loads are entirely resisted by structural walls, v can be
taken as 1.
Ghosh (1992) has suggested the following equation for the maximum dynamic base shear in isolated
walls subjected to seismic excitation that is typied by the 1940 El Centro NS record:

V max 0:25W x gmax =g M y =0:67H w (3)

where W is the total weight, Hw the wall height and x gmax the peak ground acceleration. Recently,
Rutenberg (2013) has presented a comprehensive summary of available approaches for predicting
shear amplication in ductile walls and dual systems (wall frames).

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 DYNAMIC SHEAR FORCE AMPLIFICATION IN REGULAR FRAMEWALL SYSTEMS

Most studies on dynamic shear amplication in structural wall systems have used idealized cantile-
ver wall models. However, exural cantilever wall models cannot take into account behavior modes
resulting from wall-to-wall and framewall interactions. Higher modes can be easily excited in slender
cantilever wall models, so it is expected that dynamic amplication factors from such models must at-
tain larger values. A realistic and reliable approach is required. The objective of this study is to deter-
mine the required shear strength at the base of reinforced concrete shear walls interacting with frames
in dual systems subjected to earthquake ground motions. In this context, an extensive parametric study
incorporating a large number of nonlinear time-history analyses is conducted on simplied equivalent
models of framewall systems. Structural systems examined here cover a range of building heights,
fundamental periods and lateral strengths typical for mid-rise systems. The results of dynamic analysis
are evaluated to identify the dynamic shear force magnication on the walls.

2. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

This section is devoted to describing an analytical framework for the parametric investigation of shear
wall buildings. The elements of the framework consist of the following:
(i) developing an analytical design procedure for the determination of strength and stiffness proper-
ties of the models and the identication of dynamic characteristics using a shearexure beam
continuum formulation and
(ii) generation of simple lumped-parameter single wall-equivalent frame models for nonlinear re-
sponse history analyses for the purpose of creating simple but accurate nite element models.
The continuum method utilizing combined shearexure beam formulation for the analysis of
framewall and coupled wall systems can be used to investigate the framewall interaction problem.
The method is used to calculate the dynamic properties of tall buildings. The method can be easily pro-
grammed allowing a reduction in the idealization effort without going through detailed structural
modeling by representing each structure with only one parameter.

2.1. Framewall model: continuum approach

In the shearexure beam method, the multistory structure is modeled as an equivalent continuum
composed of a exural cantilever beam (to account for walls) and a shear cantilever (to account for
frames). The forces and moments in the actual structure are assumed to be distributed among the
two components. Framewall structures can be composed of either (i) structures with walls and frames
connected by oor slabs or (ii) structures with link beams extending from frames directly to the walls.
The interaction between the frames and walls connected with link beams is more severe in the tradi-
tional model of framewall structure where walls are located in the interior spans. The shear and mo-
ment transferred from beams can signicantly change the moment prole causing a reduction in the
inection height of the wall. A shearexure beam formula introducing the two renements into an
otherwise well-known formulation (Heidebrecht and Stafford, 1973) for framewall systems is given
in Kazaz and Glkan (2012). One is the correction of the shear force at the base of the wall, that is
modied because the slope of the shear component of the deformation is not zero there, and the other
is the additional distributed moment transferred from link beam ends. The primary components of this
formulation are illustrated in Figure 1. In the interest of making this article self-contained, the high-
lights of Kazaz and Glkan (2012) are repeated here.
Referring to Figure 1, the structure is assumed to be composed of lower and upper substructures
above and below the contra-exure level of the base story columns. The governing equations for both
substructures are derived accordingly, and using the extra boundary conditions arising from displace-
ment and force compatibility at the contra-exure point, the expression for displacement, shear and
moment along the height of the wall are obtained. The method can be used for cases with uniform
and non-uniform stiffness along the height of the structure. The governing differential equation for
the primary substructure (upper part) is

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 . KAZAZ AND P. GLKAN

Figure 1. Primary components of improved shearexure beam formulation: (a) free body diagram
showing the section forces on the base story columns and shear wall at the point of column contra-
exure height (hcc), axial forces are not shown for clarity; (b) mathematical model of shearexure
beam, interconnected frame and shear wall. wS(x) and wB(x) are the distributed lateral load carried by
each component. The subscripts B and S refer to the exural and shear beams, respectively. q(x) and m
(x) represent the action of interaction forces and beam moments transferred on the shear wall, re-
spectively. The beam moments acting on the walls are disregarded in the frame component since they
do not have any inuence on the lateral deformation of this component. Although it was assumed that
the action of horizontal forces on the wall is distributed, a concentrated interaction force of magnitude
Q at the top is required to maintain the deformation compatibility and force equilibrium between the
exural and shear beams.

d4 y 2
2d y wx
4
 2
(4)
dx dx EI

Here, w(x) = wB(x) + wS(x) and

GA
2 (5)
EI

in which GA = shear rigidity of the shear beam and EI = exural rigidity of the exural beam and = the
equivalent exural rigidity of beams framing to wall. The term incorporates end moments and cou-
pling effect of link beams on walls. This term increases the accuracy of the calculations especially in
cases where the transverse beams have substantial exural capacity, and increase the exural resistance
of the wall by the reactions from transverse beams.
A comprehensive description of the continuum formulation can be found in Kazaz and Glkan
(2012), so only the nal expressions for the bending moment and shear force at the base of wall com-
ponent under triangular distribution of lateral loads are given below. These equations facilitate the de-
sign of models used in the parametric study. The bending moment at the base of the wall can be
calculated using the following expression:

h i
V t sinhH 1 V h4 hcc sinhH 1
 3EIt cccf 2 coshH 1  w3 H1 hcc coshH 1 sinhH 1  H 
M Bo     (6)
h3 h3
1  4EIccw f hcc sinhH 1 1  2EIccw f coshH 1

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 DYNAMIC SHEAR FORCE AMPLIFICATION IN REGULAR FRAMEWALL SYSTEMS

in which Vt = total seismic base shear, hcc = contra-exure height on the columns at the base story
(taken as 70% of the story height), H = total building height, H1 = H  hcc, EIw = total exural rigidity
of walls and the exibility factor for the base story f is calculated as

h3cc h3 hcc
f  cc  (7)
6EI w 3EI c GAw

Here, EIc is the total exural rigidity of all columns in the story, and GAw is the total shear rigidity of
the walls. The amplitude of triangularly distributed static lateral load is derived as w1
 
2V t H= H 2  h2cc . The shear force on the wall component at the base can be calculated using

h2cc h3
V w M Bo  V t cc (8)
2f EI w 3f EI c

When multiple shear walls exist in the system, the calculated wall component bending moment and
shear force are distributed according to exural rigidities of each wall in the upper stories.
Period formulas for wall structures were evaluated by Kazaz and Yakut (2010) where it was found
that the following equation yields accurate rst natural period estimates for framewall buildings with
incorporation of the H term:

H 1
T 0:00406 N r
  (9)
Lw
p 1:8752 H 2

In this equation, Lw is the wall length in the direction for the calculated period, H is the building
height, N is the number of stories and p is the wall index calculated as the ratio of the total wall area
to the oor plan area. The main parameter that determines the deformation mode of a shearexure
beam is the parameter H. The deected shape of structures composed of structural walls as lateral
load resisting system can usually be approximated by using values of H between 0 and 2. The
deected shape of dual systems or braced systems can be calculated by values of H typically between
1.5 and 6. For buildings composed of only moment-resisting frames, the values of H between 5 and
20 apply.

2.2. Prototype framewall structure and parameters

In the following, a prototype structure used to identify the static and dynamic characteristics and seis-
mic response of dual systems via a parametric investigation is introduced. The general plan congura-
tion shown in Figure 2(a) is used as the base plan for all the prototype framewall structures. The
structure is composed of nine parallel three-span frames in the transverse direction. For the parametric
analyses wall length (Lw), building-wall height (H) and wall index p (ratio of wall sum of areas to foot-
print) were used as variables. By increasing the number of walls in the central bay in the transverse
direction and the building height, different framewall arrangements are obtained as shown in Figure 2(b).
The framewall buildings consist of different numbers of 3-m-long, 5-m-long and 8-m-long shear
walls placed in the central bay in the transverse direction. The walls were symmetrically placed to
avoid any torsional effects. The building heights that were considered to determine the aspect ratio
of the shear walls consist of 4-story, 8-story and 12-story structures. The 3-m inter-story height was
considered to be constant along the height of the building. For the frame part, the dimensions of the
columns were taken as 0.6 0.6 m and the beams as 0.4 0.6 m for all models. Robust beam and
column elements are used to ensure that the desired framewall interaction develops effectively. Slabs
are not included.

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 . KAZAZ AND P. GLKAN

Figure 2. Plan view of framewall congurations: (a) bare frame; (b) framewall (three walls are
shown for illustration).

In this way, several framewall systems, where frames and walls interact at different levels, were
obtained by combining different building heights, wall lengths and amounts. Primary interest in such
an arrangement is to quantify the degree of framewall interaction and the amount of walls in the sys-
tem with generalized parameters to investigate their effects on the dynamic amplication of the shear
forces. Based on stiffness properties of these buildings, single wall-equivalent frame models that de-
pend mainly on a specic wall length and a wall index are developed.
For the frame conguration given in Figure 2, the typical values of H were calculated and plotted
against the wall index p in Figure 3. The cracked member stiffness values were used in the calcula-
tions. The un-cracked section exural stiffness was reduced by a factor of 0.36, 0.52 and 0.52 for
beams, columns and walls, respectively (FEMA 356; Adebar and Ibrahim, 2002). H values in the
graphs are related to the number of walls in the system, where in descending order each value on a
curve corresponds to the structural systems with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9 walls. The same base curve in
the form of Ncpb was used to dene relation between the wall index and behavior factor, where N
is the number of stories. For particular wall length and plan conguration, coefcients b and c are con-
stant regardless of the building-wall height.
The fundamental vibration periods of prototype structures characterized with unique H values were
calculated using Equation (9). Story mass is calculated assuming each oor carries 1 t/m2 distributed
mass including beams, columns, slabs, walls and live load. The results are plotted in Figure 4(a). Be-
yond a given H value, which is inversely proportional to the wall index (p), estimated periods of
framewall structures seem to converge to T = 0.1 N. These predicted periods of model structures were
also compared with more exact values calculated for actual 3D models using nite element analysis.
Figure 4(b) shows that they agree quite well.
Although H is a good parameter in dening dynamic and static characteristics of structures, wall
index p is preferred to characterize the models since it is a simpler and widely recognized parameter
(Sozen, 1989). For instance, Wallace and Moehle (1992) stated that typical US construction for con-
crete buildings 5 to 20 stories tall relies on frames or combined framewall systems to resist lateral
loads. Where walls are used, the ratio of wall to oor plan area is typically in the order of 1%. Figure
5 displays the relation between the ratio of wall shear to total base shear Vw/Vt, wall index p and num-
ber of walls used in the system. It is seen that when only three walls were used in the system, the shear

4 story 8 story 12 story

5.0 12.0 16.0

14.0
10.0
4.0
12.0
8.0
3.0 10.0

6.0 8.0
2.0 6.0
4.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
2.0

0.0 0.0 0.0

0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020

Figure 3. Relation between the wall index (p) and behavior factor H.

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 DYNAMIC SHEAR FORCE AMPLIFICATION IN REGULAR FRAMEWALL SYSTEMS

1.4 1.4

1.2
(a) 1.2
(b)
1.0 1.0

T1 (sec), Eq. (9)

T1 (sec), Eq. (9)

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 12-story 0.4 4-story

8-story 8-story
0.2 0.2 12-story
4-story
0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
FEM solution (s)

Figure 4. Fundamental period of prototype structures predicted using Equation (9): (a) variation of
period with behavior factor H; (b) comparison with nite element analysis results.

force on the walls builds up to 60%, 80% and 90% of the total base shear for 3-m-long, 5-m-long and
8-m-long walls, respectively. When 1% of wall index is provided, nearly all of the shear force is
resisted by the walls. Figure 5 also explains why we have avoided using the wall-to-total base shear
ratio as a parameter: for even a few robust walls used in framewall buildings connected by link
beams, the base shear ratio becomes very high.

2.3. Design of single wall-equivalent frame models

By using the data produced from dynamic and static characteristics of framewall structures, variations
in stiffness and yield strength along the height of the generic single wall-equivalent frame models can
be calculated. The primary variables in creating a model are the wall length (Lw), height (H) and wall
index (p). Instead of wall height, the number of stories (N) can be used as well. It was considered that
the generic equivalent framesingle wall models cover a wall index range of 0.002 to 0.02. Models that
represent 4-story, 8-story and 12-story structures were developed. The wall lengths used in the design
are 3 m, 5 m and 8 m.
The framewall model is characterized by a particular wall index (p) and the parameter H. The
stages of model construction can be dened as follows:
1 Decide the number of stories (N).
2 Compute the factor (H) using the selected wall index value and relations presented in Figure 3.
3 Compute the period of vibration. The fundamental period of structure (T1) is determined by
Equation (9) for framewall structures.
4 For an assumed or given wall index (p), the tributary oor area of the model is calculated as
Af = Lwtw/p for predetermined wall dimensions. In this study, a constant wall thickness (tw) of
0.25 m is adopted for all walls.

Figure 5. Relation between the ratio of wall shear to total base shear Vw/Vt, wall index p and number of
walls used in the system for (a) Lw = 3 m, (b) Lw = 5 m and (c) Lw = 8 m.

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 . KAZAZ AND P. GLKAN

5 The story mass is calculated as ms = Af. mf (unit story mass = 1 t/m2, assumed as an indicative value).
Story mass calculated in this way provides a realistic representation of lateral seismic loads acting
on the wall, when compared with procedures that are based on the tributary area concept around
the vertical member or matching a target period for typical structural systems. Different unit oor
mass values can be used for deriving envelopes.
6 The common range of axial load ratios in practice with cantilever walls is in the range 0 < P/
Awfc 0.15 for low-to-medium height buildings (Priestley et al., 2007). For simplicity, it can be as-
sumed that each wall is subjected to 1 ~ 1.25% axial load ratio per story. So the vertical load carried
by the wall is calculated assuming that the axial load ratio at the base section of 4-story, 8-story and
12-story walls are 0.05, 0.10 and 0.15, respectively.
This completes the model parameter generation. Next, a simple yet straightforward design procedure
that incorporates Equations (6) to (9) was used to quantify the seismic shear force distribution among
the wall and frame components of the single wall-equivalent frame models and to calculate the re-
quired amount of exural reinforcement at the boundary elements of the walls. Design actions on
the walls were determined using the equivalent static lateral load procedure described in TSC 2007.
Total equivalent seismic load (base shear) acting on the entire framewall structure is obtained by

WAT 1
Vt (10)
R

where W is the total weight of the model calculated as Nmsg. A(T1) is the spectral acceleration coef-
cient that is obtained from the design spectrum given in Figure 6. The design spectrum was generated
assuming a local site class Z3 (medium rm soil) and Seismic Zone 1 (effective ground acceleration
coefcient Ao = 0.4) according to TSC 2007. R is the seismic force modication factor given for
high-ductility systems as 6 or 7 for buildings in which seismic loads are either fully resisted by solid
structural walls or by combined frames and solid and/or coupled structural walls, respectively. For the
sake of further simplicity and consistency, a constant R equal to 6 was adopted. The total seismic base
shear Vt is assumed to be distributed as an inverted triangle over the height of the model.
The base-bending moment and the shear force on the wall component are calculated using Equations
(6) and (8), respectively. Considering the moment demands during the dynamic response, a linear
bending-moment envelope as recommended in Eurocode8 and TSC 2007 was used. In order to elim-
inate the contribution of material over-strength to the moment capacities and so to the shear force am-
plication due to strength enhancement of the constituent materials, concrete compressive
(fc = 25 MPa) and steel yield (fy = 420 MPa) strengths were employed instead of factored design
strengths.
The curtailment of the exural wall reinforcement was arranged according to the design moment
prole. It was assumed that the exural reinforcement is distributed uniformly in the boundary element
with 0.2 Lw length at both edges as dictated by TSC 2007 for high-ductility systems. TSC species the

Figure 6. Acceleration response spectra of the selected ground motions.

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 DYNAMIC SHEAR FORCE AMPLIFICATION IN REGULAR FRAMEWALL SYSTEMS

use of minimum amount of longitudinal reinforcement b = 0.01 in the conned boundaries as in the
case of columns. The minimum boundary element longitudinal reinforcement is set to b = 0.005,
which is lower than the code limit, in order to increase the seismic displacement demands on models.
The percentage of vertical and horizontal web reinforcement (sh) is constant and equals the minimum
value of 0.0025 unless extra shear reinforcement is required.
In TSC 2007, design shear forces (Vd) obtained from the analysis is amplied with a factor of
v = 1.5 to account for possible increase in shear forces after yielding at the base of primary seismic
wall due to higher mode effects. It also requires an increase in the design shear force considering
the increased moment capacity due to strength enhancement of the constituent materials. Figure 7 de-
scribes the relevant strength properties discussed in this study. The over-strength factor, which takes
into account applied material factors and strain hardening, is calculated as the ratio of the exural
strength of section at ultimate to the design moment, d = Mu/Md can be taken as 1.25. This also trans-
forms to exural over-strength since other sources of exural over-strength such as deviations from
ideal material strength cannot be accounted for in the analyses. The factored design shear force Vde
satisfying the specied requirements is then calculated as

V de v d V d < V r (11)
 
V r Aw 0:65f ctd sh f yd (12)

The factored design shear force Vde should be less than the shear strength of wall cross-section Vr
calculated by Equation (12) (TSC, 2007), where fctd and fyd are the factored design tensile concrete
and steel strengths, respectively. It is important to note that if we are seeking an amplication factor
applicable to the calculation of design shear force by an approach as presented in Equation (11), pre-
caution needs to be exercised in the analytical investigation in order to accurately calculate this factor.
The required exural capacity of wall sections was equated to yield strength that was derived on the
basis of characteristic material strength instead of factored design strengths. This way only material
over-strength due to hardening contributes to the amplication besides any dynamic higher mode
effects.
The shear force on the frame component (Vf) is obtained as the difference Vt  Vw. The story yield
strength is not constant along the height of the structure. It varies along the building height in propor-
tion to design forces resulting from the code static lateral load pattern.
The calculated frame shear force at the base story decreases considerably as the wall index (amount
of wall) increases. Although analysis results indicate insignicant contribution of frame elements to the
lateral load resistance, they still exist in the model and need detailing. In such cases, strength of the
frame component is determined by the minimum longitudinal reinforcement requirements in the code.

Figure 7. The relationships between the force reduction factor, R, exural over-strength and dynamic
shear amplication factor.

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 . KAZAZ AND P. GLKAN

An approximate rule was developed for a typical case. If it is considered that the minimum column
dimension is 0.5 0.5 m2 and minimum reinforcement is used (b)min = 0.01, the moment capacity of
columns is found as 256 kN m, 305 kN m and 345 kN m for 5%, 10% and 15% axial load levels, re-
spectively. If the contra-exure height is assumed to occur at the mid-height of the column, the column
shears are found as 170 kN, 203 kN and 230 kN, respectively, for the same set of axial load levels.
Considering that at least two columns exist per wall in the system, the minimum story yield shear force
due to columns for generic framewall structures is calculated as 340 kN, 406 kN and 460 kN for
4-story, 8-story and 12-story structures, respectively. When the frame shear force found from elastic
analysis is lower than the values given above, it is replaced with these values. This excess strength
is not foreseen by the elastic analysis used in the design. One consequence of this situation is that
the actual force reduction factor (R) in the system turns out to be smaller than what is intended initially
in the design of framewall systems. The complete set of parameters that emerged from the simplied
design process and were used to dene wall-frame models are given in Tables A1A3 in the Appendix.

2.4. Generic single wall-equivalent frame

While for linear analysis the analytical expressions derived for continuum shearexure beam model
yields satisfactory results, for the nonlinear case a discrete nonlinear type of simplied framewall
model, as presented in Figure 8, was developed. The model was generated in SeismoStruct
(SeismoSoft, 2007). 3D displacement-based (DB) beamcolumn elements capable of modeling mem-
bers of space frames with geometric and material nonlinearities were used to model shear walls. The
sectional stressstrain state of beamcolumn elements was obtained through the integration of the non-
linear uniaxial material response of the individual bers into which the section had been subdivided,
accounting for the spread of inelasticity along the member length and across the section depth. Since
the curvature eld can be highly nonlinear during inelastic analysis, a rened discretization (meshing)
of the structural element (typically four to ve elements per structural member) is required with a DB
formulation (Calabrese et al., 2010). In the shear wall component, a story was divided into ve ele-
ments allowing ner mesh in the regions of expected plastication as shown in Figure 8. The frame
component was modeled as a combination of rigid frame elements interconnected with shear links.
While the wall structure undergoes exural deformation, the frames deform only in shear. Since the
story behavior of frames is modeled in global manner, no axial load effects on columns were consid-
ered. The wall and frame components connected with rigid links and a rotational spring was introduced
to account for the link beam moments. The horizontal rigid links connecting the wall and frame

Figure 8. Finite element model of the generic single wall-equivalent frame model.

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 DYNAMIC SHEAR FORCE AMPLIFICATION IN REGULAR FRAMEWALL SYSTEMS

elements transfer no vertical shear, but the coupling effects of link beams are included by value in
Equation (5) and transferred to wall centroid as an additional moment. The beam moment Mbeam given
in Table A1A3 includes all of these effects.
For wall elements, uniaxial nonlinear concrete model that follows the constitutive relationship pro-
posed by Mander et al. (1988) and the cyclic rules proposed by Martinez-Rueda and Elnashai (1997)
was used. The steel behavior was modeled through a uniaxial bilinear stressstrain model with kine-
matic strain hardening with 420 MPa and 550 MPa strengths at yield and ultimate, respectively.
The story distortion angleshear force (-F) relation for the shear springs was idealized with the
Takeda hysteresis model. The model requires yielding strength, initial stiffness, post yielding to initial
stiffness ratio (assumed to be 0.01), outer loop stiffness degradation factor (assumed to be 0.1) and in-
ner loop stiffness degradation factor (assumed to be 0.9) to fully characterize its behavior. The results
of typical framewall structures indicate that the yielding of walls and the frames occurs at different
levels of lateral drift. The global yield displacement of the structures is largely determined by the yield-
ing of beams. According to Priestley et al. (2007), the frame yield drift was given as
yframe = y = 0.5lby/hb where lb is the average beam length and hb is the average depth of the beams
at the level of interest. When typical values were used (y = 0.0021, hb = 0.6 m, lb = 5 m), story drift
was obtained as 0.88%. From a family of frames in Gupta and Kunnath (2000), Aschheim (2002)
states that the roof yields drift range between 0.5% and 0.6% regardless of the number of stories.
For the story rotational angle (inter-story drift ratio) at yield, a value equal to 0.67% was adopted by
Kongoli et al. (1999) as proposed by Akiyama (1987). In the light of this discussion, the characteristic
values used to dene the skeleton story driftshear curves were xed. The yield story distortion (y)
was assumed to be 0.55%.
The yield curvature of link beams was calculated by the relation given by Priestley et al. (2007),
by = 1.7y/hb. For the materials and section geometries adopted in this study (y = 0.0021 and
hb = 0.6 m), the beam curvature at yield becomes 0.006 rad/m, which also agrees with the
momentcurvature analysis of typical beam sections. The behavior of rotational springs used to model
moments transferred from link beams was characterized by the Takeda hysteresis model. The yield
strength of frames was designed to yield simultaneously under the static design earthquake forces.
The integration scheme used by SeismoStruct for the recovery of the yield curvature at the base of
the wall might have an impact on the derived value, because of the spread of yielding along the wall,
but given the other assumptions that have been built into the model here, the conclusions would not be
too different. Rayleigh damping yielding a damping ratio of 3% of critical damping in the rst and
third modes was used in the nonlinear time-history analysis.

3. GROUND MOTION DATA SET

In the selection of acceleration time-series to be used as input to dynamic analyses, spectral matching
technique was used. It was assumed that the ground motion spectra match the elastic response spec-
trum of TSC (2007) that is dened on rm soil site class Z3 (corner periods TA = 0.15 s and
TB = 0.6 s) with Ao = 0.4 for an earthquake characterized by 10% probability of being surpassed in
50 years. The search is based on the average root-mean-square deviation of the observed spectrum
from the target design spectrum. Even when the ground motions satisfactorily match the target spectral
shape, their intensity may vary signicantly. A scale factor (SFspec) dened as the average of the ratio
of spectral ordinates of target and matching spectra at periods 0.1 s, 0.4 s and 0.85 s was introduced. In
all, 215 ground motions were screened for nding the spectrum compatible traces (Kazaz, 2010). Ten
records conforming to the given limitations were selected and used as seismic input for response anal-
yses. The acceleration response spectra of these scaled ground motions are presented in Figure 6. In
Table 1, peak ground values of un-scaled strong motions records are given together with applied scale
factors. Ground motions yielded an average peak ground acceleration to velocity ratio (PGA/PGV) of
8.2 1/s with a standard deviation of 1.0 1/s. The ground motions have nearly uniformly distributed
peak ground values, yielding mean values of 480.1 cm/s2 and 58.9 cm/s for acceleration and
velocity, respectively. These time-series have Tc values within a narrow range clustered around 0.6 s.

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 . KAZAZ AND P. GLKAN

Table 1. Catalog data of the selected ground motions.

No. Earthquake Year Mw Station Rd PGA PGV SFspec
2
(km) (cm/s ) (cm/s)
1 Imperial Valley 1979 6.5 Keystone Rd., El Centro Array #2 16.2 309 32.7 1.77
2 Kocaeli 1999 7.4 Dzce 17.1 308 50.7 1.52
3 Northridge 1994 6.7 Los Angeles, Brentwood V.A. Ho. 23.1 182 24.0 2.69
4 Northridge 1994 6.7 Pacoima-Kagel Canyon 10.6 424 50.9 1.20
5 Whittier Narrows 1987 6.1 7420 Jaboneria, Bell Gardens 16.4 216 28.0 1.98
6 Cape Mendocino 1992 7.1 89324 Rio Dell OverpassFF 18.5 378 43.9 1.43
7 Northridge 1994 6.7 24389 LACentury City CC North 25.7 218 25.2 2.11
8 Northridge 1994 6.7 24283 MoorparkFire Sta. 28 189 20.2 2.56
9 Loma Prieta 1989 6.9 Hollister Differential Array 25.8 274 35.6 1.47
10 Northridge 1994 6.7 LAFletcher Dr. 29.5 235 26.2 2.00

4. NONLINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF GENERIC FRAMEWALL MODELS

By using the nite element model displayed in Figure 8 and the derived member strength and stiffness
properties, nonlinear response history analyses were conducted. The seismic demand characterized by
the code spectrum compatible ground motions was applied to a set of single wall-equivalent frame
models that represent a broad range of framewall combinations of relative strength. The effectiveness
of walls in the structural system is characterized by the wall index. This way, behavior modes ranging
from exure (cantilever model) to shear dominated (strong frame-weak wall systems) can be invoked.
Figure 9 displays the variation of maximum inter-story drift ratio (MIDR), dened as the maximum
difference in lateral displacements in between two consecutive oors normalized by the inter-story
height along the building height, of framewall models with respect to the wall index. The graphs

Figure 9. Variation of maximum inter-story drift ratio with wall index and number of stories. In
L3S4, L3 indicates 3-m wall length, and S4 refers to 4-story structure. The other labels should be
interpreted accordingly.

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 DYNAMIC SHEAR FORCE AMPLIFICATION IN REGULAR FRAMEWALL SYSTEMS

disclose the decreasing tendency in the drift ratio with increasing wall area. The effect of increased
wall amount in reducing drift demands is much more pronounced for 4-story models compared with
8-story and 12-story models. This can be attributed to higher over-strength allocated in the design as
a result of minimum reinforcement requirements. For 4-story models, the drift demands reduce from
approximately 1.75% to 0.5% with increased wall area.
For 8-story models, the mean drift ratio reduces from 1.4% to 0.9%, 1.3% to 0.8% and 1.2% to 0.8%
for 3-m, 5-m and 8-m walls, respectively, as the wall index increases from 0.2% to 2%. The same re-
lation between the wall index and inter-story drift ratio for 12-story models is observed as 1.4% to
0.81%, 1.3% to 0.75% and 1.15% to 0.73% for 3-m, 5-m and 8-m walls, respectively. Although the
reduction is not signicant considering the increase in the wall area, the dispersion in the drift data be-
comes smaller, indicating a better control over the drift ratio. For wall indexes greater than 0.75%, the
scatter of data around the mean drift ratio due to ground motion variability reduces signicantly. For
the same wall index, there is a slight reduction effect of wall length (stiffness) on drift demands of
8-story and 12-story models, which is much more pronounced in 4-story walls. The reason is that
the pronounced exural response mode due to slenderness as the height of models increases. In gen-
eral, the mean seismic MIDR decreases from 1.5% to 0.75% as the wall index increases from 0.2%
to 2%. For wall indexes larger than 0.5%, the MIDR is in the order of 1% or less.
Figure 10 presents the dynamic amplication at the base of the walls. The base shear amplication
factor is calculated as
v V dyna =V y;s (13)

The static wall base shear Vy,s was calculated from a pushover analysis under code-specied equiv-
alent static lateral load at yield. Dynamic shear Vdyna was the maximum value calculated during the
response history analysis. It should be noted that similar previous studies use the design strength in
the evaluation of dynamic amplication. However, the actual strength of structural systems is generally
higher than the design strength. Under design earthquake, at least an intermediate level of inelasticity is
introduced to the system, so it is more appropriate to compare the dynamic shear force with the yield
value. The ndings of this study should be evaluated based on this feature.

Figure 10. Variation of base shear amplication factor with wall index and number of stories.

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 . KAZAZ AND P. GLKAN

The dynamic amplication decreases from approximately 1.5 to 1.15 as the wall index in the system
increases. The increased wall index indicates reduced framewall interaction effects on the walls. TSC
2007 species that in the systems where the seismic force is completely resisted by reinforced concrete
structural walls, the dynamic amplication factor can be taken as 1.0. This observation is in agreement
with the code specication. However, there is one additional reason for this reduction observed in the
dynamic amplication factor. In the design of framewall models, the actual strength of the structure
turned out to be higher than the strength calculated from elastic analysis due to code-specied mini-
mum requirements. The structures were in effect designed for a lower force reduction factor than
would be indicated by R = 6. It is concluded that the dynamic amplication is also a function of ex-
pected inelasticity in the systems.
Comparison of average maximum dynamic wall base moments with the yield strengths revealed that
the amplication in the base moment was not very signicant. A mean value of 1.06 with standard de-
viation of 0.032 was obtained for base moment amplication, which can be attributed to strain hard-
ening in reinforcement. This suggests that the calculated shear amplication factor was only slightly
affected by the material over-strength due to strain hardening.

5. DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION FACTOR

By using the analysis results, an expression for the calculation of dynamic shear amplication will now
be derived. The calculated mean amplication factors at the base of wall are plotted as a function of
wall index (p), actual strength reduction factor (Rexist), number of stories (N), wall length (Lw), behavior
factor (H) and fundamental period of vibration (T1) in Figure 11. The actual (existing) force reduction
factor of the system is calculated by dividing the total elastic base shear force Vt by the static lateral force
capacity Vstatic of the system obtained from pushover analysis. All of the parameters display some
degree of correlation with the dynamic amplication factor. From Figures 11(b) and (f), it is
observed that a number of stories and period of vibration have the same degree of correlation with
amplication factor. N is a direct parameter, so it is preferred over T1. As the number of stories and
strength reduction factor increase, the amplication factors increase as well. Wall index is found to be
inversely proportional to the amplication factor. From Figure 11(d), no signicant correlation is
observed between Lw and v, yet it is seen that dispersion in the dynamic amplication values increases
in larger walls. After yielding at the base, the inection height on the wall shifts upwards and the
2.0 2.0 2.0
(a) (b) (c)
1.8 1.8 1.8

1.6 1.6 1.6

1.4 1.4 1.4

1.2 1.2 1.2

1.0 1.0 1.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0 3 6 9 12 15 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2.0 2.0 2.0

(d) (e) (f)
1.8 1.8 1.8

1.6 1.6 1.6

1.4 1.4 1.4

1.2 1.2 1.2

1.0 1.0 1.0

2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

Figure 11. Variation of dynamic amplication factor with (a) wall index, (b) number of stories, (c)
strength reduction factor, (d) wall length, (e) behavior factor and (f) rst period.

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 DYNAMIC SHEAR FORCE AMPLIFICATION IN REGULAR FRAMEWALL SYSTEMS

moment gradient becomes nearly linear at the lower stories, and a constant shear prole develops. The
sudden release of the elastic stiffness at the base of the wall triggers the higher modes that contribute to
the story shear force. This situation is more critical for wider walls with larger stiffness. Spurious peaks
appear in the response history traces of acceleration and shear force. These forces must be handled care-
fully in nonlinear seismic response computations by employing dissipative numerical integration
schemes, such as the implicit Hilber-Hughes-Taylor Alpha (HHT-) integration algorithm (Hilber
et al., 1977). In dynamic amplication investigations, these peaks may lead to erroneously conservative
overestimates on account of higher frequencies that do not appear in the displacements. For this reason, it
is recommended that wall forces should be determined from displacements rather than the accelerations
(Broderick et al., 1994). The behavior factor H representing the degree of framewall interaction also
inuences the amplication as seen in Figure 11(e). The amplication factor decreases with decreasing
H (increasing wall area). It was decided to use p, N and R in regression analysis to estimate the dynamic
amplication factor.
At rst sight, it was considered that all three parameters inuence the dynamic amplication. How-
ever, when the relation between the wall index (p) is plotted against the strength reduction factor
(Rexist) as in Figure 12(a), it is seen that the increased wall index leads to lower strength reduction fac-
tors as discussed in Section 2.3. These two parameters have the same effect on v, so the wall index is
ignored for a less nuanced but equally robust set of expressions.
A regression analysis was performed using the parameters Rexist and N to estimate v. A curve with
power law was tted to data in Figure 11(c), which yields v = (Rexist)0.25. Figure 11(c) suggests that
the data can be investigated in two separate bins because of the different linear trends observed on
the left and right sides of R = 2. Using linear regression analysis method, the following expressions
are proposed for the calculation of dynamic shear amplication factor

v 0:95 0:01N 0:1Rexist for Rexist > 2 (14a)

v 1 Rexist  10:15 0:01N for Rexist 2 (14b)

The comparison of predictions with the calculated amplication factors is plotted in Figure 12(b).
The equation says that the primary variable affecting the amplication factor is the expected level of
nonlinearity in the system, dictated by R. The number of stories or fundamental period is of secondary
importance. Of course, the regression analysis here covers the number of stories up to 12 and structural
periods up to 1.5 s. For the structures in the high-rise range, generally period dependent amplication
factors that yield larger values are proposed, e.g. v = 2.9T 1.0 1.0 (Kappos and Antoniadis, 2011).
In design, Rexist is required to calculate the amplication factor and complete the shear design of
wall members. Rexist can either take the initial value of R, which is targeted in design, or can be
assigned a lower value due to higher strength allocated for the members as a result of minimum re-
quirements. If the latter case prevails, the following approach is proposed for the estimation of Rexist.
From the elastic analysis, required design strength of members is obtained as Md = Me/R. Once the

7 2.0
(a) (b)
6 1.8
5
1.6
4
1.4
3
2
1.2 R =0.70
2

1 1.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

Figure 12. (a) Relation between the strength reduction factor and wall index; (b) comparison of pre-
dicted dynamic amplication factor by Equation (14) with analysis results.

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 . KAZAZ AND P. GLKAN

exural design has been completed, we have the design moment capacity Myd of the wall section using
factored material strengths. If the elastic design strength is taken as Me = R.Md, the existing force reduc-
tion is calculated as

Me Md
Rexist R (15)
M yd M yd

Figure 13. The maximum seismic story shear demand normalized with respect to static story shear
force obtained from pushover analyses.

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 DYNAMIC SHEAR FORCE AMPLIFICATION IN REGULAR FRAMEWALL SYSTEMS

Equation (11) calculates the factored design shear force Vde by applying the dynamic amplication
factor v together with over-strength factor d on design shear force Vd.

6. EVALUATION OF DESIGN SHEAR ENVELOPE

The expression given in Equation (14) applies only to the base shear in the design of walls. Application
of this amplication factor along the height of the wall may lead to overestimation of story shear de-
mand in other parts of the wall. Figure 13 displays the maximum seismic story shear demand normal-
ized with respect to static story shear force obtained from pushover analyses. Each curve was
calculated as the average of results from seismic response analyses under 10 ground motions. The g-
ure shows that the shear force is signicantly amplied in the lower and uppermost stories in dynamic
analysis. The interaction between frames and walls is more pronounced in these regions due to their
inherent deection modes, so the wall shear increases considerably. The amplication is greater for
taller frames.
Figure 14(a) displays the theoretical shear force proles in framewall structures subjected to
inverted triangular lateral static loading in which the frames and walls resist the total base shear in dif-
ferent proportions. An approximate rule may be developed for possible distribution of wall shear force
along the height of the structure. The strong-column-weak-beam design philosophy dictates that the
frame story shear depends on the strength of the girders along the height, so it is advantageous to
use beams of equal strength along the height of the structure. If we assume that beams have equal
strength along the height of the structure and the beam moments are shared equally by columns above
and below a beamcolumn joint, then when the design actions have been fully developed, the frame
story shear is constant along the building height (Sullivan et al., 2006). This approximation enables
the total story shear to be obtained as a function of the base shear as in Equation (16). The normalized
wall shears are obtained as the difference between the total shear and the frame shear as given in
Equation (16).

V i;wall V i;total V i;frame

 (16)
Vb Vb Vb

In Equation (16), Vb is the total base shear; Vi,wall, Vi,total and Vi,frame are the wall shear, the total
shear and the frame shear at level i, respectively. Total base shear can be distributed in different
patterns along the height of the structure. For triangular lateral load distribution, the expression
takes the parabolic form

V i;total ii  1
1 (17)
Vb N N 1

Figure 14. Design envelopes for the shear forces on the walls of a dual system.

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 . KAZAZ AND P. GLKAN

where N is the number of stories in the building. The disadvantage of this distribution is that
regardless of the relative distribution of shear among the frame and wall components, enforced by
framewall interaction, the same prole is used to calculate the shear demand on walls.
Alternatively, Figure 14(b) describes two widely used shear design envelopes recommended in EC8
and Rutenberg and Nsieri (2006). While EC8 employs a constant shape for the shear prole,
Rutenberg and Nsieri propose a design envelope as a function of the fundamental period T1, in which
is given by = 1  0.3T1 0.5.

Figure 15. Wall story shear force normalized with respect to wall base shear.

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 DYNAMIC SHEAR FORCE AMPLIFICATION IN REGULAR FRAMEWALL SYSTEMS

The maximum wall dynamic story shear force proles normalized with respect to wall base shear are
plotted in Figure 15. Each curve is obtained as the average of 10 response history analyses. The design
shear proles described in Figure 14 are also superimposed on the same gure. In accordance with the
calculated periods of the framewall models presented in Table A1A3, values of 0.9, 0.8 and 0.7
have been assigned for 4-story, 8-story and 12-story buildings, respectively. It is seen that the parabolic
shape prole that is based on triangular distribution of lateral loads and constant frame shear along
building height and shear prole proposed by Rutenberg and Nsieri (2006) provide conservative
estimates of design story shear. For small wall index systems (p < 0.008), the mid-height shear is
overestimated in 8-story and 12-story models. The EC8 design prole falls short in covering the wall
shear demand at the lower stories of the models.

7. CONCLUSIONS

Amplication of shear force in low-to-mid-rise reinforced concrete framewall structures has been
investigated. The wall index dened as the wall to plan area ratio and the building height were taken
as the primary variables of the analytical investigation. The primary source of shear force amplication
is the yielding of the wall base and the subsequent level of inelasticity introduced to the system. For
systems with high wall index, the actual strength is found to be considerably higher than the design
strength due to minimum reinforcement requirements imposed by codes. Consequently, the shear
amplication emerges as a function of force reduction factor that adjusts the degree of inelasticity in
the system. For low wall-indexed systems, where shear walls interacts with strong frames, the dynamic
shear force may be 1.5 to 1.8 times higher than the base shear force corresponding to the code-
specied lateral load distribution of seismic forces. A shear amplication factor as a function of force
reduction factor and number of stories applicable to the base shear of walls for dual systems has been
derived. The study shows that a constant amplication factor is not admissible.
The design shear proles in EC8 and in Rutenberg and Nsieri (2006) were compared with the shear
proles obtained from seismic response analyses. The EC8 design shear prole is found to yield less
conservative estimations for the lower stories of the shear framewall systems as the wall index
increases. The design shear prole proposed by Rutenberg and Nsieri and the parabolic distribution
of shear force stemming from the triangular distribution of inertia forces on the wall component both
provided conservative estimations of shear force along the height of the building. Although they
overestimate the shear force in the middle stories for low wall-indexed systems, the shear amplication
is successfully captured in the upper stories.
In order to avoid any contribution of exural over-strength to the shear amplication, typical
material strengths were adopted for the design of walls, and the design strength was equated to the
yield strength of the walls. This way, pure shear amplication resulting only from higher mode effects
was obtained. No signicant effect of post elastic exural over-strength was observed on the ampli-
cation factor. It can be asserted that the exural over-strength factor d = 1.25 used to adjust the design
shear force is adequate for shear design as well. Lower values can be used for moderate levels of
ductility demands, where the ultimate strength of the members is not needed to be fully developed.
Considering the deformations, shear walls are very effective in reducing the seismically induced
lateral drift in low-rise framewall systems. For medium-rise buildings, use of shear walls leads to
well-controlled lateral drift and is very effective in reducing dispersion in the drift due to ground
motion uncertainty as the wall index increases.
The framework established for analytical investigation can be very effective in analyzing very large
framewall building inventory by reducing the modeling overburden and computational time. The
computational errors also deserve to be mentioned shortly. In nonlinear dynamic analysis, the sudden
change in stiffness of the system invokes higher modes that increase the story shear force. Spurious
peaks appear in the response history traces of acceleration and shear force. In dynamic amplication
investigations, these peaks may lead to erroneously conservative overestimations of the derived ampli-
cation factor. Therefore, dissipative numerical integration schemes such as the implicit HHT-
integration algorithm must be employed in dynamic analysis.

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 APPENDIX

Table A1. Strength and stiffness characteristics of framewall models developed for dynamic analysis, 4-story structure.
Lw Hw Ns Hw/Lw p (%) H Te (s) Af (m2) Vb R Vb/R Mw Vw Vf Vw/Vb P/Po Po b sh Mbeam Kframe Kbeam Rexist
(m) (m) (kN) (kN) (kN m) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN m) (kN/m) (kN m/rad)
3 12 4 4 0.2 2.85 0.39 375 14 715 6 2453 6138 1341 1111 0.55 0.05 938 0.0263 0.0031 902 49 381 225 381 5.83
3 12 4 4 0.4 2.02 0.35 188 7358 6 1226 4431 886 340 0.72 0.05 938 0.0154 0.0025 706 15 128 176 554 5.87
3 12 4 4 0.6 1.65 0.32 125 4905 6 818 3515 654 164 0.80 0.05 938 0.0096 0.0025 598 7279 149 525 4.40
3 12 4 4 0.8 1.43 0.29 94 3679 6 613 2938 517 96 0.84 0.05 938 0.0059 0.0025 523 4267 130 830 3.58
3 12 4 4 1.0 1.28 0.28 75 2943 6 491 2535 428 63 0.87 0.05 938 0.0034 0.0025 467 2796 116 728 2.94
3 12 4 4 1.2 1.17 0.26 63 2453 6 409 2236 364 44 0.89 0.05 938 0.0014 0.0025 422 1969 105 570 2.50
3 12 4 4 1.4 1.08 0.25 54 2102 6 350 2004 318 33 0.91 0.05 938 0.0000 0.0025 386 1458 96 462 2.18
3 12 4 4 1.6 1.01 0.23 47 1839 6 307 1817 281 25 0.92 0.05 938 0.0012 0.0025 355 1121 88 859 1.93
3 12 4 4 1.8 0.95 0.22 42 1635 6 273 1663 253 20 0.93 0.05 938 0.0022 0.0025 330 887 82 401 1.72

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

3 12 4 4 2.0 0.90 0.22 38 1472 6 245 1535 229 16 0.93 0.05 938 0.0030 0.0025 307 718 76 840 1.55
5 12 4 2.4 0.2 1.53 0.34 625 24 525 6 4088 17 061 2739 1349 0.67 0.05 1563 0.0243 0.0045 992 59 934 247 949 6.12
5 12 4 2.4 0.4 1.13 0.27 313 12 263 6 2044 11 000 1680 364 0.82 0.05 1563 0.0114 0.0025 671 16 187 167 646 6.29
5 12 4 2.4 0.6 0.94 0.23 208 8175 6 1363 8185 1200 163 0.88 0.05 1563 0.0054 0.0025 514 7236 128 507 5.26
5 12 4 2.4 0.8 0.83 0.21 156 6131 6 1022 6542 931 91 0.91 0.05 1563 0.0019 0.0025 419 4028 104 680 4.06
5 12 4 2.4 1.0 0.75 0.19 125 4905 6 818 5457 760 57 0.93 0.05 1563 0.0005 0.0025 354 2539 88 498 3.45
5 12 4 2.4 1.2 0.70 0.18 104 4088 6 681 4686 642 39 0.94 0.05 1563 0.0021 0.0025 307 1734 76 741 2.92
5 12 4 2.4 1.4 0.65 0.16 89 3504 6 584 4109 556 28 0.95 0.05 1563 0.0033 0.0025 307 1253 76 741 2.51
5 12 4 2.4 1.6 0.61 0.15 78 3066 6 511 3659 490 21 0.96 0.05 1563 0.0043 0.0025 307 944 76 741 2.19
5 12 4 2.4 1.8 0.58 0.15 69 2685 5.9 456 3312 439 17 0.96 0.05 1563 0.0050 0.0025 307 737 76 741 1.92
5 12 4 2.4 2.0 0.56 0.14 63 2349 5.7 413 3038 400 13 0.97 0.05 1563 0.0056 0.0025 307 592 76 741 1.68
. KAZAZ AND P. GLKAN

8 12 4 1.5 0.2 0.84 0.26 1000 39 240 6 6540 39 936 5300 1240 0.81 0.05 2500 0.0259 0.0060 1002 55 126 250 614 5.60
8 12 4 1.5 0.4 0.66 0.19 500 19 620 6 3270 22 573 2976 294 0.91 0.05 2500 0.0096 0.0025 573 13 077 143 295 5.17
8 12 4 1.5 0.6 0.57 0.16 333 13 080 6 2180 15 799 2056 124 0.94 0.05 2500 0.0033 0.0025 405 5495 101 174 4.55
8 12 4 1.5 0.8 0.51 0.14 250 9375 5.7 1654 12 317 1587 67 0.96 0.05 2500 0.0000 0.0025 317 2982 79 349 3.49
8 12 4 1.5 1.0 0.47 0.13 200 7064 5.3 1345 10 193 1303 42 0.97 0.05 2500 0.0020 0.0025 264 1863 65 960 2.63
8 12 4 1.5 1.2 0.44 0.11 167 5615 4.9 1137 8721 1108 29 0.97 0.05 2500 0.0034 0.0025 226 1267 56 619 2.09
8 12 4 1.5 1.4 0.42 0.11 143 4631 4.7 986 7636 966 21 0.98 0.05 2500 0.0044 0.0025 199 914 49 707 1.72
8 12 4 1.5 1.6 0.40 0.10 125 3922 4.5 872 6802 857 15 0.98 0.05 2500 0.0052 0.0025 177 688 44 374 1.46
8 12 4 1.5 1.8 0.38 0.09 111 3390 4.3 783 6140 771 12 0.98 0.05 2500 0.0058 0.0025 161 536 40 125 1.26
8 12 4 1.5 2.0 0.37 0.09 100 2978 4.2 710 5601 701 10 0.99 0.05 2500 0.0063 0.0025 147 428 36 656 1.11

Lw, wall length; Hw, wall height; Ns, number of stories; Hw/Lw, aspect ratio of wall; p, wall index; H, behavior factor; Te, elastic period of structure; Af, oor area
per wall; Vb, unfactored total equivalent seismic base shear; R, force reduction factor; Mw, wall design bending moment; Vw, wall base shear; Vf, frame base shear;
Po, axial load; b, ratio of total boundary element longitudinal reinforcement area to boundary region area; sh, web reinforcement; Mbeam, total bending effect of
beams framing to walls; K, initial stiffness of beam and frame elements.

DOI: 10.1002/tal
Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2015)
 Table A2. Strength and stiffness characteristics of framewall models developed for dynamic analysis, 8-story structure.
Lw Hw Ns Hw/Lw p (%) H Te (s) Af (m2) Vb R Vb/R Mw Vw Vf Vw/Vb P/Po Po b sh Mbeam Kframe Kbeam Rexist
(m) (m) (kN) (kN) (kN m) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN m) (kN/m) kN m/rad
3 24 8 8 0.2 6.44 0.78 375 23 905 6 3984 10 831 1990 1995 0.50 0.1 1875 0.0495 0.0061 1895 88 653 473 812 5.69
3 24 8 8 0.4 4.56 0.75 188 12 261 6 2044 8385 1388 655 0.68 0.1 1875 0.0339 0.0033 1587 29 113 396 773 5.57
3 24 8 8 0.6 3.73 0.73 125 8369 6 1395 7000 1063 332 0.76 0.1 1875 0.0250 0.0025 1405 14 738 351 174 4.70
3 24 8 8 0.8 3.23 0.71 94 6417 6 1069 6111 866 203 0.81 0.1 1875 0.0194 0.0025 1279 9023 319 848 4.09
3 24 8 8 1.0 2.89 0.69 75 5242 6 874 5487 735 138 0.84 0.1 1875 0.0154 0.0025 1186 6153 296 614 3.50
3 24 8 8 1.2 2.64 0.68 63 4455 6 743 5021 641 101 0.86 0.1 1875 0.0124 0.0025 1114 4497 278 482 3.33
3 24 8 8 1.4 2.45 0.66 54 3891 6 649 4658 571 78 0.88 0.1 1875 0.0101 0.0025 1055 3449 263 800 3.01
3 24 8 8 1.6 2.29 0.65 47 3467 6 578 4365 516 62 0.89 0.1 1875 0.0082 0.0025 1006 2741 251 573 2.76

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

3 24 8 8 1.8 2.16 0.63 42 3135 6 522 4123 472 50 0.90 0.1 1875 0.0067 0.0025 965 2238 24 1163 2.55
3 24 8 8 2.0 2.05 0.62 38 2868 6 478 3918 436 42 0.91 0.1 1875 0.0054 0.0025 929 1868 232 143 2.37
5 24 8 4.8 0.2 3.46 0.81 625 38 638 6 6440 31 873 3963 2477 0.62 0.1 3125 0.0494 0.0078 2182 110 089 545 447 5.52
5 24 8 4.8 0.4 2.55 0.72 313 21 190 6 3532 23 725 2759 772 0.78 0.1 3125 0.0321 0.0045 1701 34 323 425 164 5.62
5 24 8 4.8 0.6 2.14 0.66 208 15 121 6 2520 19 662 2136 384 0.85 0.1 3125 0.0234 0.0028 1459 17 074 364 720 5.90
5 24 8 4.8 0.8 1.88 0.62 156 11 987 6 1998 17 161 1764 233 0.88 0.1 3125 0.0181 0.0025 1305 10 372 326 217 4.71
5 24 8 4.8 1.0 1.71 0.58 125 9810 6 1635 15 053 1480 155 0.91 0.1 3125 0.0136 0.0025 1166 6869 291 413 4.26
5 24 8 4.8 1.2 1.57 0.55 104 8175 6 1363 13 231 1255 108 0.92 0.1 3125 0.0097 0.0025 1039 4799 259 774 3.81
5 24 8 4.8 1.4 1.47 0.53 89 7007 6 1168 11 835 1088 80 0.93 0.1 3125 0.0067 0.0025 940 3535 235 001 3.52
5 24 8 4.8 1.6 1.39 0.51 78 6131 6 1022 10 726 961 61 0.94 0.1 3125 0.0044 0.0025 860 2709 214 958 3.15
5 24 8 4.8 1.8 1.32 0.49 69 5450 6 908 9821 860 48 0.95 0.1 3125 0.0024 0.0025 793 2138 198 338 2.80
5 24 8 4.8 2.0 1.26 0.47 63 4905 6 818 9066 779 39 0.95 0.1 3125 0.0008 0.0025 737 1729 184 291 2.52
8 24 8 3 0.2 1.90 0.77 1000 64 287 6 10 715 88 149 8199 2515 0.77 0.1 5000 0.0651 0.0110 2623 111 786 655 652 5.07
8 24 8 3 0.4 1.48 0.62 500 38 443 6 6407 63 718 5650 757 0.88 0.1 5000 0.0422 0.0066 1944 33 645 486 065 5.76
8 24 8 3 0.6 1.29 0.53 333 26 160 6 4360 47 449 4023 337 0.92 0.1 5000 0.0269 0.0039 1473 14 961 368 137 5.75
8 24 8 3 0.8 1.16 0.48 250 19 620 6 3270 37 634 3085 185 0.94 0.1 5000 0.0177 0.0025 1181 8229 295 358 5.16
8 24 8 3 1.0 1.07 0.44 200 15 696 6 2616 31 307 2500 116 0.96 0.1 5000 0.0117 0.0025 991 5154 247 764 4.77
8 24 8 3 1.2 1.01 0.41 167 13 080 6 2180 26 865 2101 79 0.96 0.1 5000 0.0075 0.0025 856 3508 213 965 4.39
8 24 8 3 1.4 0.95 0.38 143 11 211 6 1869 23 563 1812 57 0.97 0.1 5000 0.0044 0.0025 754 2530 188 611 4.01
8 24 8 3 1.6 0.91 0.36 125 9810 6 1635 21 005 1592 43 0.97 0.1 5000 0.0020 0.0025 675 1904 168 832 3.51
8 24 8 3 1.8 0.87 0.34 111 8720 6 1453 18 963 1420 33 0.98 0.1 5000 0.0001 0.0025 612 1480 152 938 3.12
8 24 8 3 2.0 0.84 0.33 100 7848 6 1308 17 292 1281 27 0.98 0.1 5000 0.0015 0.0025 559 1181 139 869 2.81
DYNAMIC SHEAR FORCE AMPLIFICATION IN REGULAR FRAMEWALL SYSTEMS

Lw, wall length; Hw, wall height; Ns, number of stories; Hw/Lw, aspect ratio of wall; p, wall index; H, behavior factor; Te, elastic period of structure; Af, oor area
per wall; Vb, unfactored total equivalent seismic base shear; R, force reduction factor; Mw, wall design bending moment; Vw, wall base shear; Vf, frame base shear;
Po, axial load; b, ratio of total boundary element longitudinal reinforcement area to boundary region area; sh, web reinforcement; Mbeam, total bending effect of
beams framing to walls; K, initial stiffness of beam and frame elements.

DOI: 10.1002/tal
Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2015)
 Table A3. Strength and stiffness characteristics of framewall models developed for dynamic analysis, 12-story structure.
Lw Hw Ns Hw/Lw p (%) H Te (s) Af Vb R Vb/R Mw Vw Vf Vw/Vb P/Po Po b sh Mbeam Kframe Kbeam Rexist
(m) (m) (m2) (kN) (kN) (kN m) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN m) (kN/m) kN m/rad
3 36 12 12 0.2 10.04 1.14 375 26 325 6 4387 12 181 2135 2253 0.49 0.15 2813 0.0513 0.0067 2204 100 117 550 931 6.03
3 36 12 12 0.4 7.11 1.13 188 13 318 6 2220 9476 1476 744 0.66 0.15 2813 0.0340 0.0037 1877 33 056 469 129 6.04
3 36 12 12 0.6 5.81 1.11 125 8977 6 1496 7923 1119 377 0.75 0.15 2813 0.0241 0.0025 1670 16 766 417 472 4.96
3 36 12 12 0.8 5.04 1.10 94 6804 6 1134 6911 903 231 0.80 0.15 2813 0.0177 0.0025 1522 10 260 380 437 4.25
3 36 12 12 1.0 4.51 1.08 75 5498 6 916 6193 759 157 0.83 0.15 2813 0.0131 0.0025 1409 6982 352 135 3.51
3 36 12 12 1.2 4.12 1.07 63 4627 6 771 5651 657 114 0.85 0.15 2813 0.0097 0.0025 1318 5089 329 598 3.43
3 36 12 12 1.4 3.81 1.06 54 4004 6 667 5226 580 88 0.87 0.15 2813 0.0069 0.0025 1244 3890 311 113 3.08
3 36 12 12 1.6 3.57 1.05 47 3536 6 589 4881 520 69 0.88 0.15 2813 0.0047 0.0025 1182 3082 295 605 2.78
3 36 12 12 1.8 3.36 1.03 42 3172 6 529 4595 472 56 0.89 0.15 2813 0.0029 0.0025 1129 2508 282 360 2.49
3 36 12 12 2.0 3.19 1.02 38 2880 6 480 4353 433 47 0.90 0.15 2813 0.0014 0.0025 1084 2086 270 882 2.26
5 36 12 7.2 0.2 5.39 1.24 625 41 210 6 6868 36 123 4076 2792 0.59 0.15 4688 0.0521 0.0081 2598 124 093 649 541 5.64

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

5 36 12 7.2 0.4 3.98 1.15 313 21 921 6 3654 26 687 2790 864 0.76 0.15 4688 0.0320 0.0046 2011 38 395 502 795 5.50
5 36 12 7.2 0.6 3.33 1.08 208 15 280 6 2547 21 913 2121 426 0.83 0.15 4688 0.0218 0.0028 1708 18 921 426 958 5.52
5 36 12 7.2 0.8 2.93 1.04 156 11 885 6 1981 18 974 1724 257 0.87 0.15 4688 0.0156 0.0025 1515 11 403 378 709 4.47
5 36 12 7.2 1.0 2.66 1.00 125 9813 6 1635 16 952 1462 173 0.89 0.15 4688 0.0112 0.0025 1378 7691 344 567 4.02
5 36 12 7.2 1.2 2.45 0.96 104 8410 6 1402 15 458 1276 125 0.91 0.15 4688 0.0081 0.0025 1275 5574 318 755 3.60
5 36 12 7.2 1.4 2.29 0.93 89 7394 6 1232 14 300 1137 96 0.92 0.15 4688 0.0056 0.0025 1193 4246 298 335 3.79
5 36 12 7.2 1.6 2.16 0.90 78 6623 6 1104 13 369 1028 75 0.93 0.15 4688 0.0036 0.0025 1127 3355 281 637 3.34
5 36 12 7.2 1.8 2.05 0.88 69 6016 6 1003 12 599 941 61 0.94 0.15 4688 0.0020 0.0025 1071 2726 267 635 3.03
5 36 12 7.2 2.0 1.96 0.86 63 5525 6 921 11 950 870 51 0.94 0.15 4688 0.0006 0.0025 1023 2265 255 659 2.79
8 36 12 4.5 0.2 2.96 1.29 1000 63 779 6 10 630 97 624 7918 2712 0.74 0.15 7500 0.0679 0.0105 3047 120 515 761 796 5.81
. KAZAZ AND P. GLKAN

8 36 12 4.5 0.4 2.31 1.09 500 36 615 6 6102 69 481 5300 802 0.87 0.15 7500 0.0415 0.0060 2227 35 664 556 632 6.09
8 36 12 4.5 0.6 2.00 0.97 333 26 727 6 4455 56 578 4065 390 0.91 0.15 7500 0.0293 0.0039 1847 17 315 461 739 5.97
8 36 12 4.5 0.8 1.81 0.89 250 21 481 6 3580 48 847 3347 233 0.93 0.15 7500 0.0221 0.0027 1616 10 352 403 875 5.31
8 36 12 4.5 1.0 1.67 0.83 200 18 184 6 3031 43 566 2874 156 0.95 0.15 7500 0.0171 0.0025 1455 6944 363 729 4.83
8 36 12 4.5 1.2 1.57 0.78 167 15 899 6 2650 39 668 2537 113 0.96 0.15 7500 0.0134 0.0025 1335 5010 333 695 4.78
8 36 12 4.5 1.4 1.48 0.74 143 14 211 6 2368 36 638 2283 86 0.96 0.15 7500 0.0106 0.0025 1240 3801 310 084 4.41
8 36 12 4.5 1.6 1.41 0.71 125 12 906 6 2151 34 194 2084 67 0.97 0.15 7500 0.0083 0.0025 1163 2992 290 862 4.19
8 36 12 4.5 1.8 1.36 0.68 111 11 864 6 1977 32 169 1923 55 0.97 0.15 7500 0.0064 0.0025 1099 2423 274 800 3.86
8 36 12 4.5 2.0 1.31 0.65 100 11 009 6 1835 30 455 1790 45 0.98 0.15 7500 0.0048 0.0025 1044 2006 261 106 3.71

Lw, wall length; Hw, wall height; Ns, number of stories; Hw/Lw, aspect ratio of wall; p, wall index; H, behavior factor; Te, elastic period of structure; Af, oor area
per wall; Vb, unfactored total equivalent seismic base shear; R, force reduction factor; Mw, wall design bending moment; Vw, wall base shear; Vf, frame base shear;
Po, axial load; b, ratio of total boundary element longitudinal reinforcement area to boundary region area; sh, web reinforcement; Mbeam, total bending effect of
beams framing to walls; K, initial stiffness of beam and frame elements.

DOI: 10.1002/tal
Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2015)
 DYNAMIC SHEAR FORCE AMPLIFICATION IN REGULAR FRAMEWALL SYSTEMS

REFERENCES
Adebar P & Ibrahim AMM. 2002. Simple nonlinear exural stiffness model for concrete structural walls. Earthquake Spectra:
August 2002 18(3): 407426. DOI:10.1193/1.1503343
Akiyama H. 1987. Earthquake-Resistant Limit-State Design for Buildings. University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo.
Aschheim MA. 2002. Seismic design based on the yield displacement. Earthquake Spectra 18(4): 581600. DOI: 10.1193/
1.1516754
Broderick BM, Elnashai AS, Izzuddin BA. 1994. Observations on the effect of numerical dissipation on the nonlinear dynamic
response of structural systems. Engineering structures. 16(1): 5162. DOI: 10.1016/0141-0296(94)90104-X
Calabrese A, Almeida JP, Pinho R. 2010. Numerical issues in distributed inelasticity modeling of RC frame elements for seismic
analysis. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 14: 3868. DOI: 10.1080/13632461003651869
CEN. 2004. Eurocode 8Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures. Pt. 1.3 General RulesSpecic Rules for Various Materials
and Elements. Brussels, Belgium.
Eibl J, Keintzel E. 1988. Seismic shear forces in RC cantilever shear walls. Vol. VI. 9th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto.
Ghosh SK. 1992. Required Shear Strength of Earthquake-Resistant Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls. Nonlinear Seismic Analysis
and Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings. Elsevier: New York.
Gupta B, Kunnath SK. 2000.Adaptive spectra-based pushover procedure for seismic evaluation of structures. Earthquake Spectra.
16(2): 36791. DOI: 10.1193/1.1586117
Heidebrecht AC, Stafford Smith B. 1973.Approximate analyses of tall wall-frame structures. ASCE Journal of Structural Division
99(2): 199221.
Hilber HM, Hughes TJR, Taylor RL. 1977. Improved numerical dissipation for time integration algorithms in structural dynamics.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 5(3): 28392.
Kappos AJ, Antoniadis PS. 2011.Evaluation and suggestions for improvement of seismic design procedures for R/C walls in
dual systems. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 40(1): 3553.DOI: 10.1002/eqe.1019
Kazaz . 2010. Dynamic characteristics and performance assessment of reinforced concrete structural walls. Ph.D. thesis, Civil
Engineering Dept., Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey. http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/3/12611712/index.pdf
Kazaz , Yakut A. 2010. Evaluation of period formula for shear wall buildings. 9th US National and 10th Canadian Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Toronto, Canada.
Kazaz , Glkan P. 2012. An improved frame-shear wall model: continuum approach. The Structural Design of Tall and Special
Buildings 21(7): 52442.DOI: 10.1002/tal.626
Kongoli X, Minami T, Sakai Y. 1999.Effects of structural walls on the elasticplastic earthquake responses of frame-wall buildings.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 28(5): 479500.DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199905).
Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. 1988. Theoretical stressstrain model for conned concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering
114(8): 180426.
Martinez-Rueda JE, Elnashai AS. 1997. Conned concrete model under cyclic load. Materials and Structures 30(3): 13947.
NZS3101. 2006. Concrete Structures Standard. Standards New Zealand.
Paulay T, Priestley MJN. 1992. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Priestley MJN, Calvi GM, Kowalsky MJ. 2007. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures. IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
Rad RB, Adebar P. 2008. Dynamic shear amplication in high-rise concrete structural walls: effect of multiple exural hinges
and shear cracking. Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China.
Rutenberg A. 2013. Seismic shear forces on RC walls: review and bibliography. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 11: 17271751.
DOI: 10.1007/s10518-013-9464-1
Rutenberg A, Nsieri E. 2006.The seismic shear demand in ductile cantilever wall systems and the EC8 provisions. Bulletin of
Earthquake Engineering 4(1): 121. DOI: 10.1007/s10518-005-5407-9
Sozen MA. 1989. Earthquake Response of Buildings with Robust Walls. Fifth Chilean Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Santiago, Chile.
SeismoSoft 2007. SeismoStruct: a computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of framed structures: Available
from URL: www.seismosoft.com
Sullivan TJ, Priestley MJN, Calvi GM. 2006.Direct displacement-based design of frame-wall structures. Journal of Earthquake
Engineering 10(1): 91124.DOI: 10.1080/13632460609350630
TSC. 2007. Turkish Seismic Design Code for Buildings, Specication for Structures To Be Built in Disaster Areas. Ministry of
Public Works and Resettlement. Ankara, Turkey.
Wallace JW, Moehle JP. 1992. Ductility and detailing requirements of bearing wall buildings. ASCE Journal of Structural
Engineering 118(6): 16251644. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445

AUTHORS BIOGRAPHIES

lker Kazaz is an associate professor in the Department of Civil Engineering of Erzurum Technical
University and currently holds the position of Department Chair. He received his PhD in civil engi-
neering from Middle East Technical University in 2010. His teaching and research interests are in
the areas of earthquake engineering, structural analysis and structural dynamics.

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/tal
 . KAZAZ AND P. GLKAN

Polat Glkan currently holds the chairmanship of the Department of Civil Engineering at ankaya
University. He is a graduate of Middle East Technical University (1966) and the University of Illinois,
UrbanaChampaign (1971). He was a professor in the Department of Civil Engineering, Middle East
Technical University, until his retirement in 2011. He has served on the Board of Directors of the In-
ternational Association for Earthquake Engineering (IAEE) during 19962004 and was appointed for a
four-year term as executive vice president of the same organization in 2004. He was elected to the pres-
idency of IAEE in 2008, and following a two-year period as president elect, he has served as president
for the period 20102014. He was also on the Board of Directors of Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute (EERI) for the period 20052008. Mr Glkan is the past editor for Earthquake Spectra and an
honorary EERI member. His professional work has dealt also with earthquake hazard, culminating in
the earthquake hazard zones map for Turkey that went into effect in 1996, spatial planning, urban haz-
ard assessment, natural disaster insurance, structural intervention principles for buildings and nuclear
safety.

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/tal