KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (2015) 19(1):188-199 Structural Engineering

Copyright 2015 Korean Society of Civil Engineers

DOI 10.1007/s12205-014-0143-9 pISSN 1226-7988, eISSN 1976-3808
www.springer.com/12205
TECHNICAL NOTE

SBC-based Assessment of Shear Wall Quantity

in Moment Resisting Frame Buildings
Ahmet Tuken* and Nadeem A. Siddiqui**
Received March 21, 2012/Accepted January 21, 2014/Published Online July 7, 2014

Abstract

According to Saudi Building Code (SBC) and almost all other seismic codes of the world, Reinforced Concrete (RC) shear wall-
moment resisting frame buildings must satisfy the requirements of strength, stiffness and ductility if they have to be constructed in
seismic prone areas. In the present study, a simple-to-apply analytical method based on dual system concept and SBC provisions is
proposed to determine the amount of shear walls which can satisfy the strength, stiffness and ductility requirements imposed by the
SBC on RC moment resisting frame buildings. The method also outlines a detailed procedure for the assessment of displacement and
curvature ductility of RC shear wall-moment resisting frame buildings. This formulation is based on plastic analysis and the
assumption that the plastic hinge forms at the base of the shear wall. The proposed methodology was then applied to a 10-storey RC
building containing shear walls. It was shown that the amount of shear walls which is enough to satisfy the strength requirements also
fulfills the stiffness criteria (i.e., story drift limitation) required by the SBC. It was also proved that the ductility requirements imposed
by the SBC can easily be satisfied by using the same quantity of shear walls.
Keywords: shear wall, SBC, earthquake-resistant building, story drift, dual system, strength, stiffness, ductility

1. Introduction Meftah et al. (2013) carried out the dynamic analysis of

A Reinforced Concrete (RC) building must possess adequate
strength, lateral stiffness and ductility if it is likely to be
subjected to moderate to severe earthquakes. These three
requirements are generally satisfied by properly placing the
required amount of shear walls in RC buildings. Observations
and evaluations of past earthquake damages show that shear
walls situated in proper positions in a RC building form an
efficient and economic resisting system to lateral forces resulting
from mainly wind and earthquake. If these shear walls are
properly designed, they absorb the seismic energy securely so
that little or no structural damage occurs in the building under
moderate to severe earthquakes. It is due to this reason that
almost all the seismic codes, including Saudi Building Code
(SBC 301, 2007; SBC 304, 2007), recommend the employment
of shear walls for the seismic design of RC buildings. In the
recent past, substantial research has been carried out on seismic
response of RC buildings with shear walls. Balasubramanian et
al. (2011) presented an improved method for estimation of
stiffness of brick masonry shear walls with opening. Their
proposed method was applicable to both strong spandrel-weak
pier and weak spandrel-strong pier conditions. The results of the
proposed method were in good agreement with the results of
finite element analysis and experimental test results.
Reinforced Concrete (RC) coupled shear walls strengthened by
bonded Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) composite
plates applied on both sides of the coupling beams. For this
purpose, new finite element models were developed for both the
walls and strengthened coupling beams. In the validation process
of the proposed model, static and free vibration analyses of
coupled shear walls were firstly studied. Comparisons with
ABAQUS code using shell elements were made and good
agreement was observed. After this stage, dynamic analysis was
carried out under El Centro and Northridge earthquake records.
In these conceptual studies, the maximum top lateral deflection
responses of strengthened and unstrengthened RC coupled shear
walls were computed. The obtained results showed that
mitigation of seismic behavior of RC coupled shear walls by
using CFRP bonded composite plates depends on the geometrical
characteristics of shear wall structure and dominant frequencies
of the input earthquake records.
Zhang and Wang (2000) presented the results of an experimental
study that investigated the failure mechanism and ductility of
rectangular reinforced concrete shear walls subjected to high
axial loading. Four slender wall models were built and tested to
failure under the combined action of constant axial load and
reversed cyclic lateral loading. The objective of this test was to
investigate the effect of parameter variation of axial-load ratio

*Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (Corresponding Author, E-mail: atuken@ksu.edu.sa)
**Associate Professor, Dept.of Civil Engineering, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (E-mail: nadeem@ksu.edu.sa)

188
 SBC-based Assessment of Shear Wall Quantity in Moment Resisting Frame Buildings
and shear compression ratio on the behavior of reinforced concrete
shear walls. Axial-load ratio was found to have a significant
effect on the cracking pattern, flexural strength, failure mode,
and ductility of reinforced concrete shear walls.
Lu and Chen (2005) proposed a nonlinear macro-model to
simulate the behavior of coupled shear walls. This model was
composed of a multi-vertical-element model for wall piers and a
combined model for coupling beams. In the model for coupling
beams, the deformation of flexure and shear, and the interface
bondslip action were considered by using different elements.
Experiments of coupled shear wall specimens with different
sizes of coupling beams were carried out to verify the proposed
model. A comparison of the analysis with the test results showed
that the model was efficient in nonlinear analysis of coupled
shear walls.
Ni and Karacabeyli (2007) carried out a total of 16 full-scale
tests on shear walls with diagonal or transverse (horizontal)
lumber sheathing. The tests results showed that for shear walls
with single diagonal lumber sheathing, the load-displacement
responses under tensile and compressive loads were asymmetric
if hold-downs were installed at the bottom of the end studs. They
observed that the use of steel rods in lieu of hold-down
connections at the bottom of the walls improved the ductility of
the walls. They also noticed that for shear walls with double
diagonal lumber sheathing, the in-plane shear capacities were
approximately 23 times that of shear walls with single diagonal
lumber sheathing.
Neuenhofer (2006) investigated the accuracy of a simplified
hand method recommended in several design guidelines for
practicing structural engineers for calculating the lateral stiffness
of shear walls with openings. Parametric studies were performed
in which the location and size of the opening as well as the aspect
ratio of the wall were varied. A special-purpose finite-element
algorithm was developed and implemented in the computing
package MATLAB. Results from finite-element analysis were
compared to those of the hand method. He found that the hand
method enormously overestimates the stiffness of shear walls
with openings.
Aksogan et al. (2007) studied the forced vibration analysis of a
multi-bay coupled shear wall on an elastic foundation. Their
analysis considers shear walls with a finite number of stiffening
beams, the properties of which vary from span to span and /or
from section to section in the vertical direction. A time-history
analysis was carried out using the Newmark numerical integration
method to obtain the response. The response obtained was then
compared with those obtained using the SAP 2000, integrated
software for structural analysis and design. They found a good
match between the results of present method and the results of
SAP 2000 software.
Beyer et al. (2011) examined the shear deformations for
displacement demands in the inelastic range using experimental
results, available in the literature, obtained from quasi-static
cyclic tests on 34 slender structural reinforced concrete walls.
Based on these results, the distribution of shear strains within the
Vol. 19, No. 1 / January 2015 189
walls and the variation of shear deformations with top
displacements were discussed. It was shown that for shear walls
whose shear-transfer mechanism was not significantly deterio-
rated, the ratio of shear-to flexural deformations remained
approximately constant over the entire range of imposed
displacement ductilities, whereas for walls whose shear-transfer
mechanism was significantly degraded, the ratio of shear-to-
flexural deformations increased. For the former case, a simple
model was proposed that allows the estimation of the ratio of
shear-to-flexural deformations.
Kara and Dundar (2009) presented an iterative analytical
procedure which considers the cracking in the reinforced
concrete shear walls. The effect of concrete cracking on the
stiffness and deflection of shear walls were also investigated by
the developed computer program based on the iterative
procedure. In the program, the variation of the flexural stiffness
of a cracked member was evaluated by ACl and probability-
based effective stiffness model. In the analysis, shear defor-
mation which can be large and significant after development of
cracks was also taken into account and the variation of shear
stiffness in the cracked regions of members was considered by
using effective shear stiffness model available in the literature.
Verification of the proposed procedure was confirmed from
series of reinforced concrete shear wall tests available in the
literature. Comparison between the analytical and experimental
results showed that their proposed analytical procedure can
provide an accurate and efficient prediction of both the
deflection and flexural stiffness reduction of shear walls with
different height to width ratio and vertical load. The results of the
analytical procedure also indicated that the percentage of shear
deflection n the total deflection increases with decreasing height
to width ratio of the shear wall.
Marini and Meda (2009) presented a new technique for the
strengthening of existing RC shear walls based on the application
of thin high performance jackets. The strengthening jacket was
made of high performance concrete, having a compression
resistance higher than 150 MPa, and reinforced by means of an
high strength steel mesh. The experimental study was carried out
on a 1 : 3 scale RC wall, proportioned to resist vertical loads
only, and reinforced by means of a 15 mm thick high
performance jacket. Cyclic loads of increasing magnitude were
applied to the experimental shear wall up to collapse. The
effectiveness of the technique was also verified numerically. The
results showed the efficiency of the proposed solution in significantly
increasing the structure resistance, deformation capacity and
ductility.
Tuken (2004) proposed an analytical method to determine the
sway of a mixed structure (frame + shear wall) subjected to
seismic forces. The validity of the analytical method was tested
on 3-D buildings of different heights. He also obtained the sway
response using SAP2000, and found that the sway results
obtained by the analytical method matches well with the results
of SAP2000. The implementation of the proposed analytical
method to shear wall - frame buildings in regions of high seismic
 Ahmet Tuken and Nadeem A. Siddiqui
risk was emphasized. Using the proposed analytical method,
seismically deficient buildings which require strengthening can
easily be identified.
Assessment of building failures in recent earthquakes have
shown that shear walls are mandatory to make
Lestuzzi and Bachmann (2007) performed dynamic tests on
six reinforced concrete structural walls to investigate yield
displacement, displacement ductility and energy content of the
walls experimentally. Yield displacement was directly obtained
from measurements. The measured results matched well with
calculated predictions. Input, kinetic and dissipated energies
(through friction, viscous damping, and plastic deformations)
were also determined from measurements. Variations in the
distribution of the energy dissipated by plastic deformations
(hysteretic energy) at the wall bases were related to the good and
poor seismic behavior of the walls as observed during the tests.
They observed that if energy dissipation was concentrated at the
first crack at the wall base, it lead to poor seismic behavior. They
also found that the ratio of hysteretic energy to the total
dissipated energy (friction + viscous + hysteretic) remained
almost constant.
Tjhin et al. (2007) presented a simple method for the
performance-based seismic design of ductile RC wall buildings.
The method derives its simplicity by relying on the stability of
the yield displacement and the representation of inelastic seismic
demand using Yield Point Spectra. The design method was
based on an estimate of the roof displacement at yield. The
required base shear strength was determined using Yield Point
Spectra. The walls were designed for a single base shear force
that was established based on one or more performance
objectives, where each performance level was expressed in terms
of roof drift and plastic hinge rotation at the base of the wall. A
six-story building was used as an example to illustrate the
method, with the hazard represented by either smoothed design
spectra or recorded ground motions. Nonlinear static and
dynamic analyses confirmed the adequacy of the method to
achieve the intended performance objectives.
Burak and Comlekoglu (2013) performed an analytical study
to evaluate the effect of shear wall area to floor area ratio on the
seismic behavior of mid-rise reinforced concrete structures. They
studied twenty four mid-rise building models having shear wall
ratios ranging between 0.51 and 2.17 percent in both directions.
The behavior of these building models under earthquake loading
was then examined by carrying out nonlinear time-history
analyses. In the analyses, seven different ground motion records
were applied to the building models and the average of the
obtained data was utilized in the evaluation of the seismic
performance. The analytical results indicated that, in order to
control the drift, at least 1.0% shear wall ratio should be provided
in the design of mid-rise buildings. They also found that when
the shear wall ratio increases beyond 1.5%, the improvement of
the seismic performance was not so significant.
Above review of literature on different aspects of typical
framed structures containing shear walls show that an-easy-to-
190
apply analytical procedure, especially based on Saudi Building
Code (SBC 301, 2007; SBC 304, 2007), for the assessment of
the amount of shear walls to make RC frame buildings
earthquake-resistant is not widely available. An important task
which is expected to perform by shear walls during the seismic
attack is to be able to dissipate seismic energy securely. In order
to perform this vital task, the total structure must possess enough
strength, stiffness and ductility.
In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and in many other parts of the
world, shear wall quantities are generally decided on trial and
error, or thumb rule basis which sometimes can make the
structure uneconomical. In order to provide an optimum amount
of shear wall quantity in an RC building, an easy-to-apply
analytical method is required to determine the amount of shear
walls which can satisfy the strength, stiffness and ductility
requirements imposed by the Seismic Codes.
Keeping above scopes in view, in the present study, based on
Saudi Building Code (SBC 301, 2007; SBC 304, 2007), an easy-
to-apply analytical method considering dual system concept is
proposed to determine the amount of shear walls which can
satisfy the strength, stiffness and ductility requirements imposed
by the Saudi Building Code (SBC 301, 2007; SBC 304, 2007),
for RC moment resisting frame buildings. The proposed meth-
odology was then applied to a 10-storey RC building containing
shear walls for its implementation and numerical study.
2. Problem Formulation
Under ground shaking of large intensity, some repairable
damage to the contents of buildings is acceptable. Therefore, a
damage control limit state is to be defined in order to mark the
boundary between economically repairable minor damage and
damage that is not worth repairing. The intensity of ground
shaking associated with this limit state has a low probability of
occurrence during the expected life of the building. In the event
of a ground shaking, the most important desired properties are
the strength, stiffness and ductility of the building, especially
when its elastic limit is attained or slightly exceeded. A building
can be avoided to reach to above limit state by providing
adequate shear walls in the orthogonal directions. Keeping this
requirement in view, in the present study, effort has been made to
determine that amount of shear walls necessary to make a
building safe against excessive damage. For this purpose the
following assumptions (or design strategy) were made.
The total design base shear is resisted by shear walls.
Equal amounts of shear walls are available in both orthogo-
nal directions of the structure since seismic action occurs in
all directions.
The moment resisting frame elements, which are beams and
columns, independently resist 25 % of the total design base
shear.
The Uniform Building Code (UBC, 1997) and Saudi Building
Code (SBC 301, 2007) defines the structure that possesses the
above three properties as the dual system.
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 SBC-based Assessment of Shear Wall Quantity in Moment Resisting Frame Buildings
2.1 Strength Requirement
In the present study the amount of required shear walls in one
direction was obtained by satisfying the strength criterion that is
obtained by equating the total design base shear (Vt) to the total
shear resistance (Vr) provided by all the shear walls in one
direction. That is:
Vt = Vr
The total design base shear, Vt, can be estimated using an ac-
celeration response spectrum. In the present study the acceler-
ation response spectrum defined by Saudi Building Code (SBC
301, 2007), was employed. This spectrum is shown in Fig. 1.
The above acceleration response spectrum reveals that the
effective ground acceleration is magnified by a factor of SDS, for
natural periods of To Ts seconds. These natural periods are the
most typical values of building structures generally exist in
practice. Based on this observation, the total design base shear, Vt ,
can be estimated by the equation provided by Saudi Building
Code (SBC 301, 2007). This equation is given by:
SDS .I.W
Vt = -----------------
- (2)
R
Where, SDS = the design, 5% damped, spectral response
acceleration in the short period range as shown in Fig. 1; I =
occupancy importance factor; W = the effective seismic weight
of the structure including the total dead load and applicable
portions of other loads as defined in Section 10.7 of Saudi
Building Code (SBC 301, 2007); and R = response modification
factor.
The total weight of the building can be expressed in terms of
its floor areas and number of stories as:
n
W= wtApi
i=1
Where Api is the plan area of the ith floor; n is the number of
stories; and wi = weight of ith storey of building. Assuming an
average value of wi, and same floor-area for each storey, the total
weight of the building can be approximately expressed as:
Fig. 1. Acceleration Response Spectrum (SBC 301)
Vol. 19, No. 1 / January 2015
n
W= wtApi = winAp (4)
i=1
Substituting above expression for the weight of the building in
Eq. (2) we get:
SDSIwi nAp
Vt = -----------------------
- (kN) (5)
R
(1)
Where wi is in kN/m2 and Ap is in m2.
Having determined the total base shear, now we need to find
the shear resistance of total shear walls, Vr. According to Saudi
Building Code (SBC 304, 2007), a lower-bound value for the
shear strength of the total number of shear walls in one orthogo-
nal direction can be obtained using the following expression:
Acv( 0.166 fc + n fy) 10 (kN)
3
Vr = (6)
Where, Acv=Area of shear wall (in m2); fc =Specified
compressive strength of concrete (in MPa); n = Ratio of area of
distributed reinforcement parallel to the plane of Acv to gross
concrete area perpendicular to that reinforcement; fy =Specified
yield strength of longitudinal reinforcement (in MPa).
Equating the Eqs. (5) and (6), the ratio of the total area of shear
walls to the area of floor plan can be obtained as:
A SDSI (nw i )
- 10
-----------cv- = -------------------------------------------- 3
(7)
Ap R ( 0.166 f c + n fy )
Where wi is in kN/m2; f c and fy are in MPa.
2.2 Stiffness Requirement (Storey Drift Limitation)
The total area of shear walls obtained from above equation
(Eq. (7)) must also satisfy the stiffness requirement. In other
words, the stiffness provided by all shear walls should not be less
(3)
than the minimum stiffness required by the codes by means of
story drift limitation. In the present study, the storey drift (i) and
relative storey drift (i/hi) are defined as:
di di 1
i = di di 1 ; ----i = ----------------- (8)
hi hi
Where, hi = height of ith storey of building; di = displacement
calculated at ith storey of building. In each earthquake direction;
the maximum value of calculated storey drifts, (i)max, for
columns and structural walls of the ith storey of a building should
not exceed the limiting value lim, specified by the Saudi
Building Code (SBC 301, 2007). In other words:
( i )max lim (9)
In the cases where the conditions specified by Eq. (9) are not
satisfied at any storey, the earthquake analysis should be repeated
by increasing the stiffness of the structural system.
The value of total stiffness of all shear walls = EI = total
stiffness of all shear walls within a story. Here, E = modulus of
elasticity of building material (e.g., concrete) and I = moment of
inertia of shear wall.
191
 Ahmet Tuken and Nadeem A. Siddiqui

Let nsw be the number of shear walls to be used in each
direction and bw = bmin. Here bmin is the minimum width of shear
wall required by the code. We may write the minimum length of
total shear walls to be used in each orthogonal direction as below:
l w =
A
-----------cv-
bw
Then assuming a typical shear wall with (lw)typical= lmin
2.3 Ductility Requirement
Under the total acting design base shear, it is expected that
plastic hinges form at the base of shear walls. During the
formation of plastic hinges it is further required that the structure
behave in a ductile manner. Ductility is essentially a qualitative
(10) term, and it needs to be quantified. To quantify ductility, the
commonly accepted measure is the displacement ductility ratio,
, which is defined as:

lw - = ---------------------
Acv -
nsw = ------------------ (11) = -----u (16)
( lw )typical ( Acv )typical y
K min = ( EI ) = nsw EItypical (12) Where, u = displacement at the top of the structure at ultimate
stage; and y = displacement at the top of the structure at
1 3 1 3
Where Itypical = ------ bw lw = ------ bmin lmin; (Acv) = lwbw = lminbmin initiation of yielding at the base of shear wall.
12 12
The above definition necessitates the calculation of top sway
Substituting Eq. (11) into (12) we have: of a reinforced concrete structure, which is rather a tedious task.
It is much easier to calculate the cross-sectional curvature, as
Acv -EItypical
K min = --------------------- (13) commonly expressed in the axial load-moment-curvature
( Acv )typical
relationship (N-M-). Therefore, it will be most convenient if an
Substitution of Acv from Eq. (7) into Eq. (13) yields: expression could be derived to relate displacement ductility ratio,
, to the curvature ductility ratio, , as shown in Fig. 2.
EItypical SDSI ( nAp w i )
- 10 (kNm2)
3
K min = ------------------------------------------------------------------- (14)
y = Area y = --- y Hw --- Hw
( Acv )typical R ( 0.166 fc + n fn ) 1 3
(17)
3 4
Where wi is in kN/m2, Ap is in m2, E is in kN/m2 and fc and fy l
are in MPa. u = y + ( u y ) lp Hw ---p (18)
2
After a multiplying factor ( 1) is introduced in the above
equation to increase the stiffness requirement for buildings in Consider a shear wall frame structure where a plastic hinge of
order to satisfy the maximum story drift limitation of seismic height lp = 0.2lw + 0.044Hw has been formed at the base of the
codes, Eq. (14) can be rewritten as: shear wall (Paulay and Priestley, 1992), as shown in Fig. 2. The
sway at the top of the structure can be calculated at the time of
EItypical SDS I ( nAp wi ) 3
initiation of yielding and concrete crushing as y and u,
K min = -------------------------------------------------------------------
- 10 (kNm2) (15)
( Acv )typical R ( 0.166 fc + n fn ) respectively, as expressed in Eq. (17) and Eq. (18). Con-
sequently, displacement ductility ratio, , can be readily
For those buildings which have relatively lesser number of calculated and can be expressed as:
stories (e.g., 10), the value of multiplying factor is generally 1
4 l
(Tuken and Siddiqui, 2011). But in the numerical studies part, = -----u = 1 + -------2 -----u 1 lp Hw ---p (19)
with typical given values of a 3-D reinforced concrete building; y Hw y 2
it will be checked whether the multiplying factor is 1 or needs From Eq. (19), the curvature ductility ratio, , can be easily
to be increased for the particular example. solved for, as expressed below:
In general, the algorithm for the determination of stiffness
multiplier is given below. H ( 1 )
2
= -----u = 1
--- ------w- ----------------------
-+1 (20)
Estimate the lateral story drifts by calculating the lateral dis- y 4 lp Hw 0.5lp
placement y(x) using the following equation derived by The displacement ductility ratio, , is thus expressed in terms
Tuken (2004):
2 3 5
Ky ( x ) = A1 s cosh + A2 s sin h + 1 ----2 pH ---- ------ + ---------
2 2 1 4 k k k
v 6 12 120
2
s pk 2
---------2- x + A3 x + A4
6v
Based on the maximum relative story drift value, the value
of that is the multiplier of K can be obtained easily by
increasing only the K value until any seismic code require- Fig. 2. Relating the Top Sway of a Building to the Cross-sectional
ment for relative story drift has been satisfied. Curvature of the Shear Wall (Case1)

192 KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 SBC-based Assessment of Shear Wall Quantity in Moment Resisting Frame Buildings

Fig. 3. Shear Wall-frame Structure under Triangular Distributed Lat-

eral Load

of the more familiar curvature ductility ratio, , which only Fig. 4. Relating the Top Sway of a Building to the Cross-sectional
depends on cross-sectional properties of the shear wall and the Curvature of the Shear Wall (Case 2)
axial load on it.
The accepted measure in the state-of-the art of seismic design
is that when the structure undergoes a displacement ductility
ratio of = 4-5, it is accepted to provide enough ductility (i.e.,
the structure is capable of dissipating the seismic energy
successfully). At ultimate stage, plastic hinges form at beam
ends, in addition to hinges at the base of shear walls.

2.3.1 Ductility of Structural Systems Comprising of Shear

Walls and Frames
For a triangular distributed lateral load of f(x) = p(x/H) shown
in Fig. 3, the equation of lateral displacement was derived by
Fig. 5. Relating the Top Sway of a Building to the Cross-sectional
Tuken (2004) as below:
Curvature of the Shear Wall (Case 3)
2 3 5
K.y ( x ) = A1s cosh + A2 s sinh + 1 ----2 pH ---- ------ + ---------
2 2 1 4 k k k
v 6 12 120
From Eq. (25), the curvature ductility ratio, , can be easily
2
s pk 2 solved for, as expressed in the following equation:
---------2- x + A3 x + A4 (21)
6v ( 1 )[5y ( Hw h ) ( 3Hw + h ) k ( 5a + 4b ) ]
2
= -----u = 1 + --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Then the equation of curvature along the height of mixed y 60lp ( Hw 0.5lp )y
structures (i.e., along the height of shear wall) can be written as: (26)

K.y ( x ) = A1cosh + A2 sinh + 1 ----2 pH

ll 1 4 In case of a = b = h/2, displacement ductility ratio () and
v curvature ductility ratio () can be expressed as in Eq. (27) and
(22)
3 2 Eq. (28) respectively:
--------
1
-2 ---------3 + ---------5 --------
x x s p- x
3H 2H 6H v H 2
12 ( u y )lp ( Hw 0.5lp )
= 1 + --------------------------------------------------------------
-2 (27)
The curvature distribution along the height of mixed structures y ( Hw h )( 3Hw + h ) 4kh
i.e., along the height of shear wall may sometimes be as shown in
( 1 )[y ( Hw h )( 3Hw + h ) 4kh ]
2
Fig. 4. In the case given in Fig. 4, the sway at the top of the = 1 + -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- (28)
12l p( Hw 0.5lp )y
structure can be calculated at the time of initiation of yielding, y,
and concrete crushing, u, as expressed in Eqs. (23) and (24), The curvature distribution along the height of mixed structures
respectively: i.e., along the height of shear wall sometimes may also be as
shown in Fig. 5.
5 ( Hw h ) ( 3Hw + h ) k( 5a + 4b )
2
y = -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (23) For this case, shown in Fig. 5, the sway at the top of the
60 structure can be calculated at the time of initiation of yielding, y,
u = y + ( u y )lp ( H 0.5lp ) (24) and concrete crushing, u, as expressed in Eq. (29) and Eq. (30),
respectively:
Consequently, displacement ductility ratio, , can be readily 2 2
calculated, as given below: 5y ( Hw h ) ( 3Hw + h ) ( k( ( 5b + 4c ) + 40a ( b + c )) + 5a m )
y = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
60
60( u y )lp ( Hw 0.5lp ) (29)
= -----u = 1 + ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-2 (25)
y 5y ( Hw h )( 3H w + h ) k ( 5a + 4b ) u = y + ( u y )lp ( Hw 0.5lp ) (30)

Vol. 19, No. 1 / January 2015 193

 Ahmet Tuken and Nadeem A. Siddiqui

Consequently, displacement ductility ratio, , can be readily 3. Implementation and Numerical Study
calculated, as given in Eq. (31).
In order to demonstrate the methodology discussed in the
60 ( u y )lp( Hw 0.5lp )
= 1 + ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (31) problem formulation, a 10 storey 3-D building having a typical
5y ( Hw h ) [ 3Hw + h ]
2 2 floor plan as shown in Fig. 6 was selected. The other salient data
k ( ( 5b + 4c ) + 40a ( b + c ) ) + 5a m
required for the analysis are presented in Table 1.
From Eq. (31), the curvature ductility ratio, , can be solved
for, as expressed in Eq. (32). 3.1. Total Amount of Shear Walls Satisfying Strength
Requirement
( 1 )[5y ( Hw h ) ( 3Hw + h ) Using Eq. (7) and the data presented in Table 1, total area of
2 2
k ( ( 5b + 4c ) + 40a ( b + c ) ) + 5a m] shear walls to the area of the floor plan can be calculated as
= 1 + ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (32)
60lp( Hw 0.5lp )y Acv /Ap = 0.0117884; where, Ap= 50 26 = 1,300 m2 (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6. Typical Floor Plan of the 3-D Building Studied

Table 1. Data Employed for the Seismic-Analysis of the 3-D Building Studied
Parameter Value Remark
Column size 600 600 mm Assumed same for all the columns
Beam size 250 450 mm Assumed same for all the beams
Slab thickness 120 mm Assumed same for all the slabs
Storey height 3000 mm Assumed same for all the stories
Design spectral response acceleration, SDS 1.962 m/s2 Value for Jeddah based on SBC 301
Minimum specified compressive strength of concrete
Compressive strength of concrete, fc 20 MPa
according to SBC 304
Maximum specified yield strength of non-pre-
Yield strength of steel, fy 420 MPa
stressed reinforcement according to SBC 304
Modulus of elasticity of concrete, E 21,019,000 kN/m2 4700 fc according to SBC 304
Width of typical shear wall, bw=bmin 0.25 m Minimum value required by UBC (1997)
Length of typical shear wall, (lw)typical=lmin 3.0 m Assumed minimum value
Ratio of horizontal web reinforcement of wall to the
0.0025 Minimum value based on SBC 304
gross area of wall web, n
Assumed weight of ithstoreyofthebuilding
Storey weights, wi 7.0 kN/m2
(beingthesameforallstories)
For buildings in which seismic loads are jointly
Response modification factor, R 6.5 resisted by frames and solid and/or coupled struc-
tural walls (i.e., for dual systems)
For all buildings and other structures of Category II
Occupancy importance factor, I 1.0
based on Table1.6-1 in SBC 301

194 KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 SBC-based Assessment of Shear Wall Quantity in Moment Resisting Frame Buildings

Fig. 7. Arrangement of Shear Walls for the 3-D Building Studied

Then the total area of shear walls to be used can be calculated

as Acv = 0.0117884(1,300) = 15.325 m2. Using bw = 0.25 m
of shear walls, minimum length of total shear walls to be
provided in each orthogonal directions will be = 15.325 /
0.25 = 61.3 m. For the 3-D building studied, shear walls can
be placed on the floor plan as shown in Fig. 7. As it can be
seen that the total length of shear walls in both x and y
directions are 60 m, which is nearly equal to the minimum
length of shear walls to be provided in both orthogonal
directions.

3.2 Axial Forces due to Unbalanced Moments on Shear

Walls
The total overturning moment (Mot) coming to the building in
both x and y directions were calculated by the simple equations
as expressed in Eq. (33).
Fig. 8. Curvature Distribution along the Height of Structure in x-
Mot = Vt -------
2H Direction
(33)
3
Where, Vt = total design base shear; and H = height of the
building.
Substituting the values given in Table 1, the total design base
shear was calculated by using Eq. (5) as Vt = 27,468 kN. Again
substituting Vt = 27,468 kN and H = 30 m into Eq. (33), total
overturning moment (Mot) coming to the building in both x and y
directions was estimated. This value comes out to be 549,360
kN.m. Each shear wall will take some portion of this moment
with respect to its moment of inertia multiplied by the curvature
value at the bottom of structure. The curvature diagram thus can
be obtained along the height of the structure for x and y
directions as shown in Figs. 8 and 9 respectively. The curvature
value was determined by using Eq. (22). If the curvature value
at the bottom of structure (i.e., at x = 0) is multiplied by EI of
any shear wall, the moment coming to that particular shear wall
can be found easily. Here, E is the modulus of elasticity of
concrete and I is the moment of inertia of that particular shear Fig. 9. Curvature Distribution along the Height of Structure in y-
wall. Direction

Vol. 19, No. 1 / January 2015 195

 Ahmet Tuken and Nadeem A. Siddiqui
3.2.1 Calculations along the x-Direction
The moment of inertia of lw = 10 m of shear walls in x-direction is
determined as 20.83 m4. Since the curvature value at the bottom of
structure (i.e., at x = 0) in x direction is 0.0001754248, that is
obtained from Fig. 8, then the maximum moment taken by each
shear wall of lw = 10 m in x-direction can be computed using the
procedure presented above. This maximum moment comes out to
be 76,805 kN.m. The total moment taken by all the shear walls in x-
direction will then be M = 6 76,805 = 460,830 kN.m. Therefore
the unbalanced moment that will be taken by the coupled axial
forces of shear walls and columns in x-direction can be calculated
easily as Munbalanced = Mot M = 549,360 460,830 = 88,530
kN.m. The axial force due to this unbalanced moment for each
shear wall can be calculated by well known equation: N= Mc/I.
Here, M = unbalanced Moment; c = distance from the center of
gravity of shear wall to that of the structure; and I = total Ad2 terms
due to shear walls and columns. In order to determine the axial
force due to unbalanced moment, first I = Ad 2 was calculated in x-
direction. The value comes out to be 5,531.2 m4. Then the axial
force due to unbalanced moment was calculated using above
equation, which comes out to be 320 kN for 4 shear walls of lw=
10 m at the corners having c = 20 m and 160 kN for 2 shear walls
of lw = 10 m at the middle having c =10 m.
3.2.2 Calculations along the y-Direction
In the same manner as explained above, the moment of inertia
of lw = 10 m of shear walls in y-direction is obtained as 20.83 m4.
Since the curvature value at the bottom of structure (i.e., at x = 0)
in y direction is 0.0001738836 (Fig. 9), the maximum moment
taken by each shear wall of lw = 10 m in y-direction can be
computed using the procedure presented above. This maximum
moment comes out to be 76,131 kN.m.
The total moment taken by all the shear walls in y-direction will
then be M = 6 76,131 = 456,786 kN.m. Therefore the
unbalanced moment that will be taken by the coupled axial forces
of shear walls and columns in y-direction can be calculated easily
as Munbalanced = Mot M = 549,360 456,786 = 92,574 kN.m. The
axial force due to this unbalanced moment for each shear wall can
then be calculated by the same equation i.e., N= Mc/I. In order to
determine the axial force due to unbalanced moment, first I = Ad 2
was calculated in x-direction. The value comes out to be 1,422.88
m4. Then the axial force due to unbalanced moment was calculated
using above equation, which comes out to be 520 kN for 6 shear
walls of lw= 10 m having c = 8 m.
3.3 Satisfying Stiffness Requirement
Having decided the arrangements of shear walls as shown in
Fig. 9 and taking the minimum width of shear walls as bw = 0.25
m, total stiffness of all shear walls along x-direction can be
calculated as below:
K x = 21, 019, 000 -----
1- 0.25 103 6
12
= 2, 627, 375, 000 kN.m
2
(34)
Similarly the total stiffness of all shear walls along y-direction
can be calculated as:
Ky = 21, 019, 000 ------ 0.25 10 6
1 3
12
= 2, 627, 375, 000 kN.m
2
(35)
For the selected numerical example, the minimum required
value of total stiffness of all shear walls Kmin can be computed
using Eq. (15). However, in order to use Eq. (15), it is necessary
to determine firstly the stiffness multiplier (i.e., whether it is 1
or needs to be increased by a factor, greater than 1, to satisfy the
story drift limitation of Saudi Building Code (SBC 301, 2007),
described as below.
a = 0.020hsx (for Category II and RC dual buildings)
Where hsx is the story height below level x and a is the
allowable story drift specified as the difference of the deflections
at the top and bottom of the story under consideration.
In the 3-D building studied, the maximum relative story drift
(a / hsx) along the x- and y-directions are 0.0017523 and
0.0017261, respectively. Both values are less than 0.02, which is
the maximum value specified in the Saudi Building Code (SBC
301, 2007). Therefore, it is not needed to increase the stiffness
multiplier . In other words, the stiffness multiplier is equal to
1 in this particular example.
The total area of shear walls obtained using Eq. (7) must also
satisfy the stiffness requirement. In other words, the stiffness
provided by the shear walls should not be less than the minimum
stiffness required by the codes with story drift limitation. For the
selected numerical example, the minimum value of total stiffness
of all shear walls Kmin can be computed by using Eq. (15), given
below:
EItypical SDSI ( nAp w i )
Kmin = -------------------------------------------------------------------
- 10
3
( Acv )typicalR ( 0.166 fc + n fy )
1 3
21, 019, 000 ------ ( 0.25 )( 3 )
12
. ( 1.962 )( 1.0 ) ( 10x1300x7 )
1.0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10
3
Kmin =
( 0.25x3 ) ( 6.5 ) ( 0.166 20 + 0.0025x420 )
(36)
Substituting =1 for the 10 story building studied, and all the
desired data from Table 1, we obtain Kmin= 241,585,898 kN.m2.
As both Kx = 2,627,375,000 kN.m2 and Ky = 2,627,375,000
kN.m2 are much more greater than the minimum required
stiffness (Kmin), the amount of shear walls obtained by using
proposed methodology (i.e., strength requirement based on dual
system concept) also satisfy the stiffness criteria (i.e., story drift
limitation) required by Saudi Building Code (SBC 301, 2007).
Under all circumstances, total stiffness of all the shear walls is
greater than the required minimum stiffness Kmin and hence the
maximum relative story drift requirement is automatically satis-
fied. This infers that for the 3-D reinforced concrete buildings,
the maximum relative story drift requirement is always satisfied
196 KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 SBC-based Assessment of Shear Wall Quantity in Moment Resisting Frame Buildings
as long as the minimum amount of shear walls, obtained from
strength requirement, is provided in each orthogonal direction
irrespective of the orientation of shear walls.
3.4 Satisfying Ductility Requirement
Ductility requirement is one of the most important requirements
for shear walls especially when they are subjected to earthquake
excitations. In the following subsections, for the present imple-
mentation example, ductility requirements are checked in both
orthogonal directions.
3.4.1 Satisfying Ductility Requirement along the x-Direction
In order to satisfy the ductility requirement, first available
curvature ductility is to be calculated and then it is to be
compared with the ductility demand. In this section, through the
selected shear wall at the middle of floor plan area, which has 10
m length (i.e., lw = 10 m) along the x-direction, it is illustrated
how to estimate the available curvature ductility and required
ductility to check the ductility requirement of seismic design in
x-direction.
The design moment, Md, coming to this shear wall was found
as 76,805 kN.m by using the proposed analytical method. The
total design axial load coming to this shear wall was due to both
vertical loads (i.e., dead loads, live loads and additional dead
loads) and unbalanced earthquake moment coming to this shear
wall. The design axial (i.e., vertical) load due to vertical loads
was calculated simply by considering the tributary areas of shear
wall. The values (for 10 stories) are calculated as follows:
Due to slab = (15 3 m2)(7 kN/m2)(10 stories) = 3,150 kN
Due to beams
= (30 m)(25 kN/m3)(0.25 0.45 m2)(10 stories) = 844 kN
Due to self weight of shear wall
= (0.25 10 m2)(25 kN/m3)(30 m) = 1,875 kN (37)
Then total design axial force was calculated by subtracting the
axial force due to unbalanced earthquake moment from the axial
force due to all vertical loads. The total design axial force,
therefore, was 5,869 160 = 5,709 kN. Knowing the design
axial load, the moment-curvature diagram as shown in Fig. 10 is
obtained by using RESPONSE 2000 program.
According to Saudi Building Code (SBC 304, 2007); if the
design shear force does not exceed ( 1/12 )Acv fc , minimum
ratio of vertical and horizontal reinforcement area to gross con-
crete area on both faces of structural walls shall be 0.0015 and
0.0025, respectively. Otherwise, the distributed web reinforcement
ratios, v and h, for structural walls shall not be less than 0.0025.
And also the ratio h of horizontal shear reinforcement area to
gross concrete area of vertical section shall not be less than
0.0025 for structural walls. In addition to this, special boundary
elements at the edges of structural walls shall be provided if the
walls are effectively continuous from the base of structure to the
top of wall and designed to have a single critical section for
flexure and axial loads. On the other hand; according to Turkish
Earthquake Code (1997), the ratio of the total area of vertical
Vol. 19, No. 1 / January 2015
Fig. 10. Moment-Curvature for lw = 10 m of Shear Wall along x-
Direction
reinforcement at each wall end zone to the gross wall cross
section area shall not be less than 0.001, however this ratio shall
be increased to 0.002 along the critical wall height.
From RESPONSE 2000, the maximum resisting moment, Mr,
of the shear wall is obtained as 80,919 kN.m, which is greater
than the design moment, Md (=76,805 kN.m). In this manner, the
strength requirement of the design is also satisfied.
In order to calculate the available ductility, the yield curvature
(y) and the ultimate curvature (u) values were obtained as 0.37
rad/km and 5.054 rad/km, respectively from Fig. 10. Hence the
available curvature ductility in x-direction, , can be calculated
as = u / y = 5.054 / 0.37 = 13.659.
To estimate the ductility demand; Eq. (26) relating the
curvature ductility to displacement ductility for the Case 2 shown
in Fig. 4, can be used.
Substituting the known values of y = 0.00037 rad/m, =5,
Hw = 30 m, h = 4.5 m, a = 2.5 m, b = 2 m, k = 0.0000015623 rad/
m and lp= 0.2lw + 0.044Hw= 0.2(10 m) +0.044(30 m) =3.32 m in
Eq. (28), curvature ductility demand (i.e., required curvature
ductility) is calculated as 9.536. Since ()available (= 13.659) >
()demand (=9.536), the ductility requirement was satisfied along
the x-direction.
3.4.2 Satisfying Ductility Requirement along the y-Direc-
tion
Now following the same procedure as above for the shear wall
at the middle of floor plan area, which has 10 m length (i.e., lw =
10 m) along the y-direction, it is illustrated how to estimate the
available curvature ductility and required ductility to check the
ductility requirement of seismic design in y-direction.
Like in x-direction, the design moment, Md, coming to this
shear wall was found as 76,131 kN.m by using the proposed
analytical method. Since the axial load due to unbalanced
earthquake moment coming to this shear wall was zero (as the
distance from the center of gravity of shear wall to that of the
structure was zero), the design axial load on this shear wall was
due to only the vertical loads (i.e., dead loads, live loads and
additional dead loads). This design axial (i.e., vertical) load was
calculated simply by considering the tributary areas of shear
197
 Ahmet Tuken and Nadeem A. Siddiqui

wall. The values (for 10 stories) are calculated as follows:

Due to slab = (11,5 5 m2)(7 kN/m2)(10 stories) = 4,025 kN
Due to beams
= (23 m)(25 kN/m3)(0.250.45 m2)(10 stories) = 647 kN
Due to self weight of shear wall =
(0.2510 m2)(25 kN/m3)(30 m)= 1,875 kN (38)
Then the total design axial force, calculated by subtracting the
axial force due to unbalanced earthquake moment from the axial
force due to all vertical loads, is obtained as 6,547-520 = 6,027
kN. As before, knowing the design axial load, the moment-
curvature diagram as shown in Fig. 11 is obtained by using
RESPONSE 2000 program. From RESPONSE 2000, the Fig. 11. Moment-Curvature for lw = 10 m of Shear Wall along Y-
Direction
maximum resisting moment, Mr, of the shear wall is obtained as
81,519 kN.m, which is greater than the design moment, Md (=
76,131 kN.m). In this manner, the strength requirement of the amount of shear walls determined according to the proposed
design is also satisfied. methodology.
Again following the same procedure as followed in x- A method was developed to measure the ductility of the shear
direction, the yield curvature (y) and the ultimate curvature (u) walls to satisfy the displacement ductility ratio of 5, which is
values were obtained as 0.38 rad/km and 5.054 rad/km, respec- generally used in the seismic resistant design of the buildings. It
tively from Fig. 11. Hence, the available curvature ductility in y- was also illustrated how to estimate the available curvature
direction, , can be calculated as = u / y = 5.054 / 0.38 = ductility and required ductility of the shear walls to check the
13.3. ductility requirement of seismic design in two orthogonal
To estimate the ductility demand; Eq. (26) relating the directions.
curvature ductility to displacement ductility for the Case 2 shown
in Fig. 4, can be used. Notations
Substituting the known values of y = 0.00038 rad/m, = 5,
Hw = 30 m, h = 4.5m, a = 2.5, b = 2, k = 0.0000017163 rad/m and Acv = Gross section area of shear wall
lp= 0.2lw + 0.044 Hw= 0.2 10 m + 0.044 30 m = 3.32 m in Eq. Ap = Plan area of building
(28), curvature ductility demand (i.e., required curvature ductility) Api = Plan area of the ith floor
is calculated as 9.5. Since ()available (= 13.3) > ()demand (= 9.5), bw = Width of shear wall
the ductility requirement was satisfied along the y-direction too. di = Lateral displacement calculated at ith storey of
building
4. Conclusions E= Modulus of elasticity of concrete
fc = Specified compressive strength of concrete
Following are the major conclusion which can be drawn from fy = Specified yield strength of longitudinal rein-
the proposed formulation and implementation study. forcement
The proposed analytical method is an easy-to-apply method to GA = Equivalent shear stiffness of building
determine the amount of shear walls necessary to make hi = Height of ith storey
reinforced concrete regular buildings seismic-resistant against H= Height of building
moderate to severe earthquakes. Hw = Total shear wall height
The amount of shear walls necessary to satisfy strength I= Occupancy importance factor
requirements also fulfills the stiffness criteria (i.e., story drift K= Total stiffness of all shear walls along the axis
limitation) required by the Saudi Building Code (SBC 301, considered
2007). The same quantity of shear walls also satisfies the li = ith story column length, measured from axis to axis
ductility requirements imposed by the SBC. lp = Height of plastic hinge region of a shear wall
For 3-D reinforced concrete regular buildings, the maximum lw = Length of shear wall
relative story drift requirement of SBC 301 (2007) is always Md = Design moment
satisfied as long as the minimum amount of shear walls, obtained Mot = Total overturning moment
from strength requirement, is provided in each orthogonal N = Axial force due to unbalanced moment caused by
direction irrespective of the orientation of the shear walls. earthquake effect
The shear-wall frame structure should possess sufficient stiffness n= Number of storey
in order to prevent the instability after the formation of a plastic p= Top intensity of uniformly distributed lateral trian-
hinge in a ductile shear wall. This stiffness is provided by the gular load

198 KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 SBC-based Assessment of Shear Wall Quantity in Moment Resisting Frame Buildings
R = Response modification factor
SDS = The design, 5% damped, spectral response accele-
ration in the short period range
SBC = Saudi Building Code
T = Building natural vibration period
UBC = Uniform Building Code
Vr = Shear strength of a cross section of column, beam
or wall
Vt = Total equivalent seismic load (base shear) acting
on a building
W = The effective seismic weight of the structure
i = Storey drift of ith storey of building
n = Ratio of area of distributed reinforcement parallel
to the plane of Acv to gross concrete area perpen-
dicular to that reinforcement
= Curvature ductility
= Displacement ductility
u = Ultimate curvature
y = Yield curvature
u = Displacement at the top of the structure at ultimate
stage
y = Displacement at the top of the structure at initiation
of yielding at the base of shear wall
Acknowledgements
The work presented in this paper was funded by the Deanship
of Scientific Research, Research Centre, College of Engineering,
King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia through Research
Grant No. 19/434.
References
Aksogan, O., Bikce, M., Emsen, E., and Arslan, H. M. (2007). A
simplified dynamic analysis of multi-bay stiffened coupled shear
walls. Advances in Engineering Software, Vol. 38, Nos. 8-9, pp.
552560.
Balasubramanian, S. R., Rao, K. B., Basu, D., Anoop, M. B., and
Vaidyanathan, C. V. (2011). An improved method for estimation of
elastic lateral stiffness of brick masonry shear walls with openings.
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 281-293.
Beyer, K., Dazio, A., and Priestley, M. J. N. (2011). Shear deformations of
slender reinforced concrete walls under seismic loading. ACI
Structural Journal, Vol. 108, No. 2, pp. 167-177.
Burak, B. and Comlekoglu, H. G. (2013). Effect of shear wall area to
floor area ratio on the seismic behavior of reinforced concrete
Vol. 19, No. 1 / January 2015
buildings. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 139, No.
11, pp. 1928-1937.
Kara, I. F. and Dundar, C.(2009). Prediction of deflection of reinforced
concrete shear walls. Advances in Engineering Software, Vol. 40,
No. 9, pp. 777785.
Lestuzzi, P. and Bachmann, H. (2007). Displacement ductility and
energy assessment from shaking table tests on RC structural walls.
Engineering Structures, Vol. 29, No. 8, pp. 1708-1721.
Lu, X., and Chen, Y. (2005). Modeling of coupled shear walls and its
experimental verification. Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 131, No. 1, pp. 75-84.
Marini, A. and Meda, A. (2009). Retrofitting of R/C shear walls by
means of high performance jackets. Engineering Structures, Vol.
31, No. 12, pp. 3059-3064.
Meftah, S. A., Mohri, F., and Daya, E. M. (2013). Seismic behavior of
RC coupled shear walls with strengthened coupling beams by
bonded thin composite plates. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering,
Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 403-414.
Neuenhofer, A. (2006). Lateral stiffness of shear walls with openings.
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 132, No. 11, pp.
1846-1851.
Ni, C. and Karacabeyli, E. (2007). Performance of shear walls with
diagonal or transverse lumber sheathing. Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 133, No. 12, pp. 1832-1842.
Paulay, T. and Priestley, M. J. N. (1992). Seismic design of reinforced
concrete and masonry buildings, John Wiley & Sons.
SBC 301 (2007). Loading and forces requirements, Saudi Building
Code, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
SBC 304 (2007). Concrete structures requirements, Saudi Building
Code, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Tjhin, T. N., Aschheim, M. A. and Wallace, J. W. (2007). Yield
displacement-based seismic design of RC wall buildings. Engineering
Structures, Vol. 29, No. 11, pp. 2946-2959.
Tuken, A. (2004). Analysis and assessment of seismic drift of reinforced
concrete mixed (shear wall-frame) structures. Technology, Vol. 7,
No. 4, pp. 523-532.
Tuken, A. and Siddiqui, N.A. (2011). A simplified analytical procedure
to determine the amount of shear walls in reinforced concrete
buildings. 7th International Conference on Analytical Models and
New Concepts in Concrete and Masonry Structures, AMCM 2011,
Ktakow, Poland, June 13-15, 2011.
Turkish Earthquake Code (1997). Specification for structures to be built
in disaster areas, Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, Ankara,
Turkey.
UBC (1997). Uniform Building Code, International Conference of
Building Officials.
Zhang, Y., and Wang, Z. (2000). Seismic behavior of reinforced
concrete shear walls subjected to high axial loading. ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 97, No. 5, pp. 739-750.
199