Bull Earthquake Eng
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0362-4
CASE STUDY REPORT
Shear migration and dynamic shear amplification effects
on seismic response of core walls
Eren Vuran1
Received: 16 November 2017 / Accepted: 2 April 2018
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018
Abstract Dynamic shear amplification and shear migration are two important phenom-
ena that could be critical for shear design of structural core walls. Dynamic shear ampli-
fication has been studied for cantilever walls since 1970s. Similarly, shear migration
phenomenon has been observed at coupled wall tests since mid-1970s. Yet, there is no
consensus among seismic design codes for consideration of the effects of dynamic shear
amplification and shear migration, especially for coupled wall systems. The paper presents
the effect of dynamic shear amplification on cantilever walls and shear migration effect on
coupled core walls, which are vital elements for seismic design of tall buildings. Demon-
strative examples on core walls are presented for both phenomena.
Keywords Tall buildings · Core wall systems · Dynamic shear amplification · Shear
migration
1 Introduction
Reinforced concrete structural walls are major components of structural systems of tall
buildings as they provide lateral stiffness and strength against both wind and seismic
effects. In ductile design of structural walls, the main concern is the prevention of brit-
tle shear failure. Dynamic shear amplification and shear migration are two important phe-
nomena that could be critical for shear design of structural walls. The unique characteris-
tic of both of these phenomena is that they cannot be observed by linear analysis. While
dynamic shear amplification can only be detected from dynamic shake table tests, nonlin-
ear response history analysis or multi-modal adaptive pushover analysis (Krawinkler 2006;
Aydınoğlu 2014), shear migration can also be observed from static loading tests and con-
ventional pushover analysis.
* Eren Vuran
[email protected]
1
Balkar Engineering and Consulting Inc., Ebulula Cad. 7/A, 34330 Levent, Istanbul, Turkey
13
Bull Earthquake Eng
Dynamic shear amplification phenomenon is always encountered in an isolated single
cantilever wall. Following the formation of a moment hinge at the base of the wall, the
higher mode shear effects, notably participation of the second mode is amplified due to a
significant modification of seismic load distribution (Celep 2008).
On the other hand, shear migration is another shear related phenomenon that could
occur not only in walls, but more generally in all yielding structural elements and systems.
In walled systems, it essentially represents the transfer (or migration) of shear from yielded
wall(s) to non-yielded wall(s) (Rutenberg 2013). In particular, for a coupled core wall sys-
tem shear migration is an inevitable effect where the shear in yielded tension wall partially
or almost fully migrates to the non-yielded compression wall.
Although, these two phenomena have been studied for more than 40 years, there is no
consensus among seismic codes and guidelines regarding the consideration of the effects of
dynamic shear amplification and shear migration.
This paper is intended to clarify the effects of dynamic shear amplification and shear
migration on core wall systems which are commonly used in tall buildings. Descriptions of
both phenomena are briefly presented, which are followed by two demonstrative examples
where nonlinear shear demand analyses are performed on a typical core wall system. In the
first example shear migration effect is demonstrated on a core wall of a tall building featur-
ing coupled wall behaviour in one direction. The second example is presented to demon-
strate the effect of dynamic shear amplification in the perpendicular direction of the same
core wall featuring cantilever wall behaviour. It is worth noting that structures simultane-
ously oscillate in both directions during the seismic attack, hence bending and shear behav-
ior of a core wall system cannot be disaggregated for two orthogonal directions. However,
in order to have a clear understanding of the effects of shear migration and dynamic shear
amplification, core wall samples are analysed separately for each orthogonal direction.
2 Dynamic shear amplification phenomenon
The observations for dynamic shear amplification has started with the pioneer study by
Blakeley et al. (1975). They showed that the base shear of a structural wall obtained by
means of nonlinear response history analyses is amplified with respect to the base shear
obtained from elastic analysis procedures due to higher mode effects just after the forma-
tion of a plastic hinge at the wall base. It was concluded that, amplification factor increases
with increasing period of vibration, decreasing damping ratio and decreasing flexural
overstrength.
Celep (2008) clearly explains the physical nature of dynamic shear amplification: “As
with systems exhibiting cantilever like behavior, structural wall systems are statically
unstable but dynamically stable structures when flexural yielding occurs at their bases.
During seismic excitation, as the system alters from linear to nonlinear behavior mode,
a plastic hinge or a series of hinges develop at the base of the wall and the structural wall
loses its redundancy for a time interval until it is stabilized back by inertia forces. During
this time interval, a new system with a completely unique dynamic characteristics prevail
until the system velocity becomes zero, and the linear phase initiates with unloading.” This
interesting phenomenon can be explained as well in terms of modal response as follows.
Immediately after a hinge is formed at the base of a cantilever wall, modal characteris-
tics of the wall are abruptly altered. In the new hinged system, the first mode turns out to be
an idle/unloaded mode with a straight-line mode shape and zero natural frequency, while
13
Bull Earthquake Eng
all other modes are effectively forced to represent the entire seismic loading, provided that
no additional base moment is developed, i.e., loadings in all modes are bound to satisfy
the zero-moment condition at the base. This condition effectively forces the modal seismic
loads to amplify in the lower parts of the wall, which in turn leads to a shear amplification.
Dynamic shear amplification has been studied by many researchers since the paper
by Blakeley et al. (1975) published. These research showed that the ductility level of the
wall and the intensity of the ground motion are also effective parameters besides the first-
mode period, damping ratio and flexural overstrength. Empirical equations involving these
parameters have been presented to be used in seismic design codes and guidelines. A
comprehensive literature review on dynamic shear amplification was provided by Ruten-
berg (2013). No additional review is deemed necessary in the present paper. Dynamic
shear amplification is considered in different formats in a number of seismic codes, such
as Eurocode 8 (CEN 2004), Turkish Seismic Design Code (MPWS 2007), Canadian rein-
forced concrete design code CSA-A23.3-04 (CSA 2004), New Zealand seismic design
code NZS 3101 (NZS 2006), to name a few.
It is worth mentioning that the dynamic shear amplification is generally less impor-
tant for coupled walls. In coupled walls bending moment capacity of compression wall
increases with increasing axial compression forces. Hence, when flexural yielding occurs
at the tension wall, the compression wall would still behave linearly due to increased bend-
ing moment capacity under high compression. Therefore, coupled walls would unlikely be
unstable, hence the effect of dynamic shear amplification would be almost null or relatively
very low as compared to higher amplification encountered in cantilever walls. However, if
there is an extremely strong coupling between the walls, then the behaviour of the coupled
wall would turn to be similar to a single cantilever wall. The same is valid for the case of
extremely weak coupling between the walls, leading to each wall to behave as an individ-
ual cantilever wall. In such extreme cases, dynamic shear amplification would likely to be
important for coupled walls as well.
3 Shear migration phenomenon
Shear migration phenomenon could be principally explained as the transfer of shear from
yielded element(s) to non-yielded element(s). Storey shear force or base shear of a multi-
storey building is distributed among lateral load bearing structural members based on the
proportions of their stiffness. Following the yielding of some of the members, additional
loads would be carried by the non-yielded ones. This is an inevitable case for the buildings
with coupled walls, where the shear in yielded tension wall partially or fully migrates to
the non-yielded compression wall.
Shear migration phenomenon has been observed in several research carried out on cou-
pled walls. The common objectives of these studies were to determine effects of beam
strength on behavior of coupled walls and to determine the critical design parameters for
coupled wall systems. Shear migration phenomenon was reported in all of these studies
rather as a side-product.
A series of coupled wall test involving static reversed cyclic loading, was carried out by
Santhakumar (1974), and Paulay and Santhakumar (1976). Although, behavior of coupling
beams was the main concern of these research, significant amount of shear migration was
observed between tension and compression walls, as 75% of the base shear was resisted by
the compression wall at ultimate load.
13
Bull Earthquake Eng
Mahin and Bertero (1976) performed static and dynamic analyses of a coupled wall sys-
tem of an actual building. They observed that with increasing flexural capacity of coupling
beams, axial forces transmitted to walls were increased, resulting larger shear and moment
capacity at compression wall, and lower shear and moment capacity at tension wall. They
also concluded as “It is doubtful that the seismic behavior of coupled wall systems can
be adequately assessed using results of elastic analyses alone. Static inelastic analyses are
useful in evaluating structural behavior and in estimating internal forces. A good indica-
tion of seismic response can be provided by nonlinear dynamic analyses. However, further
improvements are desirable in modelling the force–deformation characteristics of members
subjected to numerous plastic reversals and the combined effects of axial load, shear and
bending.”
Aristizabal-Ochoa and Sozen (1976) performed dynamic tests of four 1/12-scale ten-
story coupled wall systems, having variations in the strength of coupled wall systems.
Also, nonlinear static and dynamic analyses were employed by Takayanagi and Schnobrich
(1979) for these coupled wall models. The results of the static analysis under monotoni-
cally increasing load showed that when cracking in the tension wall was initiated, base
shear suddenly started shifting to the compression wall due to the change in the flexural
rigidity of the walls. 28% of the base shear was resisted by the compression wall until
yielding of the compression wall initiated. After yielding of the compression wall, the
base shear started to re-establish back and shear at the tension wall increased (Takayanagi
1977).
In the beginning of 1980s, an integrated analytical and experimental research program
for coupled walls was carried out at University of California, Berkeley. Aktan and Bertero
(1984) used “a typical redistribution of total shear force” term to define the shear redis-
tribution between tension and compression walls under cyclic loading, as 90% of the base
shear was resisted by the compression wall at ultimate load level. They emphasized that the
measured redistribution was caused not only by variations in flexural stiffness but also by
variations in the shear stiffness of tension and compression walls. Moreover, shear transfer
among the walls would create axial forces on coupling beams, which affects flexure and
shear behavior of these members.
Structural walls coupled by short coupling beams were investigated experimentally and
analytically by Shiu et al. (1984). The results indicated that redistribution of shear and
moment was significant in strongly coupled wall system; at the end of the analyses, 80% of
base shear and 40% of overturning moment was resisted by compression wall, while cou-
pling action and tension wall contributed to overturning moment by 50 and 10%, respec-
tively. Also, shear redistribution was limited in the lightly coupled system.
The analytical and experimental studies summarized in the paragraphs above involve
use of different modelling techniques for members of coupled wall systems, application
of different numerical analysis procedures and utilization of different experimental tools.
Although, these research clearly showed that behavior of coupled wall system is mainly
determined by coupling beams, it is also evident that there is an interaction between cou-
pling beams and coupled walls, which needs to be considered during the design process.
However, starting from the end of 1990s, researchers have focused on investigating more
efficient design of coupling beams in terms of strength and ductility capacity, as well as
constructability. In this respect, reinforced concrete coupling beams with different rein-
forcement layouts and steel coupling beams with or without post-tensioning have been
numerically analysed or experimentally tested.
Shear migration phenomenon was well covered in the classical textbook for seismic
design of reinforced concrete structures by Paulay and Priestley (1992). In this reference,
13
Bull Earthquake Eng
capacity design rules were effectively applied for coupled wall systems. An equation was
suggested for the estimation of maximum shear force for one wall of the coupled wall sys-
tem, using the concepts of inelastic force redistribution. The provisions of New Zealand
seismic design code, NZS3101 (NZS 2006), follows a similar approach. It is expressed for
coupled wall systems in Clause 2.6.8.3 as “Capacity design procedures shall be used to
ensure that ductility of the coupling system can be maintained at its overstrength value.”
In addition, at the commentary it is noted that the walls shall be designed at least 1.5 times
the overturning moment determined for code-specified horizontal forces, due to axial
forces induced by the coupling beams at their flexural overstrength. Also, redistribution
of moments between coupled structural walls due to lateral seismic force is allowed up to
30%.
Chaallal and Gauthier (2000) conducted a series of nonlinear response history analyses
on coupled rectangular walls, in order to evaluate seismic shear demand and establish a
code-format shear design procedure for coupled walls. The results of this study is reflected
in Canadian reinforced concrete design code CSA-A23.3-04 (CSA 2004).
A research was carried out by Lehman et al. (2013) to investigate the response of a mid-
rise coupled wall, designed as per requirements of ASCE/SEI 7-05 (ASCE 2005) and ACI
318-08 (ACI 2008). A test specimen representing the lower 3 stories of a 10-story build-
ing was exposed to cyclic loading protocol and progress of damage on coupled wall sys-
tem was reported in detail. Nonlinear finite element analyses were conducted to determine
the loading protocol, and the analyses results showed that relative proportioning of shear
demands in the compression and tension wall piers were 90 and 10%, respectively.
Recently Aydınoğlu (2014) clearly demonstrated the shear migration effect on a coupled
wall system utilizing multi-mode adaptive pushover analysis procedure IRSA.
A detailed literature review for coupled wall systems and coupling beams were pre-
sented by Vuran (2014). Vuran and Aydınoğlu (2016) proposed a methodology, so called
Capacity and Ductility Demand Estimation Procedures for preliminary design of coupled
core wall systems. They verified these procedures with a parametric study and they also
performed nonlinear response history analyses for a series of coupled core wall systems.
The results of the analyses, confirming the effects of shear migration and dynamic shear
amplification, were taken into account in the methodology by utilizing one amplification
factor for each of the phenomena to estimate the shear demands on coupled core wall
systems.
4 Demonstration examples of dynamic shear amplification and shear
migration effects on a core wall system
In the parametric study performed by Vuran and Aydınoğlu (2016), nonlinear response his-
tory analyses were performed for core wall systems of several tall building samples. Struc-
tural systems of these buildings are comprised of a central core wall system and peripheral
gravity columns. The central core wall system, forming a square shape, is composed of
symmetrical ⊂ shape walls coupled in one direction. The coupling beams have a constant
depth/span ratio of 1/2. Details of the variations in these models can be found elsewhere
(Vuran 2014).
For space limitations, only one of these tall building samples called CW12 is evaluated
here in terms of shear behavior. As shown in Fig. 1, CW12 represents a 30 storey build-
ing, having a square central core wall system with outer plan dimension of 12 m. Height
13
Bull Earthquake Eng
Fig. 1 Core wall system, CW12,
where the effects of shear migra-
tion and dynamic shear amplifi-
cation are evaluated (Vuran and
Aydınoğlu 2016)
of the core wall system is arranged so that aspect ratio (height/length) of the core is equal
to 10, hence height of each storey is 4 m. Thicknesses of walls are 0.75 m at 1st–10th sto-
ries, 0.60 m at 11th–20th stories and 0.45 m at 21st–30th stories. Height of coupling beam
is 1.25 m at each storey. Walls are reinforced according to the requirements of Turkish
Seismic Design Code (MPWS 2007). Minimum wall total reinforcement ratio is denoted
as 𝜌I and corresponding mechanical reinforcement ratio is 𝜔I. The reinforcement of cou-
pling beams is designed such that total coupling shear at the ultimate level would cause
pure tension yielding in the tension wall. In this sense, this is the highest level of coupling
that could be attained for a coupled wall system (strain-hardening in reinforcing steel is
neglected).
For CW12, the only independent parameter, mechanical reinforcement ratio of walls
(𝜔), is changed within the{ limitations of
} applied seismic code. Three variations of CW12,
with three levels of 𝜔 = 𝜔I , 2𝜔I , 3𝜔I are subjected to nonlinear response history analy-
ses. For the sake of simplicity, CW12 is analysed as a core-only model by ignoring the
stiffness and strength contributions of perimeter frames. Walls are modelled with fiber
elements and coupling beams are modelled as diagonal tension and compression struts,
directly representing the reinforcement bundles and the core concrete surrounded by diag-
onal reinforcement. The analytical model also include horizontal reinforcement struts to
balance the axial force difference between diagonal struts. Analyses are performed with
specialized software PERFORM-3D (CSI 2011). Other modelling and analysis details of
walls and coupling beams can be found in Vuran (2014).
The core wall systems are analysed under a typical MCE level earthquake, namely
Chi–Chi earthquake (1999) record No.TCU065, taken from PEER Strong Ground Motion
Database.
As expressed in the introduction part, the same core wall samples are analysed sepa-
rately for each orthogonal direction in order to clarify the effects of shear migration and
dynamic shear amplification, respectively. Shear migration effect is demonstrated on
the core wall sample featuring coupled wall behaviour in one direction, while the sec-
ond example is presented to demonstrate the effect of dynamic shear amplification in the
13
Bull Earthquake Eng
perpendicular direction of the same core wall featuring cantilever wall behaviour. The non-
linear shear demands of the core as well as each pier are monitored for particular time
instants at which total base overturning moment, total core shear and shear of one of the
coupled wall piers reach their peaks.
It is worth mentioning that the walls are not modelled with plastic hinges utilizing
elasto-plastic behavior, instead fiber modelling approach is used in this study. The forma-
tion of a plastic hinge at the base of a wall which is leading to an abrupt change in modal
characteristics can never take place in fiber modelling. Thus, the amplification of shear
demand that is attributed to dynamic shear amplification does not fully correspond to the
theoretical characteristics of the phenomenon described with plastic hinge modelling.
Moreover, complete disaggregation of shear migration and dynamic shear amplification
effects is not possible for coupled wall behavior, since the shear force can migrate from
tension wall to compression wall while total core shear is amplified due to higher mode
effects.
4.1 An example of shear migration effect on a core wall system featuring coupled
wall behavior
The effect of shear migration on core wall systems is always traced where the core wall
system exhibits coupled wall behavior. Because of axial tension and compression forces
induced by coupling shear, the moment capacity of tension wall decreases, while the
moment capacity of compression wall increases. Therefore, shear migration effect is
expected when the coupling shear reaches its peak, hence total base overturning moment
of the core wall system. This instant also coincides the time when the shear of one of the
piers reaches its peak. An exception could be the case of extremely strong coupling where
the moment capacity of compression wall may also decrease under high axial compression
force leading to backwards transfer of shear to tension wall.
In any case, the instant at which the shear of one of the piers reaches its peak would
result in the maximum amount of shear migration. In Table 1, where the nonlinear shear
demands are presented for this instant, column (1) refers to total core shear, while columns
(2) and (3) refers to shear at tension and compression walls, respectively. At column (4),
the ratio of compression wall shear to total core shear refers to the amount of shear migra-
tion, i.e. when this ratio is equal to unity, then full total core shear would be resisted by
the compression wall. Linear analysis procedures would always result in an equal share of
total core shear among the tension and compression walls such that this ratio is always 0.5.
Therefore, the increase in shear due to shear migration, which is denoted by 𝛼VM is defined
as the ratio of the amount of shear migration divided by 0.5 (column (5)). In this example,
increase in shear due to shear migration varies between 1.65 and 1.75.
Table 1 Nonlinear shear demands at t = t Vpier,max (coupled wall behavior)
Core wall system VCORE (kN) VTW (kN) VCW (kN) VCW
{ }
𝜔 𝛼VM (4)
(1) (2) (3) VCORE 0.5
(4) (5)
CW12 𝜔I 41,361 5816 35,545 0.86 1.72
CW12 2𝜔I 49,039 6183 42,856 0.87 1.75
CW12 3𝜔I 55,156 9654 45,502 0.82 1.65
13
Bull Earthquake Eng
Bending moment and shear profiles of coupled walls obtained through nonlinear
response history analysis (NRHA) are depicted at Fig. 2.
4.2 An example of dynamic shear amplification effect on a core wall system
featuring cantilever wall behavior
The effect of dynamic shear amplification on core wall systems is involved where the core
wall system exhibits cantilever wall behavior. As noted previously, shear migration phe-
nomenon is of no concern for isolated cantilever wall behavior.
Dynamic shear amplification is expected when the total core shear reaches its peak
just after the flexural yielding at the base of the core wall system. Nonlinear response
history analyses results are consistent with this condition such that the instants of peak
total base overturning moment and total core shear are observed to occur one immediately
after another at two consecutive instants. Shear forces obtained by nonlinear response his-
tory analyses are compared with a reference value obtained from a linear response his-
tory analysis for an elastic model of CW12 core wall system with cracked section stiffness
properties.
In Table 2 below, nonlinear shear demands are presented for the instant when the total
core shear reaches its peak. In the table, total base overturning moment obtained through
linear dynamic and nonlinear dynamic analyses are shown at columns (1) and (2), respec-
tively. At column (3), strength reduction factors (RY) are calculated as the ratio of peak val-
ues of total base overturning moment obtained from linear dynamic analysis to nonlinear
dynamic analysis. Total core shear obtained through linear dynamic analyses and nonlinear
dynamic analyses are shown at columns (4) and (6), respectively. The reduced total core
shear is calculated by dividing the shear demand obtained through linear dynamic analysis
by RY (column (5)). The ratio of nonlinear total core shear to reduced total core shear refers
to the amount of dynamic shear amplification (column (7)). In this example, amount of
dynamic shear amplification varies between 1.57 and 2.59.
Bending moment and shear profiles of the core wall system obtained through nonlinear
response history analysis (NRHA) and reduced linear response history analysis (LRHA)
are depicted at Fig. 3.
5 Concluding remarks
Reinforced concrete structural walls, core wall systems in particular, are indispensable
components of structural systems of tall buildings as they provide major part of the resist-
ance against seismic attack. Shear is the most critical failure mode to be avoided in ductile
structural walls. Shear migration and dynamic shear amplification are two critical phenom-
ena for shear design of structural walls that have been studied since mid-1970s. Yet, there
is no consensus among the seismic codes for consideration of the effects of shear migration
and dynamic shear amplification, especially for core wall systems.
In the present paper both shear migration and dynamic shear amplification phenomena
are defined and the conditions leading to such shear response are clarified. A literature
review and main observations are briefly presented for shear migration effect on coupled
wall systems. Subsequently, the effects of shear migration and dynamic shear amplification
are demonstrated with two numerical examples, based on nonlinear dynamic analyses per-
formed for a series of core wall systems.
13
Bull Earthquake Eng
Fig. 2 Bending moment and shear profiles of coupled walls at t = t Vpier,max , for three levels of mechanical
reinforcement ratio 𝜔 (coupled wall behavior)
13
13
Table 2 Nonlinear shear demands at t = tVCORE,max(cantilever wall behavior)
M M V V V V
Core wall system 𝜔 CORE,lin (kNm) CORE,nolin (kNm) RY (3) CORE,lin (kN) CORE,reduced (kN) CORE,nolin (kN) CORE,nolin
V
(1) (2) (4) (5) (6) CORE,reduced
(7)
CW12 𝜔I 7,008,974 2,222,800 3.15 145,666 46,196 119,644 2.59
CW12 2𝜔I 7,008,974 2,966,000 2.36 145,666 61,642 106,724 1.73
CW12 3𝜔I 7,008,974 3,491,600 2.01 145,666 72,565 113,748 1.57
Bull Earthquake Eng
Bull Earthquake Eng
Fig. 3 Bending moment and shear profiles of core wall system at t = t VCORE,max , for three levels of mechani-
cal reinforcement ratio 𝜔 (cantilever wall behavior)
13
Bull Earthquake Eng
The analyses results show that shear design of core walls exhibiting coupled wall behav-
ior is governed by shear migration effect. Although, the increase in shear due to shear
migration is calculated between 1.65 and 1.75 for the example core wall system, the com-
plete migration of shear from tension wall to compression wall is possible. It means that
shear demand on coupled walls obtained by linear analysis procedures could be amplified
by twice due to shear migration effect.
For the core wall systems featuring isolated cantilever wall behavior, shear migration
phenomenon is out of concern, and the effect of dynamic shear amplification governs the
shear design of core wall system. The amount of dynamic shear amplification determined
for example core wall system varies between 1.57 and 2.59.
More comprehensive research is necessary with parametric studies involving nonlinear
response history analyses with sufficient number of ground motion data as well as different
variables and modelling techniques. It is expected that such studies would eventually lead
the seismic design codes to incorporate shear amplification and shear migration effects
appropriately in the seismic design process.
References
ACI (2008) Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary. ACI 318-08/ACI 318R-08,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA
Aktan AE, Bertero VV (1984) Seismic response of R/C frame-wall structures. J Struct Eng 110:1803–1821
Aristizabal-Ochoa JD, Sozen MA (1976) Behavior of ten-story reinforced concrete walls subjected to earth-
quake motions. Civil Eng Studies, SRS No. 431, University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign, USA
ASCE (2005) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-05,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, USA
Aydınoğlu MN (2014) Challenges and problems in performance-based design of tall buildings. In: “Perfor-
mance-Based Seismic Engineering: Vision for a Earthquake Resilient Society”, Proceedings of Inter-
national Workshop in Bled, Slovenia, 2011, Springer, Chapter 20, pp 279–300
Blakeley RWG, Cooney RC, Megget LM (1975) Seismic shear loading at flexural capacity in cantilever wall
structures. Bull N Z Nat Soc Earthq Eng 8:278–290
Celep U (2008) Dynamic shear amplification in seismic response of structural wall systems. Ph.D. Thesis,
Boğaziçi University, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute, Istanbul, Turkey
CEN (2004) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance—Part 1: General rules, seismic
actions and rules for buildings. EN1998-1, Brussels
Chaallal O, Gauthier D (2000) Seismic shear demand on wall segments of ductile coupled shear walls. Can
J Civil Eng 27:506–522
CSA (2004) Design of concrete structures. Standard CAN/CSA-A23.3-04. Canadian Standards Association,
Rexdale, Canada
CSI (2011) PERFORM-3D, nonlinear analysis and performance assessment for 3D structures, Version 5.
Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley
Krawinkler H (2006) Importance of good nonlinear analysis. Struct Design Tall Spec Build 15:515–531
Lehman DE, Turgeon JA, Birely AC, Hart CR, Marley KP, Kuchma DA, Lowes LN (2013) Seismic behav-
ior of a modern concrete coupled wall. J Struct Eng 139:1371–1381
Mahin SA, Bertero VV (1976) Nonlinear seismic response of coupled wall system. J Struct Div ASCE
102(ST9):1759–1780
MPWS (2007) Turkish seismic design code. Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, Ankara
NZS (2006) NZS 3101: Part 1, Concrete structures standard; Part 2, Commentary on the design of concrete
structures. New Zealand Standards, Wellington
Paulay T, Priestley MJN (1992) Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings. Wiley, New
York, p 744
Paulay T, Santhakumar AR (1976) Ductile behavior of coupled shear walls. J Struct Div ASCE
102(ST1):93–108
Rutenberg A (2013) Seismic shear forces on RC walls: review and bibliography. Bull Earthq Eng
11:1727–1757
13
Bull Earthquake Eng
Santhakumar AR (1974) Ductility of coupled shear walls. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Canterbury
Shiu NK, Takayanagi T, Corley WG (1984) Seismic behavior of coupled wall systems. J Struct Eng
110:1051–1066
Takayanagi T (1977) Computed behavior of coupled shear walls. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Illinois,
Urbana Champaign
Takayanagi T, Schnobrich WC (1979) Nonlinear analysis of coupled wall systems. Earthq Eng Struc Dyn
7:1–22
Vuran E (2014) Development and verification of seismic capacity and ductility demand estimation proce-
dures for coupled core wall systems. Ph.D. Dissertation, Boğaziçi University, Kandilli Observatory
and Earthquake Reseach Institute, Department of Earthquake Engineering
Vuran E, Aydınoğlu MN (2016) Capacity and ductility demand estimation procedures for preliminary
design of coupled core wall systems of tall buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 14:721–745
13
