Engineering Structures 200 (2019) 109668

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Shear force magnification in reinforced concrete walls of high-rise buildings T

designed according to Eurocode 8
⁎
Jelena Pejovic , Nina Serdar, Radenko Pejovic, Srdjan Jankovic
University of Montenegro, Faculty of Civil Engineering, 81000 Podgorica, Montenegro

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The paper contains a discussion of shear force magnification in reinforced concrete (RC) walls of high-rise
RC high-rise buildings buildings designed according to Eurocode 8. An extensive study is performed in order to examine the applic-
RC walls ability of Eurocode 8 procedure in determination of shear forces in RC walls of high-rise buildings. In addition,
Shear magnification factor the applicability of Eurocode 8 provisions related to ductility classes for seismic design of RC high-rise buildings
Eurocode 8
is investigated. 20-storey, 30-storey and 40-storey RC high-rise buildings with core wall structural system are
Nonlinear time-history analysis
Ductility class
selected as prototype buildings in presented study. 180 nonlinear time-history analyses are conducted for 60
ground motion records with a wide range of magnitudes, distances to source and various soil types including in
this way uncertainties of ground motion selection. Nonlinear 3D models of the prototype buildings are con-
structed. Shear force magnification factors obtained by Eurocode 8 procedure are compared with the results of
nonlinear time-history analyses. The current formulation of Eurocode 8 procedure yields significantly incorrect
results when it is applied to RC walls of high-rise buildings. The conducted analysis has clearly indicated the
possible modifications and improvements in calculation of the Eurocode 8 magnification factor ε for RC walls of
the high-rise buildings. The need of introducing a single ductility class for RC walls of high-rise buildings is
pointed out. The corrected magnification factor εcor defined in a more general way with variable ratio of second
mode shear force to the first mode shear force at the base of the wall is proposed. Further, based on the corrected
magnification factor εcor the shear force design envelopes for RC walls of high-rise buildings that best match the
actual shear forces obtained from nonlinear time-history analysis are proposed.

1. Introduction
The principal source of energy dissipation in laterally loaded RC
walls is the yielding of the flexural reinforcement in the plastic hinge
regions, normally at the base of the wall. The occurrence of the plastic
hinges in upper storeys is undesirable from design point of view be-
cause those potential plastic hinges require more special and more
expensive detail. Namely, when plastic hinges are formed above the
base of the wall at some height, the required ductility of those zones is
greatly increased to attain required displacement ductility. It is more
rational to ensure that plastic hinges can be formed only in pre-
determined locations, i.e. at the base of wall, by providing sufficient
flexural strength over the remaining parts of the wall.
In plastic hinge zone it is important to ensure that shear force do not
prevent the desired ductile behaviour of the wall and do not sig-
nificantly reduce energy dissipation during hysteretic response.
Therefore, actual shear force estimation has to be done to ensure that
energy dissipation can be confined primarily to flexural yielding.
The real shear forces in RC structural walls under the seismic loads
are usually higher than the seismic shear forces obtained by the linear
analysis defined in the codes, such as lateral force method of analysis or
modal response spectrum analysis. This magnification occurs due to
flexural overstrength and the effect of the higher modes in the inelastic
range.
The shear force magnification in RC walls was first researched and
documented by Blakeley et al. [1]. From that time until nowadays,
many researchers have dealt with this issue. Mostly all the conducted
analysis on this topic are based on the results derived from nonlinear
time-history parametric analysis [2–4]. Theoretically oriented general
formulation is given by Eibl and Keintzel [5] and Keintzel [6,7]. The
extension of this formulation is suggested by Priestley [4] and Priestley
et al. [3]. Additional research on this topic is still needed in order to
define, as precisely as possible, the actual seismic shear forces in the RC
walls. Yet, there is no consensus regarding the shear force magnification
in literature [8].
The Eurocode design provisions [9] define the shear magnification

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jelenapej@ucg.ac.me (J. Pejovic).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109668
Received 15 January 2019; Received in revised form 20 June 2019; Accepted 9 September 2019
Available online 24 September 2019
0141-0296/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Pejovic, et al.
Fig. 1. Fixed base and hinged mode shapes of the wall (Wiebe and Christopoulos) [19].
factor ε, that is used to multiply the seismic shear force in RC walls
obtained by the linear-elastic lateral force analysis or by modal re-
sponse spectrum analysis. For medium ductility class (DCM), the con-
stant value of the magnification factor ε = 1.5 is suggested. For the high
ductility class (DCH), larger shear magnification factors are defined
using the expression proposed by Keintzel [6], which explicitly includes
the effects of higher modes in the inelastic range and flexural over-
strength as explained by Fardis [10]. The most of conducted studies
have shown that corrections, modifications and improvements of de-
fining the magnification factor ε in Eurocode 8 procedure are needed
[2,3,11–18]. Rejec et al. [11] proposed precise corrections to Keintzel’s
formula based on conducted parametric study on a large number of
single cantilever walls with number of storeys from 4 to 20. Rutenberg
and Nsieri [2] has shown that the Eurocode 8 procedure is conservative
for DCH walls and gives lower value of magnification factor ε for DCM
walls and proposed a simple formula that can replace existing ones
given in seismic codes for RC ductile cantilever wall systems. An en-
velope for the shear forces over the wall height has also been provided
by [2]. Further, based on formula derived for RC walls in ductile can-
tilever wall systems, Rutenberg and Nsieri [12] proposed an extension
to walls in ductile RC dual systems. Priestley and Amaris [13] proposed
an expression for the distribution of shear with height for cantilever
walls using the displacement ductility factor, μ, instead of the behaviour
factor q. Kappos and Antoniadis [14] proposed the modification of
shear force design Eurocode 8 envelope for RC walls in dual systems by
introducing it in the upper third of the wall height and also by including
additional factor to account for the case of structures with unequal
walls. Afterwards, Kappos and Antoniadis [15,16] proposed new
2
Engineering Structures 200 (2019) 109668
envelopes for shear forces and flexural moments applicable to medium-
rise and medium-to-high-rise walls in dual structures. The results ob-
tained by Antoniou et al. [17] on ductile RC walls of mid-rise wall-
frame buildings have shown that there is overestimation of design shear
forces with the current approach for DCH walls in Eurocode 8. They
proposed the extension of the design shear force envelope in “dual”
buildings prescribed in Eurocode 8 to wall systems as well. Rutenberg
[18] has studied the distribution of seismic shear demand among duc-
tile flexural cantilever unequal-length walls in the multi-storey build-
ings and has shown that the base shear force demand depends on the
sequence of hinge formation at the wall bases and on relative wall
lengths, whereby design shear forces from code provisions appreciably
underestimate the force demand on the walls, particularly in the
shorter, more flexible walls.
In the literature, there is a lack of research on this topic with regard
to the RC high-rise buildings. Given the fact that shear force magnifi-
cation occurs due to the effect of the higher modes in the inelastic
range, this question is of higher importance as the number of stories
increase (i.e. increasing the fundamental period of high-rise buildings).
The more detailed analysis on shear magnification in RC walls of high-
rise buildings designed according to Eurocode 8 should be conducted.
For this reason, an extensive study is performed in order to examine the
applicability of Eurocode 8 procedure in determination of shear forces
in RC walls of high-rise buildings. In presented study, RC high-rise
buildings with core wall structural system and three characteristic
heights: 20-storey, 30-storey and 40-storey are selected as prototype
buildings. Shear force magnification factors obtained by Eurocode 8
procedure are compared with the results of 180 nonlinear time-history
J. Pejovic, et al. Engineering Structures 200 (2019) 109668

Fig. 2. Seismic shear force distribution of (a) elastic (fixed-base) wall and (b) inelastic (hinged) wall.

Fig. 3. Plan view of the storey.

Table 1
Main features of the prototype RC high-rise buildings.
Features 20-storey 30-storey 40-storey

Total height (m) 60 90 120

Storey height (m) 3 3 3
Storey RC slab thickness (m) 0.20 m 0.20 m 0.20 m
RC beams (m) 0.40 × 0.65 0.40 × 0.65 0.40 × 0.65
RC columns (m) 0.80 × 0.80 0.80 × 0.80 0.90 × 0.90
Core walls thickness (m) 1–5 storey: 0.30 1–5 storey: 0.40 1–10 storey: 0.55
6–20 storey: 0.20 6–30 storey: 0.30 11–40 storey: 0.45
Coupling beams in X direction (m) 1–5 storey: 0.3 × 0.8 1–5 storey: 0.4 × 0.8 1–10 storey: 0.55 × 0.8 11–40 storey: 0.45 × 0.8
6–20 storey: 0.2 × 0.8 6–30 storey: 0.3 × 0.8
Concrete fck (fcm) (MPa) 35(43) 45(53) 55(63)
Reinforcement fyk(fym) (MPa) 500(575) 500(575) 500(575)
Modulus of elasticity Ecm (MPa) 34,000 36,000 38,000

3
J. Pejovic, et al. Engineering Structures 200 (2019) 109668

Table 2 multiplied by shear magnification factor ε (Eq. (1)):

Total seismic base shear forces, base shear forces for particular modes, modal
'
periods and mass participation factors for the prototype RC high-rise buildings. VEd = ε ·V Ed (1)
Prototype buildings 20-storey 30-storey 40-storey For DCM structures, the shear magnification factor has constant
prototype prototype prototype value 1.5. For DCH structures, the shear magnification factor is calcu-
building building building
lated from Eq. (2) which was proposed by Keintzel [6]:
Total base shear force for DCM 18,503 24,331 32,454
≤q
(kN) ε= (γRd·MRd / MEd )2 + 0.1·(q·Se (TC )/ Se (T1 ))2 ⎧
⎩ 1.5
⎨ ≥ (2)
Total base shear force for DCH 15,376 21,322 29,441
(kN) where
Base shear forces for Mode 1 11,964 18,493 26,702
DCM (kN) 2 13,139 13,048 13,246 q – the behaviour factor used in the design for seismic force re-
3 4553 7126 10,336 duction;
1 11,964 18,493 26,702 MEd – the design flexural moment at the base of the wall;
Base shear forces for Mode 2 8776 8699 8863 MRd – the design flexural moment strength at the base of the wall;
DCH (kN)
γRd – the overstrength factor that account effects of steel strain-
3 3040 4747 6868
hardening;
Period (sec) Mode 1 1.652 2.880 4.097
T1 – the fundamental period of vibration of the building in the di-
2 0.389 0.623 0.858
3 0.181 0.270 0.355 rection of shear forces VEd
TC – the upper limit period of the constant spectral acceleration
Mass participation Mode 1 64.26 63.53 63.24
factors (%) 2 20.32 19.43 18.94
region of the spectrum;
3 7.04 7.05 7.05 Se(T) – the ordinate of the elastic response spectrum.
Sum of mass part.factors (%) 94.85 93.58 92.88
The background of Eurocode 8 expression (Eq. (2)) is explained in
detail by Rejec et al. [11]. The brief overview is given here with the
analyses performed for 60 ground motion records with a wide range of main assumptions. Keintzel [6] conducted a detailed parametric study
magnitudes, distances to source and various soil types. The conducted by comparing the results obtained by linear analysis, defined in the
analysis has clearly indicated the possible modifications and further codes and nonlinear time-history analysis. Based on these results,
improvements in calculation of the Eurocode 8 magnification factor ε Keintzel assumed that the SRSS (square root of the sum of the squares)
for RC walls of the high-rise buildings. modal combination can also be applied for inelastic range and that the
contribution of the first two modes is important. Further, seismic design
2. Magnification of seismic shear forces in RC walls shear force at the base of the wall can be obtained as SRSS modal
combination of shear forces of the first mode V'Ed,1 and the second mode
2.1. Influence of the higher modes in the inelastic range V'Ed,2 (Eq. (3)):
' 2 ' 2
VEd = (V Ed ,1 ) + (V Ed,2 ) (3)
In the current seismic regulations (e.g. Eurocode 8) RC walls are
designed such that the plastic hinge occurs only in section at the base, Keintzel [6] further assumed that the level of seismic shear force
and no plastic hinges are expected in the upper storeys. After the plastic reduction for each mode is proportional to the level of the flexural
hinge is formed at the base of the wall, the inelastic wall can be con- moment at the base contributed by that mode. Therefore, only the
sidered as an equivalent elastic system. By analysing the modes of an seismic shear force of the first mode is reduced by the behaviour factor
equivalent elastic system which represents a hinged wall, it can be q, while shear forces of higher modes take their elastic (non-reduced)
noticed that after a plastic hinge is formed at the base, the first mode values (Eq. (4)):
shape significantly differs in comparison with the fixed-base wall
' 2 ' 2
(without formed plastic hinge), while the higher mode characteristics VEd = (V Ed ,1 ) + (q · V Ed,2 ) (4)
remain practically unchanged (Fig. 1) [19]. In the inelastic range the
influence of the higher modes on shear forces is amplified in compar- As the flexural overstrength has an impact only to the first mode,
ison with the first mode contribution. Due to the influence of higher and due the fact that the modal response spectrum analysis results in
modes, distribution of seismic forces along the height of the wall lowers shear force in the second mode at the base of the wall is approximately
the position of the resultant of seismic shear forces, making it closer to √0.1Se(T2)/Se(T1) ≈0.3Se(T2)/Se(T1) of shear force in the first mode (as
the base of the wall (Fig. 2). With the constant value of flexural moment is made clear by Rejec et al. [11] and is confirmed by Rutenberg [8]),
strength at the base of the wall, it is clear that the resultant seismic Eq. (4) can be rewritten in the form of Eq. (5). Rejec et al. [11] applied
shear force will increase. modal response spectrum analysis of continuous elastic systems [20], to
While the plastic hinge at the base of the wall constrains the value of an elastic flexural cantilever shear wall in mid-rise building and ob-
the seismic shear force of the first mode to a level that corresponds to its tained the distribution of the second mode to first mode shear force
flexural moment strength, seismic shear forces of higher modes ap- ratio. They observed that this ratio at the base of cantilever is about
proximately correspond to their elastic values [6]. Therefore, the total √0.1Se(T2)/Se(T1) ≈0.3Se(T2)/Se(T1).
seismic shear force can be approximated as a superposition of the force ' 2 2 '
VEd = V Ed ,1· (γRd· MRd / MEd ) + 0.1·(q · Se (TC )/ Se (T1 )) = V Ed,1· ε (5)
in the first mode, reduced with reduction factor (e.g. behaviour factor q
in Eurocode 8) and the respective elastic shear forces of higher modes. It is worth mentioning that based on the Keintzel procedure [6], as
noted by Rejec et al. [11] magnification factor should be applied to the
2.2. Eurocode 8 procedure for determinating seismic shear force seismic shear forces obtained by the linear analysis considering only the
magnification in RC walls first mode (V'Ed,1). The incorrect application of the magnification factor
with regard to multiplication with the total seismic shear forces ob-
The design shear forces VEd along the height of the wall are defined tained by lateral force method of analysis or modal response spectrum
by the shear forces obtained from the linear elastic analysis V'Ed analysis is pointed out.

4
 J. Pejovic, et al.

Table 3
Longitudinal vertical reinforcement in the confined boundary elements and vertical web reinforcement for ductility class DCM.
Wall cross section 20-storey prototype building 30-storey prototype building 40-storey prototype building
(storey)1
thickness (m) Long. Reinf. in boundary vertical web thickness (m) Long. Reinf. in boundary vertical web thickness (m) Long. Reinf. in boundary vertical web
elements reinforcement6 elements reinforcement6 elements reinforcement6

SW1(1–5) web 0.3 22ϕ182 ϕ14/25 0.4 22ϕ282 ϕ16/25 0.55 28ϕ322 ϕ16/25
SW1(5–10) web 0.2 18ϕ143 ϕ10/25 0.3 16ϕ283 ϕ16/25 0.55 22ϕ282 ϕ16/25
SW1(10–15) web 0.2 14ϕ143 ϕ10/25 0.3 16ϕ203 ϕ10/25 0.45 16ϕ253 ϕ10/25
SW1(15–20) web 0.2 14ϕ143 ϕ10/25 0.3 16ϕ203 ϕ10/25 0.45 16ϕ203 ϕ10/25
SW1(20–30) web 0.3 16ϕ163 ϕ10/25 0.45 16ϕ163 ϕ10/25
SW1(30–40) web 0.45 16ϕ163 ϕ10/25
SW1(1–5) flange 0.3 12ϕ164 ϕ14/25 0.4 14ϕ284 ϕ16/25 0.55 20ϕ324 ϕ16/25
SW1(5–10) flange 0.2 6ϕ145 ϕ10/25 0.3 8ϕ285 ϕ16/25 0.55 14ϕ284 ϕ16/25
SW1(10–15) flange 0.2 6ϕ145 ϕ10/25 0.3 8ϕ205 ϕ10/25 0.45 8ϕ255 ϕ10/25
SW1(15–20) flange 0.2 6ϕ145 ϕ10/25 0.3 8ϕ205 ϕ10/25 0.45 8ϕ205 ϕ10/25
SW1(20–30) flange 0.3 8ϕ165 ϕ10/25 0.45 8ϕ165 ϕ10/25

5
SW1(30–40) flange 0.45 8ϕ165 ϕ10/25
SW2(1–5) web 0.3 28ϕ142 ϕ12/25 0.4 22ϕ202 ϕ16/25 0.55 22ϕ182 ϕ14/25
SW2(5–10) web 0.2 14ϕ123 ϕ10/25 0.3 16ϕ163 ϕ10/25 0.55 22ϕ182 ϕ14/25
SW2(1–20) web 0.2 14ϕ123 ϕ10/25 0.3 16ϕ163 ϕ10/25 0.45 16ϕ163 ϕ10/25
SW2(20–30) web 0.3 16ϕ163 ϕ10/25 0.45 16ϕ163 ϕ10/25
SW2(30–40) web 0.45 16ϕ163 ϕ10/25
SW2(1–5) flange 0.3 12ϕ144 ϕ12/25 0.4 10ϕ204 ϕ16/25 0.55 16ϕ164 ϕ14/25
SW2(5–10) flange 0.2 10ϕ125 ϕ10/25 0.3 8ϕ165 ϕ10/25 0.55 16ϕ164 ϕ14/25
SW2(10–20) flange 0.2 10ϕ125 ϕ10/25 0.3 8ϕ165 ϕ10/25 0.45 8ϕ165 ϕ10/25
SW2(20–30) flange 0.3 8ϕ165 ϕ10/25 0.45 8ϕ165 ϕ10/25
SW2(30–40) flange 0.45 8ϕ165 ϕ10/25

Notes:
1
The values in parentheses in the first column refer to the individual storeys.
2
Vertical bars are uniformly distributed over the boundary elements with length 1.80 m and engaged by hoops ϕ12/0.10 m.
3
Vertical bars are uniformly distributed over the boundary elements with length 1.20 m and engaged by hoops ϕ8/0.15 m.
4
Vertical bars are uniformly distributed over the boundary elements with length 0.60 m and engaged by hoops ϕ10/0.10 m.
5
Vertical bars are uniformly distributed over the boundary elements with length 0.40 m and engaged by hoops ϕ8/0.15 m.
6
Vertical web reinforcement is uniformly distributed over the wall length.
Engineering Structures 200 (2019) 109668
 J. Pejovic, et al.

Table 4
Longitudinal vertical reinforcement in the confined boundary elements and vertical web reinforcement for ductility class DCH.
Wall cross section 20-storey prototype building 30-storey prototype building 40-storey prototype building
(storey)1
thickness (m) Long. Reinf. in boundary vertical web thickness (m) Long. Reinf. in boundary vertical web thickness (m) Long. Reinf. in boundary vertical web
elements reinforcement6 elements reinforcement6 elements reinforcement6

SW1(1–5) web 0.3 28ϕ162 ϕ14/0.25 0.4 28ϕ252 ϕ16/0.25 0.55 28ϕ322 ϕ16/0.25
SW1(5–10) web 0.2 18ϕ143 ϕ10/0.25 0.3 20ϕ253 ϕ16/0.25 0.55 28ϕ252 ϕ16/0.25
SW1(10–15) web 0.2 18ϕ123 ϕ10/0.25 0.3 20ϕ183 ϕ10/0.25 0.45 20ϕ223 ϕ10/0.25
SW1(15–20) web 0.2 18ϕ123 ϕ10/0.25 0.3 20ϕ183 ϕ10/0.25 0.45 20ϕ183 ϕ10/0.25
SW1(20–30) web 0.3 20ϕ163 ϕ10/0.25 0.45 20ϕ163 ϕ10/0.25
SW1(30–40) web 0.45 20ϕ163 ϕ10/0.25
SW1(1–5) flange 0.3 12ϕ164 ϕ14/0.25 0.4 14ϕ284 ϕ16/0.25 0.55 20ϕ324 ϕ16/0.25
SW1(5–10) flange 0.2 10ϕ125 ϕ10/0.25 0.3 10ϕ255 ϕ16/0.25 0.55 18ϕ254 ϕ16/0.25
SW1(10–15) flange 0.2 10ϕ125 ϕ10/0.25 0.3 10185 ϕ10/0.25 0.45 12ϕ205 ϕ10/0.25
SW1(15–20) flange 0.2 10ϕ125 ϕ10/0.25 0.3 10ϕ185 ϕ10/0.25 0.45 12ϕ165 ϕ10/0.25
SW1(20–30) flange 0.3 10ϕ145 ϕ10/0.25 0.45 12ϕ145 ϕ10/0.25

6
SW1(30–40) flange 0.45 12ϕ145 ϕ10/0.25
SW2(1–5) web 0.3 28ϕ142 ϕ12/0.25 0.4 28ϕ182 ϕ16/0.25 0.55 28ϕ162 ϕ14/0.25
SW2(5–10) web 0.2 14ϕ123 ϕ10/0.25 0.3 20ϕ163 ϕ10/0.25 0.55 28ϕ162 ϕ14/0.25
SW2(10–20) web 0.2 14ϕ123 ϕ10/0.25 0.3 20ϕ163 ϕ10/0.25 0.45 20ϕ163 ϕ10/0.25
SW2(20–30) web 0.3 20ϕ163 ϕ10/0.25 0.45 20ϕ163 ϕ10/0.25
SW2(30–40) web 0.45 20ϕ163 ϕ10/0.25
SW2(1–5) flange 0.3 12ϕ144 ϕ12/0.25 0.4 10ϕ204 ϕ16/0.25 0.55 16ϕ164 ϕ14/0.25
SW2(5–10) flange 0.2 10ϕ125 ϕ10/0.25 0.3 10ϕ145 ϕ10/0.25 0.55 16ϕ164 ϕ14/0.25
SW2(10–20) flange 0.2 10ϕ125 ϕ10/0.25 0.3 10ϕ145 ϕ10/0.25 0.45 12ϕ145 ϕ10/0.25
SW2(20–30) flange 0.3 10ϕ145 ϕ10/0.25 0.45 12ϕ145 ϕ10/0.25
SW2(30–40) flange 0.45 12ϕ145 ϕ10/0.25

Notes:
1
The values in parentheses in the first column refer to the individual stores.
2
Vertical bars are uniformly distributed over the boundary elements with length 1.80 m and engaged by hoops ϕ12/0.075 m.
3
Vertical bars are uniformly distributed over the boundary elements with length 1.20 m and engaged by hoops ϕ8/0.15 m.
4
Vertical bars are uniformly distributed over the boundary elements with length 0.60 m and engaged by hoops ϕ10/0.075 m.
5
Vertical bars are uniformly distributed over the boundary elements with length 0.40 m and engaged by hoops ϕ8/0.15 m.
6
Vertical web reinforcement is uniformly distributed over the wall length.
Engineering Structures 200 (2019) 109668
J. Pejovic, et al.
Fig. 4. The seismic shear force diagrams V’Ed,DCM, VEd,DCM , VRd,max,DCM, V’Ed,DCH , VEd,DCH, VRd,max,DCH in wall SW1.
Considering high mode effects in RC high-rise buildings, it is quite
appropriate to use modal response spectrum analysis instead of lateral
force method of analysis for calculating design seismic shear forces. The
study conducted in this paper is based on assumption that modal re-
sponse spectrum analysis is used for obtaining seismic shear forces in
linear analysis. Therefore, for obtaining shear forces using modal re-
sponse spectrum analysis, the shear forces of the first mode (V'Ed,1)
should be multiplied by magnification factor instead of the total shear
forces. Also, as noted by Rejec et al. [11] this reflects the upper limit of
the magnification factor ε, i.e. value q, because the correct usage of Eq.
(2) gives lower value of limit shear forces VEd = qV'Ed,1 instead of the
limit forces that correspond to the elastic value VEd = qV'Ed. It should be
also stated that the assumption V'Ed,2/ V'Ed,1 = 0.3Se(T2)/Se(T1) is valid
only at the base of the wall but Eurocode 8 assumes this ratio over the
entire height of the wall. Depending on the value of the period T2,
differences in the values of Se(T2) and Se(TC) may be obvious and
therefore it could not be appropriate to replace Se(T2) with Se(TC).
These deficiencies are even more pronounced when applied to RC high-
rise buildings and that will be shown by the analysis conducted in this
paper.
Further Priestley [4] and Priestley et al. [3] extended the applic-
ability of Keintzel’s formula to the entire height of the wall through the
usage of SRSS format. They also proposed the expression for calculating
design shear forces released from the replacement of the second mode
period by the upper limit period (TC) (Eq. (6)):
' 2 2 ' 2 ' 2
VEd = (V Ed ,1 ) + q ·{(V Ed,2 ) + (V Ed,3 ) +⋯}
In which: V'Ed,1 is the overstrength factored shear force of the first
mode and V'Ed,i is the shear force of the mode i.
Engineering Structures 200 (2019) 109668
3. Selection and description of prototype RC high-rise buildings
For conducted study, 20-storey, 30-storey and 40-storey RC high-
rise buildings with core wall structural system are selected as prototype
buildings. The specific plan view of the storey characteristic for all
prototype buildings is shown in Fig. 3. RC core wall structural system is
the most frequently used lateral load resisting system which is applic-
able for RC high-rise buildings up to the 50 storey [21]. In presented
study, the regular buildings in plane are considered. Irregularities in
plane are not included in order to simplify the problem for complex
buildings such as RC high-rise buildings and to avoid possible confusion
due to the effects of the irregularities. The main features of the proto-
type RC high-rise buildings are shown in the Table 1.
4. Seismic design of prototype buildings according to Eurocode 8
with emphasis to the possibilities of design related to ductility
classes
Seismic design of the prototype RC high-rise buildings is done ac-
cording to Eurocode 2 [22] and Eurocode 8 [9]. Seismic linear analysis
of buildings is done using a multi-modal response spectrum analysis,
considering higher mode effects. The elastic flexural and shear stiffness
properties of structural elements are taken to be equal to one-half of the
corresponding stiffness of the uncracked elements, according to Euro-
code 8 [9]. In presented study only this effective stiffness is considered
to be in line with Eurocode 8 recommendations. Further sensitive study
(6) taking into account variation of section stiffness is recommended. For
linear analysis and seismic design of buildings, ETABS spatial buildings
models [23] are constructed. The seismic load was defined using the
design response spectrum, type 1 (with the magnitude of surface wave
amounting to MS > 5.5). The adopted design peak horizontal ground
7
J. Pejovic, et al.
Fig. 5. PERFORM-3D models of prototype buildings: (a) 20-storey, (b) 30-
storey and (c) 40-storey.
acceleration is 0.37 g. The prototype buildings are designed for two
ductility classes defined in EN 1998-1: high ductility class (DCH) and
medium ductility class (DCM). Considering the structural system, be-
haviour factors for DCM class (=3.6) and for DCH class (=5.4) are
adopted. Total base shear forces, base shear forces for particular modes,
modal periods of prototype buildings and mass participation factors of
particular modes are shown in Table 2. The obtained values for Y di-
rection of buildings are shown in Table 2 as representative for un-
coupled wall system.
It is worth noting that total seismic base shear forces for considered
ductility classes (DCM and DCH) differ by 5–15%. This occurs because
the values of design spectrum for fundamental mode Sd(T1) of high-rise
buildings are very low, less than values related to lower bound factor
for the horizontal design spectrum β (defined in Eurocode 8 [9]) and
Fig. 6. Schematic representation of cross-section fiber model: (a) web and (b) flange.
8
Engineering Structures 200 (2019) 109668
the influence of behaviour factor q on design spectrum for fundamental
mode is negligible. Therefore, seismic base shear forces of the first
mode for DCM and DCH ductility class have the same value and re-
garding their the highest contribution in total shear force, the total
shear forces for both considered ductility classes do not differ much.
This points the need of introducing a single ductility class for high-rise
buildings.
According to the analyses of the calculated seismic forces, it is
noted, that the total seismic force is dominantly assumed by RC core
walls (95% of the total seismic force), while the columns at peripheral
frames assume only 5% of the total seismic force. Therefore, the RC core
was the subject of further detailed design and nonlinear time-history
analyses. All Eurocode 8 provisions [9] related to the design and de-
tailing of ductile walls have been complied. The wall sections are
considered as integral units (SW1 and SW2) consisting of a web and
flanges normal to it (Fig. 3). The adopted longitudinal vertical re-
inforcement in the confined boundary elements and vertical web re-
inforcement of the integral composite section walls (SW1 and SW2) for
ductility class DCM and DCH are shown in Tables 3 and 4, respectively.
Further, due to the high values of the design shear forces in DCH
walls, obtained by existing Eurocode 8 procedure, it is practically im-
possible to satisfy demand regarding diagonal compression failure of
the web due to shear in the web VRd,max. The design shear force VEd,DCH
must be less than the shear resistance of ductile walls controlled by
diagonal compression in the web VRd,max. In the critical region of the
DCH ductile walls, the shear resistance VRd,max is prescribed by
Eurocode 8 to be taken as 40% of the value outside of critical region.
Experimental research done by Biskinis [24] has shown that the cyclic
load significantly reduces the shear resistance in comparison to the
resistance in static condition. This large reduction of the design shear
resistance VRd,max, applied together with the shear magnification, might
be prohibitive for the usage of DCH RC ductile walls. This limitation is
found exaggerated in [25], and for this reason the DCM walls are not
subjected to this 40% reduction of shear strength, while the above-
mentioned experimental findings are not confirmed by most experi-
mental tests. Due to the difficulty to fulfil this requirement of Eurocode
8 for DCH RC walls with the realistic wall thickness, the considered
prototype RC high-rise buildings are designed to fulfil all the Eurocode
8 provisions except demand regarding diagonal compression failure. In
order to illustrate the foregoing, in Fig. 4, characteristic seismic shear
force diagrams in wall (SW1) in Y direction for three prototype build-
ings are shown: (1) V'Ed,DCM and V'Ed,DCH seismic shear forces obtained
by modal response spectrum analysis according to Eurocode 8 for
ductility classes DCM and DCH; (2) VEd,DCM and VEd,DCH design seismic
shear forces obtained by Eurocode 8 (Keintzel's procedure) for ductility
classes DCM and DCH and (3) VRd,max the shear resistance controlled by
diagonal compression in the web. It can be clearly noticed that in the
critical region at the base of the wall VRd, max,DCH is significantly lower
than the design seismic shear forces VEd,DCH, unlike DCM case.
These facts clearly indicate that RC high-rise buildings for the time
being should be designed according Eurocode 8 provisions specified for
J. Pejovic, et al. Engineering Structures 200 (2019) 109668

Fig. 7. Stress-strain diagrams (a) unconfined and confined concrete with concrete mean strength of 53 MPa, and (b) reinforcing steel with expected yield mean
strength of 575 Mpa.

Table 5a
Selected ground motions: rock.
DATE Station data source Magnitude Distance (km) PGA (m/s2) PGV (cm/s)

09/04/1979 Ulcinj HA, EW (MNE) 5.1 19 0.601 4.270

15/04/1979 Titograd SS, EW (MNE) 7 46 0.309 3.642
15/04/1979 Titograd SS, NS (MNE) 7 46 0.286 3.501
15/04/1979 Ulcinj HA, EW (MNE) 7 9 2.252 27.283
15/04/1979 Ulcinj HA, NS (MNE) 7 9 1.715 16.970
15/04/1979 Herceg Novi OSDP, EW (MNE) 7 29 2.553 12.095
15/04/1979 Herceg Novi OSDP, NS (MNE) 7 29 2.126 13.685
12/05/1979 Kotor NR, EW (MNE) 5.1 20 0.566 3.186
12/05/1979 Kotor NR, NS (MNE) 5.1 20 0.846 3.804
24/05/1979 Kotor NR, EW (MNE) 6.1 19 1.500 8.591
24/05/1979 Kotor NR, NS (MNE) 6.1 19 1.117 8.098
24/05/1979 Herceg Novi OSDP, EW (MNE) 6.1 18 0.746 6.394
24/05/1979 Herceg Novi OSDP, NS (MNE) 6.1 18 0.653 4.791
23/11/1980 Auletta, EW (I) 6.6 10 0.588 5.855
23/11/1980 Auletta, NS (I) 6.6 10 0.588 4.361
23/11/1980 Bagnoli-Irpino (I) 6.6 6 1.776 30.454
23/11/1980 Bagnoli-Irpino, NS (I) 6.6 6 1.364 20.569
23/11/1980 Rionero in Vulture, EW (I) 6.6 30 0.975 6.760
23/11/1980 Rionero in Vulture, NS (I) 6.6 30 0.969 13.375
23/11/1980 Sturno, EW (I) 6.6 14 3.168 55.359
23/11/1980 Sturno, NS (I) 6.6 14 2.122 33.061
23/11/1980 Tricarico, EW (I) 6.6 63 0.343 5.197
23/11/1980 Tricarico, NS (I) 6.6 63 0.466 5.622
23/11/1980 Torre del Greco (I) 6.6 65 0.400 4.786
23/11/1980 Torre del Greco (I) 6.6 65 0.593 5.419

DCM ductility class. In general, the need of introducing a single duc-
tility class for RC walls of high-rise buildings is pointed out. For this
single ductility, there is wide range for defining behaviour factor q. This
range can be defined depending on the various parameters (the number
of storeys, the structural system, etc.). It has to be emphasized that
these statements are direct results of this study and should be supported
on additional parametric studies to provide a sufficient background.
5. Nonlinear time-history analysis of prototype RC high-rise
buildings
5.1. Structural modeling
For the nonlinear time-history analysis, the PERFORM-3D software
[26] is used. The nonlinear models are designed as spatial models and
they consist of RC core walls. PERFORM-3D models of the prototype
buildings are shown in Fig. 5. The mathematical models used for linear
analysis are extended to include the strength of structural elements and
their post-elastic behaviour. The core walls are modelled using
nonlinear vertical fibre elements [27]. Because of potential occurrence
of reinforcement yielding in the upper storeys due to higher-mode ef-
fects characteristic for high-rise buildings, nonlinear fibre elements are
used for modelling walls across the entire height. The area and location
of reinforcement within the cross-section as well as concrete properties
are defined using individual steel and concrete fibres forming the cross-
section of the wall. The concrete of each wall web is subdivided into
sixteen fibres, and the reinforcement is grouped into ten fibres, while
the concrete of each flange is subdivided into eight fibres and the re-
inforcement is grouped into four fibres. Schematic representation of
fibre model of web and flange cross-sections is showed in Fig. 6. The
adopted height of wall element is equal to the height of storey. Recently
conducted studies [28] have shown that height of wall element, which
corresponds to one half of the wall cross-section length or full storey
height, gives satisfactory results, comparing with using smaller ele-
ments (or a larger mesh size).
The actual properties of reinforcing steel and concrete are based on
mean values of the properties of the materials (Table 1). The stress-
strain diagram for confined concrete based on the [29] model is

9
J. Pejovic, et al. Engineering Structures 200 (2019) 109668

Table 5b
Selected ground motions: stiff soil.
DATE Station data source Magnitude Distance (km) PGA (m/s2) PGV (cm/s)

23/11/1980 Benevento, EW (I) 6.6 41 0.532 8.488

23/11/1980 Benevento, NS (I) 6.6 41 0.381 7.464
15/04/1979 Titograd GZ, EW (MNE) 7 46 0.496 3.894
15/04/1979 Titograd GZ, NS (MNE) 7 46 0.364 5.011
15/04/1979 Ulcinj HO, EW (MNE) 7 9 2.405 53.209
15/04/1979 Ulcinj HO, NS (MNE) 7 9 2.598 40.871
15/04/1979 Petrovac HO, EW (MNE) 7 12 3.019 25.837
15/04/1979 Petrovac HO, NS (MNE) 7 12 4.491 39.374
15/04/1979 Bar SO, EW (MNE) 7 12 3.659 57.201
15/04/1979 Bar SO, NS (MNE) 7 12 3.639 42.827
26/09/1997 Bevagna, EW (I) 5.6 25 0.528 6.543
23/11/1980 Bisaccia, EW (I) 6.6 22 0.779 14.604
23/11/1980 Bisaccia, NS (I) 6.6 22 0.904 16.063
24/05/1979 Tivat, EW (MNE) 6.1 15 1.371 9.076
24/05/1979 Ulcinj HO, EW (MNE) 6.1 30 0.584 6.338
24/05/1979 Ulcinj HO, NS (MNE) 6.1 30 0.734 4.838
24/05/1979 Kotor ZBM, EW (MNE) 6.1 19 0.552 4.571
24/05/1979 Kotor ZBM, NS (MNE) 6.1 19 0.588 4.121
26/09/1997 Bevagna, NS (I) 5.6 25 0.335 4.401
19/09/1979 Mascioni, EW (I) 5.5 37 0.367 2.717
24/05/1979 Petrovac HR, EW MNE) 6.1 7 2.863 16.483
24/05/1979 Petrovac HR, NS (MNE) 6.1 7 1.78 10.181
24/05/1979 Bar SO, EW (MNE) 6.1 12 2.209 21.698
24/05/1979 Bar SO, NS (MNE) 6.1 12 2.051 16.222
18/05/1980 Priština ZU, EW (SRB) 5.9 90 0.293 1.373
18/05/1980 Priština ZU, NS (SRB) 5.9 90 0.275 2.326
19/09/1979 Mascioni, NS (I) 5.5 37 0.351 2.942
23/11/1980 Calitri, NS (I) 6.6 14 1.526 27.124
18/05/1980 Niš OSDJ, NS (SRB) 5.9 83 0.367 1.891
15/09/1976 San Rocco, NS (I) 6.2 12 0.65 5.429
15/09/1976 Codroipo, EW (I) 6.2 35 0.197 3.027
26/09/1997 Senigallia, EW (I) 5.8 71 0.362 4.101
13/09/1986 Kalamata-Prefecture, N355 (GR) 5.5 5 2.911 32.269
05/07/1983 Gonen-Meteoroloji, NS, (TR) 5.8 45 0.500 6.753
06/11/1992 Izmir-Bayindirlik TRAN (TR) 5.5 30 0.384 6.749

Fig. 8. Response spectra of the selected ground motions for soil type A, mean spectra of the selected ground motions and elastic Eurocode 8 spectrum for soil type A.

adopted. The stress-strain diagrams for unconfined and confined con-
crete with the mean compressive strength of 53 MPa are presented in
Fig. 7(a). The steel material is modelled with a bilinear stress–strain
relationship according to Eurocode 8 [9] with expected yield mean
strength of 575 MPa and ultimate strength of 660 MPa, both in com-
pression and tension (Fig. 7(b)). Out-of-plane bending and horizontal
transverse plane behaviours are assumed to be elastic.
5.2. Selection of ground motion records
The European strong-motion database [30] is used for selection of
ground motion records. 60 ground motions are selected: 25 ground
motions are recorded on the rock corresponding to soil type A and 35
ground motions recorded on stiff soil corresponding to soil type B, ac-
cording to Eurocode 8 [9]. The values of magnitude of selected ground

10
J. Pejovic, et al.
Fig. 9. Response spectra of the selected ground motions for soil type B, mean spectra of the selected ground motions and elastic Eurocode 8 spectrum for soil type B.
Fig. 10. The obtained seismic shear force diagrams in wall SW1 of 20-storey
prototype building.
motions are in the range between 5.1 and 7.0 while the distances to
source are in the range from 5 to 90 km. The uncertainties during
ground motions selection are usually much higher than the other types
of uncertainties in the probabilistic seismic analysis [31]. In this paper,
these uncertainties are being included using larger number of ground
motions with wider range of magnitudes, distance to source and dif-
ferent site conditions. The selected ground motions and their char-
acteristic are presented in Tables 5a and 5b.
The main criterion used in this study for selection of ground motions
11
Engineering Structures 200 (2019) 109668
is that mean spectrum of the selected ground motions should be com-
patible with relevant target spectrum over the wide spectral period
range of interest. As a target spectrum, elastic Eurocode 8 spectrum for
reference return period of 475 years (10% Probability of Exceedance
(PoE) in 50 years) with design ground acceleration of 0.37 g is adopted.
The mean squared error method (MSE) is selected for ground motions
scaling [32]. By this method, ground motions are scaled in a way where
the mean squared error is minimised over the whole range of periods.
The mean square error represents the difference between the spectral
acceleration of ground motion records and target spectrum, and it is
calculated by Eq. (7).
n
MSE = ∑ [Sa target (Ti ) − f ·Sa record (Ti )]2 /n
i=1 (7)
f in Eq. (7) is a linear scale factor. The geometric mean spectrum of the
selected ground motions is adopted to be the mean spectrum [32]. The
MSE method is especially effective in the selection of ground motions
since it allows selection of records, from the large number of the
available ones, which response spectra deviates least from the target
spectrum.
In the Fig. 8 and Fig. 9, response spectra of selected ground motions
scaled by MSE method for the intensity level of 10%/50, the mean
spectrum and relevant target spectra (Eurocodes 8 elastic spectra) for
the intensity level of 10%/50 are shown.
6. Analysis results
6.1. Analysis of the derived seismic shear forces in RC walls of the selected
prototype buildings
In this study, in order to determine the actual shear forces in RC
walls of high-rise buildings, the results derived from nonlinear time-
history analysis are compared with the values obtained according to
Eurocode 8 (Keintzel's procedure). Additionally, the derived shear
forces are compared with the ones obtained by Priestley procedure (Eq.
(6)). The three-dimensional nonlinear time-history analyses are carried
out on three selected prototype RC high-rise buildings with 20, 30 and
40 storeys. The prototype buildings are exposed to 60 ground motions
in Y direction of the buildings. In this study, only shear forces in Y
direction are analysed as representative for uncoupled wall system. The
coupled wall system characteristic for X direction is part of further
analysis. A total of 180 nonlinear time-history analyses are performed.
J. Pejovic, et al.
Fig. 11. The obtained seismic shear force diagrams in wall SW1 of 30-storey prototype building.
As the results of nonlinear time-history analysis, seismic shear forces
over the height of the RC walls for selected 60 ground motions are
obtained and the mean shear force diagrams over the walls height (Vna)
are constructed. Since the distribution of the seismic response corre-
sponds to lognormal distribution, the geometric mean is adopted as the
mean value [33–36]. In this study, shear wall SW1 is selected for shear
force analysis as the more loaded and relevant. The obtained seismic
shear force diagrams in wall (SW1) for three prototype buildings are
shown in Figs. 10, 11 and 12: (1) seismic shear forces obtained by
modal response spectrum analysis according to Eurocode 8 for ductility
classes DCM and DCH, V'Ed,DCM and V'Ed,DCH; (2) design seismic shear
forces obtained by Eurocode 8 (Keintzel's procedure) for ductility
classes DCM and DCH, VEd,DCM and VEd,DCM; (3) the mean value of
seismic shear forces obtained by using the 60 selected ground motions
Vna; (4) the seismic shear forces obtained by Priestley procedure (Eq.
(6)) considering the first two modes VEd,priestley; (5) the proposed cor-
rected Eurocode 8 shear force envelope (hereinafter defined) VEd,cor and
(6) the proposed shear force design envelopes VEd,I and VEd,II (herein-
after defined). Fig. 13 shows the dispersion of the shear forces obtained
by nonlinear time-history analysis over the height of the walls for the
12
Engineering Structures 200 (2019) 109668
60 selected ground motions.
From the derived diagrams it can be noticed that the mean value of
shear forces Vna significantly deviates from the seismic design shear
forces obtained by Eurocode 8 (Keintzel's procedure) for both ductility
class (DCM and DCH),VEd,DCM and VEd,DCH. It is clearly evident that the
magnification factor for DCM is too low, while for DCH is very large. It
can be concluded that the corrections of magnification factor ε are
needed for both ductility classes. Also, the need of single magnification
factor for both ductility class (DCM and DCH) is pointed out. Similar
results are obtained by [2,17,18].The need of calibration Eurocode 8
magnification factor of ductile cantilever wall systems in multi-storey
buildings is found by Rutenberg and Nsieri [2], since it overestimates
the base shear demand in DCH walls and underestimates in DCM walls.
The results in Fig. 10, Fig. 11 and Fig. 12. agree with results reached by
Antoniou et al. [17] for DCH walls of mid-rise buildings, i.e. shear force
overestimation by the current approach for DCH wall in Eurocode 8 is
also founded, unlike 1.5-factor mainly appears sufficient for DCM walls.
Rutenberg [18] and Rutenberg and Nsieri [2] showed, by analysing the
shear force demand of ductile cantilever unequal-length walls in multi-
storey buildings, that the design shear forces from code provisions
J. Pejovic, et al.
Fig. 12. The obtained seismic shear force diagrams in wall SW1 of 40-storey prototype building.
appreciably underestimates the force demand on the walls, particularly
in the shorter, more flexible walls. It is worth noting that in this paper,
the unequal lengths of the walls are not considered, but the further
study could be extended to analysis of RC high-rise buildings with
unequal wall lengths.
In addition, the difference in the distribution of the shear forces over
the height Vna is obvious compared to the V'Ed,DCM, V'Ed,DCH, VEd,DCM and
VEd,DCH. Although the modal response spectrum analysis is used for
calculating V'Ed,DCM and V'Ed,DCH, their distribution over the height of
the wall deviates from the distribution obtained by the nonlinear time-
history analysis. These results indicate the need to reconsider the use of
a single magnification factor ε over the height of the wall. Comparing to
the Eurocode 8 design shear forces, the better matching in distribution
over the height of the wall with Vna, is derived by using Priestley pro-
posal which considers two modes.
Fig. 13 shows that the dispersion of the shear forces over the height
of the walls for the 60 selected ground motions is in range of 0.14 to
0.37. The derived values of dispersion indicate that a very small
variability of results is obtained. This points to a high level of accuracy
of calculated shear forces, which is due to large number of selected
ground motions, i.e. in statistical term due to a great size of random
sample.
13
Engineering Structures 200 (2019) 109668
6.2. Possible improvements of the Eurocode 8 procedure for high-rise
buildings
6.2.1. Shear force at the base of the walls
Detailed analysis of the obtained shear forces has clearly indicated
the possible modifications and improvements in calculation of the
Eurocode 8 magnification factor ε for RC walls of the high-rise build-
ings.
Table 6 shows the magnification factor values at the base of the wall
(SW1) that are obtained from: 1) nonlinear time-history analyses, (2)
Eurocode 8 procedure, (3) Eurocode 8 procedure without applied limit
value q and (4) the proposed correction of second term in Eurocode 8
expression (Eq. (8), hereinafter defined). For prototype DCH RC high-
rise buildings, the large values of the magnification factors using
Eurocode 8 procedure are obtained, particularly when it is not limited
by q that leads to a high degree of conservatism in RC walls of high-rise
buildings.
The main weakness of the expression for calculation of the Eurocode
8 magnification factor ε (Eq. (2)) is the second term which results in
very high values of the magnification factor. In defining this term, it
was assumed that the shear force in the second mode at the base of the
wall is approximately √0.1Se(T2)/Se(T1) ≈0.3Se(T2)/Se(T1) of shear
J. Pejovic, et al. Engineering Structures 200 (2019) 109668

Fig. 13. The dispersion of the shear forces over the height of the wall SW1 in the prototype buildings for the 60 selected ground motions.

Table 6
The obtained values of magnification factor ε at the base of the wall (SW1).
Storey Vna/V'Ed,1 ε (DCM) ε (DCH) ε (DCM ε (DCH Proposed
(DCM) ~ Vna/ as DCH without correction of ε
V'Ed,1 (DCH) without applied
applied limit q) DCM DCH
limit q)

20 4.00 1.50 5.40 5.14 7.35 4.30 4.36

30 2.96 1.50 5.40 11.93 17.82 2.97 2.99
40 2.33 1.50 5.40 23.70 35.50 2.33 2.34

force in the first mode.

In order to modify the second term in the expression for Eurocode 8
magnification factor ε (Eq. (2)), the contribution of the second mode
shear force to the first mode shear force at the base of the wall in linear Fig. 14. The derived relationship of the coefficient x related to the different
modal response spectrum analysis of prototype buildings (V'Ed,2/ number of storeys.
V'Ed,1 = xSe(T2)/Se(T1)) is analysed and it is compared with Eurocode 8
contribution √0.1Se(T2)/Se(T1) ≈0.3Se(T2)/Se(T1). The idea is to define
spectrum analysis of prototype buildings is performed for both ductility
value of coefficient x suitable for high-rise buildings as adequate re-
classes (DCM and DCH) and for correspondent behaviour factors of 3.6
placement of Eurocode value√0.1≈0.3. For obtaining value of coeffi-
and 5.4 as well as for different values within the range (q = 3.0–5.4).
cient x (=V ' Ed,2 / V ' Ed,1·Se (T1)/ Se (T2) ), the linear modal response
The derived values of the coefficient x for the different number of

14
J. Pejovic, et al.
Fig. 15. The distribution of the ratio V'Ed,2/V'Ed,1 in the elastic range over the
height of the wall SW1 for three prototype buildings.
Fig. 16. Determination of the mean value of intersecting height VEd,cor with Vna.
storeys are shown in Fig. 14. From the Fig. 14 it can be noticed that all
the derived values of x for the prototype buildings are less than the
Eurocode 8 value of √0.1≈0.3. With the increasing number of storeys,
the range of the derived values decreases. Also, with increasing the
number of storeys the value of x is significantly reduced. For 20 storey
prototype building the value of parameter x is the closest to Eurocode 8
value of √0.1≈0.3. Therefore, it can be concluded that the value
√0.1≈0.3 corresponds to the buildings with lower number of storeys
and that the Eurocode 8 magnification factor refers to the buildings
with lower number of storeys, while for higher number of storeys,
correction in magnification factor is required. Fig. 14 also shows the
mean values of x for prototype buildings. Regression line with the
15
Engineering Structures 200 (2019) 109668
coefficient of determination R2 = 0.9265 and correlation coefficient
r = 0.9625 indicates very high correlation between these parameters
(coefficient x related to number of storeys).
Assuming that the relationship between the second mode shear
force and first mode shear force is equal to V'Ed,2/V'Ed,1 = xSe(T2)/
Se(T1), Eq. (2) for calculating the seismic design of shear forces can be
written in a more general form (Eq. (8)):
' 2 2 '
VEd, cor = V Ed ,1· (γRd· MRd / MEd ) + (x · q · Se (T2 )/ Se (T1 )) = V Ed,1· εcor (8)
The value of x can be calculated from the linear analysis of the
building, whereas for the structural systems of the prototype buildings
or similar, the derived relationship (Fig. 14) can be used for obtaining
value of x.
Applying Eq. (8) on prototype buildings, the values of magnification
factors shown in Table 6 (proposed correction of ε) are derived. These
values substantially match the values obtained by nonlinear time-his-
tory analysis. The corrected value of magnification factor for 20-storey
DCM prototype building is 4.30 and does not exceed the limit value of
shear force 3.6 V'Ed. It is interesting to note that proposed correction of ε
causes the opposite trend found in [2,12]. The proposed formula for
magnification factor in [2,12] provides amplification linear in funda-
mental period T and behaviour factor q, that results in upward trend in
relation to higher buildings heights.
6.2.2. Shear force along the height of the walls
Further, when the corrected magnification factor applies as single
over the height of the wall, the corrected Eurocode 8 shear force en-
velope VEd,cor can be derived (Figs. 10-12). The corrected envelope
better matches the mean shear forces Vna compared to Eurocode 8 en-
velope but still deviates in shape. This envelope may be used as an
adequate replacement for the existing Eurocode 8 envelope, particu-
larly for RC walls of high-rise buildings. The main weakness of such
defined envelope, as well as of Eurocode 8 envelope, is using a single
magnification factor, obtained by the ratio of second mode shear force
to the first mode shear force at the base of the wall, over the entire
height of the wall. Fig. 15 shows the distribution of the ratio V'Ed,2/V'Ed,1
over the height of the wall (SW1) in the elastic range derived by linear
modal response spectrum analysis of three prototype buildings. In the
elastic range this ratio greatly varies over the height of the wall, and it
is significantly lower in the middle of the height and much higher at the
top of the wall. This large variation occurs due to significant higher-
mode effects in high-rise RC buildings, i.e. higher second mode con-
tribution particularly pronounced from the middle to the top of the
wall.
Rejec et al. [11] have suggested that the Eurocode 8 magnification
factor can be used along the entire height of the wall, wherein the
constant ratio of the second mode shear force to the first mode shear
force has been replaced with a variable ratio along the height of the
wall as follows (Eq. (9)):
' 2 2 2 '
VEd = V Ed ,1· (γRd· MRd / MEd ) + m (z ) ·(q · Se (TC )/ Se (T1 )) = V Ed,1· ε (9)
It is assumed that the distribution of the ratio m(z) which corre-
sponds to the ratio of second mode shear forces to the first mode shear
forces in the elastic range, realising that this is just an approximation in
the inelastic range.
Rejec et al. [11] proposal can be corrected by replacing the Se(TC)
with Se(T2) to obtain Eq. (10) more appropriate for RC walls of high-rise
buildings:
' 2 2 2 '
VEd, z = V Ed ,1· (γRd· MRd / MEd ) + m (z ) ·(q · Se (T2 )/ Se (T1 )) = V Ed,1· ε (z )
(10)
In this way, derived envelope coincides with Priestley envelope
defined by two first modes VEd,priestley and significantly matches the
shear forces obtained here by nonlinear time-history analysis Vna. Also,
Antoniou et al. [17] modificated approach proposed by [11] and
J. Pejovic, et al. Engineering Structures 200 (2019) 109668

Fig. 17. The ratio Vna,i/Vna,base for three prototype buildings: mean value, 16% percentile and 84% percentile.

Fig. 19. The proposed shear force envelope VEd,II for RC walls of high-rise
Fig. 18. The proposed shear force envelope VEd,I for RC walls of high-rise buildings.
buildings.

16
J. Pejovic, et al.
extended it to wall-frame systems (this extension firstly was proposed
by [13] for cantilever walls) what resulted in much better agreement
with results derived from nonlinear time-history analysis.
Further, comparing Vna and VEd,cor for each prototype building
(Fig. 10, Fig. 11 and Fig. 12), it is noted that on the highest storeys
VEd,cor underestimates Vna, while in the lower storeys and in the middle
of the height overestimates Vna. Also, the envelope with variable factor
over the height VEd,z overestimates Vna in lower storeys, but in the
middle of the height as well as on the highest storeys matches better
Vna. This imposed the idea of defining the shear force envelope that will
follow the real shape of shear forces over the wall height. The need of
modification Eurocode 8 design shear force envelope in the upper
storeys is also founded by [17] and they proposed an extension of
Eurocode 8 design shear force envelope for dual system to the walls of
all types of systems. Also, Kappos and Antoniadis [14] proposed mod-
ification of Eurocode 8 design shear force envelope of dual system in
the upper third of the height.
Therefore, a detailed analysis of the derived shear force diagrams is
carried out for each prototype building in order to propose the shear
design envelope for RC walls of high-rise buildings that matches the
actual shear forces (Vna).
The procedure of defining the adequate shear force envelope for
high-rise buildings follows two steps: (1) the position of intersecting
VEd,cor with Vna over the wall height is defined (Fig. 16) and (2) the ratio
of shear force at intersecting VEd,cor and Vna and shear force at the base
of the wall is derived (Fig. 17). Firstly, the dependence of intersecting
height of VEd,cor and Vna to the number of the storeys is derived. A re-
gression analysis is carried out and the regression line defining this
dependence is obtained (Fig. 16) with the coefficient of determination
R2 = 0.9304 (and correlation coefficient r = 0.9646) that indicate very
high correlation between these parameters. The mean value of the in-
tersecting height equal to z = 0.8H (H is height of the building) is
obtained.
Further, the ratio of shear force over the height and shear force at
the base of the wall for each prototype building is derived Vna,i/Vna,base.
Fig. 17 shows the ratio of Vna,i/Vna,base for three prototype buildings:
their mean value, 16% percentile and 84% percentile. This ratio Vna,i/
Vna,base over the walls height is similar with one obtained by [15,16] for
central cantilever walls in 9-storey and 15-storey dual systems. Still,
certain higher values of base shear force magnification factors are ob-
tained by applying their proposal.
The mean value of the ratio Vna,(z = 0.8H)/Vna,base for intersecting
height 0.8H is 0.39 (16% and 84% percentiles are: 0.37 and 0.40). The
value of ratio Vna,(z = 0.8H)/Vna,base ~ 0.40 is adopted.
In Fig. 18, the design of shear force envelope VEd,I for RC walls of
high-rise buildings based on the obtained results, is proposed.
Also, the shear force envelope VEd,II for RC walls of high-rise
buildings that takes into account the reduction of shear forces in the
middle of the wall height is derived (Fig. 19). For purpose of defining
this envelope, the mean value of the ratio Vna,(z = 0.5H)/Vna,base at the
middle of wall height (z = 0.5H) is derived. The mean value of the ratio
Vna,(z = 0.5H)/Vna,base is 0.46 (16% and 84% percentiles are: 0.44 and
0.47). The value of ratio Vna,(z = 0.5H)/Vna,base ~ 0.50 is adopted.
Therefore, in Fig. 19, based on the derived results, the shear force en-
velope VEd,II for RC walls of high-rise buildings is proposed.
The proposed shear design envelopes are similar in shape with ones
proposed in [2,12,14–17] and resemble Eurocode 8 shear design en-
velope for RC wall in dual systems [9]. The main difference is in the
value of base shear force (i.e. in value of magnification factor). The
proposed magnification factor in this paper is more appropriate for RC
walls of high-rise buildings compared to existing ones in literature.
7. Conclusions
In this paper, an extensive study is performed in order to examine
the applicability of Eurocode 8 procedure in determination of shear
17
Engineering Structures 200 (2019) 109668
forces in RC walls of high-rise buildings. The conducted analysis has
clearly indicated the possible modifications and improvements in cal-
culation of the Eurocode 8 magnification factor ε for RC walls of the
high-rise buildings. In addition, the applicability of Eurocode 8 provi-
sions related to ductility classes for seismic design of RC high-rise
buildings is investigated. Conclusions and proposals for Eurocode 8
improvements are limited to regular in plane RC high-rise buildings
with core wall structural system. The following conclusions are
adopted:
1. The conducted seismic linear analysis of RC high-rise buildings has
shown that total seismic base shear forces for considered ductility
classes (DCM and DCH) differs only by 5–15%. This occurs because
the values of design spectrum for fundamental mode Sd(T1) of high-
rise buildings are very low, less than values related to lower bound
factor for the horizontal design spectrum β (defined in Eurocode 8)
and the influence of behaviour factor q on design spectrum for
fundamental mode is negligible: seismic base shear forces of the first
mode for DCM and DCH ductility class have the same value while
shear forces for higher modes differ slightly. Moreover, due to the
high design shear forces in DCH walls, it is practically impossible to
satisfy demand regarding diagonal compression failure of the web
due to shear in the web. Large reduction of the shear resistance of
DCH wall controlled by diagonal compression failure, applied to-
gether with large magnification of shear forces with current
Eurocode 8 procedure, limits the design of DCH ductile walls. These
facts, supported by the results obtained in this study, indicate that
RC high-rise buildings for the time being should be designed ac-
cording Eurocode 8 provisions specified for DCM ductility class,
taking into consideration the weakness of the existing shear force
magnification factor. In general, the need of introducing a single
ductility class for RC walls of high-rise buildings is pointed out. For
this single ductility, there is wide range for defining behaviour
factor q. This range can be defined depending on the various para-
meters (the number of storeys, the structural system, etc.). These
statements should be supported on additional parametric studies to
provide a sufficient background.
2. The main weakness of the existing expression in Eurocode 8 for
calculation magnification factor ε is in the second term that is based
on the ratio of the shear force in the second mode at the base of the
wall to the shear force in the first mode in amount of √0.1Se(T2)/
Se(T1) ≈0.3Se(T2)/Se(T1).This results in obtaining very high values
of the magnification factor and indicates a high degree of con-
servatism in the application for RC high-rise buildings.
In order to overcome this weakness, the corrected magnification
factor εcor for RC walls of high-rise buildings defined in a more
general form is proposed:
εcor = (γRd·MRd / MEd )2 + (x·q·Se (T2)/ Se (T1 ))2
The value of coefficient x (=V ' Ed,2 / V ' Ed,1·Se (T1)/ Se (T2) ) can be cal-
culated directly from the linear modal response spectrum analysis of the
building, whereas for the structural systems of the prototype buildings
or similar, the derived relationship for x can be used. For DCM RC walls
it is recommended that the same procedure as required for DCH RC
walls of high-rise buildings be used.
3. Based on the corrected magnification factor εcor, the shear design
envelopes for RC walls of high-rise buildings VEd,I and VEd,II that best
match the actual shear forces (Vna) obtained from nonlinear time-
history analysis, are proposed. These envelopes could be applied as
adequate replacement of existing Eurocode 8 shear force envelope
as more appropriate for RC high-rise buildings.
4. As another alternative for RC walls of high-rise buildings, the usage
of the variable magnification factor over the height of the wall is
recommended:
J. Pejovic, et al.
ε (z ) = (γRd·MRd / MEd )2 + m (z )2 ·(q·Se (T2)/ Se (T1 ))2
Magnification factor derived in this way coincides with Priestley
proposal defined by two first modes VEd,priestley. In general, the usage of
Priestley shear force envelope is recommended.
Further research and additional studies are recommended to prove
and validate the results derived in this study (eg. for other structural
systems, for buildings irregular in plane, different number of storeys,
conducting analysis on more ground motions with different character-
istics and etc.) and provide a sufficient background that would possible
permit revising the existing code procedures.
References
[1] Blakeley R, Cooney R, Megget L. Seismic shear loading at flexural capacity in
cantilever wall structures. Bull New Zeal Natl Soc Earthq Eng 1975;8:278–90.
[2] Rutenberg A, Nsieri E. The seismic shear demand in ductile cantilever wall systems
and the EC8 provisions. Bull Earthq Eng 2006;4:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10518-005-5407-9.
[3] Priestley M, Calvi G, Kowalsky M. Displacement-based seismic design of structures.
Pavia: IUSS PRESS; 2007.
[4] Priestley MJN. Does capacity design do the job? An examination of higher mode
effects in cantilever walls. Bull New Zeal Soc Earthq Eng 2003;36:276–92. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11666-011-9669-2.
[5] Eibl J, Keinzel E. Seismic shear forces in RC cantilever shear walls. In: 9th world
conf earthq eng, Tokyo-Kyoto; 1988.
[6] Keintzel E. Seismic design shear forces in reinforced concrete cantilever shear wall
structures. Eur J Earthq Eng 1990;3:7–16.
[7] Keintzel E. Advances in the design for shear of RC structural walls under seismic
loading. In: Fajfar P, Krawinkler H, editors. Nonlinear seism anal des reinf concr
build. London: Elsevier; 1992.
[8] Rutenberg A. Seismic shear forces on RC walls: review and bibliography. Bull Earthq
Eng 2013;11:1727–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9464-1.
[9] CEN. Eurocode 8—design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: General
rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European standard EN 1998–1.
Brussels: Europenan Committee for Standardization; 2004.
[10] Fardis MN. Seismic design, assessment and retrofitting of concrete buildings: based
on EN-Eurocode 8 (geotechnical, geological, and earthquake engineering). Greece:
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Patras, Springer; 2009.
[11] Rejec K, Isaković T, Fischinger M. Seismic shear force magnification in RC canti-
lever structural walls, designed according to Eurocode 8. Bull Earthq Eng
2012;10:567–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-011-9294-y.
[12] Rutenberg A, Nsieri E. On the seismic shear demand on walls in ductile RC dual
systems. Proceedings, 9h US natl 10th can conf earthq eng Toronto. 2010.
[13] Priestley N, Amaris A. Dynamic amplification on seismic moments and shear forces
in cantilever walls. Proceedings, fib symp concr struct seism reg, Athens. 2003.
[14] Kappos AJ, Antoniadis P. A contribution to seismic shear design of R/C walls in dual
structures. Bull Earthq Eng 2007;5:443–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-007-
9041-6.
[15] Kappos AJ, Antoniadis PS. An improved procedure for the seismic design of re-
inforced concrete walls in dual systems. Proceedings, 14th eur conf earthq Eng,
Ohrid, MK. 2010.
18
Engineering Structures 200 (2019) 109668
[16] Kappos AJ, Antoniadis PS. Evaluation and suggestions for improvement of seismic
design procedures for R / C walls in dual systems. Earthq Eng Struc Dyn
2011;40:35–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.
[17] Antoniou K, Tsionis G, Fardis MN. Inelastic shears in ductile RC walls of mid-rise
wall-frame buildings and comparison to Eurocode 8. Bull Earthq Eng
2014;13:841–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9641-x.
[18] Rutenberg A. The seismic shear of ductile cantilever wall systems in multistorey
structures. Earthq Eng Struc Dyn 2004;33:881–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.
384.
[19] Wiebe L, Christopoulos C. Mitigation of higher mode effects in base-rocking systems
by using multiple rocking sections. J Earthq Eng 2009;13:83–108. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13632460902813315.
[20] Fajfar P. Dynamics of building structures. Slovenia: Faculty of Civil Engineering,
Architecture and Geodesy, University of Ljubljana; 1984.
[21] Taranath BS. Reinforced concrete design of tall buildings. London: CRC Press; 2010.
[22] CEN. Eurocode 2—design of concrete structures—Part 1-1: General rules and rules
for buildings. European standard EN 1992-1-1:2004. Brussels: Europenan
Committee for Standardization; 2005.
[23] CSI Computers and Structures Inc. ETABS 2013 integrated analysis, design and
drafting of buildings systems 2013.
[24] Biskinis DE, Roupakias GK, Fardis MN. Degradation of shear strength of reinforced
concrete members with inelastic cyclic displacements. ACI Struct J
2004;101:773–83.
[25] Fardis MN, Carvalho EAA, Ezio F, Pinto P, Plumier A. Designers’ guide to EN
1998–1 and EN 1998–5 Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance :
general rules, seismic actions, design rules for buildings, foundations and retaining
structures. London: London: Thomas Telford; 2005.
[26] CSI Computers and Structures Inc. PERFORM 3D nonlinear analysis and perfor-
mance assessment for 3D structures 2006.
[27] Powell GH. PERFORM 3D detailed example of a tall shear wall building by Dr.
Graham H. Powell. Nonlinear modeling, analysis and performance assessment for
earthquake loads. Berkeley: CSI Computers & Structures Inc.; 2007.
[28] PEER Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. PEER/ATC-72-1 Modeling
and acceptance criteria for seismic design and analysis of tall buildings. Applied
Technology Council, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center; 2010.
[29] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined
concrete. ASCE J Struct Eng 1988;114:1804–26.
[30] Ambraseys N, Smit P, Sigbjornsson R, Suhadolc P, Margaris B. Internet-site for
European strong-motion data. Eur comm dir XII, environ clim program. 2002.
[31] Ji J, Elnashai AS, Kuchma DA. Seismic fragility relationships of reinforced concrete
high-rise buildings. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 2009;18:259–77. https://doi.org/10.
1002/tal.408.
[32] CSI Computers and Structures Inc. PERFORM 3D nonlinear analysis and perfor-
mance assessment for 3D structures; 2006.
[33] Pejovic J, Jankovic S. Seismic fragility assessment for reinforced concrete high-rise
buildings in Southern Euro-Mediterranean zone. Bull Earthq Eng 2016;14:185–212.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9812-4.
[34] Pejovic J, Jankovic S. Dependence of RC high-rise buildings response on the
earthquake intensity. J Croat Assoc Civ Eng 2015;67. https://doi.org/10.14256/
JCE.1205.2014.
[35] Pejovic JR, Serdar NN, Pejovic RR. Novel optimal intensity measures for prob-
abilistic seismic analysis of RC high - rise buildings with core. Earthquakes Struct
2018;15.
[36] Pejovic JR, Serdar NN, Pejovic RR. Optimal intensity measures for probabilistic
seismic demand models of RC high-rise buildings. Earthq Struct 2017;13:221–30.
https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2017.13.3.221.