## 2 Design of Analytical Models
### Performance Goals and Acceptance Criteria  
Collapse prevention against the maximum considered earthquake was adopted as a performance objective for the design of shear walls using nonlinear dynamic analysis. Table 4 summarizes the engineering design parameters and their acceptance criteria used in the design of three models. Details of the acceptance criteria are described as follows. Four engineering demand parameters (EDPs) such as inter-story drift ratios, plastic hinge rotation angles, shear forces and compressive extreme-fiber strains were checked with the acceptance criteria for the performance level. TBI v2.03 limits the mean peak inter-story drift ratio for the whole ground motion suites below 3.0% and individual peak inter-story drift ratio for each ground motion suite below 4.5% in order to prevent collapse [26]. However, the upper limit of mean peak inter-story drift ratio is specified as 2.0% for the prevention of collapse in the AIK guidelines, because most shear walls are designed in the type of ordinary shear walls without confinement at boundary regions and 3.0% inter-story drift ratio could overestimate the performance of those shear walls. Therefore, ordinary shear walls in this study were also designed using the 2.0% inter-story drift ratio limit in accordance with the AIK guidelines. For the plastic hinge rotation angles of shear walls, acceptance criteria prescribed in the AIK guidelines were applied and are essentially equivalent to ASCE 41-17 [27]. To check the plastic hinge rotation angle of shear walls, a yield rotation is necessary to subtract from the peak rotation angle. In this study, the yield rotation angle was calculated using the following Equation (2), where the yield moment strength \(M_{y}\) is estimated using Equation (3) in accordance with the regression analysis of [PERSON] et al. [28]. \[\theta_{y}=\left(\frac{M_{y}}{E_{c}I}\right)_{p} \tag{2}\]  
\[M_{n}/M_{y}=1.13 \tag{3}\]  
where \(M_{n}\) and \(M_{y}\) are the nominal and yield flexural moment strengths respectively, \(E_{c}\) is the elastic modulus of concrete, and \(I\) is the moment of inertia. \(l_{p}\) is the plastic hinge length of the wall. In this study, \(l_{p}\) was assumed to be a half of the wall length in accordance with ASCE 41-17. The shear force is a force control action, designed to satisfy the required strength increased with an amplification factor. Table 4 shows the shear design recommendation of the AIK guidelines and other relevant literature, where \(Q_{n}\) and \(Q_{e}\) represent the nominal shear strengths based on the nominal and expected material strengths, respectively. \(Q_{u}\) is the required strength defined by the mean peak \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Engineering Demand Parameter**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Acceptance Criteria**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{Inter-story drift ratio} & 2.0\% \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{Plastic hinge rotation angle} & Collapse prevention in ASCE 41-17 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{Compressive extreme-fiber strains} & 0.002 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Shear} & AIK guideline [2] & \(\gamma Q_{u}\leq\phi Q_{n}\), \(\gamma=1.2\), \(\phi=1.0\) \\ \cline{2-3}  & [PERSON] et al., [PERSON] et al. [24; 25] & \(\gamma Q_{u}\leq\phi Q_{n}\), \(\gamma=1.5\), \(\phi=1.0\) \\ \cline{2-3}  & TBI v2.03 [26] & \(\gamma Q_{u}\leq\phi Q_{n}\), \(\gamma=1.3\), \(\phi=0.75\), \(B=0.9(1.5Q_{e}/Q_{n})\) \\ \cline{2-3}  & \multirow{2}{*}{TBI v2.03 [26]} & Simplified as follows if flexural rotation is not large \\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \(1.12Q_{u}\leq Q_{n}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Engineering demand parameters for performance-based seismic design. response for the whole suite of ground motions. \(\gamma\) and \(\phi\) are the shear force amplification factor and the strength reduction coefficient, respectively. In the AIK guidelines, \(\phi\) and \(\gamma\) are 1.0 and 1.2, respectively [2]. [PERSON] et al. and [PERSON] et al.