## 2 Design of Analytical Models  
### Structure  
High-rise ordinary shear wall structures were idealized using two-dimensional plane models. A total of three models denoted by Model A, Model B, and Model C are constructed, designed and evaluated. Figure 1a,b show the three-dimensional view and plan of the Model A. The model is composed of five walls, of which R1 and R2 are coupled shear walls with a rectangular cross section, R3 is a single wall with a rectangular cross section, and T1 and T2 are coupled shear walls with a T-shaped cross section as illustrated in Figure 1a,b. CB1 and CB2 represent coupling beams. Those five walls are connected with rigid links (red line), which constrain only the translational degree of freedom in the X-direction. The length of coupling beams CB1 and CB2 in Figure 1b is 1 m and 1.5 m, respectively, reflecting the width of doors and windows. The depth of those coupling beams is set to 0.6 m and 1.2 m, respectively. The width of the coupling beam is the same as the thickness of the adjacent walls. The dimensions of coupling beams are common among the three analytical models. Table 1 represents the characteristics of the three models. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Analytical Model**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Component Wall**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Length (m)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Thickness (m)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Axial Force Ratio**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Height (m)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**T1 (s)**} \\ \cline{3-4} \cline{6-7}  & & & **Fange** & & & **Web** & & **Range** & **Web** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Model A} & R1 & & 2.5 & & 0.2 & 0.3 & \\  & R2 & & 2.5 & & 0.2 & 0.3 & \\  & R3 & & 9 & & 0.2 & 0.15 & 70 & 2.4 \\  & T1 & 1.5 & 3 & 0.22 & 0.22 & 0.15 & \\  & T2 & 1.5 & 3 & 0.22 & 0.22 & 0.15 & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Model B} & R1 & & 2.5 & & 0.2 & 0.3 & \\  & R2 & & 2.5 & & 0.2 & 0.3 & \\  & R3 & & 9 & & 0.2 & 0.15 & 81.2 & 3.6 \\  & T1 & 1.5 & 3.5 & 0.25 & 0.25 & 0.15 & \\  & T2 & 1.5 & 3.5 & 0.25 & 0.25 & 0.15 & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Model C} & R1 & & 2.5 & & 0.25 & 0.3 & \\  & R2 & & 2.5 & & 0.25 & 0.3 & \\  & R3 & & 9 & & 0.3 & 0.1 & 109.2 & 3.2 \\  & T1 & 2.5 & 4 & 0.35 & 0.35 & 0.1 & \\ \cline{1-1}  & T2 & 2.5 & 4 & 0.35 & 0.35 & 0.1 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Characteristics of analysis model. Figure 1: Configuration of Model A. Model B and C have the same configuration as Model A, but the detailed dimensions are slightly different from each other. Height, cross sectional shapes and dimensions for the component walls comprising each model were determined based on typical actual apartment buildings in South Korea and listed with other characteristics in Table 1. The height of Model A, B and C is 70 m (25 floors), 81.2 m (29 floors), and 109.2 m (39 floors), respectively. The height of all of the three models exceeds the upper limit 60 m, below which the ordinary shear walls are acceptable. The axial force ratio plays an important role in the flexural and shear capacities of walls. Therefore, axial force ratios and corresponding wall lengths were investigated based on design documents for previously designed apartment buildings. Figure 2 shows that longer walls tend to have lower axial force ratios. Considering this observation, R1 and R2 with relatively shorter length have higher axial force ratio than R3, T1 and T2 in Table 1.  
The purpose of using simplified plane models is to concentrate on the adequacy of ordinary shear walls exceeding the height limit in the design code. However, issues such as irregularity and flexible diaphragms are important in the behavior of actual building structures. Irregular building configuration can cause additional seismic demand to structural systems by torsion in structural systems leading to increased possibility of collapse [9]. In addition, a flexible diaphragm may enhance such an irregularity [10; 11].