## 2 Design of Analytical Models
### Analysis and Design Results  
In order to confirm whether the analytical model satisfies the target performance, a nonlinear dynamic analysis was performed for the 14 ground motion records described in Section 2.2. The mean peak of inter-story drifts, plastic hinge rotation angles, and compressive extreme-fiber strains were calculated and all component walls were designed to meet acceptance criteria for collapse prevention. The component walls were reinforced with double-layered rebars, and design results are summarized in Table 5. The reinforcement of coupling beams is summarized in Table 6. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **Analytical** \\ **Model** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Component** \\ **Wall** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Vertical Reinforcement**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Horizontal Reinforcement**} \\ \cline{3-8}  & & **Story** & **Reinforcement** & **Story** & **Design to \(1.0V_{u}\)** & **Design to \(1.2V_{u}\)** & **Design to \(1.5V_{u}\)** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{R1} & \multirow{4}{*}{R2} & 3–25 & D10@400 & 4–25 & D10@360 & D10@360 & D10@360 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & 2 & D13@400 & 3 & D10@360 & D10@180 & D10@150 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & 1 & D13@200 & 1–2 & D10@250 & D10@180 & D10@150 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & 3–25 & D10@400 & 4–25 & D10@360 & D10@360 & D10@360 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & 2 & D13@400 & 3 & D10@360 & D10@180 & D10@150 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & 1 & D13@200 & 1–2 & D10@250 & D10@180 & D10@150 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & 18–25 & D10@400 & 6–25 & D10@330 & D10@330 & D10@330 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & 11–17 & D13@400 & 4–5 & D10@330 & D10@330 & D10@200 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & 8–10 & D13@300 & 3 & D10@330 & D10@200 & D10@140 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & 3–7 & D13@200 & 1–2 & D10@270 & D10@200 & D10@140 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & 1–2 & D13@150 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{T2} & \multirow{4}{*}{T2} & 18–25 & D10@400 & 6–25 & D10@330 & D10@330 & D10@330 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & 11–17 & D13@400 & 4–5 & D10@330 & D10@330 & D10@200 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & 8–10 & D13@300 & 3 & D10@330 & D10@200 & D10@140 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & 3–7 & D13@200 & & & & \\ \cline{3-8}  & & 1–2 & D13@150 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{R3} & \multirow{4}{*}{T5–25} & \multirow{2}{*}{D10@400} & 6–25 & D10@360 & D10@360 & D10@360 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & & 4–5 & D10@360 & D10@360 & D10@210 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & 1–14 & D13@400 & 2–3 & D10@360 & D10@320 & D10@210 \\ \cline{3-8}  & & 1 & D10@280 & D10@200 & D10@140 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Reinforcement of shear walls. In the nonlinear analysis of final design results, all the individual walls in Model A, B, and C satisfy the acceptance criteria on the inter-story drift ratio, plastic hinge rotation angle, and compressive extreme-fiber strain. Vertical distribution of diverse responses for a wall in Model A is shown in Figure 5(a)-c. All of the maximum values of peak responses along the entire stories are summarized in Table 7. The maximum of mean peak inter-story drift ratios for Model A, B, and C was 1.27%, 1.25%, and 0.85%, respectively, of which all satisfy the acceptance criteria described above. The demand-capacity ratio (DCR) for plastic hinge rotation angle in Table 7 are expressed in the ratio of the mean peak plastic hinge rotation angle and the acceptance criteria described above and meet the collapse prevention requirements. All the walls in three analysis models satisfy the collapse prevention criteria. It was also found that all compressive extreme-fiber strains are below 0.002. The plots for 0, 1.2 and 1.5 are shown in Figure 5(d). The maximum demand-to-capacity ratios for individual wall elements along the height are summarized in Table 7. The design of shear strength was performed for 1.0, 1.2, and 1.5 times the mean shear force demand in order to investigate the seismic fragility performance with respect to the design shear force level.