1- I used to do this a lot at a previous company - but I don't really have a good answer for you, I don't

think there is agreement in the high rise industry. I've done a lot of peer reviews on these as well and
have seen people do lots of different things.
The most common thing that I've seen is as you stated to check for tension stresses. That usually means
looking at the 'uplift' load combos and finding all of the net tension areas. Again I've seen this done
different ways - I've seen people crack anything with any net tension, and others only crack where net
tension exceeds the modulus of rupture. Depending on what software you are using you can usually set
your option to turn everything above a certain stress level a certain color, say red, to make this faster to
identify.
Some people crack all walls below any stories where tension is identified and others actually go panel by
panel to identify and modify stiffness. I have also seen a cracking modifier applied to everything,
regardless of stresses from analysis. I believe it also varies by region. I did a few buildings in Asia where
we had really crazy drift requirements, but at the same time they allowed 1.0Ig for all walls.
People will often cite the ACI recommended values but in practice I didn't find that people were using
those, it was more the exception.
In high rise you are probably controlled by wind drifts, and changes in stiffness at the base make a big
difference so your assumptions for cracking have a large impact on your overall design. As I said - no
good answer, just giving you what I've seen.

2-Yes, two models are common - service and strength. Most likely you are running p-delta in the analysis
model and you want to make sure you are running an appropriately 'soft' model to capture that,
especially with something very tall.
As far as the value of cracking I've seen - again it varies. I was just part of a peer review of a relatively
tall (50+ story) building where the EOR had no cracking in their service model. The building is a heavy
system and it did not show any net tension under wind, this was their reasoning for 1.0Ig. For the
strength model they have 0.35 for both bending and shear.
I've also seen 0.5 used, and also the 0.7 number that you mentioned. I'm not sure where the 0.7 comes
from but I've seen this several times. I've also seen people first transform the section. If you're doing
something tall then you probably have walls packed with reinf. at the base. I've seen people base the
cracked section on the transformed section.
One more thing in terms of cracking. Often there is some form of an outrigger system. If you are
grabbing columns with those outriggers you need to crack/modify the axial stiffness of those columns.
Technically this depends on the loading direction so you could have different models for different loading
directions.
I've seen at least one company going to a non-linear analysis in Perform 3D, which is probably the
closest that it gets at this point to capturing the different directions/cracking etc. in one model.
Basically I think it's all over the place with what people are doing.

3-

csi , :
: f11=f22=f12=m11=m22=m12=0.7 comp
: f11=f22=f12=m11=m22=m12=0.25
: bending stiffness x =bending stiffness y= torsinal stiffness =0.7
shear modifier .0..0 building frame system

: bending stiffness x = bending stiffness y = torsional stiffness = 0.35

4-To determine whether the Walls are cracked or not, we need to do the

followings:

In the first analysis step, assume that walls have no flexural cracks under
combined effect of gravity and lateral loads, so enter 0.7*Ig as a value of
flexural stiffness modifiers.
From the outputs of first analysis step, extract the wall-shell elements
tension stresses (S11, S22, S12 | principal stresses Smax) from load
combinations that have both gravity and lateral loads.
Compare wall's tension stresses values with concrete modulus of rupture
[fr=0.62 * sqrt(f'c) MPa] which denotes the value of tension stresses in
concrete where the cracks start to be developed after reaching it.
If the extracted wall's stresses are greater than concrete modulus of
rupture, this means that wall section will have cracks, so we need to repeat
the analysis again with value of flexural stiffness modifiers equal to 0.35 *
Ig.