Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 2, No.

3, 375-383, October 2004 / Copyright 2004 Japan Concrete Institute 375

Assessment of Damage Level for Low-Rise RC Buildings Based on

Seismic Capacity Index (Is)
Manabu Yoshimura1, Takaya Nakamura2 and Katsumi Yagi3

Received 23 February 2004, accepted 11 July 2004

Abstract
In Japan, the seismic performance of existing RC buildings is evaluated by computing the seismic capacity index, Is,
using the Standard for Seismic Evaluation of Existing RC Buildings, while the damage level of RC buildings that un-
dergo earthquakes is assessed by the Standard for Post-Earthquake Inspection and Guidelines for Repair and Strength-
ening Technology. This paper reports the results of investigation of the relation between the Is value and the damage
level for low-rise RC buildings designed according to the old code by conducting dynamic analysis on model buildings
with a variety of Is values. The effects of the deformability type of columns and the number of stories on the relation
between the Is value and the damage level were studied. Two levels of ground motions, the original level of past earth-
quake records and the design standard level, were considered. In the analysis, column hysteresis was derived from test
results. Strength deterioration after shear failure and axial collapse that are commonly associated with hysteretic behav-
ior of old columns, were considered. The method presented in this study enables assessment of the damage level of
buildings and the damage condition of columns if the deformability type of columns, number of stories, Is value and
ground motion are given. In addition, the assessed damage level of buildings are compared with the observed damage
level from past earthquakes and the Is value required to prevent collapse of buildings is discussed.

1. Introduction After the 1995 Kobe Earthquake, damage level as-

A common way in Japan to evaluate the seismic per-
formance of existing RC buildings is to compute the
seismic capacity index, Is, using the Standard for Seis-
mic Evaluation of Existing RC Buildings (Japan Asso-
ciation for Building Disaster Prevention 2001a). Build-
ings with a large Is value are evaluated to possess high
seismic performance. On the other hand, the damage
level of RC buildings that undergo earthquakes is as-
sessed according to the Standard for Post-Earthquake
Inspection and Guidelines for Repair and Strengthening
Technology (Japan Association for Building Disaster
Prevention 1991, 2001b), abbreviated as the "Inspection
Standard." The damage level of buildings is assessed by
computing damage index, D (%), in the 1991 version of
the Inspection Standard or residual seismic capacity
index, R (%), in the 2001 version, where R 100-D.
The damage level is judged to be heavy in the case of a
large D value or small R value. The relation between the
Is value and D (R) value for damaged buildings has
been studied and discussed whenever severe earth-
quakes occurred.
sessment was performed for a number of school build-
ings in highly affected areas using the 1991 version of
the Inspection Standard. The Is vs. D relation of these
buildings studied for the longitudinal direction, which in
general is weaker than the transverse direction for
school buildings, is plotted in Fig. 1 (Japan Association
for Building Disaster Prevention 2001a). In the study,
the Is value was computed using the second-level pro-
cedure of the Standard for Seismic Evaluation, where a
shear building or rigid girders were assumed. Since
several English papers (Umemura and Okada. 1977;
Aoyama 1981; Otani 2003) have been published on this
Standard, a detailed description of the method to com-
pute the Is value is omitted here. The plots marked
Deemed exceptional in the figure are for buildings
with a high Is value because of high deformability but
suffered severe damages. Except for these plots, the
Deemed exceptional
100
90 Collapse
80 Severe
70
Severe Moderate
M oderate
60
D (%)

50
Minor
M inor
40 Slight or
or
1 nodamage
no damage
Professor, Department of Architecture, Faculty of 30 Moderate
20 (Eye judgement)
(Eye judgement)
Engineering, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Japan. 10
E-mail: myoshim@arch.metro-u.ac.jp 0
2
Research Associate, Department of Architecture, 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Faculty of Engineering, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Is (Second-level procedure)
Japan.
3
Toshiba Corporation, Japan. Fig. 1 Is vs. D (School buildings, Kobe Earthquake).
376 M. Yoshimura, T. Nakamura and K. Yagi / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 2, No. 3, 375-383, 2004

Story weight: 2. Analysis methods

753 kN
2.1 Outline of analytical model
The analytical model is shown in Fig. 2. Model build-
Story height: 360 cm

ings simulating old three- and five-story buildings were

Two types of analyzed. They were idealized as shear building with
column two types of column for each story. The height and
weight of each story were assumed as 360 cm and 753
kN, respectively.
The analysis can be outlined as follows.
(1) Three models, which consisted of two types of col-
umn, were considered. They were, 1) model 1 with very
brittle column (clear height, h0 = 120 cm, depth, D = 60
cm, h0/D = 2) and shear column (h0 = 240 cm, D = 600
Fig. 2 Analytical model
mm, h0/D = 4), 2) model 2 with very brittle column and
(Three-and five-story buildings).
flexural column (h0 = 240 cm, D = 60 cm, h0/D = 4),
and 3) model 3 with shear column and flexural column.
Girder Note that the flexural column was named so because it
Hanging wall was observed to yield in a flexural manner although it
90

was computed to fail in shear rather than flexure per the

Shear and Standard for Seismic Evaluation. These three types of
flexural columns columns are shown in Fig. 3. Each column had dimen-
120

Rigid Very brittle Rigid

sions double those of the tested specimen, including the
360

zone column zone

240

reinforcement size and spacing (Nakamura and Yoshi-

Spandrel mura 2003; Takaine et al. 2003). The test is described in
wall
section 2.2.
150

(2) Story strength distribution was determined based on

30

Girder uniform design load distribution prescribed by the old

Unit [cm]
Fig. 3 Deformability type of columns.
figure clearly indicates that D value tends to decrease as
the Is value increases. However, one can see that there is
a very wide range of D values for the same Is value.
Possible reasons for this are differences in each building
such as the type of deformability of columns, the num-
ber of stories, and the intensity level of ground motions
that the building underwent. Thus, knowledge about the
Is vs. damage level relation still remains incomplete
although a number of studies on this relation have al-
ready been performed (e.g. Okada et al. 1998; Lee et al.
1996). To throw more light on this issue, it is necessary
to conduct systematic studies using model buildings.
This research is intended to study the Is vs. damage
level relation for low-rise RC buildings designed ac-
cording to the old code (before 1971) by conducting
dynamic analysis on model buildings with a variety of
Is values. The effects of the deformation type of col-
umns and the number of stories on the Is vs. damage
level relation are studied. Two levels of ground motions,
the original level and a design standard level adjusted so
code. However, considering general construction prac-
tice whereby column sizes for the top two or three sto-
ries usually remain unchanged, it was assumed that the
three-story building had the same strength in all stories
while the five-story building had the same strength at
and above the third story (Fig. 4).
(3) The very brittle column that was included in models
1 and 2 was assumed to carry 30% of the story strength.
Each of the two columns of model 3 was assumed to
carry 50% of the story strength. These ratios were fixed
for all stories.
(4) The IS value was computed for each story by the
second-level procedure of the Standard for Seismic
Evaluation. As briefly described in Appendix, the Is
value is computed based on the product of the strength
index, C, and the deformability index, F, for each col-
umn. The C index is defined as the strength of a column
Old code distribution
M odel distribution
0.33 0.2
3 5
4
Story

Story

that the maximum ground velocity is 50 cm/s, are con- 2 3

0.6
sidered. The latter level is often used to represent very 2
severe earthquakes in Japanese seismic design. In the
analysis, column hysteresis is derived from test results. 1 1
1.0 1.0
Strength deterioration after shear failure and axial col- Story strength Story strength
lapse, which are commonly associated with hysteretic
(a) Three-story building (b) Five-story building
behavior of old columns, are considered.
Fig. 4 Story strength distribution.
 M. Yoshimura, T. Nakamura and K. Yagi / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 2, No. 3, 375-383, 2004
3 5
4
Story
Story
2 3
2 Model 2
1 1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Is
(a) Three-story building (b) Five-story building
Fig. 5 Is distribution
(Is of building being 0.4).
0.6
0.5 Three-story building
Five-story building
0.4
T (s)
0.3
0.2
0.1 Building height (m) 0.02
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Is
Fig. 6 Is vs. fundamental period.
divided by the total weight of floors above the column,
while the F index is determined according to the de-
formability of the column.
(5) The F values of the three columns, with dimensions
twice those of the tested specimens including the rein-
forcement size and spacing, were computed to be 0.8,
1.0 and 1.1, respectively, for the very brittle, shear and
flexural columns. The Is value was varied by fixing the
F value and changing the C value. Because of the as-
sumed story strength distribution, the Is value became
lowest at the first story and at the third story, respec-
tively, for the three- and five-story buildings. The Is
value at those stories was denoted as the Is value of the
building. The Is value of each story is shown in Fig. 5
for an Is value of the building of 0.4. Hereafter Is value
denotes that of the building.
(6) The initial stiffness distribution of buildings was
assumed to be the same as the story strength distribution.
The Is value for buildings designed according to the old
code is in general approximately 0.4 (Tamura and Ta-
naka 1999). The initial stiffness of buildings with Is =
0.4 was determined so that the fundamental period, T,
would be 0.22 s and 0.36 s, respectively, for the three-
and five-story buildings, where these periods were
computed using the conventional equation, T = 0.02 h
(h: total building height in meters). The initial stiffness
of buildings with other Is values was assumed to be
proportionate to that of buildings with Is = 0.4. The Is
vs. fundamental period relation is shown in Fig. 6.
(7) The total initial stiffness of buildings was shared
between two columns. The ratio of sharing was deter-
377
Table 1 Ratio of sharing by two columns.
Initial stiff-
Column Strength
ness
Very brittle 30% 59%
Model 1
Shear 70% 41%
Very brittle 30% 59%
Flexural 70% 41%
Shear 50% 50%
Model 3
Flexural 50% 50%
Is
mined with reference to the test results. The ratio of
sharing for the initial stiffness is shown in Table 1 along
with that for the story strength.
2.2 Column test
Specimens simulating the very brittle, shear and flexural
columns were tested under constant axial load (axial
stress ratio of 0.2). The test was continued until the
specimens became unable to sustain a constant axial
load. The relation between the lateral load and drift an-
gle (interstory drift angle), and photos taken at specific
drift angle, are shown in Figs. 7 and 8. The interstory
drift angle was translated from the drift angle according
to the geometric shape shown in Fig. 3. Hereafter in
0.8 1 1.2 sections 2.2 and 2.3, the numeral in parentheses after the
drift angle denotes the interstory drift angle. The very
brittle column failed in shear and lost axial load carry-
ing capacity or collapsed at the drift angle of 7.8%
(2.6%), and the shear column failed in shear and col-
lapsed at the drift angle of 13.4% (8.9%), whereas the
flexural column failed in flexure and collapsed at a drift
angle as great as 17.9% (11.9%).
2.3 Hysteresis model
The Takeda-slip model incorporating strength deteriora-
tion after maximum load was used in the dynamic
analysis (see Fig. 17). The assumed skeleton of the hys-
teresis is represented by a broken line in Fig. 7. Drift at
the maximum load, y , was determined with reference
to the results of these and similar tests. A sharp drop in
strength after the maximum load was considered for the
very brittle and shear columns. The collapse point was
assumed as the point with zero load and a observed col-
lapse drift, u. The u value was set to be uniform for all
stories of the three-story building and the top three sto-
ries of the five-story building. However, it was reduced
by 5% and 10%, respectively, for the second and first
story of the five-story building, considering larger axial
load for these stories. Stiffness after the collapse point
was set to be a very small value of 1/10,000 of the ini-
tial stiffness. The structural properties of the three col-
umns are tabulated in Table 2 for the top three stories.
2.4 Damage level assessment
The damage classes of columns were categorized as 0
through V with reference to the examples shown in the
Inspection Standard (Japan Association for Building
Disaster Prevention 2001b). The damage class was de-
termined as shown in Fig. 7 depending on the maximum
378 M. Yoshimura, T. Nakamura and K. Yagi / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 2, No. 3, 375-383, 2004

Max. strength (test) Collapse (test)

Max. strength (analysis) Collapse (analysis)
Drift angle (%)
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8

T est Drift angle Collapse After collapse

0.5% 1.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 7.8%
Analysis
u = 7.8%
(2.6%)
Load

0.95 Damage class Interstory drift angle
0.6 0.17% 0.33% 0.67% 1.33% 2.0% 2.6%
0.3
0 Damage class
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 I III III IV IV IV V
Interstory drift angle (%) (a) Very brittle column
(a) Very brittle column
Drift angle (%) Drift angle Collapse After collapse
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0.5% 1.0% 2.0% 4.0% 8.0% 13.4%

u = 13.4%
(8.9%)
Load

0.95 Damage class
0.6
0.3 0 Interstory drift angle
0.33% 0.67% 1.33% 2.67% 5.33% 8.93%
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Damage class
Interstory drift angle (%)
I II III IV IV IV V
(b) Shear column
(b) Shear column
Drift angle (%)
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Drift angle Collapse After collapse
0.5% 1.0% 2.0% 4.0% 8.0% 17.9%

u = 17.9%
(11.9%)
Load

0.95
0.75 Damage class
0.5
0 Interstory drift angle
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0.33% 0.67% 1.33% 2.67% 5.33% 11.9%
Interstory drift angle (%) Damage class
I I II III IV IV V
(c) Flexural column (c) Flexural column
Fig. 7 Load vs. drift, skeleton of hysteresis,
Fig. 8 Damage condition of specimens.
damage class and .

interstory drift. The classes are as follows: for the very
brittle and shear columns, class 0 for drift 0.2y, class
I for 0.2y<drift 0.5y, class II for 0.5y<drift y,
class III for y<drift 2%, class IV for 2%<drift u
and class V for u<drift, and for the flexural column,
class 0 for drift 0.25y, class I for 0.25y<drift y,
class II for y<drift 2%, class III for 2%<drift 4%,
class IV for 4%<drift u and class V for u<drift. The
post-peak range was categorized as classes IV and V in
the Inspection Standard, but as classes III, IV and V in
this paper. This change was decided in consideration of
the post-peak range, which was observed to be very
wide compared to the pre-peak range.
The damage level of buildings was assessed using a
residual seismic capacity index, R (Japan Association
for Building Disaster Prevention 2001b). Index R is
defined as the ratio of the post-earthquake seismic ca-
pacity index, DIs, to the original seismic capacity index,
Is. DIs was computed so that 1) the strength index, C, of
each column was evaluated as an original value multi-
plied by the seismic capacity reduction index, , and 2)
the seismic evaluation procedure was applied again us-
ing the reduced C value and the F value, which was as-
sumed to be unchanged. The value was determined
 M. Yoshimura, T. Nakamura and K. Yagi / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 2, No. 3, 375-383, 2004 379

Table 2 Structural properties of three columns (Top three stories).

y (%) u (%)
Column h0 (cm) Interstory drift Interstory drift F
Drift angle Drift angle
angle angle
Very brittle 120 0.6 0.2 7.8 2.6 0.8
Shear 240 1.0 0.67 13.4 8.9 1.0
Flexural 240 1.0 0.67 17.9 11.9 1.1

Table 3 Seismic capacity reduction index, .

Damage class Very brittle and shear columns Flexural column
0 1 1
I 1 - 0.95 1 - 0.95
II 0.95 - 0.6 0.95 - 0.75
III 0.6 - 0.3 0.75 - 0.5
IV 0.3 - 0 0.5 - 0
V 0 0

Table 4 Damage level of buildings.

Damage level Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Slight 95 R
Minor 80 R < 95
Moderate 60 R < 80
Severe 16 R < 60 30 R < 60 10 R < 60
Collapse R < 16 R < 30 R < 10

according to the damage class, as shown in Fig. 7 and 2.5 Dynamic analysis
Table 3. Interpolation was used to determine the value Four ground-motion records were used, JMA (EW) and
for specified drift. The damage level of buildings, Slight, FKI (EW) at the 1995 Kobe Earthquake, TOH (NS) at
Minor, Moderate, Severe or Collapse was determined the 1978 Miyagikenoki Earthquake and HAC (EW) at
according to the R value, as shown in Table 4. The the 1968 Tokachioki Earthquake. For the Kobe Earth-
damage level of buildings, Collapse, which was not quake, an EW component weaker than the NS compo-
clearly defined in Ref. (Japan Association for Building nent was used. This was because the post-earthquake
Disaster Prevention 2001b) was determined in this pa- studies for school buildings (Fig. 1) were for the longi-
per as collapse of one column with an u value smaller tudinal direction, mainly the EW direction, which had
than the other column. The R values associated with the originally been designed to have a few walls for lighting
damage level of buildings, Collapse, were computed to purposes. For the other two earthquakes, a stronger
be 16%, 30% and 10%, respectively, for models 1, 2 and component was used.
3. These values were used to judge whether buildings The original level of the ground motions and a level
collapsed or not. Note that the definitions for the dam- adjusted so that the maximum ground velocity would be
age class of columns different from the Inspection 50 cm/s were considered. The acceleration spectrum for
Standard resulted in a higher R value for cases with the the original level is shown in Fig. 9. Damping was as-
III or IV damage classes of columns. sumed to be of the viscous type and proportional to the
initial stiffness with a damping factor of 2% with re-
100
Response acceleration (cm/s2))

h = 0.02 JMA
2

Model 1 Collapse of column

3000 FKI with smaller u
80 Model 2
TOH Model 1
HAC Model 3
2000 60 Model 2
R (%)

Model 3
40
1000

20
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0
T (s) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Fig. 9 Response acceleration spectrum Interstory drift angle (%)
(Original level of ground motions). Fig. 10 Interstory drift vs. R.
380 M. Yoshimura, T. Nakamura and K. Yagi / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 2, No. 3, 375-383, 2004

T hree-story building Five-story building

Collapse limit
100 JM A JMA JMA
80
Moderate
R (%)

60
40 Severe
20
0 Collapse
100 FKI FKI FKI
80
R (%)

60
40
20
0
100 TOH TOH TOH
80
R (%)

60
40
20
0
100 HAC HAC HAC
80
R (%)

60
40
20
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Is Is Is
(a) Model 1 (b) Model 2 (c) Model 3
Fig. 11 Is vs. R (Original level of ground motions).

spect to the fundamental natural frequency. The lateral
load measured in the test (Fig. 7) included the so-called
P- effect, and therefore, this effect was not considered
in the analysis.
3. Analysis results
3.1 Is-R relations
Dynamic analysis was performed for Is values ranging
from 0.2 to 1.0. For all cases, the first story and third
story were computed to suffer the largest damage
(smallest R value), respectively, for the three- and
five-story buildings. In other words, the story with the
smallest Is value coincided with the story with the
smallest R value. For that case, the R value can be de-
termined as a unique value from the maximum in-
terstory drift for each model. The interstory drift vs. R
relations are shown in Fig. 10. It turns out that the slope
in these relations is steep in the small drift range while it
is gentle in the large drift range. The point of collapse,
where the column with smaller u value collapses, is
shown in this figure. Interstory drift at collapse is much
smaller for models 1 and 2 than for model 3 because of
the small u value of the very brittle column.
The Is-R relations are shown in Figs. 11 and 12, re-
spectively, for the two levels of ground motions. The R
value was determined from Fig. 10 using the computed
maximum interstory drift. Naturally, the R value tended
to increase with the increase of the Is value. The results
of the three- and five-story buildings were close except
for some cases of JMA, suggesting that the difference in
the fundamental period does not affect the results much.
Hence, the results of the two buildings will be discussed
together hereafter.
3.2 Original level of ground motions
3.2.1 Damage level for Is = 0.6 (Comparison
with observations)
It is widely recognized in Japan that buildings with
Is 0.6 possess sufficient seismic performance even for
severe earthquakes. Such recognition is based on the
observations made at past events. In other words, build-
ings with Is 0.6 did not in general suffer Moderate or
greater damage during the Miyagikenoki and Tokachi-
oki Earthquakes, and did not suffer Severe or greater
damage during the Kobe Earthquake. To confirm this,
the damage level of buildings with Is = 0.6 was studied.
For each model, the R value (the smaller among the
three- and five-story buildings) is shown in Fig. 13. The
damage level was Severe for all three models for JMA,
Moderate for models 1 and 2, and Minor for model 3 for
FKI, and Minor or Slight for all three models for TOH
and HAC. The results for FKI, TOH and HAC agree
with the observations. However, the results for JMA
exceed the observations. One reason for the difference
in JMA may be the walls used as partition between
classrooms existing in the transverse direction in school
buildings. The effects of these walls, which surely
 M. Yoshimura, T. Nakamura and K. Yagi / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 2, No. 3, 375-383, 2004 381

T hree-story building Five-story building

Collapse limit
100 JM A JMA JM A
80
Moderate
R (%)

60
40 Severe
20
Collapse
0
100 FKI FKI FKI
80
R (%)

60
40
20
0
100 TOH TOH TOH
80
R (%)

60
40
20
0
100 HAC HAC HAC
80
R (%)

60
40
20
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Is Is Is
(a) Model 1 (b) Model 2 (c) Model 3
Fig. 12 Is vs. R (Level of ground motions with 50 cm/s).

helped reduce damage to columns, were ignored in the
analysis.
3.2.2 Is value required to prevent buildings
from collapsing
Building collapse is a serious risk to human life. Hence,
it is essential to grasp the Is value required to prevent
collapse. That value is represented in Fig. 11 by a bro-
ken line and summarized in Fig. 14. The required Is
value was 0.5 for models 1 and 2 for JMA, 0.4 for
model 1 and 0.25 for model 2 for FKI, and 0.3 for
model 1 and 0.25 for model 2 for TOH. Collapse did not
occur for model 3 for these records and for all models
for HAC. These results indicate that Is = 0.5 is enough
to prevent collapse for any model in any earthquake.
3.3 Level of ground motions with maximum
ground velocity of 50 cm/s
3.3.1 Damage level for Is = 0.6
The R values (the smaller among the three- and
five-story buildings) for Is = 0.6 are shown in Fig. 15.
The damage level was Minor or Slight for models 1 and
3 and Moderate for model 2 for FKI, Minor for all three
models for TOH, and Moderate for models 1 and 2 and
Minor for model 3 for HAC. The R values for the cases
assessed as Moderate were close to 80%, between
Moderate and Minor, indicating that Is = 0.6 in general
secures a Minor damage level for FKI, TOH and HAC
with the maximum ground velocity of 50 cm/s. How-
ever, the damage level was Severe for model 1 and
Moderate for models 2 and 3 for JMA. Note that the R
value is 48% for model 1 and associated maximum in-
terstory drift is 0.72% (Fig. 10), the point of which lies
in the region where the R value is sensitive to changes
in interstory drift.
3.3.2 Is value required to prevent buildings
from collapsing
The Is value required to prevent collapse is represented
by a broken line in Fig. 12 and summarized in Fig. 16.
The required Is value was 0.35 for models 1 and 2 for
JMA, 0.35 for model 1 and 0.3 for model 2 for TOH,
and 0.3 for models 1 and 2 for HAC. Collapse did not
occur for model 3 for these earthquakes and for all
models for FKI. This indicates that buildings including
the very brittle column have to possess Is 0.35 to
avoid collapse for the level of ground motions with
maximum ground velocity of 50 cm/s. It is therefore
urgent to strengthen against future earthquakes existing
buildings that include very brittle columns and whose Is
value is less than 0.35.
3.4 Effect of column types
The effect of column types on the damage level is dis-
cussed in this section. One can see from Figs. 13 and 15
that except for JMA, the R values for models 1 and 2
are close and smaller than those for model 3. This sug-
gests that the damage level is heavier for buildings that
382 M. Yoshimura, T. Nakamura and K. Yagi / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 2, No. 3, 375-383, 2004

100 100
JMA JMA
80 80
Moderate FKI Moderate FKI

R (%)
60
R (%)

60 TOH TOH
40 HAC 40 Severe HAC
Severe
20 Collapse 20 Collapse
Collapse Collapse Collapse Collapse
0 0
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Fig. 13 R for Is = 0.6 Fig. 15 R for Is = 0.6
(Original level of ground motions). (Level of ground motions with 50 cm/s).

1
1
JMA
JMA
0.8 TOH
0.8 FKI
0.6 HAC

Is
0.6 TOH
Is

FKI: Did
HAC: Did Did not not collapse.
Did not not collapse. 0.4 collapse.
0.4 collapse.
0.2
0.2
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Fig. 14 Is required to prevent collapse Fig. 16 Is required to prevent collapse

(Original level of ground motions). (Level of ground motions with 50 cm/s).

include very brittle columns. Figures 14 and 16 exhibit
the same result more clearly. Models 1 and 2 require at
least Is = 0.25 to avoid collapse while collapse does not
occur at all for model 3 even for Is = 0.2. This result is
apparently because the drift at collapse was assumed to
be smaller for models 1 and 2 than for model 3, as
stated earlier.
3.5 Assessment of damage level of buildings
and column damage from index Is
The damage level of buildings and column damage can
be assessed according to the method stated in this re-
search, if the model building and ground motion are
given. The procedure is to, 1) obtain the R value from
Fig. 11 or 12, 2) determine the maximum interstory drift
using the R value from Fig. 10, and 3) determine col-
umn damage using the maximum interstory drift from
Fig. 8.
Let us take as an example the case of a three-story
building, model 1, JMA, 50 cm/s, and Is = 0.3 and 0.55.
The assessed damage level of the building and column
damage are shown in Fig. 17 together with the load vs.
drift relations derived from dynamic analysis. For Is =
0.3, the R value is 15% (Collapse) and maximum in-
terstory drift is 3%. The very brittle column collapsed,
and the shear column sustained severe shear failure as
well. On the contrary, for Is = 0.55, the R value is 78%
(Moderate) and maximum interstory drift is 0.35%. The
very brittle column suffered large shear cracks, but the
shear column did not suffer remarkable damage. Thus,
if the deformation type of the columns, number of sto-
ries, Is value and ground motion are given, the method
presented in this study enables us to assess the damage
level of buildings and the damage condition of con-
stituent columns.

Is = 0.3 Is = 0.55
R = 15% (Collapse) R = 78% (Moderate)
Max. Max.
Very brittle column Shear column
1000
interstory drift interstory drift
= 3% = 0.35% Max. interstory drift
500
Load (kN)

-500 Is=0.55 Is=0.55

Is=0.3 Is=0.3
-1000
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Very brittle Shear Very brittle Shear Interstory drift angle (%) Interstory drift angle (%)
column column column column

Fig. 17 Damage level, column damage and interstroy drift vs. load
(Three-story building, model 1, JMA and 50 cm/s).
 M. Yoshimura, T. Nakamura and K. Yagi / Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology Vol. 2, No. 3, 375-383, 2004
4. Conclusions
The relations between the Is value and damage level
were studied using model buildings. The effects of the
deformation type of columns and the number of stories
were considered. Two levels of ground motions, the
original level and the level with maximum ground ve-
locity of 50 cm/s were also considered. The major find-
ings from the study are as follows.
(1) If the deformation type of columns, number of sto-
ries, Is value and ground motion are given, the method
presented in this study enables us to assess the damage
level of buildings and the damage condition of con-
stituent columns.
(2) For the original level of ground motions, the damage
level computed for TOH and HAC agrees with the ob-
servations at the Miyagikenoki and Tokachioki Earth-
quakes. However, the damage level for JMA is heavier
than the observations for school buildings at the Kobe
Earthquake. One reason of this may be walls existing in
the transverse direction in school buildings, which
surely helped reduce damage to columns but were ig-
nored in the analysis.
(3) For the level of ground motions with the maximum
ground velocity of 50 cm/s, buildings that include very
brittle columns and whose Is value is less than 0.35 are
in danger of collapsing. It is thus urgent to strengthen
those buildings against future earthquakes.
(4) The damage level is heavier for buildings that in-
clude very brittle columns than those that do not if the Is
value is the same.
(5) The difference in the fundamental period of three-
and five-story buildings does not affect the result much.
Appendix
The seismic capacity index, Is, is given by the following
equation.
I S = E0 S D T
where SD is the configuration index, assumed as 1.0 for
this study, T is the time index, assumed as 1.0 for this
study, and E0 is determined as the larger of the values
given by the following equations.
n +1
E0 = (C1 F1 ) + (C2 F2 )
2 2
n+i
n +1
E0 = (C1 + C2 ) F1
n+i
where n is the number of stories, i is the story to be
studied, C1 and C2 are the strength indices of the column
with relatively less deformability and the other column,
F1 and F2 are the deformability indices of the column
with relatively less deformability and the other column,
and is the strength modification index, determined as
383
0.77, 0.59 and 0.87, respectively, for models 1, 2 and 3.
References
Aoyama, H. (1981). A method for the evaluation of the
seismic capacity of existing reinforced concrete
buildings in Japan. Bulletin of the New Zealand
National Society for Earthquake Engineering, 14(3),
105-130.
Japan Association for Building Disaster Prevention,
(2001a). Standard for Seismic Evaluation of Existing
Reinforced Concrete Buildings. (in Japanese)
Japan Association for Building Disaster Prevention,
(1991). Standard for Post-Earthquake Inspection
and Guidelines for Repair and Strengthening
Technology. (in Japanese)
Japan Association for Building Disaster Prevention,
(2001b). Standard for Post-Earthquake Inspection
and Guidelines for Repair and Strengthening
Technology. (in Japanese)
Lee, K., Nakano, Y., Kumazawa, F. and Okada, T.
(1996). Seismic capacity of reinforced concrete
buildings damaged in Hyogo-ken Nambu earthquake,
1995, - Seismic Capacity of Reinforced Concrete
Buildings in Awaji Island -. Journal of Structural
Engineering, Architectural Institute of Japan, 42B,
9-14. (in Japanese)
Nakamura, T. and Yoshimura, M. (2003). Axial
collapse of R/C short columns. Proceedings of the
fib 2003 Symposium - Concrete Structures in Seismic
Regions -, CD-ROM, Paper #159.
Okada, T., Kabeyasawa, T. and et al. (1998). Seismic
performance indices and observed damages of
reinforced concrete school buildings. The 10th
Earthquake Engineering Symposium, 1, 177-182. (in
Japanese)
Otani, S., (2003). Seismic vulnerability assessment and
retrofit - state of practice in Japan -. Proceedings of
the fib 2003 Symposium - Concrete Structures in
(1) Seismic Regions -, CD-ROM, Keynote Lecture K-4.
Takaine, Y., Yoshimura, M. and Nakamura, T. (2003).
Collapse drift of reinforced concrete columns.
Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering
(Transactions of AIJ), Architectural Institute of Japan,
573, 153-160. (in Japanese)
Tamura, M. and Tanaka, A. (1999). Statistical study on
(2) the evaluation of seismic capacity of existing RC
buildings. Journal of Structural Engineering,
Architectural Institute of Japan, 45B, 297-304. (in
Japanese)
(3)
Umemura, H. and Okada, T. (1977). A practical
method to evaluate seismic capacity of existing
medium- and low-rise R/C buildings with emphasis
on the seismic capacity of frame-wall buildings.
Proceedings of a Workshop on Earthquake-Resistant
Reinforced Concrete Building Construction held at
the University of California, Berkeley, 3, 1381-1386.