Chapter – 1

Introduction
Capacity Design is a concept or a method of designing flexural capacities of
critical member sections of a building structure based on a hypothetical behavior of the
structure in responding to seismic actions. This hypothetical behavior is reflected by the
assumptions that the seismic action is of a static equivalent nature increasing gradually
until the structure reaches its state of near collapse and that plastic hinging occurs
simultaneously at predetermined locations to form a collapse mechanism simulating
ductile behavior.

The actual behavior of a building structure during a strong earthquake is far from
that described above, with seismic actions having a vibratory character and plastic
hinging occurring rather randomly. However, by applying the Capacity Design concept in
the design of the flexural members of the structure, it is believed that the structure will
possess adequate seismic resistance, as has been proven in many strong earthquakes in
the past. Therefore, many seismic design codes around the world, including the draft of
the new Indonesian Seismic Design Code SNI-1726, adopt the Capacity Design concept
as a normative requirement.

A feature in the Capacity Design concept is the ductility level of the structure,
expressed by the displacement ductility factor or briefly ductility factor. This is the ratio
of the lateral displacement of the structure due to the Design Earthquake at near
collapse and that at the point of first yielding. The value of this ductility factor may be
selected by the Owner or the Designer of the building according to the need, ranging
from the value for the full elastic up to that for the full ductile structure. This can be
considered as one form of performance based seismic design, where the targeted
performance of the structure is quantified through the selected ductility factor.

1
 Chapter – 2

Capacity Design
2.1 Introduction
An integrated design procedure, called Capacity Design, was developed for
reinforced concrete buildings in New Zealand under the leadership of T. Paulay. A
clear hierarchy in failure modes should be outlined in the structural planning
stage. The weak-beam strong-column failure mode is advocated. Each structural
member must be proportioned to achieve the intended structural strength and
deformation capacity under the ground motion.

2.2 Earthquake
2.2.1 Ground Motions
The recent development in seismology is fascinating; plate tectonics
developed since the 1960s can explain the occurrence of earthquakes along the
boundaries of tectonic plates. Relative movement of tectonic plates can be
monitored with the use of the global positioning system (GPS). Seismically blank
regions where next large earthquakes may occur along the tectonic plate
boundary are identified. However, it is not possible at this stage to accurately
predict the time, location and magnitude of an earthquake occurrence. It is more
difficult to predict earthquakes within a tectonic plate, such as the 1995 Hyogo-
ken Nanbu earthquake in Kobe. These earthquakes are known to occur by the
fracture of active faults, but an active fault fractures once in one to a few
thousand years. Some faults have been identified on ground surface, but others
are buried under the ground.

A seismometer to measure ground displacement during an earthquake was

developed in late nineteenth century. The seismometer has been used by
seismologists to understand the source mechanism of earthquakes, but it does
not provide acceleration records necessary for engineering purpose. The
seismologist believed that the acceleration signal was affected by accidental
phenomena such as local geology.

A strong motion accelerograph to record ground acceleration was

developed in the early 1930s. The characteristics of earthquake ground motions
were studied through the observed records; i.e., common features of acceleration
records were abstracted and general shapes of response spectra were
established for design purpose taking the local effect of soil into account.

Historical records about earthquake occurrences are studied to estimate

the probability of the maximum earthquake intensity in a region. A large
uncertainty exists in the estimated maximum ground acceleration attributable to
the inaccuracy and the limited period of the historical documentation.

2
2.2.2 Engineering seismology
For the establishment of design earthquake ground motions specific at a
construction site, the seismic history and the geometry of active faults, dynamic
rupture process of earthquake sources, the modeling of underground structures
and transmission of earthquake motions should be investigated. There have been
efforts by engineering seismologists to estimate the characteristics of future
earthquake motions. The global parameters (fault length, width and seismic
moment) of future earthquakes can be estimated by the seismic history,
geological investigation and source modeling of active faults near the
construction site. The local source parameters (slip heterogeneity on fault plane)
are important to characterize the fault movement along the slip plane, especially
the slip and slip velocity. The local parameters cannot be evaluated theoretically,
but must be determined by the source inversion of past major events with the
use of statistical analysis. If the global and local parameters of an earthquake are
identified, the motion at the identified active fault may be estimated. The transfer
function from the source to the construction site may be estimated by an
empirical Green’s function; i.e. the transfer function of past small earthquakes in
the region. Such a scenario for simulating earthquake motion from a target
earthquake has been discussed after the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake by
engineering seismologists. Some of these methods are applied in the design of
major construction projects in the United States and Japan. It is important to
recognize that seismic design of a structure is based on a large uncertainty about
the characteristics, especially intensity, of a design earthquake motion.

2.3 Performance Requirements of Buildings

A structure fails when its resistance is reached under external disturbance.
A strong but brittle system and a weak but ductile system, shown in Figure 1,
may equally survive an earthquake ground motion without collapse as long as
the maximum response does not exceed the failure point.

Figure 1: Earthquake resistance of structures

3
Since the 1960s, it has been believed that it is not feasible to design a building
structure to remain elastic under intense ground motions. Therefore, seismic
design has aimed that (a) the structure should not suffer any structural damage
(serviceability limit state) from frequent minor earthquakes, (b) the structure,
with the repair of damage, should be usable after an infrequent earthquake of
major intensity, and (c) the structure should not collapse (life safety limit state)
for the safety of occupants during the largest possible earthquake at the
construction site.

2.3.1 Minimum strength and ductility

Figure 2 shows schematically the expected performance of a building under
frequent, infrequent, and very rare earthquake motions. A certain minimum
resistance is necessary to limit the damage from frequent minor ground motions.
Architectural elements, such as non-structural curtain walls, partitions and
mechanical facilities, must be protected for the continued use of a building after
an earthquake.

Figure 2: Performance objectives of building

For the prevention of collapse, high resistance is necessary for a brittle

structure and low resistance may be allowed for a ductile structure. The high
lateral force resistance can be achieved by the use of structural walls. The
deformation capacity of a reinforced concrete building has believed to be so
small that sizable lateral resistance must be provided in design to limit the plastic
deformation. Therefore, it is normally believed that a reinforced concrete
structure can satisfy serviceability requirements if the structure is designed to
survive the maximum possible earthquake.

With understanding of reinforced concrete behavior, however, good

reinforcement detailing has been enforced in design and construction to enhance
the deformation capacity. Therefore, a reinforced concrete building is sometimes
designed with low lateral resistance counting on ductility. It becomes essential

4
that a structural engineer should examine the serviceability limit state from
frequent but low-intensity earthquake motions and the level of structural damage
from infrequent but major-intensity earthquake motions.

2.3.2 Design seismic forces

The lateral force resistance of a building is required in a building code,
taking into account (a) seismic risk, (b) soil condition at construction site, (c)
building period, (d) anticipated ductility and acceptable level of damage in a
building, and (e) structural irregularity. The level of minimum lateral resistance
should be determined (a) to control the serviceability of buildings from frequent
earthquake motions and (b) to protect the occupant’s life by limiting the
nonlinear deformation from the maximum possible earthquake motion.

It should be noted that the building code normally outlines the minimum
standard required in the society. The expected performance (minimum required
strength and acceptable damage) of buildings varies from a country to another
because each country has different levels of (a) seismic risk, (b) hazard
tolerance, (c) economic background, and (d) technical development. The function
or the importance of a building should be considered in selecting the acceptable
level of damage.

The design must satisfy, in addition to the minimum code requirements,

the performance requirement set up by a building owner. The recent
performance-based engineering emphasizes the protection of function in a
certain kind of buildings for the continued operation and usage after major
earthquake motions. This is important in design and construction of, for example,
hospitals, computer and information centers, and disaster management facilities.
The use of higher design earthquake forces may reduce the structural damage,
but it is not sufficient to protect the function of the building. New technology such
as base-isolation and energy dissipating devices and auto-adaptive media is
available to achieve the purpose.

2.3.3 Repair ability and structural walls

During the twentieth century, earthquake engineering devoted to the
development of technology to protect human lives from earthquake disasters.
The importance of ductility has been emphasized for the survival of a building. It
should be noted that the “ductility” is the ability of a structure to sustain the
resistance after developing plastic deformation. The ductility is certainly
important for survival of a building under an extraordinary earthquake motion.
However, the damage will develop in a building even during infrequent
earthquake motions if the ductility is assumed in design. There exists a wide gap
in the intensity of the strongest possible and frequent earthquake motions. The
damage must be repaired after frequent earthquakes as well as the strongest
possible earthquake.

The repair-ability is recognized to be an important limit state in the

performance-based engineering. The cost of repairing structural members after

5
an infrequent earthquake may reach the construction cost of a new building. A
structural engineer should advise a building owner about possible cost for repair
and loss associated with the closing of his/her building operation during the
repair work if a building is designed with low lateral resistances counting on a
large ductility of the structure.

The damage level of structural and non-structural elements is known

closely related to story drift (inter-story deformation) of a building. The structural
damage of a brittle but high resistance building (Fig. 2) is much smaller under a
very rare or frequent earthquake motion than the damage of a ductile structure.
A number of damage investigations reported the effectiveness of structural walls
in reducing the damage in structural members as well as non-structural
elements.

It is worth noting that a significant damage could be repaired using present

state of construction technology. An expensive and difficult repair work may be
necessary if, for example, the reconstruction to the original configuration is not
permitted by the revised city ordinance. The technical repair-ability is not
necessarily dependent on the damage level, but is rather governed by the
necessity of the building owner.

2.3.4 Vertical irregularities

A large earthquake response tends to concentrate at flexible and weak
stories. Severe damage and collapse of soft first-story buildings were reported in
past earthquakes, especially in the 1995 Kobe earthquake disaster. In a multi-
story residential building, the first story was often used as commercial facilities or
garages where structural walls placed to separate residential units above were
discontinued. A large base shear must be resisted by first story columns, which
caused a large story drift, concentrated in the first story and failed the columns
having limited deformation capacity due to heavy axial forces. It should be noted
that exterior columns are subjected to large variation of axial forces induced by
overturning moment due to lateral forces acting on a building. This additional
axial force further reduces the deformation capacity of the columns.

Middle story collapse was observed in moment resisting frame buildings in

Kobe. This type of collapse was observed in relatively old construction where
columns failed in a brittle shear mode. The improvement in shear design of
reinforced concrete members is believed to prevent the mid-story collapse.

2.3.5 Horizontal irregularities

The eccentricity between the centers of mass and stiffness causes torsional
vibration during an earthquake, causing larger damage in members away from
the center of stiffness. Well-balanced placement of stiffer and stronger members
should be considered in a plan.

2.3.6 Non-structural Elements

6
 The non-structural elements are essential part of a building function. Non-
engineer residents of a building may be greatly scared by the damage of non-
structural elements, such as partitions, windows, doors and mechanical facilities.
The building may not be occupied until the damaged non-structural elements are
repaired or replaced. The cost of repair work is often governed by the
replacement of the damaged non-structural elements rather than the repair work
on structural elements. The non-structural elements must be protected from
damage to reduce financial burden on the building owner.

Non-structural elements must be also protected from damage because the

fall of failed elements is dangerous for people escaping from the building and
because the failed elements may block evacuation routes in a severely damaged
building.

Controlling inter-story drift by the use of structural walls or improving the method
to fasten the non-structural element to the structure may reduce the damage of
partitions. Stiff, weak and brittle brick walls; filled in a flexible moment-resisting
frame, fail at an early stage even during medium-intensity earthquakes.
Providing some gap on both side of a column could reduce such damage.

The response (acceleration or velocity) of a structure must be controlled to

prevent heavy furniture and equipment from overturning on the floor or to
prevent heavy equipment from falling from shelves; otherwise the contents of a
building should be properly fastened to the structure.

2.3.7 Retrofitting of existing buildings

The earthquake resistant design technology progressed significantly in the

last few decades. The damage investigation has demonstrated the poor
performance of older buildings designed using out-dated technology. The retrofit
of deficient buildings is an urgent task of the owner; the owner is responsible for
maintaining the performance of his building to the existing code level. An
efficient and reliable seismic assessment procedure should be employed to
identify probably deficient buildings.

New structural walls may be added to enhance the lateral resistance of

weak buildings as long as the foundation has sufficient capacity to support
additional weight caused by the walls. Steel bracings can be installed if the
foundation has a problem. The ductility of columns can be improved by steel
plate jacketing or carbon-fiber plastic sheet wrapping.

2.4 Concept of Capacity Design

The capacity design philosophy is a general design concept to realize the
formation of an intended yield mechanism. This concept has been commonly
applied to the plastic design of steel structures in which large plastic deformation
capacity is expected at yield hinges. When the capacity design procedure is
adapted to an earthquake resistant design of a reinforced concrete structure in a

7
seismically active country, three problems had to be solved because the plastic
deformation capability of reinforced concrete members is limited; i.e.,

(a) An acceptable form of yield mechanisms to minimize the plastic

deformation demand from reinforced concrete members,

(b) Required lateral load resistance to control the response plastic

deformation at critical sections within an acceptable level, and

(c) Required resistance of members not a part of the acceptable yield

mechanism during an earthquake.

2.4.1 Weak-beam strong-column mechanism

The weak-beam strong-column mechanism has been preferred by many
structural engineers; i.e., a moment-resisting frame develops yield hinges at the
end of girders and at the base of first -story columns and structural walls under
an intense earthquake (Fig. 3). The earthquake input energy can be quickly
dissipated by fat and stable hysteresis of flexural yielding at beam ends. For a
given displacement of a structure, the ductility demand at yield hinges in the
weak-beam strong-column structure is minimum because plastic deformations
are uniformly distributed throughout the structure. It is also true that the
deformation capacity is reasonably large in girder members where no axial force
acts; on the other hand, the formation of a plastic hinge at the base of the first
story column is not desirable because large deformation capacity is hard to
develop at the locality due to the existence of high axial load. Some extra
moment resistance should be provided at the base of the first story columns to
delay the yield hinge formation. It is not desirable to form plastic hinge in
columns, which cannot develop large deformation capacity.

Figure 3: Weak-beam strong-column mechanism

The formation of yield hinges at the ends of roof-level girders is not

desirable from the durability point of view; i.e., wide crack opening in girders and
roof floor slabs may lead to water leakage after the earthquake. The design of
roof-level girders is normally governed by the minimum reinforcement

8
requirement, and it is easier to allow yield hinges to form at the top of top-story
columns.

It should be noted that the fundamental mode of vibration governs the

deformation response of low- to mid-rise buildings during an intense earthquake;
therefore, the weak-beam strong-column yield mechanism of a structure is
assumed to form under the lateral force distribution similar to the fundamental
mode shape of vibration. The mode shape does not change significantly even
after the formation of plastic hinges in a structure of regular configuration.
However, sizable contribution of higher modes takes place in the displacement
response of high-rise buildings. Therefore, a special care should be exercised in
selecting the distribution pattern of lateral forces for high-rise buildings.

2.4.3 Limitation of weak-beam strong-column mechanism

When the survival of a structure under a severe earthquake motion is the
design objective, the weak-beam strong-column design is probably most
desirable. However, it should be noted that the weak-beam strong-column
mechanism requires significant number of localities to be repaired after an
earthquake. Especially, this is a problem in design where the required horizontal
resistance is significantly reduced from the elastic response demand counting on
ductile behavior. Yielding and associated damage may be developed at many
localities even by a medium intensity earthquake motion resulting in significant
repair cost after the earthquake for the continuing use.

On the other hand, the damage in the soft first-story structure was limited
to the first story, and can be easily repaired using the state of construction
technology as long as the first story does not collapse to the ground. Energy
dissipation devices may be introduced to control the first-story deformation.

The capacity design method should not be limited to the weak-beam

strong-column mechanism.

Story-sway mechanism as shown in Fig.2 should be avoided, but minor

yielding of some columns in a story should be tolerated as long as the column
should be able to support the gravity load.

2.4.4 Required Level of Horizontal Force Resistance

The required level of horizontal force resistance should be determined
taking into consideration, (a) characteristics of the maximum intensity ground
motion expected at the construction site, and (b) acceptable deformation at
expected yield hinge regions of a structure.

Design spectrum is formulated taking into account, (a) seismic risk, (b) soil
condition at construction site, (c) building period, (d) approximate relation
between the maximum response of linearly elastic and nonlinear systems, and
(e) structural irregularity. The acceptable deformation should be determined
taking into account (a) the deformation capacity of members and (b) the function

9
of a building. The required resistance may be dictated by the serviceability or
repair-ability limit state. This is normally the case in the design of steel buildings.

2.4.5 Structural analysis

A linearly elastic analysis of a structure may be carried out using the
gravity loads and lateral forces corresponding to the required resistance. A
limited amount of beam end moments may be redistributed to adjacent beams as
long as the equilibrium of forces is satisfied. The amount of flexural
reinforcement should be determined at planned yield hinge zones to satisfy the
required lateral resistance of the structure. The redistribution of design moments
is necessary to develop optimal lateral resistance as required. However, large
bending moment redistribution from a critical section may cause early yielding
and hence excessive concentration of plastic deformation at the location.

A nonlinear analysis (commonly known as push-over analysis) under

monotonically increasing lateral forces is carried out until the planned yield
mechanism is formed in the structure or the acceptable damage is reached at
one of critical regions. The lateral force distribution is taken similar to the first
mode shape, but with additional forces near the top to consider higher mode
contribution. The resistance at the yield mechanism formation should be greater
than the required resistance. Excessive plastic deformation should not develop at
limited localities.

2.4.6 Design of members not part of planned yield mechanism

In order to ensure the planned yield mechanism during an earthquake,
extra resistance should be provided in the region where yielding is not desired
and against undesired modes of failure such as shear failure and bond splitting
failure along the longitudinal reinforcement. The action in members, not a part of
the planned yield mechanism, may become much higher during an earthquake
than those calculated by the pushover analysis by the following reasons;

(1) Horizontal force distribution during an earthquake can be significantly

different from that assumed in the pushover analysis due to higher mode
contribution,

(2) Actual material strength at the expected yield hinge can be higher than
the nominal material strength used in design; therefore, the actions in non-
yielding members may be larger at the formation of a yield mechanism
with enhanced resistance at each yield hinge,

(3) Additional contribution of slab reinforcement to the bending resistance

of a girder with deformation; i.e., the width of slabs effective to the flexural
resistance of a yielding girder becomes wider with a widening of flexural
cracks at the critical section,

(4) Bi-directional earthquake motion develops higher actions in non-yielding

members than uni-directional earthquake motion normally assumed in a
structural design, and

10
 (5) Actual amount of reinforcement may be increased from the required
amount for construction reasons.

The level of additional resistance must be determined by a series of

response nonlinear analysis of typical buildings under credible earthquake
motions.

2.5 Conclusion
The capacity design is a concept of designing flexural capacities of
structural member sections, based on a hypothetical behavior of the structure;
however it ensures the structure from failure during strong earthquakes. Since in
the Capacity design the level of ductility of the structure may be selected
according to the need, this can be considered as one form of performance based
seismic design, where the targeted performance is quantified through the
selected ductility factor. In the implementation of the strong column weak beam
concept, the equilibrium of forces may be considered either at the state of near
collapse of the structure or at the onset of first yielding.

References
[1] Milne, J. and Burton, W. K., The Great Earthquake of Japan 1981, Lane,
Crawford & Co., Yokohama, Japan, 1891.

[2] Housner, G. W., “Historical View of Earthquake Engineering,”

Conference Lecture, Proceedings, Eighth World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, San Francisco, Post-Conference Volume, 1984, pp. 25 - 39.

[3] Cross, H., “Analysis of Continuous Frames by Distributing Fixed End

Moments,” Proceedings, American Society of Civil Engineers, May 1930.

[4] Architectural Institute of Japan, AIJ Standard for Structural Calculation of

Reinforced Concrete Structures, 1933.

[5] Biot, M. A., “A Mechanical Analyzer for the Prediction of Earthquake

Stresses,” Bulletin, Seismological Society of America, Vol. 31, No. 2, April
1941, pp. 151-171.

[6] G. W. Housner, “Calculating the Response of an Oscillator to Arbitrary

Ground Motion,” Bulletin, Seismological Society of America, Vol. 31, No. 2,
April 1941, pp. 143-149.

[7] Seismological Committee, Recommended Lateral Force Requirements,

Structural Engineers Association of California, 1957.

[8] Kawasumi, H., “Measure of Earthquake Danger and Expectancy of

Maximum Intensity throughout Japan as Inferred from the Seismic Activity

11
in Historical Times,” Bulletin, Earthquake Research Institute, University of
Tokyo, Vol. 46, 1968, pp. 663-666.

[9] Veletsos, A. S. and Newmark, N. M., “Effect of Inelastic Behavior on the

Response of Simple Systems to Earthquake Motions,” Proceedings, Second
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Volume II,
1960, pp. 895 - 912.

12