Tenth U.S.

National Conference on Earthquake Engineering

Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
10NCEE Anchorage, Alaska

The Capacity Spectrum Method:

Evaluation Against The Measured Response of
a Nine-Story Structure

Y. Wang1 and S. Pujol2

ABSTRACT

The Capacity Spectrum Method can be used to estimate the inelastic response of a structure in an
earthquake by comparing the capacity of the structure with the demand on the structure. The
measurements of an instrumented nine-story building at Tohoku University, which experienced
two major earthquakes, were used to evaluate the CSM with a wide range of plausible
assumptions. The displacements computed using CSM differ from the measured displacement by
14% to 36% for one earthquake, and by 2% to 10% for the other.

1
Graduate Student Researcher, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
2
Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907

Wang Y, Pujol S. The Capacity Spectrum Method: Evaluation Against The Measured Response of a Nine-Story
Structure. Proceedings of the 10th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.
 The Capacity Spectrum Method:
Evaluation Against The Measured Response of a Nine-Story Structure

Y. Wang1 and S. Pujol2

ABSTRACT

The Capacity Spectrum Method can be used to estimate the inelastic response of a structure in an
earthquake by comparing the capacity of the structure with the demand on the structure. The
measurements of an instrumented nine-story building at Tohoku University, which experienced
two major earthquakes, were used to evaluate the CSM with a wide range of plausible
assumptions. The displacements computed using CSM differ from the measured displacement by
14% to 36% for one earthquake, and by 2% to 10% for the other.

Building Description

The Building of the Faculty of Architecture and Engineering at Tohoku University was a 9-story
reinforced concrete structure. In the longitudinal and transverse directions, the building had 8
bays (with 8000mm typical column spacing) and 4 bays (with 6750mm typical column spacing)
in the fist two stores. It had 5 bays and 2 bays in the third and upper stories. Two exterior
structural walls and structural walls around staircases were the major lateral load resisting system
in the transverse direction. More details were described by Shiga et al.[1].

Earthquakes and Damages

Strong motion devices were installed on the 1st and 9th stories [2].Strong motion records were
obtained for two major earthquakes: the 1978 Miyagi Oki Earthquake (M7.4) and 2011 Great
East Japan Earthquake (M 9.0) [3]. The N-S components of the earthquake records, which
coincided with the transverse direction of the building, are discussed in this paper. The peak
accelerations in the N-S were 0.26g and 0.34g at the ground level measured in 1978 and 2011,
1.04g and 0.91g at the 9th level, respectively.

The 1978 Miyagi Oki Earthquake produced relative minor damage to the exterior
structural walls of the building: shear and flexural cracks were observed with the maximum
crack width being approximately 1mm. Repair works were carried out in 2000 and 2011

1
Graduate Student Researcher, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
2
Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907

Wang Y, Pujol S. The Capacity Spectrum Method: Evaluation Against The Measured Response of a Nine-Story
Structure. Proceedings of the 10th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.
following this procedure: removing exterior wall panels from the 3rd to 9th stories, cutting
existing web reinforcement in both transverse and longitudinal directions, gluing anchors to the
adjacent beams and columns, adding spirals along the edge of the panels and installing more web
reinforcement. Severe damage was observed after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake: the
boundary elements of the exterior structural walls at the base of third story disintegrated, with
reinforcement in these elements fractured or buckled. Details about the damage can be obtained
from several references [2][4].

Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM) Analysis

Introduction

The Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM) is used to evaluate existing structures [5][6]. The
procedure of CSM compares the capacity of the structure with the demand on the structure. The
capacity represented by the load-deflection curve and the demand is represented by response
spectra. The intersection of these curves provides an estimate of the response of the structure.
Non-linear behavior of the building is represented using linear response spectra computed for
increased damping ratios (β).

Capacity Curves

The initial fundamental period of the building was approximately 0.5 seconds in the transverse
direction. The period increased to approximately 1.0 second in the 1978 Miyagi Oki Earthquake
(Figure 1). The repairs of 2000 caused a decrease in period. But the period increased again to 1.3
seconds during the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake. Figure 2 shows that a sudden increase in
period took place at t=83 second after the recording instrument was triggered.

The base shear strength of the building in the transverse direction was estimated using
two approaches: extrapolating the peak acceleration recorded on the 9th level and adding the
products of accelerations and masses and by limit analysis.

Four acceleration distributions were assumed to extrapolate the measured acceleration: a)

acceleration proportional to the deflected shape computed by Suzuki et al. [2] for a roof
displacement of 23cm; b) acceleration proportional to the 1st mode shape derived from the
Rayleigh–Ritz method; c) linear acceleration distribution along the height of the building; d)
acceleration proportional to the 1st mode shape obtained from a 3D linear model of the building.
These distributions were used for both 1978 Mayigi Oki Earthquake (marked as cases 1 to 4 as
shown in Table 1) and the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake (marked as cases 5 to 8 as shown in
Table 1).

For the limit analysis, the controlling mechanism includes hinges at the base of the third
story. Four lateral load distributions were considered again: a) lateral load proportional to the
deflected shape computed by Suzuki et al. [2] for a roof displacement of 23cm; b) lateral load
proportional to the 1st mode shape derived from the Rayleigh–Ritz method; c) linear lateral load
distribution along the height of the building; d) lateral load proportional to the 1st mode shape of
a 3D linear model of the building. Base-shear coefficients computed for these four cases are
marked as case 9 to case 12 as shown in Table 1.
 The capacity curve of the building for each case was represented as a trilinear curve:
spectral acceleration S , (Flat lines in Figure 3) with a maximum V W .
where:
(∑ ∅ , )
W = ∑
(1)
∅,
N: number of stories;
m : mass of the jth story;
∅ : jth component of the first mode shape ∅

The initial stiffness of the building was assumed to produce a fundamental period of 0.5
seconds. Cracking was assumed to occur at a spectral acceleration of S , . The effective yield
point (ductility ratio μ = 1) was defined as the intersection of a line representing a period of 1.0
second and the flat line representing a spectral acceleration equal to S , .

Demand curves

The demand curves of the1978 Mayigi Oki Earthquake and the 2011 Great East Japan
Earthquake are shown in Figure 3 and 4. In these two plots, the innermost line represents the
linear elastic response spectrum for a damping ratio of 15%. The response spectra for damping
ratios less than 15% were computed based on the response spectrum for a damping ratio equal to
15% using the following procedure:

1) Compute an amplification factor ( ) for spectral displacement at a given damping

ratio :
( , )
d = ( , ) (2)

2) Compute an amplification factor (a ) for spectral acceleration at a given damping ratio

β:
( , )
a = (3)
( , )

where:
S (β , 1): Spectral displacement at a damping ratio β and at a period of 1 second;
S (β , 1): Spectral displacement at a damping ratio β = 15% and at a period of 1
second;
S (β , 1): Spectral acceleration at a damping ratio β and at a period of 1 second;
S (β , 1): Spectral acceleration at a damping ratio β = 15% and at a period of 1 second;

3) The response spectral displacement S (β ) at a given damping ratio β and a given

period is calculated by multiplying the response spectral displacement S (β ) at damping ratio
β by the amplification factor d . Similarly, the response spectra acceleration S (β ) at a given
damping ratio β for a given period is calculated by multiplying the response spectra acceleration
S (β ) of damping ratio β by the amplification factor a .
Seismic Response of the Building

The TriServices Manual [7] used equations proposed by Newmark and Hall [8] to relate
damping β to ductility μ as shown in Table 2. More details about the CSM can be found from
Freeman, 1998.

The spectral displacement (S ) was estimated by matching the effective damping related
to displacement ductilities of the capacity curve and the damping ratio of the demanding curve.
Estimated ductility μ and effective damping β for each case are summarized in Table 3.

The estimated spectral displacement (S ) was translated to displacement (Δ) at the base of
the 9th floor by the following equation:

Δ= S ×Γ ×∅ , (4)
∑ ∅,
Γ =∑ (5)
∅,

Where:
∅ , : 8th component of the first mode shape ∅ (8th degree of freedom of the building at
the base of the 9th story, where the strong motion device was installed)

Displacements estimated by integrating from 1978 and 2011 earthquake records were
21cm and 28cm respectively [4]. Estimated inelastic displacements are summarized in Table 4.

Conclusion

The displacements computed using CSM differ from the measured displacement by 14% to 36%
for the 1978 Miyagi Oki Earthquake, and by 2% to 10% for 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake.
This conclusion was reached without assuming the lower two stories to be rigid.
 References
1. Shiga,T., Shibata, A., Shibuya, J. and Takahashi, J., 1981. Observations of Strong Earthquake Motions and
Nonlinear Response Analysis of the Building of Architectural and Civil Engineering Department, Tohoku
University, Transactions of the Architectural Institute of Japan (301), 119-129
2. Suzuki, K., Alwashali, H., Maeda, M., Wang, Y., Pujol, S., and Ichinose, T. (2013). Performance of the
Building of the Faculty of Engineering at Tohoku University during the Great East Japan Earthquake of 2011.
10th International Conference on Urban Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan.
3. Tsamba, T., and Motosaka, M. (2011) Observational records’ analyses for dynamic characteristics of a damaged
building during the 1978 Miyagi-ken Oki and the 2011 Tohoku earthquakes, 30th Meeting of Japan Society of
Natural Disaster Science
4. Alwashali, H., et al. (2013) On the Seismic Response of the Building of the Faculty of Architecture and
Engineering at Tohoku University, Submitted to Earthquake Spectra (accepted)
5. Freeman, S. (2004). Review of the development of the capacity spectrum method. ISET Journal of earthquake
technology, 41(438), 1–13.
6. Freeman, S. A. (1998). Development and Use of Capacity Spectrum Method. Proceedings of 6th US National
Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Seattle, Washington, U.S.A., Paper No. 269.
7. WJE, 1996, Seismic Dynamic Analysis for Buildings, Final Manuscript prepared for the U.S. Army
Engineering Division by Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc., Emeryville, California.
8. Newmark, N.M. and Hall, W.J. (1982). Earthquake Spectra and Design, Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute, Oakland, California, U.S.A.
 Table 1: Acceleration Distribution.
Acceleration Distribution
Level Mass Distribution Pushover Linear First
Analysis Ritz
Distributio Mode
i (Suzuki et al., method
n SAP2000
2013)
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0.27 0.10 0.03 0.15 0.07
2 0.24 0.18 0.09 0.28 0.13
3 0.07 0.30 0.18 0.40 0.25
4 0.07 0.42 0.28 0.50 0.38
5 0.07 0.54 0.40 0.60 0.5
6 0.07 0.66 0.53 0.70 0.63
7 0.06 0.78 0.68 0.80 0.76
8 0.06 0.89 0.83 0.90 0.88
9 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Effective Weight Coefficient 0.61 0.48 0.71 0.56
Modal Participation Factor 1.54 1.52 1.55 1.51
Extrapolation of 0.48 0.40 0.54 0.44
measured acceleration
of 1978 earthquake Case1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4
Base Shear Extrapolation of 0.42 0.35 0.47 0.39
Coefficient measured acceleration
of 2011 earthquake Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8
0.39 0.33 0.43 0.36
Limit Analysis
Case 9 Case 10 Case 11 Case 12

Table 2: Ductility ratio ( ) vs. effective damping ( ).

Freeman, 1998

1.00 5
1.25 8.5
1.50 12
2.0 16
3.0 26
 Table 3: Ductility ratio ( ) and effective damping ( ) for each case.
1978 Earthquake 2011 Earthquake
Ductility Damping Ratio Ductility Damping Ratio
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Case 1 1.01 7 Case 5 1.18 8
Case 2 1.03 6 Case 6 1.15 7
Case 3 1.09 6 Case 7 1.18 8
Case 4 1.06 6 Case 8 1.15 8
Case 9 1.17 7 Case 9 1.22 8
Case 10 1.10 7 Case 10 1.16 8
Case 11 1.20 7 Case 11 1.24 8
Case 12 1.15 7 Case 12 1.19 8

Table 4: Ratio of Calculated Displacement to Measured Displacement

1978 Earthquake 2011 Earthquake
Disp. From Disp. From
Ratio** Ratio**
CSM (cm) CSM (cm)
Case 1 27 1.30 Case 5 27 0.98
Case 2 27 1.29 Case 6 26 0.95
Case 3 29 1.36 Case 7 27 0.97
Case 4 28 1.33 Case 8 27 0.95
Case 9 25 1.20 Case 9 26 0.94
Case 10 24 1.14 Case 10 25 0.90
Case 11 25 1.19 Case 11 26 0.93
Case 12 25 1.17 Case 12 26 0.91
Measured* 21 27

* Maximum displacement calculated from measured acceleration records.

** Ratio of displacement calculated using CSM to the measured displacement.
 30

Displacement (cm) 20
10
0
− 10
− 20
− 30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Time (seconds)
Figure 1: Relative Displacement time-history (1978 Miyagi Oki Earthquake)
30

20
Displacement (cm)

10

− 10

− 20

− 30
60 66 72 78 84 90 96 102 108 114 120

Time (seconds)
Figure 2: Relative Displacement time-history (2011 Great East Earthquake)
 1.20

1.00

5%
0.80
case 1
case 2
Sa（g）

0.60 case 3
case 4

0.40 case 9
case 10
case 11
0.20
case 12

0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Sd（cm）

Figure 3: Capacity Spectrum for 1978 Miyagi Oki Earthquake

1.20

1.00

5%
0.80
case 5
case 6
Sa（g）

0.60 case 7
case 8

0.40 case 9
case 10
case 11
0.20
case 12

0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Sd（cm）

Figure 4: Capacity Spectrum for 2011 Great East Earthquake

 1.60
Calculated Displacement/Measured Displacement)

1.40

1.20 case 1
case 2
1.00
case 3

0.80 case 4
case 9
0.60 case 10
case 11
0.40
case 12

0.20

0.00
case #

Figure 5: Comparison of Calculated Displacement (CSM) and Measured Displacement of the

1978 Miyagi Oki Earthquake
1.40
Calculated Displacement/Measured Displacement)

1.20

1.00 case 5
case 6

0.80 case 7
case 8
0.60 case 9
case 10
0.40 case 11
case 12
0.20

0.00
case #

Figure 6: Comparison of Calculated Displacement (CSM) and Measured Displacement of the

2011 Great East Earthquake