RESIDUAL SEISMIC CAPACITY AND DAMAGE EVALUATION OF HIGH-RISE RC BUILDINGS

Transcription

1 6 th ASIA Conference on Earthquake Engineering (6ACEE) Sept 216, Cebu City, Philippines RESIDUAL SEISMIC CAPACITY AND DAMAGE EVALUATION OF HIGH-RISE RC BUILDINGS Ryutaro Michishita 1, Tomoki Nishina 2, Yusuke Maida 3, Nobuyuki Izumi 4 ABSTRACT: Damage evaluation against specific seismic wave is necessary for earthquake countermeasures of high-rise RC buildings. In this paper, authors propose that the method of damage evaluation can be considered by evaluating limit story drift angle and residual seismic capacity obtained from seismic capacity evaluation of highrise RC buildings. First, seismic capacity index and residual seismic capacity in limit states are calculated by implementing nonlinear static analysis and seismic response analysis. The analysis models are 3 frame models that simulated existing high-rise RC buildings. Relationship between residual seismic capacity and damage of the elements is analyzed, and rating value that estimating damage evaluation is considered during index values calculation. Next, authors propose a method of damage evaluation using limit story drift angle and residual seismic capacity obtained from the results. Lastly, authors estimate damage evaluation of 1-story frame model that simulated existing high-rise RC buildings as an example of estimation against specific seismic wave. The validity of evaluation method is considered based on the results. KEYWORDS: High-rise RC building; Nonlinear Static analysis; Seismic Response Analysis; Seismic capacity; Residual Seismic Capacity 1. INTRODUCTION In Japan, earthquake countermeasures of existing high-rise RC buildings (RC buildings) has been an urgent need since The 211 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku Earthquake. For earthquake countermeasures, it is necessary to evaluate seismic capacity and residual seismic capacity against specific seismic wave. However, study on the evaluation method of damage evaluation against high-rise RC building has not been widely considered. Authors have already studied about seismic performance evaluation of high-rise RC buildings with entire yield mechanism. A conceptual diagram of the seismic performance and damage evaluation in this study is shown in Figure 1. Seismic performance evaluation is carried out in a two steps. First step is the evaluation of seismic performance of the frame and second step is the evaluation of seismic performance for a specific seismic wave (Figure 2). Seismic capacity of frame will be evaluated using two index values, seismic capacity index (HIS value) and residual seismic capacity (HR) which are calculated by the nonlinear static analysis and seismic response analysis. HIS value is the index value representing the intensity of the input seismic wave corresponding to the limit state of the frame. And it is calculated as the input magnification (HI value) of basis seismic wave reach the limit deformation representing each limit state. Furthermore, HR is the index value representing the residual seismic performance remaining after the earthquake experience, and is calculated as the ratio of the remaining amount of energy. In this paper, authors propose the method of damage evaluation of the evaluation of seismic performance for a specific seismic wave. As shown in Figure 2, damage

2 6 th ASIA Conference on Earthquake Engineering (6ACEE) Sept 216, Cebu City, Philippines evaluation is assessed by using limit story drift angle and residual seismic capacity obtained in the first step (evaluation of seismic performance of the frame). Firstly, seismic capacity index and residual seismic capacity in limit states are calculated by implementing nonlinear static analysis and seismic response analysis. The analysis models are 3 frame models that simulated existing high-rise RC buildings. At that time, relationship between deformation ratio during unloading, inclination ratio and story drift angle. Further, relationship between residual seismic capacity and damage of the elements is analyzed, and rating value that estimating damage evaluation is considered during index values calculation. Next, authors estimate damage evaluation of a frame model that simulated existing highrise RC buildings as an example of estimation against specific seismic wave. The validity of evaluation method is considered based on the results. story shear force reparability limit ultimate limit service ability limit collapse limit no damage minor damage major damage minor half damage collapse 1/2 1/1 1/65~1/5 story drift angle Limit of level 1 Limit of level 2 The value of the story drift angle is the value of a measure in standard buildings Figure 1. Concept of seismic performance and damage evaluation Figure 2. Flow of seismic performance evaluation Frame structure of entire yield mechanism by the beam bending yield 1 Evaluation of seismic performance frame is held 1Calculation of limit story drift angle by nonlinear static analysis 2The setting of basis seismic wave 3Calculation of maximum response story drift angle by Seismic Response Analysis 4Evaluation of seismic capacity index ( H I S value) 5Evaluation of Residual seismic capacity ( H R) 2 Evaluation of seismic performance for a specific seismic wave 6The setting of specific seismic wave 7Calculation of maximum response story drift angle by Seismic Response Analysis 8Evaluation of Residual seismic capacity ( H R) 9Evaluation of damage evaluation to specific seismic wave

3 6 th ASIA Conference on Earthquake Engineering (6ACEE) Sept 216, Cebu City, Philippines 2. INDEX OF HIGH-RISE RC FRAME STRUCTURE 2.1 Calculation method of seismic capacity index Seismic capacity index (HIS value) is calculated as the ratio of the intensity of limit seismic wave in the intensity of basis seismic wave. Limit seismic wave is an input seismic wave when story drift angle obtained from seismic response analysis reaches limit story drift angle (RS) obtained from nonlinear static analysis. RS is a story drift angle that corresponding to the limit state of the frame. The limit story drift angle of the frame is divided into 3 states, which are service ability limit, reparability limit, and ultimate limit that calculated in HIS value. In this study, authors directed to a frame structure of entire yield mechanism by the beam bending yield. Therefore, each RS are evaluated using the beam bending ductility factor (DF) and column equivalent ductility factor (CDF) obtained from nonlinear static analysis. Figure 3 shows the relationship between the DF of elements and damage degree (Akita 214). It should be noted that, DF of beam is the value of the lager DF of both ends. CDF is the average value of the DF of the beams that attached to the column (Figure 4). Service ability limit state is evaluated by the DF (Table 1). Reparability limit state and ultimate limit state are evaluated by the ratio of shear force of the columns that have equal column equivalent damage degree (Table 2). Column equivalent damage degree is determined from CDF. Table 1. Ratio of each damage degree in service ability limit Damage dgree of beams Limit state Service ability limit % % % % Table 2. Ratio of each damage degree in reparability limit and ultimate limit Column equivalent damage degree Reparability limit 2% % % Limit state Ultimate limit % My Mc Bending moment Degree of damage DF=1 DF=2 DF=3 DF=4 DF=5 Member rotation angle Figure 3. Ductility factor of elements and definition of damage degree Ductility factor of both ends Beam bending ductility factor Column equivalent ductility factor Figure 4. Calculation example of column equivalent ductility factor

4 6 th ASIA Conference on Earthquake Engineering (6ACEE) Sept 216, Cebu City, Philippines 2.2 Calculation method of residual seismic capacity Residual Seismic Capacity (HR) is evaluated based on the amount of energy of the layers. The remaining amount of energy is calculated as a value obtained by removing consumption energy (E) from energy absorption capability (Eu). The calculation formula of the HR and ηi are shown below. It should be noted that, ηi is the seismic performance reduction coefficient of i-layer. HR=(1 - ΣEi / ΣEui) 1 [%] (1) ηi=(1 - Ei / Eui) 1 [%] (2) Here, Eui means energy absorption capability of i-layer and Ei means consumption energy of i-layer. Each amount of energy is calculated from the results of nonlinear static analysis and seismic response analysis. The relationship of story shear force (Qi) and story drift (δi) of each layer, is obtained from nonlinear static analysis using a Q-δ curve. Eui is calculated from the area, which is defined in Sδi, SQi and unloading during deformation (OSδi) (Figure 5). Sδi and SQi are story drift and story shear force at the time of ultimate limit state. Ei is calculated from the area, which is defined in maxδi, Qi and unloading during deformation (Oδi) (Figure 5). maxδi and Qi are story drift and story shear force obtained by plotting the maximum response story drift angle from seismic response analysis to Q-δ curve previously described. OSδi and Oδi, calculated by multiplying the deformation ratio during unloading (a) to Sδi and maxδi, respectively. Deformation ratio during unloading (a) is calculated from the ratio of the maximum value of maximum response story drift angle and unloading during deformation of each of the layers obtained from seismic response analysis (Figure 6). In addition, since there may be cases that offset deformation occurs at the time of seismic response analysis, it is necessary to consider this effect in the calculation of Ei. Therefore, ΔEi which is calculated from the area, defined by the Offset deformation (Δ) and Qi, will be reduced from Ei. Here, Δ is calculated by multiplying inclination ratio (b) to maxδi. inclination ratio (b) indicates the degree of deviation, and is calculated from maximum response story drift angle of each layers from seismic response analysis (Figure 6). Q SQ i Q-δ curve obtained from nonlinear static analysis Q Q i Q-δ curve obtained from nonlinear static analysis Eu i E i Δ E i OSδ i S δ i δ Oδ i max δ i Figure 5. Energy absorption capability and consumption energy Q Case 1 ( S δ i+ > S δ i- ) Q Case 1 ( S δ i+ > S δ i- ) δ Sδ i - OSδ i - OSδ i + Sδ i + Case 2 ( S δ i+ < S δ i- ) maxδ i - maxδ i + Case 2 ( S δ i+ < S δ i- ) Figure 6. Deformation ratio during unloading and inclination ratio

5 階数 6 th ASIA Conference on Earthquake Engineering (6ACEE) Sept 216, Cebu City, Philippines 2.3 Limit story drift angle and index Figure 7 shows an example of the distribution of limit story drift angle of each floor obtained from nonlinear static analysis and response deformation obtained from seismic response analysis. In the high-rise RC frame structure, with an increase in input seismic wave, there is a tendency to increase story drift angle due to the bending yield of the beam in a particular layer. Figure 8 shows the relationship between maximum value of maximum response story drift angle (Rmax) and HI value. Figure 8 shows the concept of correspondence between the HR and HI value. In general, with an increase in HI value, the maximum value of Rmax is increased, HR is reduced. HIS value of service ability limit state and ultimate limit state is determined by the response deformation of the specific layer. However, HR of reparability limit state is calculated from the response deformation of each layers. Those response deformations are divided into three deformation zone of A ~ C as shown in Figure 7. Number of floors A R B[rad] C 5 1/1 1/5 3/1 1/2 1/1 3/2 1/5 1/4 R S of each limit state Service ability limit Reparability limit Ultimate limit Example of respose deformation Figure 7. Example of limit story drift angle and deformation zone HI value ultimate limit service ability limit reparability limit reparability limit HR ultimate limit service ability limit R max [rad.] HI value Figure 8. Corresponding HI value and maximum value of Rmax and HR 3. ANALYSIS CONDITION Authors, have created some frame models representing the structural properties of each design phases and classified them into three design phases for existing high-rise RC buildings (the first: 1971 and 1989, the second: 199 and 1999, the third: 2 ~) (Akita 211). In this analysis, from among them, the model (1G25X 2G3X 3G3X) of a typical number of stories in each of the design age will be analyzed (Table 3). Analysis model is a three-dimensional frame model, and the horizontal displacement of each layers are assumed to be equal due to rigid floor assumption. The bending

6 Velocity[cm/sec] 6 th ASIA Conference on Earthquake Engineering (6ACEE) Sept 216, Cebu City, Philippines deformation, shear deformation and axial deformation are considered in the deformation of the columns, and the bending deformation and shear deformation are considered in the deformation of the beams. The columns use a fiber model by the assumption of the plane holding. By using fiber model, it is possible to consider the rigidity changing due to bending cracking and bending yield. The bending deformation of the beam, consider the elastic-plastic characteristics by using skeleton curve that evaluate rigidity changing due to bending cracking and bending yield by tri-linear curve. It should be noted, that the shear deformation of the columns and beams is elastic. Also, the shear deformation by using the joint panel to beam-to-column connection are considered. Internal viscous damping is tangent stiffness-proportional damping, and the damping factor of the first mode is.3. The bending restoring force characteristics of the beam, is Takeda model and it is commonly used in the design of high-rise RC building. In addition, bending restoring force characteristics of the column is fiber model which determined from history characteristics. The basis seismic wave is BCJ-L2 which was issued by Building Center of Japan, and the specific seismic wave is OSAKA which simulated ground motion that assumes the Nankai Trough Earthquake (Table 4, Figure 9). Table 3. Various elements of flamed models Design phase The first The second The third Model name and direction 1G25X 2G3X 3G3X Building height[m] Number of floors Floor height of standard floor[m] Building area[m 2 ] Column dominated area[m 2 ] Aspect ratio Fc[N/mm 2 ] Main reinforcement strength[n/mm 2 ] Average weight[kn/m 2 ] T 1 [sec] C B The maximum value of the design strength of used concrete 2 The maximum value of used main reinforcement 3 The value obtained by dividing standard floor weight by building area Table 4. Various elements of seismic wave Wave name Maximum velocity Maximum acceleration Duration time BCJ-L2 57[cm/s] 356[cm/s 2 ] 12[s] OSAKA 41[cm/s] 21[cm/s 2 ] 328[s] Based on the Central Disaster Management Council document 212, the basic bottom wave of the second kind ground of Osaka Prefecture PS V [cm / sec] PS V [cm/sec] Elastic natural period (T 1 [s]) of 3G3X BCJ-L2 OSAKA h =.5 1G25X : T 1 = 1.37 [s] 2G3X : T 1 = 1.72 [s] 3G3X : T 1 = 1.8 [s] 1 Period [sec] Figure 9. PSV of seismic wave Period[sec]

7 6 th ASIA Conference on Earthquake Engineering (6ACEE) Sept 216, Cebu City, Philippines 4. SEISMIC PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF FRAMED MODELS 4.1 Evaluation of seismic capacity index In this section, seismic response analysis is implemented to the three analysis models (1G25X 2G3X 3G3X), and the HI value is increased continuously in order to calculate seismic capacity index (HIS value) corresponding to each limit state. As a specific example of Figure 8, Figure 1 shows the relationship between the HI value and the maximum response story drift angle (Rmax) in 3G3X. The HIS value also shown in Table 5. Incidentally, the plots in the figure are the Rmax of all layers corresponding to each HI value, and are divided by the deformation zone (Figure 7). Rmax also increases as the HI value increases. Then, if HI value exceeds the HIS value in the ultimate limit state, there is a tendency that the Rmax of each floor spreads in a large range. Since HIS value is determined by the response deformation of the specific layer, it is difficult to represent the difference in the distribution of Rmax in each floor. HI value HI value /1 1/53/1 1/1 1/5 3/1 HI 値 R [rad.] 1G25X 2G3X 3G3X HI S value H R[%] HI S value H R[%] HI S value H R[%] Service ability limit Reparability limit Deformation zone A Deformation zone B Deformation zone C Service ability limit Ultimate limit Figure 1. Relationship of HI value and Rmax (3G3X) Table 5. Each limit state and index value Ultimate limit Evaluation of residual seismic capacity As a specific example of Figure 8, Figure 11(a) shows the relationship between the residual seismic capacity (HR) and HI values. Also, Figure 11(b) shows the relationship between the minimum of seismic performance reduction coefficient (ηmax) in each of the HI values and HI values. In addition, Table 5 shows the HIS value and HR in each limit state. In all models, HR greatly decreases when the HI value exceed the HIS value of reparability limit state. However, HR decreases gradually and ηmax greatly decreases in 2G3X. This is due to the increase of the HI value, deformation progresses in a relatively large number of layers in 1G25X and 3G3X. However, the deformation in 2G3X just progresses in some specific layers.

8 a b η i [%] 6 th ASIA Conference on Earthquake Engineering (6ACEE) Sept 216, Cebu City, Philippines a G Service ability limit 1G Reparability limit 1G Ultimate limit 2G Service ability limit 2G Reparability limit 2G Ultimate limit 3G Service ability limit 3G Reparability limit 3G Ultimate limit HR[%] HR[%] HR[%] HI 値 HI value HI value (a)relationship HI 値 of H R and H I value (b)relationship HI of 値 H I value and η max Figure 11. Relationship of HI value and HR and ηmax b /1 1/5 3/1 1/1 1/5 3/1 R [rad.] R [rad.] ηmax[%] a R [rad.] 1G25X 2G3X 3G3X 5. CONSIDERATION OF DEFORMATION RATIO DURING UNLOADING AND INCLINATION RATIO 5.1 Consideration of deformation ratio during unloading If response deformation does not reach the ultimate limit deformation at the time of specific seismic wave input, the deformation ratio during unloading (a) which is used to calculate energy absorption capability (Eui), can t be obtained directly. Therefore, in order to set up a at the time of ultimate limit deformation, the relationship between a and maximum response story drift angle (Rmax) is examined. Figure 12 shows the relationship between the a and Rmax. a is increases along with the increase in Rmax, and the maximum value is about.6. Also, in the ultimate limit deformation of the three models (approximately 1/6 ~ 1/5 [rad.]), a is about.5. Therefore, in this paper, Eui at the time of specific seismic wave input is calculated as a =.5 (Table 6). 5.2 Consideration of inclination ratio As well as deformation ratio during unloading (a), the relationship between inclination ratio (b) and Rmax is examined (Figure 12). b shows a tendency to increase along with the increasing Rmax, and it varies widely. Also the maximum value of b is about.2. Since b is used for consumption energy calculation during seismic wave input, it also can be calculated in response to the response deformation. Therefore, in this study Ei is calculated by using b corresponding to response deformation (Table 6). Figure 12. Relationship of a and b and Rmax Deformation zone green A(1G25X) orange B(1G25X) red C(1G25X) green A(2G3X) orange B(2G3X) red C(2G3X) green A(3G3X) orange B(3G3X) red C(3G3X)

9 6 th ASIA Conference on Earthquake Engineering (6ACEE) Sept 216, Cebu City, Philippines Table 6. a and b used in the calculation of amount of energy Input seismic wave Consumption energy (E i ) Energy absorption capability (Eu i ) a b a b Basis seismic wave Calculated value Calculated value Value of specific layer - Specific seismic wave Calculated value Calculated value.5 - Apply the value of specific layer that decision layer of H I S value of ultimate limit at the time of ultimate deformation 6. METHOD OF DAMAGE EVALUATION 6.1 Definition of damage evaluation In this chapter, the evaluation method of damage evaluation from the relationship between damage of the building and residual seismic capacity (HR) are presented. In this paper, the classification of damage evaluation is divided into no damage, minor, minor damage, half damage, and major damage. Level of damage in each damage evaluation are classified as follows. No damage is a state, which of all of the elements in the main reinforcement are before the yield (damage degree 1) and there is no element of damage degree 2. Minor is a state, which there are elements of damage degree 2, and minor damage is a state, which there are elements of damage degree 3. Half damage is a state, which there are elements of damage degree 4. Major damage is a state, which there are elements of damage degree 5. No damage in damage evaluation corresponds to the definition in service ability limit state (Table 1), so that determination of no damage is carried out using limit story drift angle in service ability limit state (usingrs) instead of HR. Determination of minor, minor damage, half damage is carried out by a comparison of HR, HRR1 and HRR2. Incidentally, HRR1 is a value which is considered to be elements of damage degree 3 if HR below this value, and HRR2 is a value which is considered to be elements of damage degree 4 if HR below this value. In the high-rise RC frame structure, with the increase in input seismic wave, there is a tendency that the deformation of specific layer is increased. In that case, since the deformation of other layers is less than specific layer, it can be contemplated that HR is slightly reduced. For this reason, determination of major damage is also carried out using limit story drift angle in ultimate limit state (ultimaters) instead of HR. Therefore, major damage will be determined by the damage of specific layer. And it will be a tough damage evaluation decision, as the layers other than specific layer will be determined as half damage or less. Each damage evaluation and assumed damage and determination method are shown in Table 7. Table 7. Classification of damage evaluation and determination index Damage evaluation Damage Decision R HR No damage There is no element of damage degree 2 R< using R S - Minor There are elements of damage degree 2 usingr S R HR R1 < H R Minor damage There are elements of damage degree 3 - HR R2 < H R H R R1 Half damage There are elements of damage degree 4 R< ultimate R S H R H R R2 Major damage There are elements of damage degree 5 ultimater S R -

10 6 th ASIA Conference on Earthquake Engineering (6ACEE) Sept 216, Cebu City, Philippines 6.2 Damage of the beams and residual Seismic Capacity Figure 13 shows the relationship between residual seismic capacity calculated in chapter 4 and damage of beams. It should be noted, that damage of beams is evaluated in the damage degree of beams, which is determined from the results of nonlinear static analysis. Damage degree of each beams, is determined by using the value when the story drift angle from nonlinear static analysis and the story drift angle from seismic response analysis are equal. In addition, the calculation of the ratio of each damage degree of the beams reflects the rate of damage degree of the beams that have large ultimate bending strength, which obtained by weighted by the ratio of the ultimate bending strength of the object beam to the sum of the ultimate bending strength of all the beams. Although, there are differences for each frame models, there is a tendency that damage degree reaches 2 when HR less than 95% and damage degree reaches 3 when HR less than 9% and damage degree reaches 4 when HR less than 75%. Beyond that, it is found to be difficult to set a correspondence between damage degree and HR, since the distribution of response deformation in each layers differs depend on the frame model. 6.3 Rating value of damage evaluation HRR1 and HRR2, used in determination of damage evaluation, are examined from the relationship between residual seismic capacity (HR) and damage of beams, as shown in Figure 13. Table 8 indicates the value of the HRR1 and HRR2 in each models. In this analysis, it is found that HRR1 is around 9% in any skeleton models, so that HRR1 is set to 9%. Similarly, HRR2 is around 75% in any skeleton models, so that HRR2 is set to 75% (Table 8). Damage degree 1 Damage degree 2 Damage degree 3 Damage degree 4 Damage degree 5 HR[%] HR[%] HR[%] HR R HR R1 91 % 2% 4% 6% 8% 1% 79 HR 割合 R2 83 [%] HR R % 5% 1% % 5% 1% % 5% 1% Ratio 損傷度別比率 of each damage [%] degree Ratio 柱損傷度別比率 of each damage [%] degree Ratio of each 割合 [%] damage degree (a) 1G25X (b) 2G3X (c) 3G3X Figure 13. HR and damage of beams Table 8. Rating value of damage evaluation Flamed models 1G25X 2G3X 3G3X Rariong value HR R1 [%] HR R2 [%] HR R1 HR R2

11 階数 階数 6 th ASIA Conference on Earthquake Engineering (6ACEE) Sept 216, Cebu City, Philippines 7. EXAMPLE OF ESTIMATION AGAINST SPECIFIC SEISMIC WAVE This chapter shows the example of determination of damage evaluation. OSAKA wave, with 1. times, 1.5 times, 2. times intensity, is used as the input specific seismic wave and implemented in seismic response analysis, which 3G3X used as analytic model. Figure 14 shows the relationship of maximum response story drift angle (Rmax) in each input magnification and limit story drift angle in service ability limit state and ultimate limit state (usingrs, ultimaters). In addition, Table 9 shows the result of residual seismic capacity (HR) and damage evaluation in each of the input magnification. In the input magnification 1. times, minor damage evaluation is determined because Rmax is above the usingrs, and HR is above HRR1. The input magnification 1.5 times, HR is 79%, it is determined that minor damage from that HR less than HRR1, and HR is above HRR2. In the input magnification 2. times, major damage evaluation is determined because Rmax is above the ultimaters. In addition, the correspondence between the damage of beams and judgment result of damage evaluation can be seen as follows (Table 1). In the input magnification 1. times, the decision is minor and damage degree of the beam reached 2. Also, in the input magnification 1.5 times, the decision is minor damage and damage degree of the beam reached 3. And in the input magnification is 2. times, the decision is major damage and damage degree of the beam has reached 5. So, it can be concluded, that the result corresponds well to the assumed damage (Table 7). Therefore, the determination 3 of major damage for the input ratio of 2. is result of focusing on the increase of deformation in the floors Number of floors Ultimate limit times 1.5 times times 5 1/2 1/1 3/2 1/51/4 層間変形角 [rad.] 1/2 1/1 3/2 1/5 1/4 Input magnification Service ability limit Figure 14. Maximum response story drift angle and limit story drift angle Table 9. Determination result of damage evaluation HR[%] Damage evaluation Minor Minor damage Major damage Table 1. Input magnification and ratio of each damage degree of beams Input magnification Degree of damage

12 6 th ASIA Conference on Earthquake Engineering (6ACEE) Sept 216, Cebu City, Philippines 8. CONCLUSIONS The results obtained in this study could be summarized as follows. (1) Residual seismic capacity decreases with an increase in the HI value, and tends to decrease greatly when the HI value exceeds the HIS value of reparability limit state 2. (2) Maximum value of deformation ratio (a) during unloading was about.6 and it was about.5 in the ultimate limit deformation, so that energy absorption capability could be calculated as a =.5. (3) Even though maximum value of inclination ratio was about.2, it varied widely. So that the inclination ratio should be calculated by using inclination ratio corresponding to response deformation. (4) As a method of evaluating damage evaluation, an evaluation method using residual seismic capacity and limit story drift angle of service ability limit state and ultimate limit state was presented, and showed the rating value of damage evaluation. (5) Using the evaluation method described above, the determination result of damage evaluation for specific seismic wave corresponded to the damage of beams. In the future, authors would like to consider the rating value of damage evaluation by using a number of framed models and different specific seismic waves. REFERENCES Akita T., Ishizuka K., Hamada S., Izumi N. (214) Seismic Capacity Index of Existing High-rise RC Buildings and Effect of Retrofitting by Seismic Control Device. Journal of Structural Engineering, vol.6b, pp.1-12, March, 214 Akita T., Kurimoto K., Ioi T., Izumi N. (211) Structural Characteristics and Framed Model of Existing High-rise RC Buildings. Proceedings of the Japan Concrete Institute, vol33, No.2, pp , July, 211 ABOUT THE AUTHORS Author One is a master student (2 nd year) in Dept. of Architecture, Graduate School of Engineering, Chiba University, Japan. Author Two is a master student (1 st year) in Dept. of Architecture, Graduate School of Engineering, Chiba University, Japan. Author Three obtained his Master of Engineering (212), Doctor of Engineering (215) from the Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan, and is the Assistant Professor in Chiba University. Author Four is a Professor in Dept. of Architecture, Graduate School of Engineering, Chiba University (28-), and obtained Doctor of Engineering from the Tokyo Univ. of Science in ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This paper was conducted as a part of program (No ) Evaluation of seismic performance on existing high-rise RC buildings subjected to cyclic deformations supported by Grants-in-Aid Scientific Research in Japan.