Quote:the building i talk is an old, using codes before capacity design implemented and i think is before intelligence programs such as SAP/TABS familiarly used in our country. most building in the same areas collapse too
I confused, i think we are not at the same phase. Your statement and paper clearly shows how important confinement is even for lowrise, residential building like one in Yogyakarta even in low seismic area.
Quote:are u have building designed in the same areas and same year periods?I just stated my design experience, I'm not designing any building now.
Quote:when using fully ductility for low seismic region, i just have some questions: for what seismicity region maps? and for what complex detailing requirement (unnecessary)
well then will you design 100 story building in zone 1 or 2 using OMF where confinement requirement as in SMF is unnecessary? which one you trust your seismic map (sumatera before and after 2004)?? or your power as engineer to provide ductility?. So once again in this case as i stated before if you provide full ductilily even you are slightly wrong in calculating the magnitude of seismic force, the likeliness of your structure to survive is better than using smaller R than what required from OMF but less confinement, no strong column weak beam etc.
Quote:one big reasons using capacity design concepts are economics perspective views, for this reasons why not using elastic design base shear with complex detailing, additional main bars and others requirement for full ductility?
Not good engineering decision if you speak about economics perspective. Why elastic design base shear when you are permitted to reduce the level of seismic force?. So it's contradictive. But i'm okay with IMF R but SMF detailing, or OMF R with IMF detaling this is not unnecessary, it is common practice, at least in my experience.