Proceedings of the International Symposium on Engineering Lessons Learned fromthe 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, March 1-4, 2012, Tokyo, JapanDAMAGE TO REINFORCED CONCRETE BOXEDWALL-BUILDINGS IN THE 2011 GREAT EAST JAPAN
EARTHQUAKEShinji TOKITA1, Eiichi INAI2, Yoshio INOUE3,Masayoshi IIZUKA4, Takahiro SASAKI5 and Masaomi TESHIGAWARA6
1Engineer, Urban Renaissance Agency, Tokyo, Japan, s-tokita@ur-net.go.jp
Professor, Graduate school of Science and Engineering, Yamaguchi University,Ube, Japan, inai@yamaguchi-u.ac.jp
3Engineer, UR Linkage, Tokyo, Japan, inoue-y@urlk.co.jp
4Engineer, Japan Prefabricated Construction Suppliers &Manufacturers Association,Tokyo, Japan, carlos_fudo@yahoo.co.jp
5Engineer, Rescohouse, Tokyo, Japan, takahiro-sasaki@rescohouse.co.jp
6Professor, Graduate school of Environmental Studies, Nagoya University,Nagoya, Japan, teshi@corot.nuac.nagoya-u.ac.jp
2

ABSTRACT: Post-earthquake damage evaluation for 634 public apartment buildings
having boxed wall type structure (WRC, WPCa PS and ribbed panel) was conductedwithin the city of Sendai by AIJ Committee on boxed wall structures. Of the 496 buildings
having a reinforced concrete boxed wall (WRC) structure, 97.4% were found to be
undamaged or to have only slight damage. Among the remaining 2.6%, only one building
had moderate damage and no buildings had severe damage. The others had minor damage.
All of the 47 buildings having a precast prestressed reinforced concrete boxed wall (WPCaPS) structure in Sendai were found to have suffered no or slight damage. Of the 91
buildings having a boxed wall of thin ribbed concrete panel (ribbed panel) structure,
72.5% were found to have suffered no or slight damage. Among the remaining 27.5%, 11buildings were moderately damaged and 1 building was severely damaged. The ribbed
panel buildings suffered relatively higher damage. This is because 71 out of the 91 ribbed
panel buildings were constructed before the new earthquake-resistance standards 1981.

INTRODUCTION
A committee on boxed wall structures, Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) conducted
post-earthquake damage evaluation for the public apartment buildings in Sendai city on April 21
through 24, April 29 through May 2, and on June 26, 2011, and visual inspection for the publicapartment buildings damaged by tsunami in the coastal areas in Miyagi Prefecture on June 5 and 6.
2011. This paper describes the results of the damage evaluation and the visual inspection.

1238

SURVEYS AT PUBLIC APARTMENT COMPLEXES IN SENDAI CITY
Buildings surveyedSurveys were planned at 64 public apartment complexes accommodating apartments built by theMiyagi prefectural government, Miyagi Prefecture Housing Supply Corporation and Sendai municipal
government, and rental houses built by the Urban Renaissance Agency. Boxed wall structures amountto 638. Table 1 lists the numbers of buildings by area, structural type and number of stories. Fivehundred buildings of 638 are two- to five-storied reinforced concrete boxed wall buildings (WRCbuildings below), 47 are four- to five-storied precast prestressed reinforced concrete boxed wallbuildings (WPCa PS buildings) and 91 are two-story mass-produced public apartments of middle size
ribbed thin concrete panel structure (ribbed panel buildings). Surveys were conducted at 634 buildingsin 63 complexes. No surveys have yet been made of four WRC buildings.
Survey methodPost-earthquake damage was evaluated using the inspection form for post-earthquake damage
evaluation of reinforced concrete and SRC composite buildings prepared by the Japan Building
Disaster Prevention Association, and damage to buildings was recorded. For WPCa PS buildings andribbed panel buildings, the degree of damage at vertical and horizontal joints was taken into
consideration in post-earthquake damage based on a newly prepared inspection form bye AIJ
Committee on boxed wall structures. Surveys were conducted from outside the building.
The seismic intensities in the apartment complexes where surveys were made are based on thedata collected by the Japan Meteorological Agency, Building Research Institute [1], Tohoku University[2] and via K-net [3] and Small-Titan [4]. Figure 1 shows the locations of apartment complexes wheresurveys were conducted and seismic intensities. Seismic intensities in the apartment complexes where
surveys were made ranged from 5 upper to 7.

Table 1 Number of boxed wall type public apartment buildings at each area in Sendai city
Type of structure

Aoba Ward

WRC buildings 2Ｆ
WRC buildings 3Ｆ
WRC buildings 4Ｆ
WRC buildings 5Ｆ
WPCa PS buildings 4ＦWPCa PS buildings 5Ｆ
Ribbed panel buildings 2FTotal

2353924600106

Miyagino
Ward0943101
81270243

Wakabayashi
Ward01341320231239

Taihaku
Ward072555
31091

Izumi Ward

Total

030
1696
6621175

294
127
277
262191638

Fig. 1 Location of apartment complexes investigated and seismic intensity in Sendai city

Survey results
The tallies of the damage to the superstructure of 634 buildings surveyed are listed in Table 2 bystructural type. There is no collapsed building. Of the WRC buildings, 97.4% were undamaged orslightly damaged. The buildings that suffered minor or higher level damage accounted for 2.6%. One
building suffered moderate damage. None was severely damaged. All of the 47 WPCa PS buildings
were undamaged or slightly damaged. As described below, however, a WPCa PS building wasseriously damaged in Natori City. The percentage of undamaged or slightly damaged ribbed panelbuildings is 72.5%. Those that suffered minor or higher level damage accounted for 27.5%. Elevenbuildings were moderately damaged and one was severely damaged. The percentage of ribbed panelbuildings that suffered minor or higher level damage is greater than that of other types of buildings.
Thus, ribbed panel buildings suffered greater damage. One of the major reasons is that most of theribbed panel buildings were constructed before the new anti-seismic design code was put into effect in1981.

Table 2 Earthquake damage level of investigated apartment buildings in Sendai city
Damage level of super-structure

Type of structure
No damageSlightMinor

ModerateSevere

Collapse

WRC buildings

36911412100WPCa PS buildings

31160000Ribbed panel buildings

4323131110Total

443

1532512101240

CASE STUDIES OF DAMAGE TO REINFORCED CONCRETE BOXED WALL
BUILDINGS
Apartment complex A in Aoba Ward, Sendai City
The complex is located on a slope. Six four-story buildings (buildings 1 through 6 referred to as “starhouses” because of the Y-shape in plan) and an apartment building (building 7) with an ordinary
rectangular plan exist in the complex. The complex was subjected to vibration of seismic intensity lessthan 6. The superstructure of building 7 was not damaged. Of the star houses, three buildings wereslightly damaged, two suffered minor damage and one was moderately damaged. Photograph 1 gives
an overview of a star-house apartment building.
In one of the star houses that was determined to have suffered minor damage, shear failure wasobserved in a bearing wall on the first floor. Photograph 2 shows the shear failure of the bearing wallon the first floor on the east side of the structure. On the south side of the building, ground settled
along the slope. The ground deformation may have been one of the causes of the damage on the eastside.

Photo 1 Overview of the star-house apartment

Photo 2 Shear failure of the bearing wall of the first floor at east side1241

Apartment complex B in Miyagino Ward, Sendai City
In the apartment complex, ground deformation caused part of the retaining wall to collapse and afive-story apartment building on the side of the retaining wall was inclined. Photograph 3 gives anoverview of the inclined apartment building and the partially collapsed retaining wall. Photograph 4shows the damage to the surrounding ground. The angle of inclination of the apartment building was
22/1000 on the short side and 9/1000 on the long side. The damage to the foundation was determined
to be minor. Angle of inclination was measured at four corners of the building using one-meter-longinclinometers. Seismic intensity 6 upper was registered in the apartment complex.
As for the damage to the superstructure of the inclined apartment building, no cracks wereobserved on the exterior walls on the side of the balcony. Other exterior walls were covered withinsulating panels and therefore no damage information was available.

Photo 3 Overview of the apartment inclined and the retaining wall collapsed partially

Photo 4 Damage of the ground around the apartment

1242

CASE STUDIES OF DAMAGE TO PRECAST PRESTRESSED REINFORCED CONCRETE
BOXED WALL BUILDINGS
Characteristics of precast reinforced concrete boxed wall buildings around Sendai
Surveys were conducted of precast reinforced concrete boxed wall buildings (WPCa buildings) in
Natori City in addition to 47 apartment buildings in Sendai City. The WPCa buildings confirmed in thearea consist of a rental house built by the Urban Renaissance Agency, 24 prefectural buildings and 31
municipal buildings. It is presumed that the precast prestressed reinforced concrete boxed wallstructure (WPCa PS construction method) was adopted for all the buildings.
The WPCa PS structure, unlike the ordinary precast concrete boxed wall structure (WPCa), isformed by laminating cross-, T- and L-shaped three-dimensional precast members and compressing
them using prestressing bars placed vertically.
Building d in apartment complex F in Natori City
Building outline
Apartment complex F accommodates two buildings, building d in the north and building e in the south.
Both are of WPCa PS structure. Building d accommodates 30 five-story buildings and building e 20
five-story buildings. The construction of buildings d and e was started in October 1981 and completedin March 1982. Photograph 5 gives an overview of building d in apartment complex F.

Photo 5 Overview of d-apartment in Natori city

Damage outline
Relative settlement of 43 mm was observed between axes X8 and X9 (5100 mm span) on the firstfloor on the south side (balcony side). The inclined angle is 1/118 rad. Photograph 6 shows thesettlement of the east side of the center.
Vertical and shear cracks were found in the foundation beam and vertical cracks at the end of
longitudinal beams on the second to fifth floors between axes X8 and X9. The cracks are attributable
to the settlement of the ground. The cracking at the end of axis X9 in a beam on the second floor are
shown in Photograph 7.

1243

Photo 6 View of ground subsidence around d-apartment

Photo 7 View of the crack at the beam of 2nd floor of d- apartment

Damage degree assessment
The damage degree of the superstructure was determined to be minor as a result of examination of thedegree of damage to the first-floor bearing wall on the balcony side and second-floor floor beam
where damage was visually confirmed. Subsequent detailed surveys found that there was a highpossibility of piles failing and that settlement of more than 100 mm occurred. Then, the damage
degree of the foundation was determined to be severe .
Other damage
Cracks and loss were found in part of the bracket on the precast wall supporting the precast slab in thestaircase. It is, however, unknown whether the damage is attributable to the earthquake or not.

1244

CASE STUDIES OF DAMAGE TO MASS-PRODUCED PUBLIC APARTMENT BUILDINGS
Outline of damage
Mass-produced public apartments are of middle size ribbed thin concrete panel structure developed in
1962 (ribbed panel buildings below). Precast concrete panels are bolt-connected to each other. Thebuildings became popular as semi-fireproof structures.
A total of 91 public apartment buildings were surveyed in four apartment complexes in Sendai
City. All have two stories.
Of the 91 buildings, 43 (47%) were undamaged and 23 (25%) slightly damaged. Thirteen
buildings (14%) suffered minor damage and 12 (13%) suffered moderate or higher-level damage andrequired large-scale structural repair (Table 3).
Most of the mass-produced public apartment buildings were constructed before the new seismic
design code was put into effect in 1981. The buildings constructed after the enforcement of the code
suffered relatively small damage. No damage was observed in 17 buildings out of 20 (85%).
Seismic intensity 6 upper was registered in the apartment complexes where surveys wereconducted.
A building that was determined to have been severely damaged was built on a spread foundation
on a fill above the retaining wall. The retaining wall collapsed (Photograph 8) and the building was
deformed downward from the center.
Ten of the buildings that were determined to have been moderately damaged were also built on alandfill. In most cases, damage due to the fissure in the fill caused the building to suffer serious
damage.
Municipal apartment houses are similar to the standard plan of a mass-produced public apartment
house designed by the Japan Prefabricated Construction Suppliers & Manufacturers Association (JPA).
The terrace-style houses accommodate four to eight houses. Most of the damage to the building
occurred longitudinally. Little damage was incurred transversely.

Table 3 Earthquake damage level of mass production type public apartments investigatedComplex Name
Complex G(Miyagino Ward)
Complex H(Miyagino Ward)
Complex K(Izumi Ward)
Complex L(Miyagino Ward)

Year ofConstruction

Numberofbuildings

Nodamage

Slightdamage

1969～70

36

12

10

95(5)

00

1970～71145

125(5)

1(1)

01975

21

9110

100198520

1712(1)

00091

432313

1110

47.3

25.3

14.3

12.1

1.1

0.0

TotalRatio (%)

MinordamageModerate
damagedSeveredamageCollapse( ) : cause of damage is relating to embankment and retaining walls

1245

Photo 8 Mass production type public apartments and damage of the retaining wall

Damage to structures
Figure 2 outlines a ribbed panel structure. Column forms were installed at intersections of longitudinalbearing wall and transverse wall. Damage to the ribbed panel structure was observed at the positions
listed below.
(i) Vertical crack at the vertical joint between the bearing and hanging walls (Photograph 9)(ii) Vertical crack at the vertical joint between the bearing and spandrel walls(iii) Flexural crack at the foot of the bearing wall where the wall thickness changes (boundary between
a 120-mm-thick rib around the bearing wall and a 40-mm-thick area other than the rib)(iv) Shear crack in the bearing wall (Photograph 10)(v) Horizontal crack in the bearing wall at the height of the hanging wall(vi) Vertical crack at the vertical joint between bearing walls or at the vertical joint between thetransverse bearing wall and column form(vii) Vertical crack in the foundation and failure of foundation beam due to ground settlement orfissure
Damage (i) and (ii) were confirmed most frequently. The results are the same as the damage tomass-produced public apartment buildings in the past earthquakes. In the buildings constructed after
the enforcement of the new code, improvements have been made in detail and damage is incurred lessfrequently.

1246

280

Slab Panel

Structural
Wall

Hanging Wall

Joint Bolts(13φ)
Joint Bolts(13φ)
StructuralWall

StructuralWallTransverse
Wall

Joint Bolts(9φ)
Thickness ofReinforced Ribs
120mm
Thicknessof Wall 40mm

Spandrel Wall

280

Slab PanelHanging Wall

Joint Bolts(13φ)
Joint Bolts(13φ)
StructuralWall
Thickness ofReinforced Ribs
120mm

StructuralWall

StructuralWall

Transverse
Wall

Vertical JointBolts(9φor13φ)

Thicknessof Wall 40mm

Joint Bolts(13φ)

Foundation
Anchor Bolt(16or19φ)

165

900

900

1,800

900165

Fig. 2 Outline of ribbed panels structural system

Photo 9 Crack at vertical joint between bearing wall and hanging wall

Photo 10 Shear crack of the bearing wall

1247

CASE STUDIES OF TSUNAMI DAMAGE
Visual inspections were made for public apartment buildings that suffered tsunami damage in thecoastal areas in Miyagi Prefecture. Photograph 11 shows the tsunami damage to a two-story
mass-produced public apartment building in the Yuriage area in Natori City. The first floor was greatly
damaged by the tsunami. Ribbed panels themselves were damaged in some cases. Photograph 12shows the damage to a three-story WPCa PS building in the Yuriage area. No severe damage wasfound on the exterior wall. Photographs 13 shows the damage to three-storied WRC buildings inMinami-sanriku-cho. Debris from the tsunami remains on the roof, suggesting that the tsunami
reached the top of the building. No severe damage was observed in the bearing wall or wall beam
although partial damage was observed on the balcony.

Photo 11 Mass production type public apartment building damaged by tsunami in Natori

Photo 12 WPCa PS apartment building damaged by tsunami in Natori

1248

Photo 13 WRC apartment building damaged by tsunami in Minami Sanriku

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We acknowledge with sincere thanks the cooperation of the Housing Division, Civil Engineering
Department, Miyagi Prefectural Government; Miyagi Prefecture Housing Supply Corporation;
Municipal Housing Division, Sendai City Government and Urban Renaissance Agency in the surveys
of public apartment buildings in Sendai City.
People who participated in the surveys:*Surveys of damage to public apartment buildings in Sendai City
Akita Prefectural University team (Tetsuya Nishida), Oita University team (Kenji Kikuchi, Masayuki
Kuroki and Hiroshige Nishino), Osaka University team (Hiroshi Kuramoto, Juan Jose Castro,
Hisatoshi Kashiwa, Masato Sakurai and Taku Suzuki), Tokyo Institute of Technology team (YoHibino), Toyohashi University of Technology team (Yasushi Sanada, Yuta Sato and Sohei Matsubara),
Nagoya University team (Masaomi Teshigawara, Ippei Maruyama and Motoyuki Nakamura), Japan
Prefabricated Construction Suppliers & Manufacturers Association team (Masayoshi IIzuka, Takahiro
Sasaki, Toshiyuki Masubuchi and Hiroki Yasuda), Mie University team (Shigemitsu Hatanaka andNaoki Mishima),Yamaguchi University team (Eichi Inai, Nanako Maruhashi, Junji Ozaki and KenHarayama), Urban Renaissance Agency team (Shinji Tokita and Shiro Suzuki), UR Linkage Co., Ltd.
team (Yoshio Inoue, Motoyuki Tanaka, Masumi Hishikura, Takashi Kitahori, Yasuhiko Kitano,
Yoichi Wakasugi and Naoto Shiraishi) and Yokohama National University team (Akira Tasai, Koichi
Kusunoki, Yuichi Hatanaka and Hidekazu Watanabe).
*Surveys of tsunami damage:
Yamaguchi University team (Eichi Inai) and Green Design Office Co., Ltd. team (Masatsugu Iwata,Kimiko Tamura and Rie Kawahara)

REFERENCES[1]Building Research Institute ‘‘http://smo.kenken.go.jp/smreport/201103111446’’[2]National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention‘‘http://www.k-net.bosai.go.jp/k-net/’’[3]Strong Motion Array of Local Lots by the Tohoku Institute of Technology Area Network‘‘http://www.st.hirosaki-u.ac.jp/~kataoka/Tohoku_ EQ/Kamiyama__SmallTitan_01.pdf’’[4]Tohoku University Disaster Control Research Center‘‘https://sites.google.com/site/tohokuunivdcrc/ho me/jishin’’1249