Proceedings of the International Symposium on Engineering Lessons Learned fromthe 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, March 1-4, 2012, Tokyo, JapanDAMAGE BY THE 2011 EAST JAPAN EARTHQUAKEOF REINFORCED CONCRETE SCHOOL BUILDINGIN TOCHIGI RETROFITTED BY STEEL-BRACEDFRAMEKITAYAMA Kazuhiro 1
1

Professor, Department of Architecture, Tokyo Metropolitan University,
Tokyo, Japan, kitak@tmu.ac.jp

ABSTRACT: A reinforced concrete three-story school building which was retrofitted bysteel-braced frames suffered moderate damage such as column shear failure for the top
story without any seismic retrofits under the 2011 East Japan Earthquake. Although thedamaged story has possessed sufficient lateral-force resisting capacity to be required by
the current seismic codes, irregular stiffness distribution over the height of the building,
generated by the seismic retrofits except for the top story, caused the concentration of alarge deformation to the top story without retrofits.
Key Words: 2011 East Japan Earthquake, reinforced concrete building, seismic retrofit,
steel-braced frame, damage, seismic capacity evaluation, lateral stiffness

INTRODUCTION
The 2011 East Japan Earthquake caused a huge disaster in Tohoku and Kanto areas due to mainly both
tsunami and serious accident at a nuclear power plant. In such a social atmosphere, it is inevitable thatpeople does not pay attention to damage of reinforced concrete (R/C) buildings induced by shaking
due to earthquake ground motions. However, damage of R/C buildings retrofitted by a steel-braced
frame, a R/C shear wall, and so on should not be overlooked.
Seismic capacity evaluation and seismic rehabilitation of existing R/C buildings are carried out
actively in Japan after the 1995 Kobe Earthquake. Many school buildings especially have been
retrofitted to enhance earthquake resistant performance because of its functions required as both adaily educational and an emergency evacuation facility. Tremendous ground shaking by the 2011 East
Japan Earthquake was a new experience for these retrofitted buildings in a very extensive area of East
Japan. Therefore, adequacy of recent seismic retrofit design method for existing R/C buildings shouldbe verified through damage survey on R/C school buildings after the 2011 East Japan Earthquake.
This paper describes damages of a R/C three-story school building retrofitted seismically bymulti-story steel-braced frames in Tochigi prefecture. Sufficient seismic lateral capacity required by
the Japanese building law was provided to the building by seismic rehabilitation conducted at the first,
second and penthouse stories in 2009. However four R/C columns at the third story without any
seismic retrofits failed in shear although it was judged that the enough lateral capacity was kept for the1226

third story.
Seismic resisting performance of the building during the earthquake is discussed through theseismic capacity index evaluated according to "Standards for seismic performance evaluation ofexisting reinforced concrete buildings" comparing with observed damages. A problem concerning theseismic retrofit design method for existing R/C buildings is pointed out in the paper.

OUTLINE OF SCHOOL
A junior high school in Tochigi prefecture was surveyed, which is located at a small moundencroached by small valleys in the east of Utsunomiya City where the JMA intensity of the main
shock was 6+. A part of school buildings were built on a reclaimed land from a valley. This school
consists of a class-room building, a special class-room building, a gymnasium, a facility for a school
lunch, a technical-subject-room building, a musical-subject-room building and a martial arts building
as shown in Fig. 1.
This paper focuses on a reinforced concrete (R/C) three-story class-room building which sufferedmoderate damage although retrofitted by two-story steel-braced frames. Hereafter, damages to otherbuildings are mentioned briefly except for the martial arts building without any damages.

Fig. 1 Location of school buildings

1227

Special class-room building
The special class-room building with a total floor area of 2,235 m2 is a two-story R/C structure
designed according to old seismic code and constructed in 1973. The building is supported by R/C pilefoundations. The first story of the building was retrofitted in 2009 by three steel-braced frames in alongitudinal direction to enhance the seismic capacity index Is of 0.58 to 0.72. The index Is for thesecond story without any seismic rehabilitation was 1.00. The residual seismic capacity after theearthquake was estimated to be 0.96 times the capacity before for the first story in a longitudinal
direction, by which the damage level of the building was regarded as slight.
Gymnasium
The gymnasium, supported by R/C pile foundations, is a single-story steel structure constructed in
1975. A roof shell consists of steel members with a L-shaped section which are combined likediagonal grids, forming a low-rise arch. Lattice girders are spanned in a transverse direction. A latticecolumn, which consists of steel members with a L-shaped section, is fixed by a steel plate withanchoring bolts embedded in a reinforced concrete stub. Four vertical braced frames, where steelmembars of L-65x65x6 are used for an upper-story and L-75x75x6 for a lower-story as a diagonal
chord, are placed in a longitudinal direction.
The seismic capacity index Is and the strength ratio q of the building is 0.36 and 0.89 respectively
in a longitudinal direction, and 0.38 and 0.77 respectively in a transverse direction, regarded as
insufficient for criteria, i.e., 0.7 and 1.0 respectively. Seismic retrofit, however, was not yet carried out
to the building at the time of the event.
All diagonal chords in vertical braced frames for an upper-story were ruptured at the weld zone
between a gusset plate and a column or the vicinity of a bolt hole on the gusset plate, because of which
the building lost completely the lateral capacity. Diagonal chords in braced frames for a lower-story
buckled heavily. Predicted earthquake resistant capacity in a transverse direction was dominated by
the flexural buckling of bottom chords in a lattice girder by the seismic evaluation in 2010, whereas
buckling of those members was not observed for this field survey. Jacketing concrete at the bottom ofa column spalled off at both gable frames, which caused exposure of the base-plate of a column.
The damage rate of structural members and non-structural members was Grade 5 and Grade 3
respectively in a longitudinal direction, and Grade 1 and Grade 3 respectively in a transverse direction,by which the damage of the building was classified into the severe level for a longitudinal direction
and the minor level for a transverse direction.
Facility for a school lunch
The facility for a school lunch with a total floor area of 162 m2, supported by spread foundations, is asingle-story steel structure with poor details constructed in 1975. A diagonal chord of a vertical bracefell off due to shear rupture of the bolt on the gusset plate at the end of the chord. The building
inclined westward, resulting in an inclination of 2.7 %. Many cracks occurred for exterior and interior
finishes. Ground fissures developed near the building.
The damage rate of structural members and non-structural members was Grade 5 and Grade 1
respectively in a longitudinal direction, and Grade 2 and Grade 1 respectively in a transverse direction,by which the damage of the building was classified into the severe level for a longitudinal direction
and the minor level for a transverse direction.
Technical-subject-room building
The technical-subject-room building with a total floor area of 396 m2, supported by spread foundations,is a single-story steel structure constructed in 1975. The building consists of moment-resisting frames
for both directions, however with only one vertical brace in an east end frame of a transverse direction1228

which yielded during the earthquake. One bay of the north frame sank 75 mm to 115 mm, whereas
obvious settlement of exterior foundations was not observed. Since the north frame leaned westward
to approximately 1 % and on the other hand, the south frame did eastward to 0.5 %, the building
seemed to twist three-dimensionally.
The damage level of the building was regarded as moderate for both directions, because thedamage rate of structural members and non-structural members was Grade 3 and Grade 2 respectively.
Musical-subject-room building
The musical-subject-room building with a total floor area of 251 m2, supported by spread foundations,is a single-story steel structure constructed in 1990. The building consists of moment-resisting frames
for both directions. Although exterior finishes and ceiling boards fell off widely, any structural
damages were not observed. The damage of the building was classified into the minor level due to thedamage rate of Grade 4 for non-structural members.

OUTLINE AND DAMAGE FOR CLASS-ROOM BUILDING
Building description
The class-room building with a total floor area of 3,276 m2 is a three-story R/C structure with apenthouse designed according to old seismic code and constructed in 1974. The building is supported
by R/C pile foundations, whose length was supposed to be approximately 6 m due to a boring
investigation after-mentioned. The building consists of moment-resisting frames with 19 bays for alongitudinal direction and one-bay moment resisting frames with shear walls with an opening for atransverse direction. A seismic joint with a gap of 100 mm is placed between the building and thespecial class-room building located at the south side. Overall view of the building is shown in Photo.1.

Photo. 1 North side view of the class-room building
The first, second and the penthouse stories of the building were retrofitted seismically in 2009 bysteel-braced frames in a longitudinal direction, which consisted of steel members with a H-shaped
section specified as H-200x200x8x12. A R/C shear wall with an opening was installed to the twentiethframe at the first story in a transverse direction to dissolve a pilotis frame with shear walls in upper
stories. No retrofits were conducted at the third story in a longitudinal direction because the seismic
capacity evaluation judged that sufficient lateral capacity was already provided for the story. Each

1229

Penthouse

Legend:SW1 to SW5 : steel-braced frame
RW1 : R/C shear wall placed after retrofit
Roman numerals I to V : damage rate of members
Suffix s : damage by shear crack or shear failure
Suffix f : damage by flexural crack* : not observed members at field survey

Third Floor

Second Floor

First Floor

Fig. 2 Floor Plans of the class-room building1230

E frame

D frameC frameB frameA frameFig. 3 Frame elevations of the class-room building1231

Fig. 4 Column sections at first story

Photo. 2 Shear failure of columns in C frame
at third story

Photo. 3 Shear failure of column adjacent tounit bay strengthened by steel-braced frame

Photo. 4 Differential settlement of R/C floorslab at first floor

floor plans and frame elevations after the seismic retrofit are shown in Fig.2 and Fig.3 respectively.
Typical columns designated as type C1 at the first story, exhibited in Fig.4, had a rectangular crosssection with depth of 500 mm and width of 550 mm to a longitudinal loading direction. Longitudinal
steel bars of 24-D22 and 20-D22 were placed at a bottom and a top of the column respectively
although the design drawings at construction pointed out that plain bars should be used as a column
longitudinal bar. The hoops were 9 mm plain bars spaced at 165 mm on centers along the mid-heightwith a 90-degrees hook. Specified concrete compressive strength was 18 N/mm2.
Damage of class-room building
The damage rate of columns and walls is shown in plans of Fig.2 and framing elevations of Fig.3 by
Roman numerals. Damages of columns and differential settlement of floor slab at the first story are
shown in Photo.2 to 7. Four R/C columns at the third story, where no retrofits were conducted becauseof having sufficient seismic capacity, failed in shear by bi-directional horizontal loading due to theearthquake motion. Some columns adjacent to a unit bay strengthened by a steel-braced frame also
exhibited severe shear cracks of Grade 3 or shear failure of Grade 4 at the first and second stories
shown in Photo.3. Some boundary R/C columns of a steel-braced frame had minor or moderate shear
cracks at the first and second stories. A few R/C columns at the south frame designated A frame,
whose clear height was larger than that of the north frame designated C frame, also had minor shear
cracks of Grade 1 or 2 at the first story.
The first floor slab in a toilet room, which was projected to the north side of the building, sank 290
mm due to local settlement of the building since the whole building did not incline. Concrete brickwalls and R/C shear walls were alternately placed between the class-rooms in a transverse direction.

1232

Photo. 5 Shear failure of
C-13 column at third story

Photo. 6 Shear failure of
C-8 column at second story(a) Shear failure and bar buckling
Photo. 8

Photo. 7 Shear failure of
C-8 column at first story(b) Break-off and horizontal slip at pile top
Damage of piles

Many concrete bricks fell off due to out-of-plane loading by the earthquake motion because the bricks
were not anchored to a R/C girder at a top of the wall. Secondary walls beside a staircase failed
heavily in shear.
Residual seismic capacity after the earthquake was estimated to be 0.78 times the seismic capacity
before the earthquake for the third story in a longitudinal direction, which for the first and second
stories was greater than that for the third story, i.e., 0.80 times and 0.87 times the original capacity
respectively. In this estimation of the residual seismic capacity, the damage grade for a steel-braced
frame was assumed to be similar to that for a shear wall with boundary columns at both ends, which
seemed to underestimate the residual seismic capacity. Thus the damage of the building was classified
into the moderate level at the third story without any seismic rehabilitations.
Residual seismic capacity in a transverse direction was estimated to be 0.95 times, 0.95 times and0.83 times the capacity before for the first, second and third story respectively.
Additional survey
Additional field survey to the school was carried out in November, 2011, eight months later from the1233Table 1 Concrete compressive strength by drilled cores (unit in N/mm2)

Story Average X Standard deviation !

X-! /2

3

23.4

3.7

21.6

2

25.6

2.2

24.5

1

23.7

11.2

18.1

Table 2 Seismic capacity evaluation by second level procedure(a) Before seismic retrofit(a-1) Longitudinal direction
Story

Eo

SD

Penthouse

0.31

1.00

3

0.81

0.90

2

0.50

1

0.56

T

(a-2) Transverse direction
Is

CT SD

Story

Eo

SD

0.30

0.31

Penthouse

1.84

1.00

0.70

0.73

3

1.40

0.90

0.90

0.43

0.45

2

0.93

0.90

0.48

0.50

1

0.84

0.96

T

Is

CT SD

1.77

1.84

1.21

1.26

0.90

0.81

0.84

0.90

0.72

0.75

Is

CT SD

1.77

1.84

1.23

1.28

0.96

(b) After seismic retrofit(b-1) Longitudinal direction
Story

Eo

SD

Penthouse

1.17

1.00

3

0.81

0.95

2

0.81

1

0.85

T

(b-2) Transverse direction
Is

CT SD

Story

Eo

SD

1.13

1.17

Penthouse

1.84

1.00

0.73

0.76

3

1.35

0.95

0.95

0.73

0.76

2

0.91

0.95

0.83

0.87

0.95

0.78

0.81

1

0.88

0.95

0.80

0.83

0.96

T

0.96

earthquake. It was found that the damage grade of many columns and walls more progressed than thatat the survey in the end of April, 2011. This was caused by the after shocks of which the JMA
intensity were equal to or less than 4; the moderate shock. Estimated residual seismic capacity after
the earthquake declined to 0.65 times from 0.78 times the capacity before for the first story in alongitudinal direction. The damage of the building developed into the almost severe level. Columns
inclined to a random direction with an inclination angle of 0.4 % to 0.6 %.
Boring investigation to some R/C piles of the class-room building was simultaneously conductedby the town hall. Four piles driven at a north side of the building were revealed under the eighth
column in C frame and the eighteenth column in D frame shown in Fig.3. A top of one pile under theeighteenth column in D frame failed in shear and longitudinal bars buckled as shown in Photo.8(a).
The other pile broke off and slipped horizontally as shown in Photo.8(b). Shear and flexural cracks
and spall-off of concrete were observed at a top of the piles under the eighth column in C frame. The
damage level of the pile foundation was regarded as severe from the observation.
It seems that R/C piles suffered severe damage above-mentioned by the main shock in March 11,2011 and several columns inclined gradually during eight months after the main shock.

SEISMIC CAPACITY EVALUATION FOR CLASS-ROOM BUILDINGThe detailed survey and the seismic capacity evaluation of the building were carried out by the town

1234

hall in 2009 before the earthquake. Concrete compressive strength which was obtained by a cylinder
test using drilled cores from the building is shown in Table 1. Concrete compressive strength taken by
subtracting a half of the standard deviation from the average compressive strength among three cores
ranged from 18.1 N/mm2 to 24.5 N/mm2, exceeding the specified compressive strength of 18 N/mm2
for all stories.
The seismic capacity indices Is of the building before and after the seismic retrofit werecomputed according to the second level procedure in "Standards for seismic performance evaluation ofexisting reinforced concrete buildings," which was issued from Japan Building Disaster Prevention
Association (JBDPA) in 2001, and are shown in Table 2, where Eo is the basic seismic capacity index,
SD is the structural design index, T is the time index, Is is the seismic capacity index obtained as the
product of indices Eo, SD and T, and CTSD is the cumulative strength index determined corresponding
to the ductility index F multiplied by the index SD. In the second level procedure, flexural and shear
strengths of columns and walls are evaluated using a set of practical equations. Beams at a top andbottom of a column are assumed to be infinitely stiff and strong.
Floor weight was evaluated to be 12.0 kN/m2 for the first story, 11.8 kN/m2 for the second story,
9.0 kN/m2 for the third story and 13.1 kN/m2 for the penthouse. Specified compressive strength of 18
N/mm2 for concrete and yield strength of 344 N/mm2 for longitudinal bars of columns were used toevaluate the shear and flexural capacity for vertical members. The structural design index SD was
improved to 0.95 from 0.90 by widening a seismic joint between the building and the specialclass-room building. The time index T was evaluated to be 0.96. The story index, which relates the
single-degree-of-freedom response to that of multi-story structures, was assumed to be one-third forthe penthouse and n+1 divided by n+i for other stories, where n is the number of stories and i is thenumber of the i-th story concerned.
The seismic capacity index Is in a longitudinal direction for the original building was 0.48 for the
first story, 0.43 for the second story and 0.30 for the penthouse, which were less than the standard
requirement of 0.70. Therefore, these stories were retrofitted by a steel-braced frame consisting ofmembers with a H-shaped section specified as H-200x200x8x12. The seismic capacity index Is
increased by the retrofit to 0.78 from 0.48 for the first story, 0.73 from 0.43 for the second story and1.13 from 0.30 for the penthouse. The seismic capacity index Is for the third story without any seismic
rehabilitation was 0.70 almost equal to that for the second story after the retrofit. Judging from bothvertical distributions over the stories of the seismic capacity indices Is and the cumulative strength
indices CTSD modified by the structural design index, it is not necessarily inadequate that no seismic
retrofit was provided to the third story.
A pilotis column with a short one-sided wall before the retrofit, located at a cross point of the gridline A and 20 for the first story, was estimated to be critical for axial capacity in a transverse direction
because the column can not sustain axial compressive force induced by lateral loading during
earthquake attacks. Therefore, the seismic capacity index Is for the first story in a transverse direction
for the original building was evaluated to be 0.72, which was rather less than that for other stories asshown in Table 2(a-2). Thus installation of a R/C shear wall with an opening at the twentieth frame forthe first story was conducted to cancel the pilotis column, and enhanced seismic lateral capacity of thebuilding in a transverse direction, as is indicated by the seismic capacity index Is of 0.80 after theseismic retrofit.

BEHAVIOR OF STEEL-BRACED FRAME
Crack patterns of columns neighboring to three steel-braced frames in C frame are shown in Fig.5.
Shear cracks with a width of 0.2 mm to 1.5 mm were observed by the additional survey for theboundary R/C columns of steel-braced frames at the first and second stories shown in Photo.9. This
indicates that behavior of two-story steel-braced frames during the earthquake was dominated by sucha manner that lateral shear force was shared between two boundary R/C columns and diagonal steel
chords in each unit. Moreover, flexural cracks developed at critical sections of boundary beams andtransverse beams framing into the steel-braced frame and shear cracks did in a plastic hinge region of1235

Crack patterns in C frame

Crack pattern of ninth column

Italic Roman numerals :damage rate observed at
November 2011

Crack pattern of tenth column

Fig. 5 Crack patterns of columns neighboring to steel-braced frames in C frameFig. 6 Frame elevation of tenth framein transverse direction

Photo. 9 Shear cracks of
C-14 column at first story

the transverse beam in the third floor, which was a short span beam in the tenth frame for a transverse
direction because a large opening was placed on a shear wall for a passage way as illustrated in Fig.6.
This is a symptom that these beams resisted an uplift rotation of the rigid body consisting of a
two-story steel-braced frame and two boundary R/C columns.
Predicted lateral strength was 2926 kN for a strengthened unit bay consisting of a steel-braced
frame and both boundary R/C columns at the first story in C frame, which was computed on theassumption that one of diagonal steel chords in a steel-braced frame yields in tension and the otherbuckles in compression with shear failure of both boundary R/C columns. On the other hand, predicted
lateral strength on the assumption that a foundation of the rigid body above-mentioned uplifts and1236

rotates was 2968 kN, which is slightly greater than the former strength of 2926 kN. This computation
result agrees approximately with the observation on the field survey.
Steel-braced frames for the first and second stories were installed into the C frame removing both
drop and spandrel walls as shown in Fig.5. Drop and spandrel walls adjacent to a steel-braced frame,
however, remained without a seismic slit so as to separate a short boundary column from thesesecondary walls. It seems that this resulted in greater enhancement of the lateral stiffness in the firstand second stories than expected for the seismic retrofit design. Since the lateral inter-story
displacement for the third story became larger during the earthquake than that for the first and second
stories, eventually short columns with a shear span ratio of 1.6 in C frame failed in shear in the thirdstory. This points out that the estimation of the story stiffness according to the current standards forseismic performance evaluation of retrofitted R/C buildings, i.e., the structural design index SD, waslikely to be inadequate when a seismic retrofit was carried out using steel-braced frames in such amanner that adjacent drop and spandrel walls were in service without any seismic slits, attributed tomore stiffen the steel-braced frame.

CONCLUSIONS
The reinforced concrete class-room building with three stories, which was retrofitted by steel-braced
frames for the first, second and the penthouse stories, suffered moderate damage for the third story,
where no seismic retrofits were conducted and four columns failed in shear subjected to the 2011 East
Japan Earthquake. Shear failure also occurred in a few columns at the first and second stories withseismic retrofits. The vertical distribution of the seismic capacity indices in a longitudinal direction,
which seems to be adequate, can not explain the reason why shear failure of columns concentrated on
the third story. It is probable that the actual lateral stiffness in the first and second stories after the
retrofit was greater than that predicted according to the evaluation standards because existing drop andspandrel walls adjacent to a steel-braced frame remained without any seismic slits. In other words,
irregular story stiffness distribution over the height of the building, generated by the seismic retrofit
except for the third story, resulted in the concentration of a large deformation to the third story andcaused shear failure of some columns.
R/C piles under footings of the building suffered severe damage such as shear failure, buckling ofa longitudinal bar, and many cracks. An inclination of columns which was not observed at the survey
in April, 2011 grew gradually during eight months.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The seismic capacity evaluation and the boring investigation to some R/C piles were carried out by the
Ichikai town hall in Tochigi prefecture. Mr. IRINO M., a mayor of the town, facilitated the author to
conduct the field survey. Dr. KISHIDA S., Dr. NAKAMURA T., Mr. KASHIWAZAKI T., Dr.
TAJIMA Y., and Mr. ISHIKI K. participated in the field reconnaissance. Mr. ISHIKI K., a graduate
student of Tokyo Metropolitan University, prepared some figures and calculations reported herein.
The author wishes to express his great gratitude to them. This survey was carried out as a part of the
field reconnaissance organized by the committee, of which chairman is Prof. KABEYASAWA T., theUniversity of Tokyo, in Architectural Institute of Japan.

REFERENCES
Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association (2001). "Standards for seismic performance
evaluation of existing reinforced concrete buildings." (in Japanese)1237