Damage of Buildings
byHitoshi Shiohara
Associate Professor, University of Tokyo, PhD, FACI
Secretary, Disaster Committee, Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ)
Leader, Reconnaissance Group, Kanto Branch of AIJ

1

Road Maps
• Overview• Statistics of damaged buildings• Performance of Old and New RC Buildings• Case study: Nagano-machi apartment complex building in Sendai• Beam-column joint : Full Scale Shaking Table Test on E-Defense• Concluding remarks

2

Iwanuma, Miyagi
Source: Mainichi News Paper

Direct material damage from the disasterestimates 16.9 trillion yen
Building

10.4

61.5%Civil infrastructure

2.2

13.0%

Agriculture & Fishery

1.9

11.2%

Lifeline

1.3

7.7%

Others

1.1

6.5%

Total

16.9

100.0%

Unit: trillion yen (1 trillion yen = 12.5 B US$)loss due to failure of nucleus four power plant units excluded3

Iwanuma, Miyagi
Source: Mainichi News Paper

Tsunami : 10 meter high4

Minami Sanriku, Miyagi
Source: Mainichi News Paper

Only RC buildings remained intact from deadly collapse

5ᘓ⠏≀ṧᏑᔂቯ㌿ಽ

ྜィ36

7952

Typical Tsunami Damage to Buildings㌿ಽࡋࡓ஺␒

ṧᏑࡋࡓ࣍ࢸࣝᒙᔂቯࡋࡓᘓ⠏≀Collasped BuildingOverturned Koban㸦ዪᕝ⏫ࠊRC㐀ࠊ2㝵ᘓ㸧(in Onagawa, RC,two-storied)

Hotel partially intact㸦ᐑྂᕷ⏣⪁ࠊS㐀ࠊ6 㝵ᘓ㸧(in Miyako, S, six-storied)(in Rikuzen-takata,㸦㝣๓㧗⏣ᕷࠊRC㐀ࠊᖹᒇ㸧ᔂቯࡋࡓ㕲㐨ᶫ
WoodHouse swept away
(in Watari, W) 㐀㸧㸦⏣㔝⏿ᮧࠊRCᔂቯ࣭㌿ಽࡋࡓ㜵₻ሐCollapsed Seawallᔂቯࡋࡓࣈࣟࢵࢡሟ
Overturned Brick Wall(in Yamada, RC)㐀)(ᒣ⏣⏫ࠊRC(in㸦ர⌮⏫ࠊCBWatari, Concrete㐀㸧Block)RC, one-storied)06᪥ᮏ኱㟈⅏ࡢὠἼ⿕ᐖᆅᇦ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ⣙ 230 ࡢሟࡸሐ㜵➼ࡢẚ㍑ⓗ༢⣧࡞㛵ࡍࡿ⿕ᐖㄪᰝࢆ⾜࠸ࠊࡑࡢ୰࠿ࡽ 96 ࡢㄪᰝ⤖ᯝࢆᑐ㇟࡟ὠἼἼᅽ⟬ᐃᘧ࡟♧ࡍ࢞࢖ࢻࣛ࢖࡛ࣥཧ↷ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿὠἼἼᅽ⟬ᐃᘧࡓ㸬᳨ウࡣࠊᅗ
Simplified3.1Water
Pressure Formula for Design
第２章

地震・地盤・津波（Earthquake, ground condition, and tsunami）

㧖ᵤᵄ㜞࡮ᶐ᳓㜞ߦߟ޿ߡ࡟ᑐࡍࡿಸ⋡ 3 ࡢ᳨ド࡟╔┠ࡋ࡚⾜ࡗࡓ㸬⾲ 3.1 ࡟᳨ウᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓᵓ㐀㧖ᵤᵄ㜞࡮ᶐ᳓㜞ߦߟ޿ߡ∥〔㩷୺࡞⿕ᐖㄪᰝᆅᇦ࡜⿕ᐖ≧ἣ෗┿౛ࢆᅗ 3.2 ࡟♧ࡍ㸬∥〔㩷ầ૏᷹ⷰᚲầ૏᷹ⷰᚲ ᵤᵄ㜞㩷ᵤᵄ㜞㩷ᶐ᳓㜞㩷ᶐ᳓㜞㩷ᶐ᳓ᷓ㩷ᶐ᳓ᷓ㩷࿾⋚㜞㩷඾ඬஹ᙭଺඾ඬஹ᙭଺ỉກˮᴾ࿾⋚㜞㩷࠯‫ר‬ෙ᩿ίᵫᵌᵱᵌᵪᵇᴾ

࠯‫ר‬ෙ᩿ίᵫᵌᵱᵌᵪᵇᴾ

ỉກˮᴾ







㆚਄㜞㩷

㆚਄㜞㩷

ὠἼἼᅽ⟬ᐃᘧ㻌ઃ࿑  ᵤᵄ㜞࡮ᶐ᳓㜞ߣᶏ㕙‫ޔ‬࿾⋚ߣߩ㑐ଥqx = ρ g ( ah – z )࿑ߢߪầ૏᷹ⷰᚲࠍᄢ߈߼ߦឬ޿ߡ޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬ᑪ‛߿᮸ᧁߩᄢ߈ߐߩ㑐ଥߪታ㓙ߣߪ⇣ߥࠆ‫ޕ‬äઃ࿑  ᵤᵄ㜞࡮ᶐ᳓㜞ߣᶏ㕙‫ޔ‬࿾⋚ߣߩ㑐ଥ6)࿑  ᵤᵄ㜞㧘ᶐ᳓㜞㧘ᶐ᳓ᷓߣᶏ㕙㧘࿾⋚ߣߩ㑐ଥ(Tsunami height, inundation height, and inundation depth)࿑ߢߪầ૏᷹ⷰᚲࠍᄢ߈߼ߦឬ޿ߡ޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬ᑪ‛߿᮸ᧁߩᄢ߈ߐߩ㑐ଥߪታ㓙ߣߪ⇣ߥࠆ‫ޕ‬ä㧖ᵤᵄߩ㆚਄࠲ࠗࡊԘ ᴡᎹ࡮ㆇᴡ࡮᳓〝 ߹ߚ㧘࿖࿯࿾ℂ㒮ߦࠃࠆⓨਛ౮⌀߅ࠃ߮ⴡᤊ↹௝ࠍ↪
ԘᴡᎹ࡮㧖ᵤᵄߩ㆚਄࠲ࠗࡊ޿ߚᵤᵄᶐ᳓▸࿐ߩ್⺒⚿ᨐߦࠃࠆߣ㧘㕍᫪㧘ጤᚻ㧘ችㆇᴡ࡮᳓〝Ԙ ᴡᎹ࡮ㆇᴡ࡮᳓〝ߩ✭޿ᴡᎹ‫ޔ‬ㆇᴡ‫ޔ‬ၒ┙࿾ߩ᳓〝ߢ⷗ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬

3h

ᘓ⠏≀
Buildingah2) ᳇⽎ᐡ㧦‫ޟ‬ᐔᚑ 23 ᐕ㧔2011 ᐕ㧕᧲ർ࿾ᣇᄥᐔᵗᴒ࿾㔡‫ߡ޿ߟߦޠ‬㧔╙ 14 ႎ㧕㧘http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/pressタィ⏝ᾐỈ῝depth : hၔ㧘⑔ፉ㧘⨙ၔ㧘ජ⪲ߩ 6 inundation⋵ 62 Ꮢ↸᧛ߩᶐ᳓▸࿐㕙Ⓧߩ
/1103/13a/kaisetsu201103130900.pdf㧘ᐔᚑ 23 ᐕ 3 ᦬ԘᴡᎹ࡮28)

ว⸘ߪ 561km ߦ㆐ߒߡ޿ࠆ ‫ޕ‬࿑ 2.3.7 ߦฦ⋵೎ߩᶐ᳓᳿უߐߖߚࠅߔࠆߣᏒⴝ࿾߿↰⇌ߦᶐ᳓ߔࠆ‫ޕ‬ߩ✭޿ᴡᎹ‫ޔ‬ㆇᴡ‫ޔ‬ၒ┙࿾ߩ᳓〝ߢ⷗ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬㕙Ⓧࠍ␜ߔ‫ޕ‬ችၔ⋵߇ᦨ߽ᄢ߈ߊᶐ᳓ߒߡ߅ࠅ㧘ᰴ޿ߢԙ ⍾ᵿ࡮ᶏጯᐔ㊁઄บḧᴪጯ ౝ㒽ᷓߊ߹ߢㅴߺ߿ߔߊᴡጯႇ㒐ࠍ⿧߃ߚࠅ

㼦㻌

13 ᣣ 09 ᤨ 00 ಽㆇᴡ࡮᳓〝zౝ㒽ᷓߊ߹ߢㅴߺ߿ߔߊᴡጯႇ㒐ࠍ⿧߃ߚࠅ ᴡญ߆ࠄᴡᎹᴪ޿ߦ㆚਄ߔࠆ࠲ࠗࡊߢ‫ޔ‬൨㈩h ᴡญ߆ࠄᴡᎹᴪ޿ߦ㆚਄ߔࠆ࠲ࠗࡊߢ‫ޔ‬൨㈩3) 㧔⁛㧕᷼ḧⓨ᷼ᛛⴚ⎇ⓥᚲ㧦GPS ᵄᶉ⸘ో࿾ὐߦ߅ߌ ᶏጯ߇ᐔမߢ⍾Ꮊ߿⍾ਐߦߥߞߡ޿ࠆߣߎ⑔ፉ⋵㧘ጤᚻ⋵ߣ⛯ߊ‫ߚ߹ޕ‬ችၔ⋵ߣ࿖࿯੤ㅢ⋭ߩ⺞ᩏࠆ᷹ⷰ⚿ᨐߟ޿ߡ㧘ᐔᚑ 23 ᐕ 5 ᦬ 16 ᣣ㧘ߦࠃࠆߣ࿾㔡ߦࠃࠆ࿾⋚ᴉਅߦࠃࠅችၔ⋵ߢߪᶏᛮ 0m

http://www.pari.go.jp/files/3651/303113448.pdf

᳿უߐߖߚࠅߔࠆߣᏒⴝ࿾߿↰⇌ߦᶐ᳓ߔࠆ‫ޕ‬ԙ⍾ᵿ࡮ࠈߢᐢ▸࿐ߦ᳚Ửߔࠆ࠲ࠗࡊߢ‫ޔ‬ᶐ᳓ߔࠆᷓߐԙ ⍾ᵿ࡮ᶏጯᐔ㊁઄บḧᴪጯ ߪԚࠃࠅߪᄢ߈ߊߥ޿߇ᓇ㗀ߔࠆ㕙Ⓧ߇ᐢ޿‫ޕ‬2ᶏጯᐔ㊁

એਅ߇ 56km ߣ㔡ἴ೨ߩ 3.4 ୚ߦ᜛ᄢߒߚ‫ޕ‬࿾⋚ᴉਅߪૐ࿾߇ᄙ޿ߩߢឃ᳓ߒߦߊߊᶐ᳓ᦼ㑆߇㐳ߊ ᶏጯ߇ᐔမߢ⍾Ꮊ߿⍾ਐߦߥߞߡ޿ࠆߣߎ⍹ᏎᏒർ਄Ꮉᴡญ㧘หᣥർ਄Ꮉᴡญ㧘઄บᐔ㊁ߩ㧟࿾ၞߥࠆᕟࠇ߇޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ࠈߢᐢ▸࿐ߦ᳚Ửߔࠆ࠲ࠗࡊߢ‫ޔ‬ᶐ᳓ߔࠆᷓߐߢ㗼⪺ߢ㧘⍹ᏎᏒߢߪਛᔃㇱߩ૑ቛ࿾߿໡ᐫⴝߦ߽ᶏᛮԚ ௑ᢳ࿾ᒻ ਃ㒽ᶏጯ ߪԚࠃࠅߪᄢ߈ߊߥ޿߇ᓇ㗀ߔࠆ㕙Ⓧ߇ᐢ޿‫ޕ‬0m એਅ߇⊒↢ߒߡ޿ࠆ9)‫ޕ‬ਛዊᴡᎹߩ⼱ᐩᐔ㊁߿௑ᢳߒߚᶏጯᐔ㊁ࠍ㆚㼤 Ԛ௑ᢳ࿾ᒻૐ࿾߇ᄙ޿ߩߢឃ᳓ߒߦߊߊᶐ᳓ᦼ㑆߇㐳ߊ਄ߔࠆ࠲ࠗࡊߢ‫ޔ‬ᅏ߹ߞߚ౉ࠅᳯߦട߃೨㕙ߩߥࠆᕟࠇ߇޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᶏᐩ߇⼱⁁ߩߎߣ߽޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬ᮡ㜞߇㜞޿ߣߎࠈ߹ߢ㆚਄ߒ߿ߔ޿‫ޕ‬Ԛ ௑ᢳ࿾ᒻ ਃ㒽ᶏጯ ԛ Ბਐ࡮⼔ጯਛዊᴡᎹߩ⼱ᐩᐔ㊁߿௑ᢳߒߚᶏጯᐔ㊁ࠍ㆚ᶏ㘩ፗ߿⼔ጯߥߤᕆፗ߇೨㕙ߦ޽ࠅ‫ޔ‬⢛ᓟ߇ᐔ਄ߔࠆ࠲ࠗࡊߢ‫ޔ‬ᅏ߹ߞߚ౉ࠅᳯߦട߃೨㕙ߩမ࿾ߣߥߞߡ޿ࠆ࠲ࠗࡊߢ‫ޔ‬ᵤᵄߩ㜞ߐ߇ᕆፗ4) ᷼ḧⓨ᷼ᛛⴚ⎇ⓥᚲ㧦᷼ḧⓨ᷼ᛛⴚ⎇ⓥᚲ⾗ᢱ㧘
No.1231㧘2011 ᐕ᧲ᣣᧄᄢ㔡ἴߦࠃࠆ᷼ḧ࡮ᶏጯ࡮ⓨԙ⍾ᵿ࡮᷼ߩ࿾㔡࡮ᵤᵄⵍኂߦ㑐ߔࠆ⺞ᩏႎ๔㧘2011 ᐕ 4 ᦬

ᶏጯᐔ㊁5) ᳇⽎ᐡ HP ầ૏⴫ ⸃⺑㧘http://www.data.kishou.go.jp

a3ρ ghgh/db/tide/suisan/explanation.html
6) ᣣᧄ᳇⽎දળ㧦ᐔᚑ 23 ᐕ㧔2011 ᐕ㧕᧲ർ࿾ᣇᄥᐔᵗᴒ࿾㔡ᵤᵄߩ᭎ⷐ㧔╙ 3 ႎ㧕ᡷ⸓  㕍᫪⋵㨪⑔ፉ⋵ߩᵤᵄ㜞࡮ᶐ᳓㜞߅ࠃ߮㕍᫪⋵㨪ජ⪲⋵ߩᶐ᳓
⁁ᴫ
Ԛ௑ᢳ࿾ᒻ

7

Tsunami Resistance of Buildings• Reinforce concrete buildings have potential to survive.
• Tsunami evacuation buildings are necessary for saving the lives who can notrelocate quickly to safer place.
• Simplified water pressure formula for design are evaluated by examining thetsunami survived and collapsed buildings inventory8Statistics of Damaged Non-residential Buildings
Prefecture

NumberHokkaido

470

Aomori

1,184

Iwate

1,538

Miyagi

17,315

Fukushima

1,015

Ibaraki

8,449

Tochigi

295

Gunmma195

Saitama

33

Chiba

708

Tokyo20Kanagawa

2

Hokkaido (470)
Aomori (1184)
Sendai, Miyagi

Iwate (1538)
Miyagi (17,315)

Tsunami damage
buildings included

Fukushima (1,015)
Ibaraki (8449)
Chiba (708)Tokyo (20)Credit: the National Police Agency

from Wikipedia
Onagawa,Miyagi
9

Statistics of Housing Severely Damaged
Prefecture

Death & Severe
missing Damage( ) : Death toll

Hokkaido

10

Aomori

3306

Iwate

4,709

20,998

Aomori 306 (3)Miyagi9,194

65,462

Iwate 20998 (4709)

Fukushima

1,709

15,897

Ibaraki

24

2,163

Tochigi

4257

Gunmma10Saitama

1

7Chiba

20771

Tokyo

711

Kanagawa

40Credit: the Fire Defense Agency

Hokkaido 0 (1)Tsunami damage
buildings included

Miyagi 65462 (9194)
Fukushima 15897 (1709)
Ibaraki 2163 (24)Chiba 771 (20)Tokyo 7 (11)
Watari, Miyagi

from Wikipedia
10Statistics of Damaged Buildings• Brief history of RC buildings and seismic codes in Japan• The rate of damaged buildings are low but Damage buildings location widelydistributed in east Japan11

1120

2000

95
1981

1978
1971

191968

Revisions of Japanese seismic provisions in codes
1968 Tokachi-oki Earthquake*BSL : Building Standard Law

Amendment of BSL Enforcement Order( Prevention of column shear failure )1978 Miyagiken-oki Earthquake
Amendment of BSL Enforcement Order( The “shin-taishin”, new standard )1995 Hyogo-ken Nambu Earthquake( Effectiveness of the 1981 revision was confirmed )Act on Promotion of Seismic
Retrofitting of Existing Buildings( To urge building owners to retrofit existing vulnerable buildings )Amendment of BSL Enforcement Order( Performance based criteria introduced )I〜 1971

II〜 1981III1981 〜

2011 Tohoku-chihoTaiheiyo-oki Earthquake
12

Inventory Study of RC School Buildings in Miyagi
Number of school buildings
35III- 1971
1971- 1981
30

Inventory

credit : Maeda et al.
III
1981-legitimate
Retrofit not necessary

25

Retrofit done

546 buildings intotal

No Retrofit

20

Senday City &Municipalities inthe vicinity ofSendai

15
Higashi Matsushima, Miyagi

1050
¶

¶

¶

¶

¶

Year of construction
13

Inventory of School RC Buildings in Miyagi
Number of school buildings
35
III- 1971
1971- 198130

credit : Maeda et al.
III
1981-Inventory

Foundation

Senday City &Municipalities inthe vicinity ofSendai

SevereModerate

25

MinorNo damage

20546 buildings intotal

Damage grade

15546 buildings in total
10Damage due toTsunami excluded50¶¶¶

¶¶

Year of construction
14

Typical Damage to Structural & Nonstructural Members

Shear Failure of RC Captive Column

Shear Failure of RC Shear WallShear Failure of RC Boundary Beam

Failure of RC Stair Anchorage

Fallen non-structural Concrete Brick

Fallen non-structural Ceiling15

Performance of Old and New Buildings• Inventory Study of RC School Buildings were made• Similar pattern of damage compared to past building damaged observed• shear failure structural members• non-structural elements• Eﬀectiveness of seismic retrofit is proved

16

Case Study:
Nagano-machi Apartment Complex

17

Nagano-machi Apartment Complex

18

Nagano-machi Dwelling Building Complex• in Sendai City
• RC/SRC 9 floors.
• Completed in 1969
• Survived major earthquakes in1978, 2003 and 2005.
• Seismic vulnerability wasassessed in 2010
• No rehabilitation yet• Fc 210 & 180• Grade SD35 rebars• to be demolished19

Elevation of X1 frame in transverse direction

steel shapein concrete

III
III
III
IIsIs
see Fig. 7O

IIIs

IIsIsOV III

V IVOOIII

II4 500

6 000

Y0

Y16 000

Y26 000

Y34 500

Y4Y5shear cracks on coupling beams

unit in mm20

1st floor plan and damage rate
southwest

Y5
Y4north

IIs O

IIII
III

III

IVs

IIs

IIIs

OO

IIIs

IIs

IIIIO

IIs
I

I

IsIsO

O

Medical Service

Y3IIs
O

II IVsOIsIsIsIIs

Is

Entrance
Y2Vs

Y0eastIV

IIIIsIsIII

IIIOOO
Damage Grade

Municipal offices

IVsee Fig. 7Y1OO

VV

V

X0

X1

II

V

IIIs

III

X2

I

O

IIIs

IIIsIIs

X5

X6

X7

O: no damage
I : slight
II : minor
III : moderate
IV : major
V : severe

I

X3IIIsX4

X821

2nd floor plan and damage rate
south

Y5
Y4
west

Y3

northIs
I

I

O

O

I

I

O

O

O

II

Is

Is

O

I

O

I

O

O

II

II

IIs

Is
Vs
O

Is

IIs
O

IIs

O

Is

O

O

Is

Is

O

O

Municipal offices

Y2east

I

I

I

Is

Is

Is

Y1

III

IIIs

I
O

I

II

Is

Y0Damage GradeIIIO

I

III

OO

O

I

II

OX0X1

X2X3X4X5X6X7X8

O: no damage
I : slight
II : minor
III : moderate
IV : major
V : severe

22

3rd floor plan and damage rateIs

Y5
Y4southI

IOOI

IOOO

II

IsIs

O

IIVs

O

IIVs

OO

Y4west

Y3
Y2

Y3

II

Y2

I

IIs

IsII

Is

Vs
OIs

Is

Is

I

IIsIIs

Y1

III

IIIs

I

OIsO

O

Corridor Is

Is

Is

Is

Is

Is

Is

Os
IV

I s
IV

Is
IIIOO

IIIs

I

Is

Y0IIsOIseast

Y1

RC non-structural partitionnorthIIIs
IIO

XO7

III

XO1

XO2XO3XI4XI5

XI6X0X1X2X3X4X5X6 Apartment
X7units

X8Damage Grade
O: no damage
I : slight
II : minor
III : moderate
IV : major
V : severe

X823

Elevation of X1 frame in longitudinal direction

steel shapein concrete

flexural failure andbuckling of rebars at thebottom of column

III
IIIDamage grade : VIII
IIs
Issee Fig. 7OIIIs

IIsIsOV IIIV IVOOIII

II4 500

6 000

Y0

Y16 000

Y26 000

Y34 500

Y4Y5unit in mm
24

Elevation of Y4 frame in longitudinal direction
PHRFL 36,150

Shear failure ofcolumns

Damage grade : V

shear crack on beam-column joint
RFL

26,1509FL

23,3508FL

20,7507FL

18,1506FL

15,5505FL

12,8504FL

10,150

3FL

7,400

2FL

4,100

1FL

500

see Fig. 10

IVs
IVs

IVs

IVs

Latice steel

IVs
IVs

OO

I

O

I

O

Is

Is

II

O IIs

O

Is

Is

I

I

O IIs

II IIIII

5 400

8 = 43 200

GL

X8

X7

X6

X5

X4

X3

X2

X1

X0

Unit in mm
25

9FL
8FL
7FL
6FL
5FL

Close up

4FL
3FL

2FL
26

9FL

8FL

7FL

Shear Failure
Beam-columnjoint

6FL
Shear Failureof Column
27Detailing : Beam-column Joints

4-D22

4-D19

unit in mm

12501150450

10-D19hoop φ9@250
750

600

4-D22+6-D19
hoop φ9@250
220

3-D19

220750220

vertical sectionof beam(a) Beam-column joint at 7F (X5-Y4)

220
600

450
horizontal sectionof column

4-D22

horizontal sectionof column

vertical sectionof beam(b) Beam-column joint at 5F (X5-Y4)

28

Performance
Evaluation ofBeam-column Joint

WallColumn
floor plan
Tributary area of gravity loadJoint Shear failurein kN

Beam Flexural hinge Column-to-beam Jointin kN
strength ratiocase 1shear
case 2 strength
margin*column

beam

joint

column columncase 1* case 2*

beam

9FL

544.4

858.7

863.4

522.5

396.7

231.7

2.25

1.71

3.73

8FL

555.0

929.1

984.0

650.8

454.0

320.2

2.03

1.42

3.07

7FL

589.2 1043.2 1112.3 751.5

496.7

335.0

2.24

1.48

3.32

6FL

799.7 1148.5 1150.1 906.6

574.8

432.2

2.10

1.33

2.66

5FL

907.8 1162.5 1624.0 1082.9 664.0

528.3

2.05

1.26

3.07

Wall+ColumnColumn

29Case Study:
Nagano-machi Apartment Complex• Structural system and the damage rate of structural components• Seismic vulnerability assessment• Beam-column joint• Conclusions

30

Beam-column joint:
Full Scale Shaking Table Test at E-Defense

1493 E-Defense Shak

31

E-Defense test on RC Building in December 2011
XY

20 m

15 m

Figure 2.1 E-Defense shaking table

E-Defense 3D Shaking Table
Four Storied Wall-Frame
RC Structure32

T able A .1 L ist of steel reinforcement
Joint
2,2-D10@140
C1C2Location

500 x 500
8-D22
2,2-D10@1002,2-D10@140

500 x 500
10-D222,2-D10@100
2,2-D10@140

4Fl.
3Fl.
2Fl.

BxD
RFl.
Rebar
4Fl.
Hoop
Joint

Section
2Fl.

BxD
Rebar
Hoop
Joint

500 x 500
8-D22
2,3-D10@100
2,2-D10@140

500 x 500
10-D22
2,4-D10@100
2,2-D10@140

Section
1Fl.

Top
Section

1Fl.

BxD
Rebar
Hoop
Joint

500 x 500
8-D22
2,3-D10@100
2,2-D10@140
S1

BottomSection
BxD
Rebar
Hoop
Joint

CS1
500 x 500
10-D22
3,4-D10@100
2,2-D10@140

List of Girder

500 x 500
10-D22
3,4-D10@100
2,2-D10@140

CS2CS3

List of Girder

Section2,500 x 250
300 x Vertical
600

Locati

SectioD13@300xD
B x2Dx 6-D19
RFl. B(W(W
4-D22 3-D22
4-D22 A D10@125 Top
Top
Horizontal
2,2-D10@100(W
3-D22 3-D22 3-D22 C D10@200
Botto
Bottom
2,2-D10@150
4-D10
Web
Web
Stirru
2-D10@200
Stirrup 35d
H bar
Ho

Section

250

BxD
Rebar
Hoop
Joint

End

G1 WallCenter End

SectionSection
4Fl.
3Fl.

List

List of Wall
List of Girder

List of Column

2,2-D10@140

Sectio4Fl.
3Fl.400 B x D
3Fl. B x D 400
300 x 600
2Fl.
5-D22 3-D22 5-D22TopTop
BxD
2,500 x 250
3-D22 3-D22 3-D22
Botto
Bottom2 x 6-D19
D13@300 (WRebar
Vertical
4-D10
WebWeb
A 2,3-D10@80
A D10@125 (WHorizontal
Hoop
2-D10@200
StirruStirrup
C 2,3-D10@100
C D10@200 (WJoint
2,2-D10@150
ListSection
List of Slab
Depth: 130mm
Locati300 x 600
D2Fl. B x Shorter
direction
Longer direction
6-D22 3-D22 6-D22 D10@250
Top D10@200
TopSectio
3-D22 3-D22 3-D22 D10@250
Bottom Bottom D10@200
All
WebD10,D13@2004-D10
D10@250Top
BxD2-D10@200
D10@250
Bottom Stirrup D10@200
Top
D10@200
D10@250
TopBotto
D10@200
D10@250
BottomWeb
D10,D13@200
D10,D13@200
TopStirru
D10@200
Bottom
D10@200
List of Girder

33

Margin of Joint Shear Capacity

Joint shear / Nominal joint shear capacity34Column-to-beam strength ratio

Column-to-beam strength ratios
35

JMA Kobe 50%

36

JMA Kobe 50%

37

JMA Kobe 100%38

JMA Kobe 100%39

Beam-column joint:
Full Scale Shaking Table Test on E-Defense• Nagamachi Dwelling Complex Building• Flexural failure of the first story SRC column• deficiency of steel lattice not embedded into the foundation which justends at the first floor level.
• abrupt change of section caused the damage.
• Shear failure of lightly reinforced beam-column joints.
• calculated margin of joint shear strength is 2.0 or more.
• column-to-beam strength ratio is in the range of 1.26 to 1.48.
• vulnerablity of column-to-beam strength ratio between 1.0 and 1.5 are to
joint shear failure.
• problem in failure mode prediction
40

Further information :Recommended Resources on Building DamagePREFACE
Devastating damage in the Tohoku region ofJapan occurred during and after theearthquake off the Pacific coast of Tohoku
earthquake on March 11, 2011.
The report summarizes damage associatedwith ground failures including landslideand liquefaction as well as non-structural
damages such as to equipment andfacilities, partitioning walls and ceilings, andfunctional failures in skyscrapers. Also
brief description of the Japanese Seismic
Design Code will be provided in theAppendix. A proposed scheme of antitsunami design for buildings is also
included.

springer.com
Edited by the Architectural Institute of Japan

Preliminary Reconnaissance
Report of the 2011 Tohoku-Chiho
Taiheiyo-Oki Earthquake
Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering series

7 The only official reconnaissancereport of the Architectural
Institute of Japan
7 Full of concrete information onbuilding damages in the Tohoku
and Kanto regions
7 Mainly consists of field informationin the damaged areas without
detailed analysis

DUE ERSEPTEMB201241

Thank you for your kind attention.

42