Proceedings of the International Symposium on Engineering Lessons Learned fromthe 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, March 1-4, 2012, Tokyo, JapanDAMAGE OF BUILDINGS AND ACTIONS TAKENDURING THE 2011 GREAT EAST JAPAN EARTHQUAKEIN THE DISASTER PREVENTION FACILITIESTaiki SAITO1
1Chief Research Engineer, International Institute of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering,Professor, Building Research Institute,Tsukuba Japan, tsaito@kenken.go.jp

ABSTRACT: Questionnaire survey was conducted in nine disaster prevention facilities
in Miyagi, Saitama, Tokyo, Kanagawa and Osaka Prefectures about damage of buildingsand actions taken during the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake on March 11, 2011. All
facilities are located in high-rise buildings. Questionnaire to building administrators
consists of questions about the damage of building and countermeasures taken at themoment of earthquake. Questionnaire to staff in the facilities includes questions about
the behavior and emotion (fear and anxiety) during earthquake shaking and damage ofcontents in the office. Finally, suggestions to improve countermeasures in the disasterprevention facilities in high-rise buildings are pointed out.
Key Words: Great East Japan earthquake, Questionnaire survey, Disaster prevention
facilities, High-rise buildings

INTRODUCTION
Building Research Institute has conducted strong-motion observation of buildings on a nationwide
scale to examine the behavior of buildings during earthquakes. At the 2011 Great East Japan
Earthquake that occurred on March 11, 2011, it is known that high-rise buildings in Tokyo moved
largely responded by long-period component of earthquake ground motion. Also, the 52-stories officebuilding in Osaka, located more than 700 km far from the epicenter, moved around 137 cm at the topof the building because of the long-period ground motion generated in the Osaka Plain.
In order to reduce damage caused by the Tokai, Tonankai and Nankai Earthquake which havebeen noted to occur in the near future, it is important to examine the damage or malfunction ofbuildings during the earthquake and find out necessary means to improve its safety and continue thebusiness in the building. Also, actions taken during the earthquake by disaster prevention facilities
should be examined to take advantage of future measures. In addition, it is also important tounderstand behavior and anxiety level of residents during an earthquake to avoid confusion and ensure
the safety of evacuation of residents.
For this purpose, questionnaire survey was conducted in nine disaster prevention facilities in
Miyagi, Saitama, Tokyo, Kanagawa and Osaka Prefectures about damage of buildings and actions
taken during the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake on March 11, 2011. All facilities are located in1250

high-rise buildings. Questionnaire to building administrators consists of questions about the damage ofbuilding and countermeasures taken at the moment of earthquake. Questionnaire to staff in thefacilities includes questions about the behavior and emotion (fear and anxiety) during earthquake
shaking and damage of contents in the office.

Miyagi

Saitama
Tokyo

Osaka

Kanagawa
Figure 1 Location of recorded buildings at the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake

Table 1 List of buildings targeted for questionnaire survey
No.

Location

Structural Structural Floor
Typesystem

Height(m)Year

Location

1Miyagi

S

Normal2

Saitama

S

3

Tokyo

4

Acc. (cm/s2)

H1

H2

V

15F
B2F

62.7

1973

Control

26F
P2F

139

2000

SRC

Isolation(Retrofit)

11F
B2F

53.63

1973
(2003)

TokyoS

Normal20FB4F
P1F

86.52

1994

5TokyoS

Control

21F
B4F

99.5

2000

67Tokyo
Tokyo

S
SRC

NormalNormal

75.4
111.2

1983
1983

163
361
74
119118248
265
104
5594
91
210
177
75
137
121-259
346
63
138
155
503
686
91
5582
85
150
135
71
113
131-147
543
4262
66
106
185
58
55
104
45
173
130
49
72
104-----

8

Kanagawa

S

Normal

96

1994

B2F

60-

30

9OsakaS

Normal

18F
26F
B3F
23F
B3F
P1F
15F
3F

B2F
15F
B3F
10FS
10FN
P1FS
P1FC
B2F
B1F
P1F
01F
20B
19C
B4F
13F
21F
-76

1973

23FB3F
P3F

162
1165

93872
57

S: Steel / SRC: Steel Reinforced ConcreteControl: building with response control devices / Isolation: building with seismic isolation/

1251

QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY TO BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS
Damage to building structures
Table 2 summarizes the damage situation of structural members and exterior walls. The
answer of “Miyagi” reported crack propagation on the surface of columns. Other answers
reported “none” or “unknown” because of the difficulty to inspect damage at the highposition of the building by eye sight.
Table 3 summarizes the damage situation of non-structural elements. Except answer of“Osaka,” there are some reports of damage in all buildings. In particular, many building
suffered damage to ceiling panels.
Table 4 shows the damage situation of lifeline facilities and elevators. Elevator sufferedvarious damage including twine rope and damage to baskets. Table 5 shows the situation ofstop of elevator and recovery process and answers to whether trap happened and time torescue. The elevators stopped on all buildings and one person was trapped in Tokyo.

Actions taken at the moment of earthquake
About business continuity
There are checklists and manuals for disaster or business continuity plans for all facilities, which
could act as planned except one building answered failed to plan because of shortage of staff.
“Miyagi” answered that damage was beyond the expectation in the manual.
Table 2 Damage of structural members and exterior walls
12345678

Miyagi
Normal9Saitama

TokyoTokyo

Tokyo

TokyoTokyo

Kanagawa

Osaka

Control

Isolation

NormalControlNormalNormalNormalNormalStructuralmembers

Crackoncolumns

None

NoneUnknown

None

None

Unknown

None

None

Exteriorwalls

None

None

None

Unknown

None

None

None

None

None

Table 3 Damage of non-structural members
3456789Saitama

TokyoTokyo

Tokyo

Tokyo

Tokyo

Kanagawa

Osaka

Control

Isolation

NormalControlNormalNormalNormalNormalDetached
from joint

Peeling off

None

Crack andpeeling

None

CrackCrack

None

None

Ceiling

Damage topart of theceiling
panels in
office area
and all panels
in hall area

Detachmentof speakerat theceiling

None

Fall ofpart of theceiling
panelsNone

Displacementof ceiling
panelsPeeling ofthe boardand sealingof asbestos

Fall of partof theceiling
panels

None

Door

None

Damage to
the releaseof fire door

None

Damage todoor ofthe sink

None

None

Damage tothe releaseof fire door

None

None

Partitionboard panel

12

Miyagi
Normal1252

Table 4 Damage of lifeline facilities and elevators

Water andelectricity
facilities

Elevator (ropeand basket)

1234

56789Miyagi

Saitama

TokyoTokyo

Tokyo

Tokyo

Tokyo

Kanagawa

Osaka

NormalControl

Isolation

NormalControl

NormalNormalNormalNormal

None

None

None

None

None

Damageto lid ofroof tank

None

None

Distortionin the EV
car luggage,brokenlimitswitches,
bracketdeformation

Damageofgovernor
wire,
mainrope,
selectortape ofone EV

None

None

None

None

None

Entangled
main ropeof two EVs,
destroy offloor plates

None

None

Table 5 Situation of stop of elevator and recovery process
Stop of elevator and recovery process

Occurrence of trap and time
to rescue1

Miyagi

NormalNo. 1-3 elevator malfunction, repair work continued one year.

None

2

Saitama

Control

Emergency stop of all EVs for safety. Resumption of operation afterinspecting four hours.

None

3TokyoIsolation

Emergency stop of all EVs for safety. Resumption of operation after
inspection until 16:15

None

4TokyoNormalEmergency stop of all EVs for safety. Resumption of operation after
inspection until 21:54.

None

5TokyoControl

Emergency stop of all EVs for safety. Resumption of operation after
inspection (No.1～No.12 until 15:30 and No.13～No.24 until 20:30)

None

6TokyoNormalEmergency stop of all EVs for safety. Resumption of operation after
inspection until 18:30 except the EV failed

One person was trapped andrescued after 30min.

7TokyoNormal

Emergency stop of three EVs. One week to 1.5 months to recovery.

None

8Kanagawa

NormalEmergency stop of all EVs for safety. Resumption of operation afterinspection

None

9OsakaNormalNone

None

Evacuation after earthquake
All staff of the facility were evacuated in “Miyagi” and some staff were evacuated in one facility
in “Tokyo”. "Miyagi" decided to evacuate from the damage and "Tokyo" decided from the magnitudeof the tremor. Bothe cases canceled evacuation in 2 hours after inspection of damage. Among thefacility which did not evacuate, there are the cases making announcement saying "there is no need forevacuation" and those without any announcement.
Damage inspection
All facilities conducted emergent inspection after the earthquake by local staff or professional
contractor stationed in the building. They insist to reduce time to determine the damage andresumption of elevator as soon as possible to have a task force immediately.

QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY TO STAFF IN THE FACILITIESFigure 2 shows the number of persons who answered questionnaire in each facility. Respondents
were selected from the upper, middle, lower floors of each building.

1253

3026252120
15108776796

50Figure 2 Number of respondents in each facility

Time to notice the earthquake
Ratio of answers to the question “How did you notice the earthquake?” is shown in Figure 3.
The facilities near the epicenter such as “Miyagi” and “Saitama” show high rate of answers noticed
earthquake by “Earthquake Emergency Alarm.”a. Shaking of an earthquake
b. Earthquake emergency alarmc. other1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.10
1.Miyagi

2.Saitama

3.Tokyo

4.Tokyo

5.Tokyo

6.Tokyo

7.Tokyo8.Kanagawa

9.Osaka

Figure 3 How did you notice the earthquake?

Actions at the moment of earthquake
From Figure 4, the most frequent action during earthquake is “Stop working, wait and see” andthe next frequent answer is “Hide under the desk.”
1.Miyagi
2.Saitama
3.Tokyo
4.Tokyo
5.Tokyo
6.Tokyo
7.Tokyo8.Kanagawa
9.Osaka

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

Figure 4 What is the action taken at the moment of earthquake?

1254

Intensity of shaking
As for the intensity of shaking, the most frequent answer in “Miyagi” is “Could not doanything.” On the other hand, “Osaka” answered “no trouble for walking.” It reflects the difference indistance from the epicenter.
11.Miyagi
2.Saitama

0.8

3.Tokyo
0.6

4.Tokyo
5.Tokyo

0.4

6.Tokyo
0.2

7.Tokyo8.Kanagawa

09.Osaka

Figure 5 How was the intensity of shaking?

Sense of fear
The ratio of the reply of a sense of fear is shown in Figure 6. Most of the answers of "Miyage"and "Osaka" were "felt strongly." It seems that people feel fear not only by the intensity of shaking,but also long duration of shaking.
11.Miyagi
2.Saitama

0.8

3.Tokyo
4.Tokyo

0.6

5.Tokyo
6.Tokyo

0.4

7.Tokyo8.Kanagawa

0.2

9.Osaka
0Figure 6 How was a sense of fear during shaking?

Damage inside building
Figure 7 shows the answers about the damage inside building. Many facilities answered“Shaking largely” for hanging objects which is inferred the effect of long period components of tremor.
As for dishes in the cabinet, many answers of “Fallen” and “Partially fallen” are observed in thefacilities near the epicenter, “Miyagi” and “Saitama.” Falling furniture did not happen so much except“Miyagi.” On the other hand, there are answers of “A lot” for the movement of furniture such as acopy machine with casters. It also reflects the fact of long duration of tremor.

1255

1

1

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

00(a) Hanging objects(b) Dishes in the cabinet

11

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

5.Tokyo

0.2

0.2

6.Tokyo00

1.Miyagi
2.Saitama
3.Tokyo
4.Tokyo

7.Tokyo8.Kanagawa
9.Osaka(c) Falling furniture(d) Movement of furniture

Figure 7 How was the damage inside of building?

Information source
Figure 8 shows the information sources of earthquake. In “Miyagi”, available information
sources were “Radio” or “TV of cellphone” since massive power failure occurred in the area. For otherfacilities without power failure, “TV” is the most frequent answer and the next answer is “Internet.”
1

1.Miyagi
2.Saitama

0.8

3.Tokyo
0.6

4.Tokyo
5.Tokyo

0.4

6.Tokyo
0.2

7.Tokyo8.Kanagawa

09.Osaka

Figure 8 How did you get information about earthquake?

1256

Preparedness before the earthquake
As shown in Figure 9, for prevention of furniture falling, not all facilities were prepared byfixing furniture. Stockpiling water and food was done well in "Saitama" and "Osaka" facilities, butaround half answers did nothing. For emergency drills, many respondents had participated, but some
did not.
1

1

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

5.Tokyo

0.2

0.2

6.Tokyo00

1.Miyagi
2.Saitama
3.Tokyo
4.Tokyo

7.Tokyo8.Kanagawa
9.Osaka(a) Prevention of furniture falling(b) Stockpiling water and food

11.Miyagi
2.Saitama

0.8

3.Tokyo
0.6

4.Tokyo
5.Tokyo

0.4

6.Tokyo

0.2

7.Tokyo08.Kanagawa
9.Osaka(c) Participation in emergency drill
Figure 9 Have you prepared for the earthquake?

CONCLUSIONS
Questionnaire survey was conducted for nine disaster prevention facilities in different regions of Japan
regarding the damage and actions during the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake Disaster. It was foundthat there was the difference in decision making for evacuation instruction. Less information after theearthquake to determine the necessity of evacuation could be one reason. Stop of elevators was themost sensitive for the immediate action and hampered inspection work and quick formulation of a taskforce. Disaster prevention facilities must be safer than other buildings and prepared well, however,preparedness such as fixing furniture and stockpiling water and food was not sufficient.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Questionnaire survey in this paper was conducted as a part of damage investigation work of theNational Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management (NILIM) and the Building ResearchInstitute (BRI). The author expresses his gratitude to those who answered the questionnaire.

1257