Proceedings of the International Symposium on Engineering Lessons Learned fromthe 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, March 1-4, 2012, Tokyo, JapanSEISMIC RESPONSE AND DAMAGE
OF HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS IN TOKYO, JAPAN,
DURING THE GREAT EAST JAPAN EARTHQUAKE
Yoshiaki Hisada1, Tetsuo Yamashita2, Masahiro Murakami2, Tomohiro Kubo3
Jun Shindo4, Koji Aizawa5, and Tatsuhiro Arata6
1

Professor, School of Architecture, Kogakuin University, Tokyo, Japan,
hisada@cc.kogakuin.ac.jp
2
Associate Professor, School of Architecture, Kogakuin University, Japan
3
Assistant Professor, School of Architecture, Kogakuin University, Japan
4
Consultant, NKSJ Risk Management, Inc., Japan
5
Senior Science Officer, Japan Meteorological Agency Japan
6
Graduate Student, Kogakuin University, Tokyo, Japan

ABSTRACT: We report seismic response, damage and emergency response of high-risebuildings in the Shinjuku Station area in Tokyo, Japan, for the 2011 Great East Japan
Earthquake (Mw 9.0), using strong motion data, numerical simulation, andquestionnaire/hearing surveys. Even though the shaking of buildings was not very strong
and there was no structural damage, nonstructural elements suffered damage: falls ofceiling and plaster boards, deformation of partition walls at higher floors and so on. A
couple of elevators had been stopped for weeks, because of twisted cables and/or brokenparts.
Key Words: 2011 Great East Japan earthquake, Long-Period Ground Motion, High-Rise
Building, format, Damage of Non Structural Elements, Emergency Response,
Earthquake Early Warning System, Real-Time Strong Motion Monitoring System

INTRODUCTION
The 2011 Great East Japan earthquake (Mw 9.0) paralyzed the function of the city of Tokyo, such as
traffic jams and congestions of telephones. Even though the ground motion was not very severe inTokyo metropolitan area, where JMA Intensity is about 5, many people were difficult to get home andhad to stay in the city for all night. Especially, since high-rise buildings shook severely at higher floors
by the long-period strong ground motions, many people evacuated from the buildings. This caused
extremely crowded areas in the downtown districts in Tokyo, and rescue and fire-fighting activities
could be difficult for larger earthquakes.
In this paper, we report seismic response, damage and emergency response of high-rise buildingsin the Shinjuku Station area during the earthquake. The station is the largest in the world; about
3,600,000 passengers use trains every day. Among 30 high-rise buildings (more than 100 m) in thearea, digital strong motion data of the Kogakuin University and adjacent the STEC buildings are

1110

available for this study (see Picture 1). We simulated seismic response of the Kogakuin building using
3D structural model. In addition, we conducted questionnaire and hearing surveys for 22 high-risebuildings in the area, and obtained useful results from 16 building management companies and 23
tenants.

SEIMIC RESPONSE OF HIGH-RISE BUILDINS
Strong Motion Records of High-Rise Building
We explain the structure and strong motion records of the Shinjuku Campus building of Kogakuin
University. As shown in Figures 1 and 2, it is the steel moment frame building with braces of
29-stories and approximately 140 meter height. The natural periods of the 1th and 2nd modes areabout 3 s and 1 s, respectively. Figure 3 shows the locations of strong motion seismometers, which arelocated from GL-100m, B6F, and up to the top roof floor (29F).
On the other hand, Picture 1 and Figure 3 also show the STEC office building, which is the nextof the Campus building, and the location of strong motion seismometers. The structure is steel moment
frame with braces, which is similar to the Campus building, but it is slightly lower with 28-stories ofabout 128 m height.

Kogakuin
STEC Office
University
Building

Shinjuku
StationPicture 1 The Shinjuku station Area (Left) and the campus building of Kogakuin University and
STEC office building (Right)
38.4
25.6

3.2 3.2 3.2

3.2 3.2

25.6
6.4

NS1

NS2

EW

3.2 3.2 3.2UD

3.2 3.2

Y14
X2

Fig.1

Structural plan and location of strong motion seismometers1111

127.8
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.2
4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 3.9 4.3 5.1 4.2 4.2
5.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
4.6 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 3.9 3.9 4.3 4.2 4.2

STEC
OfficeBuilding

30F

25F

28F
Roof

20F

22F

15F

Shinjuku
CampusBuilding

15F

143m
29F
Roof
22F

16F

10F

8F

8F

5F

1F
(a) EW Direction

B6F(b) NS Direction[
Fig.2 Structural elevation of Kogakuin University building

GL-100m

Fig.3 Location of strong motion sensors(Note: This Data (ch28) of the 8th floor is contaminated by noises)

Fig. 4 Accelerations (left) and displacements (right) of NS2 components from GL-100 m to the Top Floor

1112

Table 1 and Figures 5 - 6 show the maximum amplitudes of the response of the two high-risebuildings, an example of recorded waves of accelerations and displacements, and response spectra
during the main shock of the 2012 Great East Japan earthquake. The maximum amplitudes ofaccelerations, velocities, displacements, and seismic intensities of JMA (Japan Metrological Agency)
are about 1 m/s/s, 0.2 m/s, 0.1 m, and 4 at the ground level, respectively, whereas those of the top
floors are amplified to about 3 m/s/s, 0.7 m/s, 0.37 m, and 6. The array of the displacements indicatesthe dominance of the 1st mode at longer periods, whereas that of the accelerations shows thedominance of the 2nd mode at shorter periods, because the amplitudes at the 22th floor are smaller
than those of the 16th and 22th floors.
Figure 6 shows the velocity response spectra of the NS and EW components at the 1st and 29th
floors of the university building. The spectra of 1st floor show relatively flat amplitudes at broad
periods, whereas those of the 29th floor show distinct natural periods around 3 s and 1 s,corresponding to the 1st and 2nd modes, respectively.
We checked the dependency of the natural period on the maximum amplitude of the building
response. Figure 7 shows the natural periods of the 1st modes versus the maximum amplitudes ofvelocities of the 29th floor. We used the two data sets: one for small earthquakes before the 2012 main
shock, and the other for the main-shock and after-shocks. The larger the building response is, thelonger the natural period becomes. In particular, the former dataset from small earthquakes shows
shorter natural periods than those of the latter including the main shock. This is probably caused byrelaxing non-structural elements, such as partitions and curtain walls during the main-shock.

Table 1 Max. amplitudes of of the Kogakuin and STEC buildings during 2011 East Japan earthquake(a) Kogakuin University Building(b) STEC Office Building
Floor
29
25
22
16
8
1 B6F -100m
Relative
EW 30.5 28.7 24.8
0.0
Displacement NS1 33.7 29.0 25.9 16.9
0.0
to1F (cm) NS2 33.5
25.6 16.4
0.0
EW 30.6 26.1 25.1
5.7 6.5 5.8
Absolute
NS1 34.7 29.9 26.9 17.9
6.2 7.1 6.3
Displacement
NS2 35.3
27.4 18.2
7.2 7.0(cm)
UD 3.5
3.7
3.4 3.3
EW 234.6 134.7 151.7- 197.1 91.9 63.3 45.9
Acceleration NS1 291.6 151.4 153.4 232.4 198.2 97.5 56.8 49.5
(cm/s/s) NS2 340.7
159.2 241.9- 81.6 55.4
UD 183.6
37.1 29.1
JMA Intensity
5.9
5.2
5.1
4.5 4.4 4.1

Floor
28
22
15
8
Relative
EW 32.7 27.3 18.8 7.8
Displacement NS1 29.7 23.5 15.3 7.0
to 1F (cm) NS2 34.9 27.4 17.2 8.7
EW 34.4 28.9 20.5 9.9
Absolute
NS1 29.0 23.2 15.8 8.3
Displacement
NS2 35.2 28.0 18.3 8.9(cm)
UD 3.5EW 161.0 124.7 152.2 154.7
Acceleration NS1 246.9 125.8 246.0 190.0(cm/s/s) NS2 302.1 155.8 228.6 159.3
UD 134.2
JMA Intensity
5.6
4.9
5.5
5.3

1 B6F
0.0
0.0
0.0

3.5

37.9
4.5

Note: NS1=West Side, NS2=East Side
Note: NS1=East Side, NS2=West SideThe JMA intensities of the shaded cells are calculated using the two horizontal components

30

30

floor

25
20

20

EW

15

10

NS

5
0

-10
0

100

200

300

400

cm/s/s

25

25

20

20

15

15

EW

5

0
-5
-10

-5

5
0
-5

20

40

60

80

cm/s

EW

NS
(d) Max
JMA Intensity

-10

-10
0

floor

10

NS
(c) Max
Displacements0(b) Max
Velocities

30

floor

10

NS

5

(a) Max
Acceleration

-5

EW

15

10

30

floor

25

0

10

20

30

40

50

cm

3 .0 3 .5 4 .0 4 .5 5 .0 5 .5 6 .0 6 .5

Fig.5 Maximum Accelerations, Velocities, Displacements, and the JMA Intensities of Kogakuin Univ.

1113

600

NS Component

500
400

velocity (cm/s)

velocity (cm/s)

600

1F
29F

300
200
100

EW Component

500
400

1F
29F

300
200
100
0

0
0

1

2

3

4 5 6
period (s)

7

8

9

0

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

period (s)Fig.6 Velocity response spectra (h=5%) of the campus building of Kogakuin University

0.01

Main Shock2007～
2011Before
Shocks
2011 Main andAfter Shocks

Max Velocities (cm/s)
0.1

1

3.10
3.05
3.00
2.95
2.90
2.85
2.80
2.75
2.70
2.65
2.60
2.55
2.50

EW（1st Mode）
period (s)NS（1st Mode）
period (s)

3.15
3.10
3.05
3.00
2.95
2.90
2.85
2.80
2.75
2.70
2.65

0.01

10

Main Shock2007～
2011Before
Shocks
2011 Main andAfter Shocks

Max Velocities (cm/s)
0.1

1

10

Fig.7 Dependency of natural periods on the maximum velocities of the 29th floor of the university
building

3D Seismic Response Simulations
We simulate numerically the seismic response of the Kogakuin building, using a 3D non-linear
moment frame model. Since the stiffness of columns is much larger than that of beams and braces, we
assumed that plasticity occurred in beams and braces, but not columns. Figure 8 shows the non-linear
hysteretic models for the beams and the braces. In addition, we assumed the rigidness of the floors andthe panel zones between column and beam. We also assumed the fixed columns by neglecting thesoil-structure interaction. We use the Rayleigh-type damping factors of 1 % for the 1st and 2nd modes,
which values were estimated from the forced vibration experiments. The natural periods of thesimulation model are about 2.8 s and 0.9 s for the 1st and 2nd modes, respectively, which are slightly
shorter than those during the main shock.
Figure 9 show the comparisons between the recorded and simulated waves (accelerations anddisplacements), for the foreshock (2011/3/9 Sanriku-Oki EQ, M7.3) and the main shock. Since thenatural periods of the simulation model are close to those of the building during the foreshock, theresults by the foreshock show good agreements with the observations. On the other hand, thesimulated results for the main shock show larger accelerations and smaller displacements than those of
the observations, because of the discrepancy of the natural periods between the simulation and theobservations.

1114

Initial Bucking
Strength
Compression

TensionFig.8 Non-linear hysteretic models for beams and braces of the 3D structural model of Kogakuin Univ.

Acceleration(gal)

RecordSimulation Max:9.70gal

200

300 Time (sec) 400

RecordMax:1.15cm

Simulation Max:1.60cm

100

200

300 Time (sec) 400(b) Foreshock Displacement: EW Component

1000

RecordMax:9.00gal

Simulation Max:9.02gal

200

8
6
4
2
0
-2

300

Time(sec） 400

NS Component
RecordMax:1.44cm

Simulation Max:1.44cm

100

200

1000

300

Time (sec) 400

NS Component
RecordMax:234.62gal

500

Max:291.64gal

500

Simulation Max:212.00gal

0

-500

Simulation Max:390.00gal

0

-500

100

200

300 Time (sec) 400

100(c) Mainshock Acceleration: EW Component
Record

80

200

200

Max:32.33cm

Simulation Max:29.80cm

0300

Time(sec） 400

NS Component
Record100

Displacement
(cm)

160
Displacement(cm)

Displacement
(cm)

8
6
4
2
0
-2

Record100(a) Foreshock Acceleration: EW Component

Acceleration（gal）

Displacement
(cm)

100

Acceleration
(gal)

40
30
20
10
0
-10

Max:7.48gal

Acceleration
（gal）

40
30
20
10
0
-10

Max:36.69cm

Simulation Max:27.50cm

0

-100

-80
100

200

300 Time (sec) 400(d) Mainshock Displacement: EW Component

100

200

300

Time (sec) 400

NS Component

Fig.9 Observed and simulated accelerations and displacements of the 29th floor for the fore- andmain-shocks
Strong Motion Data of Other High-Rise Buildings
Table 2 shows the maximum amplitudes of accelerations and displacements of other high-risebuildings in the Shinjuku station area during the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake. Note that thedisplacements for the Shinjuku Center Building (Hosozawa et al., 2011) and Tokyo Metropolitan

1115

Government Building (Tokyo Metropolitan Government Financial Bureau, 2011) are relative values tothose of the 1F and B3 floor, respectively. On the other hand, those of buildings A and B are absolutevalues. Since the sizes of buildings A and B are similar to those of the Kogakuin and STEC buildings,
the results including the JMA intensities are similar (see Table 1 and Figure 3). On the other hand, thetwo taller buildings show the larger response of the displacements, whereas accelerations do not show
large differences.
Table 2 Max. Amplitudes of Strong Motions of High-Rise Buildings in the Shinjuku Station Areas(Note: The displacements of buildings No.1 and 2 are relative values with respect to those of 1F
and B3, respectively, whereas those of No.3 and 3 are absolute values.)
No. Building Name Floor
Shinjuku
54F
1 Center Building 28F(54 Stories)
1F
48F
Tokyo
43F
Metropolitan 32F
2 Government 25F
Building
8F(48 Stories)
1F
B3
31F
A Building
15F
3(31 Stories)
1F
B5
30F
20F
B Building
4(30 Stories) 10F
2F
B3

Acc. (cm/s/s)
NS EW UD
161 236
171 113
142 9457
242 288 198
114 136 156
95 117 125
113 141 105
120 89
71
91
82
45
74
73
48
280 239 117
168 160 83
155 112 5266
6247
184 209 291
158 157 222
156 138 122
109 85
62
63
71
52

JMA
Disp. (cm)NS EW UD Intensity
54
49
33
26
0
0
65
66
57
54
44
39
35
31
10 9.2
0.6 0.7
0049
35 7.85.6
27
17 7.55.2
14
10 7.74.6
14
10 7.74.4
38
33 7.35.5
30
24 7.25.2
16
12 7.35.2
10 8.5 7.3
4.5
11 8.4 7.3
4.5

EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND DAMAGE
Systems for Emergency Response
We report emergency response systems, initial response of people, and damage of high-rise buildingsin the Shinjuku station area. As the case of Kogakuin University, Figure 8 shows popup windows of
the two EEW (Earthquake Early Warning) systems after the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake, whose
data are provided by NIED (Nationl Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention) andJMA (Japan Metrological Agency through Anet Co.). Since the initially estimated magnitude wassmall (7.6 and 7.3 by JMA and NIED, respectively), and the epicentral distance was large (about 390km), the estimated JMA intensity was 3 (the actual intensity was 5). Therefore, the automated warning
message was not issued. Even this limitation of accuracy, we believe that the systems are useful for
initial response, especially for the long-period ground motion from far and large earthquakes. Figure10(b) shows 100 s of the arrival time for the long-period ground motion (surface waves: Kubo et al.,2011), which is enough time for initial response, such as the emergency stop of elevators and issuing awarning announcements
Figure 9 shows the popup window of the RMS (Real-Time Strong Motion Monitoring System) of
Kogakuin University, which shows the real-time information of the building response: the arrays of
estimated JMA intensities, and drift angles (Kubo, 2011). Using this system, the emergency control
center quickly knew that the building was structurally safe, and made prompt announcements to stay atsafe places.

1116

Estimated
Magnitude
Messages ofEarthquake
Magnitude
Estimated
Intensity
Arrival Timer

Epicente
SurfaceWave
S WaveP WaveEstimated JMA, Arrival Time
Intensityof S Wave(a) EEW by JMA and Anet Co.

Estimated JMA
Intensity(b) EEW by NEED and Kogakuin University

Fig.10 EEW (Earthquake Early Warning System) after the 2012 East Japan earthquake at Kogakuin
University
Real-Time
Building
Campus Building
Kogakuin Univ.

Monitoring

cm

cm

of
JMA
Intensity

5+

Drift
Angle

55+
5+

East

STEC Office
Building

West

South

North

cm

cm

4
JMA
Intensity

6-

Drift
Angle

5+
5+
5-

East

West

South

North

4

Fig.11 RMS (Real-Time Strong Motion Monitoring System) after the 2012 East Japan earthquake at
Kogakuin University
Damage of High-Rise Buildings
Even though there was no severe damage in the university building, several non-structural elements
and equipments suffered damage, as shown in Pictures 2: fall and deformation of ceiling panels andplaster boards, deforming of partition walls, fall of unsettled objects, and so on. In addition, an
emergency elevator stopped the service for about three weeks, because the main cables were twisted,1117

and it was difficult to obtain the replacement parts.
We also conducted questionnaire and hearing surveys about building response, damage, andemergency response at 22 high-rise buildings in the Shinjuku station area, and obtained data from 16
building management companies and 23 tenants. As results, we found that the extent of damage wasvery similar to that of Kogakuin University: the fall and deformation of non-structural elements andequipments, and tangled elevator cables (see Picture 2(b)). In addition, there were a couple ofbuildings which were suffered water leakage from sprinklers, and a few people were trapped inelevators, because of the activation of emergency sensors.
Generally, communications between building managers and tenants were difficult, because of thetelephone lines congestion. Even though there were no severe structural damage of a building, somemanagers felt difficulty to make an appropriate announcement whether people should stay or evacuatefrom the building, because they could not obtain the information of damage immediately after theearthquake. This suggests that EEW and RMS are effective for emergency management during a big
earthquake.

(a) Fall of ceiling panels(d) Tangled elevator cable(b) Movement of a copy machine(c) Deformation of a partition wall(e) Fall of unsettled objects(f) Fall of cover of EJ(g) Evacuees from the Shinjuku (h) Disaster Control Headquarter of Univ.
Station(i) Evacuees at Kogakuin Univ.

Pictures 2 Various damage and situation in and around Kogakuin University and the Shinjuku station
area

1118

CONCLUSIONSWe reported seismic response, damage and emergency response of high-rise buildings in the Shinjuku
Station area in Tokyo, Japan, for the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, using strong motion data,
numerical simulations and questionnaire/hearing surveys. The Shinjuku Campus of Kogakuin
University of 29-stories showed that the maximum amplitudes of the strong motions during themainshock are 1 m/s/s, 0.2 m/s, and 0.1 m for accelerations, velocities, and displacements, respectively,
at the ground level. And those of the 29th floors are amplified to 3 m/s/s, 0.7 m/s, and 0.37 m,
respectively. The JMA intensity also amplified from 4 at 1st floor to 6- at 29th floor. Even though there
was no structural damage, nonstructural elements suffered damage at the middle to higher floor: fallsof ceiling boards, and deformation of partition walls. An emergency elevator had been stopped formore than 3 weeks, because of twisted cables and broken parts. The questionnaire/hearing surveys
from 16 buildings in the Shinjuku area showed that their seismic response and damage patterns are
similar to those of Kogakuin University. Even though there was no severe building damage,emergency managers felt difficulty to make an appropriate announcement whether people should stayor evacuate from the building to obtain the damage information immediately after the earthquake. Thissuggests the effectiveness of RSM (Real-Time Seismic Monitoring system) after an earthquake.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge support from the Japan Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology (MEXT) for establishing the Center for Urban Disaster Mitigation Center (UDM) in
Kogakuin University. We also thank NIED (National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster
Prevention) for providing the EEW information.

REFERENCES
Kubo,T., Y. Hisada, M. Muramaki, F. Kosuge and K. Hamano (2011), "Application of an Earthquake
Early Warning System and a Real-time Strong Motion Monitoring System in Emergency Response
in a High-rise Building", Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, V.31, 231-239. ]Hosozawa, O., Kimura, Y., (2011), Aono, H., Yoshimura, C., and Masaki, R. (2011), “Observation
records of the Tohoku earthquake and effect of vibration control system at super high-rise building”,
Proc. 39th Ground Motion Symposium, Architectural Institute of Japan, 67-70, (in Japanese).
Tokyo Metropolitan Government Financial Bureau (2011), “Seismic Retrofit on Tokyo Metropolitan
Government Buildings”, http://www.zaimu.metro.tokyo.jp/kentikuhozen/20l5k201.pdf

1119