2012 National Institute for Educational Policy Research, Seminar on Educational Facilities Research

EducationalFacilities
inEarthquakeCountries:
Exchange of Knowledge
between New Zealand and JapanOn November 24 th, 2011, National Institute for Educational Policy Research in Japan
held a public symposium, ”The Great East Japan Earthquake and Schools”. In theconference, it was introduced that school administration and efforts on educational
instruction in the disaster area of Tohoku, as well as examples of measures taken inother countries for the issues caused by earthquakes. Furthermore, we sent out
information toward Japan and overseas on enormous efforts and feelings of thosepeople who have involved in education under extremely difficult situations throughthe conference. Following the conference, NIER will hold a seminar at the standpointof educational facilities, focusing on measures of earthquake resistance, situations ofdisaster reconstruction overseas, as well as the realities and issues of schools
played roles as evacuation sites.
In the first part, there will be a speech by Kim Shannon, General Manager of Schools
Property Infrastructure Group of Ministry of Education in New Zealand, aboutmeasures of reconstruction efforts in the wake of the disaster in New Zealand which
has lots of earthquakes as Japan and is known therefore as one of the advanced
countries on seismic design. In New Zealand, some school facilities were damaged by
the earthquake on February 22 nd, which occurred 17days before the Great East
Japan Earthquake, and reconstruction projects have been in progress since then.
In the second part, Vice-president. Jun Ueno at the Tokyo Metropolitan University
will give a speech first about the reality of school used as an evacuation site and therole which these schools played for local communities in the Great East Japan
Earthquake. The second speech will be given by Professor. Toshimi Kabeyasawa
about damages to school buildings caused by the Great East Japan Earthquake. Bothspeakers will talk about their topics based on what they have learned through theirfield investigations.
©Earthquake Research Institute, The University of Tokyo 2006-2011©TOKYO CARTOGRAPHIC CO.,LTD 2006-2011
URL:http://outreach.eri.u-tokyo.ac.jp/education/material/eng/©Jun Ueno©Ministry of Education in New Zealand©Ministry of Education in New Zealand

Kim Shannon

Jun Ueno

Toshimi Kabeyasawa

General Manager, Schools Property
Infrastructure Group, Ministry of Education,
New ZealandVice-president, Professor, Dr. Engineering,
Division of Architecture and Urban Studies,
Faculty of Urban Environmental Sciences,
Tokyo Metropolitan University, Japan

Professor, Dr. Engineering,
Earthquake Research Institute,
The University of Tokyo, Japan

Title: Measures of Earthquake Resistance of School
Facilities and Reconstruction Efforts in the wake of
the Disaster in New Zealand: Current Situation ofEarthquake Countermeasures in Advanced Country on
Seismic Design

Title: The Great East Japan Earthquake: Schools as
the Emergency Evacuation Site and its Role for theCommunity

Title: Damages to School Buildings Caused by theGreat East Japan Earthquake: Investigation and Postearthquake Evaluation by Architectural Institute ofJapan and Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology

Report2012.1.24（Tue）
14:00-17:00 MEXT No.2 Auditorium

Support

Host
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR EDUCATIONAL POLICY RESEARCH

Architectural Institute of Japan

2012 National Institute for Educational Policy Research, Seminar on Educational Facilities Research

Educational Facilities
in Earthquake Countries: 2012.1.24 (Tue)Exchange of Knowledge between New Zealand and Japan

14:00-17:00 MEXT No.2 Auditorium

Contents

I. Opening Address ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
1. Opening
2. Opening Address
Tamotsu Tokunaga / Director-General, National Institute f or Educational Policy Research

II. Commemorative Lectures -------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
1. Measures of Earthquake Resistance of School Facilities and Reconstruction Ef f ortsin the wake of the Disaster in New Zealand-Current Situation of Earthquake Countermeasures in Advanced Country
on Seismic DesignKim Shannon / General Manager,
School Property Inf rastructure Group,
Ministry of Education, New ZealandWayne Tacon / Manager,
School Property Inf rastructure Group,
Ministry of Education, New Zealand

Kim Shannon‐11

2. The Great East Japan Earthquake: Schools as the Emergency Evacuation Site
and its Role f or the Community
Jun Ueno / Vice President, Prof essor, Doctor of Engineering,
Division of Architecture and Urban Studies,
Faculty of Urban Environmental Sciences,
Tokyo Metropolitan University, Japan

Jun Ueno

3. Damages to School Buildings Caused by the Great East Japan Earthquake-Investigation and Post-earthquake Evaluation by Architectural Institute of Japanand Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and TechnologyToshimi Kabeyasawa / Prof essor, Doctor of Engineering,
Earthquake Research Institute,
The University of Tokyo, Japan

ToshimiKabeyasawa
‐49

‐25

III. Closing Address -------------------------------------------------------------------------------67
Fukuei Saito / Director, Educational Facilities Research Center,
National Institute f or Educational Policy Research

FY2011 Seminar on Educational Facilities Research
National Institute for Educational Policy Research

Educational Facilities in Earthquake Countries- Exchange of Knowledge between New Zealand and Japan (14:00 to 17:00 on Tuesday, January 24, 2012, at the No.2 Auditorium, MEXT)

Opening address

Tamotsu Tokunaga

LectureKim Shannon

Director General of the National Institute for Educational
Policy Research

Ministry of Education, New ZealandWayne Tacon

Kim Shannon + Wayne Tacon

Ministry of Education, New Zealand

LectureJun Ueno

Vice-President of the Tokyo Metropolitan University

Jun Ueno

Lecture

Toshimi Kabeyasawa

Toshimi Kabeyasawa

Professor of the Earthquake Research Institute of the
University of Tokyo

Closing address

Fukuei Saito

Silent prayer

Director of the Educational Facilities Research Center of
the National Institute for Educational Policy Research

Atmosphere of the venue

Atmosphere of the venue

I.

5

Opening Address

Opening Address

1. Opening

Moderator (Masahiro Kobayashi: National Institute for Educational Policy Research)
Ladies and gentlemen, we would like to begin the FY2011 Seminar on Educational Facilities Researchby the National Institute for Educational Policy Research, entitled “Educational Facilities in Earthquake
Countries– Exchange of Knowledge between New Zealand and Japan –.”Thank you very much for coming to attend this seminar despite your busy schedules.
I am Masahiro Kobayashi from the Educational Facilities Research Center of the National Institute for
Educational Policy Research. It is a great honor for me to be the moderator today.
First of all, upon opening this seminar, I would like to pray for the victims of the latest earthquake andobserve a moment of silent prayer. Could you please stand up and join the silent prayer?
Offer a silent prayer.
− Silent prayer－
Thank you very much. Please take your seat.
Let me introduce Mr. Tokunaga, the Director General of the National Institute for Educational Policy
Research, the host of today’s seminar.

62. Opening Address
Tamotsu Tokunaga
Director General of the National Institute for Educational Policy Research

Good afternoon. I am Tamotsu Tokunaga, Director General of the NIER. It is a pleasure for me todeliver an opening address, representing the host of today’s seminar.
First of all, I would like to extend my gratitude to you all for making time in your busy schedules toattend this seminar even though it is a cold day with snowfall.
This is our second seminar concerning earthquakes, following last year’s seminar “The Great East Japan
Earthquake and Schools: Innovation in School Administration and Educational Instruction.”
A big earthquake occurred in the South Island, New Zealand, on February 22, 2011, and on March 11,
only 17 days later, another big earthquake hit the Pacific side of the Tohoku region in Japan. I would like toextend my heartfelt condolence to the large number of victims of these two earthquakes. Besides, manyother people also suffered damages and were robbed of their property. I would also like to express my
sympathies to those who have been struggling to recover from the damage and restore their daily lives.
Since the occurrence of the Great East Japan Earthquake, we have received tremendous encouragement
and support from all over the world. Many people have even come to Japan as volunteers to help us. I
would like to take this opportunity to express our deepest gratitude to the international community for theirkind support.
The Great East Japan Earthquake was an unprecedented disaster for Japan. More than 25 thousandpeople were killed, missing, or injured, and as many as 0.3 million buildings and houses were completelyor half damaged. The amount of damage, limited to that of direct damage on social capital or on residential
houses, is estimated to be 16 trillion yen or in other calculations, 25 trillion yen.
Looking at the damages regarding schools from our perspective as persons engaged in educational
administration, nearly 900 students and teachers were lost or injured and around 8000 schools weredamaged. Of the damaged public schools, around 2000 were severely damaged, needing replacement or
major restoration work.
Even under such circumstances, thanks to the warm encouragement and specific support from theinternational community, as well as from all over Japan, and due to the tireless efforts of local people,
devastated areas are now being recovered and restored steadily.
Last year, NIER opened a website for supporting devastated areas as a platform for informationexchange with local people, and held an open symposium entitled “The Great East Japan Earthquake andSchools: Innovation in School Administration and Educational Instruction” in November. At the
symposium, related people directly introduced their efforts for school management and educational
guidance in devastated areas and examples of countermeasures against earthquakes in foreign countries.
The information on these efforts being made in extreme difficulties and the feelings of people concerned
were transmitted both at home and abroad, evoking various thoughts among many people.
From the perspective of school architecture, this seminar focuses on overseas circumstances concerning

7

Opening Address
earthquake countermeasures and disaster reconstruction efforts, as well as on the present situation andchallenges of schools to be used as emergency evacuation sites or shelters.
From the New Zealand Ministry of Education, we have Ms. Kim Shannon, General Manager of the
Education School Property Infrastructure Group and Mr. Wayne Tacon, Service Delivery Group Manager.
Thank you very much. I hope that we can learn from these two experts’ efforts in New Zealand, a country
which like Japan is also prone to earthquakes, and has advanced earthquake-resistant technology. FromJapan, we have Mr. Jun Ueno, Vice-President of the Tokyo Metropolitan University, and Mr. Toshimi
Kabeyasawa, professor of the Earthquake Research Institute of the University of Tokyo. I look forward totheir lectures concerning their studies. I am really grateful to have these experts here to attend this seminar
despite their busy schedules.
Although the time is limited, I hope that this seminar will serve as a good opportunity for us to learn
various countermeasures and studies from experts and to share effective knowledge in reviewing how
educational facilities should be constructed in earthquake-prone countries. At the same time, I expect that
all of you will take what you learn here back to your workplaces and utilize this knowledge to contribute to
the enhancement of the safety and disaster-prevention functions of educational facilities in both countries,
as well as to the restoration of areas damaged by the earthquakes. I hope that this seminar will be fruitfuland beneficial for all of you. Thank you very much.
(Applause)
Moderator: Thank you very much, Director General Tokunaga.

8

II.

9

Commemorative Lectures

Commemorative Lectures

Moderator:
Now, we will go on to lectures. Today’s seminar consists of three parts. The first lecture is onearthquake-resistant construction of educational facilities and efforts for post-earthquake reconstruction in
New Zealand by Ms. Kim Shannon General Manager of the Education School Property InfrastructureGroup and Mr. Wayne Tacon, Service Delivery Group Manager of the New Zealand Ministry of Education.
Then, after a ten-minute break, Mr. Jun Ueno, Vice-President of the Tokyo Metropolitan University will
deliver a lecture on schools as emergency evacuation sites and their roles for local communities after theGreat East Japan Earthquake. The last lecture after the next ten-minute break will be by Mr. Toshimi
Kabeyasawa, professor of the Earthquake Research Institute of the University of Tokyo, entitled “Damage
to School Buildings Caused by the Great East Japan Earthquake –Investigation and Post-Earthquake
Evaluation by the Architectural Institute of Japan and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Scienceand Technology–.”
Please enter your opinions on these lectures freely in the questionnaire sheet at your seat and hand it to
the reception staff when you leave the site.
Now, I will introduce you Ms. Kim Shannon and Mr. Wayne Tacon from the New Zealand Ministry of
Education. The lecture is entitled “Measures of Earthquake Resistance of School Facilities andReconstruction Efforts in the Wake of the Disaster in New Zealand – Current Situation of Earthquake
Countermeasures in Advanced Country on Seismic Design –.”Please refer to the materials at hand for the profile of today’s lecturers. Now, ladies and gentlemen,
please welcome Ms. Kim Shannon and Mr. Wayne Tacon.

10Lecture

Measures of Earthquake
Resistance of School Facilities
and Reconstruction Efforts inthe wake of the Disaster in
New Zealand- Current Situation of Earthquake
Countermeasures in Advanced Country
on Seismic Design Kim Shannon
General manager, Schools Infrastructure Group,
Ministry of Education, New Zealand

Kim Shannon
General Manager, Schools Infrastructure Group, Ministry of Education, New Zealand
Kim’s role at the Ministry of Education includes overseeing New Zealand’s school property
portfolio (which includes around 2,300 school and 8,000 hectares of land, with a replacement
value of $16 billion), and advancing new policy initiatives to support greater use of technology
in New Zealand schools.
The overarching vision is one of safe and inspiring learning environments for New Zealandstudents.
In a time of serious fiscal restraint the New Zealand Government remains committed tosupporting further investment in 21st century schools. Kim is responsible for implementing asubstantial programme of work designed to address issues that include weather-proofing andstrengthening school buildings, and respond to changes in demographic growth anddistribution. She is also overseeing school property aspects of work underway to renew theeducation network in Canterbury following the recent earthquakes.

11Commemorative Lectures
Kim Shannon

Kim Shannon(Slide 1) Good afternoon. My name is Kim Shannon. I am the General Manager of the Schools’
Infrastructure Group, part of the Ministry of Education in New Zealand. This is my colleague, Wayne
Tacon, one of our service delivery group managers.
(Slide 2) Before I start, I would like to acknowledge the Japanese disaster of March 11, the Great Tohoku
Earthquake and Tsunami and the large of numbers of Japanese people who perished, were injured, madesick, or made homeless by the disaster. This disaster has affected all people in Japan.
(Slide 3) The people of Christchurch and of New Zealand have an understanding of the upheaval that suchserious disaster can cause communities. The effects of our own earthquake of February 22 continue tomake it difficult to rebuild. But one thing that is shining through is the strength and perseverance of people.
We also wish to express our condolences to the families of the Japanese students who died in the February
2011 Christchurch earthquake, and acknowledge the support and efforts of Japan in assisting with therescue efforts in the city. When I refer to students in my presentation, I am referring to primary andsecondary school students in state, state integrated and private schools in New Zealand. This picture shows
the iconic Christchurch cathedral after the earthquake.
(Slide 4) In September 2010, the Canterbury region of New Zealand was struck by a magnitude 7.1
earthquake. Two large earthquakes followed, in February and in June 2011, as well as over 9,500
aftershocks.
Today I would like to outline the context in which the Canterbury earthquakes occurred, their impact onschool property, and the way forward for the Canterbury region.
(Slide 5) I will also outline the impact of the earthquakes on school buildings and school land, and how thebuildings of schools will be approached in the future. This picture shows Halswell Primary School after the
September earthquake.

Slide 1

Slide 2

Slide 3Slide 4

Slide 5Slide 6

12

Slide 7

Slide 8

13

Slide 9Kim Shannon

The school classrooms at the back of the picture retained their structure. But inside the classrooms, floors
were uneven due to the imperfection. Walls had moved so that doors would not shut. The perimeter walls
had moved away from the foundations. This building has now been demolished.
(Slide 6) There are three key observations I would like you to take away from today.
Firstly, the type of materials used in construction, and the age of the building have a direct relation to thedamage. Schools in New Zealand are mainly built using masonry, steel, brick, and wood.
Secondly, the regulatory framework and the resulting design standards meant that the damage from theearthquakes was lessened. Over time, the Ministry of Education has invested in strengthening buildings tomeet new standards. Out of 128 schools, at least four will be demolished. The majority of schools had somedamage, but can be remediated.
Thirdly, no region is earthquake free. In fact, it was believed before the earthquakes that Christchurch
was very low risk with no known fault lines. One point that became obvious in Christchurch was that there
was significant damage from ground failure as well as the actual shaking. Much of Christchurch was built
near the river and this led to substantial imperfection and damage. Going forward, we will pay more
attention to location and soil conditions. This picture shows Avonside Girls' in the process of demolition.
(Slide 7) New Zealand itself situated in the Southwest Pacific Ocean, 3 hours by plane east of Australia.
New Zealand is comprised of 2 main islands, the North and the South Island. New Zealand is amulti-cultural country, with a large Asian population. A large proportion of those Japanese residents live in
the Christchurch region, the largest city in the South Island. Christchurch has a number of links with other
cities around the world, including Kurashiki in Japan. In all, the Canterbury region has 214 schools, 128 in
Christchurch City, and approximately 75,000 students.
(Slide 8) As you can see, New Zealand is in an unfavorable geological position both on the ring of fire, andon the juncture between two main tectonic plates. The earthquake in Christchurch was the direct result of
the two tectonic plates releasing pressure. When failure occurs in this situation, there is a high-stress dropor significant release of energy.
(Slide 9) This has meant for New Zealand a turbulent history of earthquakes as well as interesting
geographical features such as mountain ranges and volcanoes.

Commemorative Lectures

Commemorative Lectures

Commemorative Lectures
Kim Shannon(Slide 10) This picture demonstrates recent seismic activity and shows the respective position of Japan and
New Zealand and shows that we face similar challenges and risks.
(Slide 11) New Zealand is no stranger to earthquakes. Throughout our history, there have been a numberof powerful earthquakes. This picture shows ten years of shallow earthquakes in New Zealand. We haveone magnitude 4 earthquake per day, two magnitude 5 earthquakes per month, two magnitude 6
earthquakes per year, and one magnitude 7 earthquake every three years, one magnitude 8-plus per century.
(Slide 12) The largest earthquake since European colonization occurred in Wellington in 1855. 150km of
fault line ruptured, causing an 18m rise, the largest observed on a strike-slip fault. There was also a verticaloffset of 6m. It also generated a 10m tsunami. Wellington experienced severe shaking. But the resulting
damage was reduced as the city had been extensively rebuilt following the 1848 Marlborough earthquake
using mainly wooden structures. Only one person is known to have died. This slide shows Wellington prior
to the earthquake and then the effect of the earthquake.
(Slide 13) There have been a number of significant earthquakes since then throughout New Zealand
including a magnitude 7.8 in Murchison in 1929 which caused 17 deaths. These early pictures taken at thetime show the impact of early buildings from earthquake damage.
(Slide 14) We also had a magnitude 7.9 in the Hawkes Bay region in 1931 which caused 256 deaths. The
Napier earthquake was 20km deep, and 2,000 people were injured. The earthquake lasted for 150 seconds.
New Zealand has been, for the most part, fortunate to escape serious fatalities in major earthquakes. New
Zealand has a sparse population, and few people live in active mountainous regions. The impact of thisearthquake meant Napier City had to be rebuilt. The earthquake resulted in a complete overhaul of building
standards in New Zealand.

Slide 10Slide 11

Slide 12Slide 13

Slide 14

Slide 15

14

Slide 16

Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 19

Slide 20

Slide 21

15

Kim Shannon(Slide 15) The Canterbury earthquakes(Slide 16) on 4th of September 2010, the Canterbury region was struck with a magnitude 7.1 earthquake at
4:35 in the morning. Only two schools were barely damaged, but there were injuries. This was mainly due
to the timing of the earthquake, and its remote epicenter.
(Slide 17) This graph shows a vertical and horizontal acceleration in the area. This earthquake was notable
due to the large peak ground acceleration (PGA). Note the epicenter, the green star, is far away from thecentral business district. Note the vertical acceleration closer to the epicenter.
(Slide 18) Six months later the region was hit again with another earthquake. It was only a magnitude 6.3,
but it hit at 12:51 p.m., after lunch when people were at work or at school. 181 people lost their lives andthere were many, many injuries.
(Slide 19) The density of the shock was significant. The epicenter was close to the central business district
and the CBD suffered the most building collapses. The earthquake was only 5km deep, compared to theJapanese earthquake at 32km deep. However, it only lasted for 30 seconds. Please note the extremely highpeak ground acceleration.
(Slide 20) Two buildings suffered a significant collapse: the Pyne Gould building and the CTV building,both in the central building district.
(Slide 21) The in-depth report into why the Pyne Gould building collapsed is provided as a Web link. The
two main reasons for the collapse were the shaking experienced in the east-west direction was almost
certainly several times more intense than the capacity of the structure to resist it. Secondly, the connections
between the floors and the shear core, and between the perimeter beams and columns, were not capable oftaking the distortions associated with the core collapse. In other words, the design of the building was not
sufficient to withstand the force of the earthquake.
(Slide 22) The report into the CTV building will be released early this year,

Commemorative Lectures

Commemorative Lectures

Commemorative Lectures
Kim Shannon

and will be available on the Department of Building and Housing’s website.
(Slide 23) Just to emphasize the force of the earthquake, this table shows three major Christchurch
earthquakes in comparison with other major earthquakes around the world. Notable is the peak groundacceleration for the February earthquake, up to 2.2g’s. The ground acceleration experienced in New
Zealand was extreme and is prompting a review of all our design standards. There are a number of reasons
why New Zealand did not suffer even greater losses in these earthquakes. Very briefly, low population
density, there was no tsunami, the buildings were, for the most part, built to withstand earthquake damage
because of New Zealand’s stringent earthquake standards.
(Slide 24) I will now briefly outline the history of our Structural Design Standards. As with many Britishcolonies, early building standards were decided at local level. Each local authority had their own bylaws
and enforced them.
(Slide 25) The Napier disaster in 1931 led to a review of construction standards and the publication of new
Building Bylaws specifying the basic loads to be used in the design of buildings.
This was however at the discretion of local authorities and therefore not a national building design
standard.
(Slide 26) The revision of the Building Bylaw in 1965, led to the formation of the New Zealand Standard.
Importantly, it specified information about the basic design loads expected for all new buildings. This was
the called NS 1900. The bill also identified three different earthquake zones in New Zealand, and different
standards were set for each earthquake zone. In 1968 a new act signaled two key changes. Firstly,
earthquake-prone buildings were identified as buildings that fail to meet 50% of the load specified for newbuildings. Secondly, local authorities were given powers to identify and require action on earthquake-pronebuildings. In 2004 the Building Act lifted again the expectations of buildings.

Slide 22

Slide 23

Slide 24

Slide 25

Slide 26

Slide 27

16

(Slide 28) What are the implications of the evolution of earthquake standards for the school property
portfolio? The earthquakes in Canterbury in 2010 and 2011 have provided the first real challenge to New
Zealand schools since the 1931 Napier earthquake. This has been a test for both emergency procedures andfor the building design standards.
(Slide 29) This chart shows the age of our school buildings.
(Slide 30) 3.5% of our school buildings were built prior to 1930. They are more than 80 years old.
(Slide 31) Up to 43% of the current stock was constructed between 1960 and 1979. This was immediately
prior to the introduction of a number of new building materials and practices.
(Slide 32) 63% of our buildings were built before 1980. And buildings constructed before 1935 have been
designed in the absence of any earthquake-protective design standards and using a range of materials thatare no longer used or recommended. So we have a challenge in terms of our building stock.
(Slide 33) This slide shows the changes in materials and practices over the last 100 years.

Slide 28

Slide 29

Slide 30

Slide 31

Slide 32

Slide 33

17

Kim Shannon

These new standards mean all existing buildings need to be at least 34% of these new Building Standards.
(Slide 27) A royal commission will review the current loadings and will also review the timeframes bywhich council must ensure existing buildings are strengthened. I recommend to each one of you here todaythat you read the interim report which has already identified seven specific areas where there are problems
with building design. The first one is the maximum considered earthquake design; the second is elongation
and reinforced concrete; thirdly, the performance of structural walls; fourthly, performance of stairwells;
fifthly, the significance of vertical acceleration on seismic performance; sixth, the behavior of structural
walls and beams; and seventh, the mesh reinforcement in existing buildings. The royal commission has
identified that these seven areas need urgent review in our design standards.

Commemorative Lectures

Commemorative Lectures

Commemorative Lectures
Kim Shannon

As you can see, there have been significant changes to design codes and to the materials used in thebuildings over time. As new materials and construction methods have become available, they have been
incorporated into the standards.
(Slide 34) The following few slides show some of our schools, and the periods they represent. Wellington
East Girls’ College in Wellington is an old masonry school built in the 1920s. The main block has recently
been found to be severely earthquake prone and has been evacuated.
(Slide 35) This slide shows what our buildings built in the 1970s look like. This is an example of the state
integrated Roman Catholic College at the bottom of the South Island, normally made of brick and two to
three stories high. The building on the right is the chapel, typical of this era.
(Slide 36) Finally, this is one of our newest schools, Papamoa College in Auckland. Note the large glass
walls, the one-line, open-plan, multi-story design.
(Slide 37) So we have a diverse range of stock. Given the age of our property and the more stringent design
standards, the Ministry of Education has invested heavily in seismic strengthening. Over the last 30 years,
the Ministry has focused attention on identifying buildings of masonry construction and multi-story height
for strengthening work.
(Slide 38) Today, in a new program of remediation, we are reviewing all buildings based on age andmaterials. The new requirements mean that there may be instances where there is no economic benefit inremediating existing buildings. At the moment we have identified that a third of our buildings requirepriority attention.
(Slide 39) Investments in seismic strengthening(Slide 40) In the Canterbury region we have 170 state schools which the Ministry own. While the buildings
and property of state schools is government owned, the decision-making on property developments isplaced with the local board of trustees. The Ministry-conducted, seismic strengthening program has reliedon convincing schools of the importance of this work. Given that prior to 2010, the last major earthquake
was in 1931, the imperative to strengthen immediately has not been strong.

Slide 34

Slide 35

Slide 36

Slide 37

Slide 38

Slide 39

18

(Slide 45) So how did our schools perform in Christchurch?
(Slide 46) This is an example of the types of damage of both shaking and ground failure. This is an
integrated school. It retained its structure but had to be demolished because it was not structurally sound.
You can see an example of foundation collapse where one part of the building has sunken to the ground.
Lateral spread damage meant that buildings were damaged in the joining between a new and an old part ofthe building. Cracking appeared in the ground and liquefaction occurred outside the building and under
floor boards. This building and other buildings at this school all had to be demolished because the cracks
went through all buildings.
(Slide 47) There were two types of damage in Christchurch, from ground shaking and ground failure.

Slide 40

Slide 41

Slide 42

Slide 43

Slide 44

Slide 45

19

Kim Shannon

Once school boards have agreed to participate in the seismic strengthening program, buildings areassessed, proposed engineering approaches are discussed and remedial work is structured preferably aroundthe school holiday break.
(Slide 41) The majority of seismic strengthening work has focused on steel reinforcing and bracing
solutions such as in this picture.
(Slide 42) Though the teaching at state-integrated schools is government-funded, the property is managed
and maintained by non-government proprietors. This means that the Ministry has no direct ability tofinancially support seismic strengthening in these schools.
(Slide 43) There are also 11 private schools in Christchurch, and they are owned and maintained by private
owners. The Ministry is not responsible for non-government owned property.
(Slide 44) However, the government took responsibility for all schools in the Christchurch earthquake toensure they were opened as quickly as possible and took responsibility for assisting with infrastructure suchas sewage and water. The government also undertook an overarching responsibility to ensure all students
were able to access a school.

Commemorative Lectures

Commemorative Lectures

Commemorative Lectures
Kim Shannon(Slide 48) There was significant damage from ground shaking. Shearing where buildings join together,ground subsided, e.g. foundations, roofs and chimneys collapsed, and many of our injuries were caused bychimneys and parapets collapsing. And bricks and mortar split as in this slide. Many of our brick buildings
had these zigzags through them from the effect of shaking.
(Slide 49) The second main cause damage was ground failure. Liquefaction has been extremely damaging
for school buildings. It weakens the ground and causes the spreading of foundations. A number of schools
across the region were inflicted with liquefaction given that Christchurch is built around a very large riverand a swamp. Shirley Boys' High, this school, was our worst afflicted school. On the left you can seeliquefaction seeping into the gymnasium. This school is not currently in full use. It is yet to be decided
whether the school or school location will be used again in the future. Every time we have a major
aftershock, more liquefaction occurs.
(Slide 50) We also had cracks and fissures in the North Christchurch region. There are 3 schools in this area.
Fortunately, none were badly affected. This is a young student standing in the crack to show how deep it is.
Avonside Girls’ High school is situated right on the river, and was the worse damaged school in Canterbury.
The school was immediately evacuated and recently demolished. This is a picture of the building not as aresult of the earthquake damage but the demolition.
(Slide 51) Landslides and rock fall also caused damage. This was most notable in the large 13, June 2011
aftershock magnitude of 6.3. This aftershock caused large sections of cliff to collapse at Redcliffs,
endangering the school below. So the school is at the base of that cliff. So that’s the school. Given the riskof more rock fall occurring, the school was evacuated and is now being housed in temporary
accommodation. The cliff behind the school is unstable. All the residential houses on that cliff have been
evacuated. Nobody lives there now.

Slide 46

Slide 47

Slide 48

Slide 49

Slide 50

Slide 51

20

Slide 52

Slide 53

21

Slide 54

Kim Shannon

It has large cracks in it, and it is unlikely that the school will be built in the same spot.
Note in the second picture the line on the right picture is containers, shipping containers, to hold backrocks from going onto the road. The most recent earthquakes a month ago, 23rd of December, resulted infurther rock falls and cliff collapse. This is a very unstable part of Christchurch.
(Slide 52) Another impact was flooding. There was a large amount of damage caused by broken pipes,
water pipes, and artesian wells.
(Slide 53) This table shows our initial damage assessment. Engineers identified three levels of damage. The
majority of our schools had superficial damage including minor cracking. A larger category had somestructural issues but mainly non-structural damage. The smallest number of our schools, 29, had structural
collapse, failed infrastructure, heavy subsidence, significant damage. At this stage only four of theseschools are likely to be demolished. However, our government has asked us to ensure that every school in
Christchurch has a recent structural engineer’s report. There is concern that the cumulative damage of
9,500 aftershocks will have significantly damaged those buildings even though initially they were seen to
be structurally sound. In addition to the findings of the structural assessment, a series of subsidence andliquefaction have seriously compromised the foundation of many of those buildings. Damage tofoundations has in turn put pressures and stresses on other structural fixtures of buildings limiting their
durability. This has meant for the Ministry of Education that before we can repair any of these schools, wemust also undertake geotechnical reports of the ground, the land, on which the schools sit.
(Slide 54) These are our key observations. The schools worst affected were those of brick construction.
Those schools on floating platforms were able to move during the earthquake. They were affected bysubsidence where the ground underneath the floating platforms disappeared. Wooden buildings, wooden
schools feared the best, with virtually no structural collapses. No students were harmed or killed in any of
our school buildings in the Canterbury earthquakes, and no building fully collapsed. And this was becauseof the seismic strengthening work that we had done to keep the buildings structurally sound.
(Slide 55) However, while these schools retained their shape, and this was good from a life safety
perspective, they are not fit for purpose for ongoing use. As you can see from the pictures we have shown
you, the schools are intact, but we have still had to demolish them because they are not structurally soundand fit for purpose for future use.

Commemorative Lectures

Commemorative Lectures

Commemorative Lectures
Kim Shannon(Slide 56) Rebuilding Canterbury – the process of rebuilding Canterbury will be long and drawn out. The
central business district was closed for 11 months, and has only just starting to reopen. The area has seen
significant population shift.
(Slide 57) This graph represents student movement in the year since the February earthquake. The blue line
represents the number of students that vacated the area after the earthquake. This number peaked at 7,581
students, whose families took them out of the area. The green line shows the students returning. Note nostudents returned for two weeks after the earthquake.
(Slide 58) There have been a large number of aftershocks that continue to plague the region. This is aunique feature of the Canterbury earthquake. The region is hit with several aftershocks a day, some large
ones like the magnitude 5.8 and magnitude 6 aftershocks on the 24th of December only four weeks ago.
These aftershocks have impeded school remediation efforts.
(Slide 59) Up to 75% of work done to remediate schools after September 2010 was lost during the 2011
earthquakes. So we had to start again.
(Slide 60) This graph shows the aftershocks are progressively moving away from the central business
district and out to sea. The pink circles are the latest aftershocks and are moving offshore.
(Slide 61) After the earthquake, the government quickly classified all land in Christchurch into zones – red,orange, green, or white. Land in the red zone meant that the land cannot be built on or lived on as it is a risk
of further liquefaction or earthquake damage. Land repair will be prolonged and uneconomic. Land in theorange zone requires further assessments before it can be built on or lived on. Buildings in the green zone
are fine to be repaired or rebuilt. Mapping is still underway for buildings in the white zone.
(Slide 62) The identification of red zones has moved communities. This has had a direct impact on thenumber of students attending schools in the area, and in some cases significantly reduced the viability of
having a school in that location.

Slide 55

Slide 56

Slide 57

Slide 58

Slide 59

Slide 60

22

(Slide 64) The key lessons from the earthquake are as follows. The earthquakes proved the benefit ofseismic strengthening for building strength. We saw the benefits of investing in schools to strengthen thebuildings we had. There is now an increased awareness of ground failure as an earthquake consequence,and the need to conduct geotechnical assessments of the land on which our schools are located. Progressive
improvement of design standards has helped buildings perform well, but we need to continue to upgrade
these standards to future proof our buildings. In the Ministry, we also need to undertake a review of ourschool property portfolio to identify priority areas for seismic strengthening, not just in Christchurch but allover New Zealand. All of the information that I have referred to is available as references and Web links
that I will provide to you. We invite you to continue talking with us as we work through our problems andour challenges around the Christchurch earthquake. Thank you for listening to us today.
(Applause)
Moderator:
Thank you very much, Ms. Kim Shannon, Mr. Wayne Tacon.
Let us take a ten-minute break.

Slide 61

Slide 62

Slide 64

23

Slide 63

Kim Shannon

We are now going through all of our state schools conducting geotechnical assessments of the land.
(Slide 63) Initial figures indicate the cost will be about 15 billion New Zealand dollars, but it could behigher. New Zealand’s annual GDP is around 200 billion New Zealand dollars a year, and the government
has committed 1.4 billion New Zealand dollars to the Christchurch area in the education area.

Commemorative Lectures

Commemorative Lectures

Lecture

The Great East Japan
Earthquake: Schools as theEmergency Evacuation Site
and its Role for theCommunity
Jun Ueno
Vice President, Professor, Doctor ofEngineering,
Division of Architecture and Urban Studies,
Faculty of Urban Environmental Science,
Tokyo Metropolitan University, Japan

Jun Ueno
1977.03 D.Arch.,Tokyo Metropolitan University Doctor of Engineering
1977.12 Assistant, Faculty of Engineering, Tokyo Metropolitan University
1984.10 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Engineering, Tokyo Metropolitan University
1993.04 Professor, Faculty of Engineering, Tokyo Metropolitan University
2005.04 Professor, Faculty of Urban Environmental Sciences, Tokyo Metropolitan University(Integration and reorganization of Metropolitan Universities)
Director of Basic Education Center, Tokyo Metropolitan University
2009.04 Vice President, Professor, Faculty of Urban Environmental Sciences,
Tokyo Metropolitan University
Director of Academic Education Center, Tokyo Metropolitan University
Awards1995 The prize of AIJ 1995 Research Theses Division2007 Annual Architectural Design Commendation of AIJ （GUNMA KOKUSAI ACADEMY）
2009 The Prize of Fukushima Architectural and cultural Design(Kawahigashi Gakuen Elementary School, Aizuwakamatsu city)25Jun Ueno

Commemorative Lectures*Some of the slides used as reference materials at the seminar are omitted here to protect copyrights.

Moderator:
Now, let us go on to the second part of today’s seminar. Mr. Jun Ueno, vice-president of the Tokyo
Metropolitan University will deliver a lecture, entitled “The Great East Japan Earthquake: Schools as theEmergency Evacuation Site and its Role for the Community.”
Please refer to the materials at hand for the profile. Let me introduce Professor Ueno.
Mr. Jun Ueno:(Slide 1) Nice to meet you. I am Jun Ueno. I have visited several schools that were used as emergency
evacuation sites after the earthquake. Today, I will introduce some of the representative cases.
Due to the earthquake, nearly 20,000 people died. I extend a heartfelt condolence to those victims andthe tremendous number of afflicted people.
First comes Minami Sanriku. This shows how lively the town was before the earthquake, and the next
one is after the earthquake. You can see that the town was completely destroyed. The school, Shizugawa
Junior High School, that we visited for investigation is located here.
Again, you can see that the whole town suffered catastrophic damage. The junior high school happens to
be on a hill and served as an emergency evacuation site for local residents.
This is called a Reconstruction Assistance Map, which shows areas stricken by the tsunami in detail
based on the investigation. The school we investigated happens to be located on a hill and could escapeundamaged.
(Slide 3) This shows the whole town. This is Shizugawa High School, which was also used as an
emergency evacuation site.
(Slide 4) This is the disaster prevention center, where a female staff member risked her life to continue
broadcasting evacuation alerts to local residents and finally lost her life.
The tsunami that hit Minami Sanriku had a height of over 15 meters. A hazard map had been preparedwith the presumed maximum tsunami height of five meters. Therefore, the tsunami was far beyond
imagination.
(Slides 5-8) I visit devastated areas once a month. People lay flowers here.
(Slides 9-10) This is a photo taken at the time of the investigation in May. This place, the entrance ofSanriku town, is located around 4 kilometers from the coast, but as you see, a ship was carried upland forsuch a distance. The tsunami came up along the river.
(Slides 11-17) Damage can be observed all over the area.

Slide 1

Slide 2

26

Slide 3

Slide 4

Slide 5Slide 7

Slide 827

Slide 6

Jun Ueno(Slide 18) Of course, the heap of rubble has been removed gradually as time goes on. However, this does
not necessarily mean that the recovery has progressed. Rather, the reconstruction has just stared.
(Slide 19) This is a fish market severely damaged.
(Slide 20) This shows how roofing materials were dragged along with the backrush of the tsunami.
(Slides 21-25) Cleanup has been started here, and signs of reconstruction can be observed gradually.
(Slide 26) This is the town’s hospital.
(Slides 27-34) The hospital was completely destroyed up to the third floor. You can see what tremendous
energy the tsunami had, can’t you?
(Slides 35-36) This ship was swept away over the three-storied hospital and was dragged back with thebackrush to become hung up here.
(Slides 37-39)(Slide 40) Slides showing Shizugawa Junior High School. A field of rubble continues as far as one can see.
The photo shows that the whole town at the foot of the hill was devastated.
(Slide 41) This photo was taken at the front of Shizugawa Junior High School, where we have been
continuing investigation.
(Slides 42-45) The rubble has been removed little by little, but the situation is as I explained before.
(Slides 46-49)(Slide 50) This is a facility for the elderly people with a nursery home, which is located at a slightly highplace. The facility is a one-storied building. (Slides 51-52) The inside of the facility was destroyed as you
see. As this was a facility for handicapped elderly people, each staff member could only help one elderly
person at a time to evacuate to a safe place, and a considerable number of people became tsunami victims
here. (Slide 53)(Slides 54-56) This is the makeshift government office.
(Slides 57-58) There is a town’s arena or gymnasium somewhat far from Shizugawa Junior High School.
This facility, which is located at a somewhat elevated place and escaped the tsunami, also functioned as an
emergency evacuation site.
(Slides 59-61) It is said that immediately after the tsunami, as many as 1,000 evacuees headed for thisfacility.

Commemorative Lectures

Commemorative Lectures

Commemorative Lectures(Slide 62) This is the junior high school. The earthquake occurred a little after 2:40 in the afternoon, andthe students, teachers, and school staff were all still at school. It appears that within an hour, they witnessed
an awful scene where the tsunami swept over the whole town. The school principal gathered all students in
the gymnasium to avoid their seeing such an awful scene. The principal gave due consideration in order toprevent them from getting seriously traumatized. However, I heard that one female student, who went backto her classroom to pick up her jacket, happened to witness the scene and suffered hyperventilation due tostrong psychological trauma.

Slide 10Slide 11

Slide 12Slide 13

Slide 14

Slide 15

Slide 16

Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 19

Slide 20

Jun Ueno

Slide 928

Commemorative Lectures

Slide 22

Slide 23

Slide 24

Slide 25

Slide 26

Slide 27

Slide 28

Slide 29

Slide 30

Slide 31

Slide 32

Jun Ueno

Slide 21Commemorative Lectures(Slide 63) From a rather early stage, temporary residences started to be built on the school ground.
(Slides 64-65) Fortunately, as this school has a vast site, physical education activities were not hindered bythese temporary residences.
(Slide 66) At the time of the occurrence of the earthquake, all of the 308 students and all teachers andschool staff were inside the school. Fortunately all students survived. This suggests the significance of thestructural secureness of school buildings.

29

Commemorative Lectures

From immediately after the earthquake, 250 local residents came to take refuge, and a total of 600
people started refuge life at the school on that night.
Under such circumstances where the local communities were completely destroyed, the school was
isolated with no help as if it were a lonely island. Water, food, heaters, warm clothes, and other necessities
were all in short supply. A water tank was filled with water, but considering the possibility that such
isolated refuge life would continue for days, the school principal decided to provide one glass of water
equally to all evacuees.

Slide 34

Slide 35

Slide 36

Slide 37

Slide 38

Slide 39

Slide 40

Slide 41

Slide 42

Slide 43

Slide 44

Jun Ueno

Slide 33

30

Slide 46

Slide 47

Slide 48

Slide 49

Slide 50

Slide 51

Slide 52

Slide 53

Slide 54

Slide 55

Slide 56

Slide 57

Slide 58

Jun Ueno

Slide 45

Commemorative Lectures

Commemorative Lectures31

Commemorative Lectures
Jun Ueno

As you know, it was a very cold night. There was of course no power supply and it was completely dark.
As there were also no means for heating, the students and evacuees made groups and took off all curtains
from the classrooms to wrap themselves up for warding off the cold.
(Slide 67) This is very important. Communication means were all lost. No information came from theoutside, nor were they able to seek information themselves. Not one bit of information came in. I felt thatsuch complete loss of information poses an extremely serious problem. I heard that it was not until ten days
later that satellite telephones finally became available.
(Slides 68-69) However, as electricity, gas, and water supply and other infrastructure were not recovered,
the recovery of school functions was also delayed. Nevertheless, before school started officially, daily life
seems to have been well organized under the guidance of the teachers, including getting up at a fixed time
every morning, cleaning the surroundings, having meals, holding group leader meetings, attending the
all-school assembly, and studying individually even though there were no school classes.
(Slide 70) I have to reiterate the seriousness of problems with toilets. There was no water supply and toilets
were clogged. I will explain it later, but the same trouble arose at the time of the Great Hanshin-Awaji
Earthquake.

Slide 59

Slide 60

Slide 61

Slide 62

Slide 63

Slide 64

Slide 65

Slide 66

Slide 6732

Jun Ueno

The evacuees dug ditches in the school ground, covered them with blue tarpaulin, and thus made temporary,
literally temporary, toilets by themselves. However, these temporary toilets became full very soon. Then,they covered them with soil and dug ditches at another place to make new toilets. Such efforts were notunique to this school but were common in all schools which accepted evacuees. It may seem that I am
repeating myself but the same was observed everywhere at the time of the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake,
which occurred 17 years ago.
(Slides 71-72) Schools became the living space for evacuees but as you know, school toilets are almost all
Japanese-style. These toilets are very inconvenient for elderly people and those with handicaps.
(Slides 73-75) These are rescue materials.
(Slides 76-77) The photos show how schools were used as emergency evacuation sites.
(Slide 78) At this school, the evacuees occupied randomly in classrooms at first. Later, the school principal
carefully divided them into teams and groups based on each community, and then asked them to move fromclassrooms to the gymnasium.
As emergency evacuation sites in Minami Sanriku around Shizugawa River were integrated, the numberof the evacuees at the school, which was 300 immediately after the earthquake, decreased slightly and thenincreased due to evacuees moving in from other sites. Increases and decreases were thus repeated

Commemorative Lectures

Commemorative Lectures

Slide 68

Slide 69

Slide 70

Slide 71

Slide 72

Slide 73

Slide 74

Slide 75

Slide 7633

Commemorative Lectures
Jun Ueno(Slide 79) This may be trivial, but groups of people who had originally taken refuge at the gymnasium andgroups of people who had been in classrooms but later moved to the gymnasium seem to be separated inthis manner.
(Slides 80-81)(Slide 82) Naturally, the number of the evacuees decreased gradually.
(Slides 83-84) On August 19, all evacuees left and the school was reopened on August 22. The school got
back its gymnasium.
For the honor of the evacuees, I will add that they returned the gymnasium to the school after cleaning it
up completely and without any flaws.
(Slide 85) Regarding this school, due to delayed reconstruction of infrastructure on many levels, the schoolfunctions were not recovered until around two months after March 11.
(Slide 86) In May and June, children could finally start to come to school. They seem to be cheerful andexcited, but many of them lost either or both of their parents and around half of them lost their houses.
Therefore, they must have been extremely psychologically unstable.
(Slide 87) The teachers had tried hard to somehow reopen school as soon as possible, while paying
attention to the evacuees and at the same time giving due consideration to the students’ mental trauma. I
heard from them that they suffered from considerable fatigue in June or July. (Slide 88)

Slide 77

Slide 78

Slide 79

Slide 80

Slide 81

Slide 82

Slide 83

Slide 84

Slide 8534

Jun Ueno(Slides 89-91) These are temporary residences constructed on the school ground. It must be very cold there
today. (Slide 92) Nothing has changed since the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake; in the event of suchdisaster, elderly people who were forced to move into temporary residences, separated from their own
communities, are apt to be isolated.
(Slide 93) Until August, the school coexisted with the evacuees staying at its gymnasium or living in
temporary residences constructed in its ground.
I will skip these slides. (Slides 94-101)(Slide 102) Let me talk a little about the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake. It was 17 years ago.
Immediately after the earthquake, 310,000 people took refuge and nearly 80% of them sought refuge at
schools.
(Slide 103) As I said before, the same troubles experienced in the latest Great East Japan Earthquake had
occurred at that time.
(Slide 104) I investigated closely how schools functioned as emergency evacuation sites and compiled it
into a book. The book did not sell at all at that time but I heard that it sold out in three weeks after the Great
East Japan Earthquake. The book is now out of print, but a PDF file covering its entire content is available
on the website of the Osaka University Press. Please take a look at it.
(Slide 105)

Commemorative Lectures

Commemorative Lectures

Slide 86

Slide 87

Slide 88

Slide 89

Slide 90

Slide 91

Slide 92

Slide 93

Slide 9435

Slide 95

Slide 96

Slide 97

Slide 98

Slide 99

Slide 100

Slide 101

Slide 102

Slide 103

Slide 104

Slide 105

Slide 106

Jun Ueno

Commemorative Lectures(Slide 106) The Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake was a disaster that intensively struck an inner-city areaand had a range of several kilometers in width and some 10 to 20 kilometers in length. However, the Great
East Japan Earthquake damaged an area of over several hundred kilometers and it took much more time forrecovery or reaching out to disaster victims, due to the cutoff of the distribution network and other factors.
(Slide 107) Again, let me reiterate it: Directly after the earthquake, 310,000 people took refuge and nearly
80% of them sought refuge at schools. (Slide 108 -109)

36

Commemorative Lectures

Commemorative Lectures(Slide 110) This shows how evacuees spent refuge life at a gymnasium at the time of the Great
Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake. The earthquake occurred on January 17, and it was at the end of August, morethan six months later, that all evacuees left and schools could return to normal. Compared with this, theclosure of school evacuation sites was rather smooth in the case of the Great East Japan Earthquake.
(Slide 111) The situation concerning toilets was the same at the time of the Great Hanshin-Awaji
Earthquake. They dug ditches in school grounds and made enclosures with veneer boards and blocks. Whena ditch became full, they covered it with soil and dug another ditch next to it.

Slide 108

Slide 109

Slide 110

Slide 111

Slide 112

Slide 113

Slide 114

Slide 115

Slide 116

Slide 117

Jun Ueno

Slide 10737

Commemorative Lectures
Jun Ueno(Slide 112) I would like to once again emphasize here that the same activities were repeated.
(Slide 113) At that time, I wrote several papers, in which I pointed out that evacuees struggled to survive
for around three days before city functions started to be recovered after the Great Hanshin-Awaji
Earthquake. However, in the case of the Great East Japan Earthquake, distribution was hampered over wide
areas, and it seems to have taken two or three weeks for restoring city functions and people had to bear theinconvenience longer.
Next, I will talk about Rikuzen Takata. The city was also severely damaged. Takata Dai-ichi Junior HighSchool, which we continuously visit for investigation, is here on a hill. The school was not damaged andfunctioned as an emergency evacuation site. Now, the idea to move the whole city up to elevated places isunder discussion. This may be a realistic suggestion in a sense.
(Slide 114) This is a city gymnasium, which was designated as an emergency evacuation site, but was hit
by the tsunami of over 15 meters in height. The gymnasium was flooded almost up to the ceiling and manyof the evacuees drowned here.
(Slide 115) This is the entrance to the city.
(Slide 116) As you see, the tsunami came up along the river, as far as three kilometers, four kilometers...
(Slides 117-121) The whole town was completely destroyed.

Slide 118

Slide 119

Slide 120

Slide 121

Slide 122

Slide 123

Slide 124

Slide 125

Slide 126

38

Commemorative Lectures

Slide 128

Slide 129

Slide 130

Slide 131

Slide 132

Slide 133

Slide 134

Slide 135

Slide 136

Slide 137

Slide 138

39

Jun Ueno

Slide 127

Commemorative Lectures(Slides 122-124) This was a big bridge, but was swept away up to the upper stream.(Slide 125)
(Slide 126) This is the municipal office.
(Slide 127) According to media report, one-quarter of the city officials were killed. Therefore, it can beassumed that they may be suffering serious shortage in human resources even today, in preparing areconstruction plan. Assistance from other local governments will be urgently needed in these areas.

Commemorative Lectures(Slide 128) This is the makeshift city government office. (Slides 129-131)(Slide 132) Here again, the prefectural hospital was utterly destroyed up to the fourth floor.
(Slides 133-136) These show the inside of the hospital building.
(Slides 137-140) I heard that patients barely escaped to the rooftop with doctors and nurses.
(Slide 141) This is a photo taken from the rooftop of the prefectural hospital.
(Slides 142-148) The whole city was flooded. The rubble was removed gradually from June, July toAugust.
(Slide 149) As you see, a five-storied apartment building was destroyed up to the fourth floor.

Slide 140

Slide 141

Slide 142

Slide 143

Slide 144

Slide 145

Slide 146

Slide 147

Slide 148

Slide 149

Slide 150

Jun Ueno

Slide 13940

Commemorative Lectures

Commemorative Lectures

The height of the tsunami was recorded to be over 15 meters. (Slides 150-154)(Slide 155) This is the school where people took refuge. Again, the school is located on a hill.
(Slide 156) Therefore, the school was not damaged and it is recorded that 1,000 residents from the foot of
the hill came up to school directly after the earthquake. The school accepted many evacuees. For over fourmonths, the school concurrently functioned as an educational facility and as an emergency evacuation site.
(Slides 157-158) These clearly show how the school balanced its functions as an educational facility and as
an emergency evacuation site.

Slide 152

Slide 153

Slide 154

Slide 155

Slide 156

Slide 157

Slide 158

Slide 159

Slide 160

Slide 161

Slide 162

Jun Ueno

Slide 151

41

Commemorative Lectures
Jun Ueno(Slide 159) This is a classroom for domestic science, but was used as the headquarters of the self-governed
evacuation site, or the headquarters of the self-governing organization of the evacuees. I investigated indetail and found that the evacuees had a high sense of ethics and their self-governing organization worked
very effectively. I would like to emphasize here in front of many guests from overseas that these examples
indicate a high sense of ethics or morals of the Japanese people.
(Slide 160) 1,000 evacuees gathered at the gymnasium right after the earthquake and there still were 500 asof May.
(Slide 161) As temporary residences were completed, the evacuees moved out.
(Slides 162-164) The number of the evacuees decreased gradually to 500 in May, (Slides 165-166) to 350
in June, (Slide 167) and to 190 in July.
The situation is almost the same at any schools sheltering evacuees. School facilities are not very
comfortable to live in. They lack insulation efficiency and cannot keep out the cold. Furthermore, evacuees
cannot have privacy. The floor of a gymnasium is usually constructed to be rather soft and shakes in
response to slight vibrations. If any person wakes up late at night to go to the toilet, that causes the floor toshake and wakes others.
This is an article of the Mainichi Shimbun dated August 11.
(Slide 168) On August 12, all evacuees left the gymnasium and things returned to normal. The second
semester started on August 19. Here again, the evacuees cleaned up the gymnasium before they left andreturned it to the school without any flaws.
(Slides 169-170) This is the manual for refuge life prepared by the self-governing organization. You can seethat the evacuation site was well organized and governed in an orderly manner by the organization.
(Slide 171) Various types of teams were organized, and they rotated daily duties such as cleaning thesurroundings, carrying in rescue materials, and cooking in teams. The self-governing organization and theschool principal always consulted with each other and we can confirm that they realized very smoothcoexistence of the functions as an educational facility and as an emergency evacuation site.
(Slide 172) Evacuees were divided into teams based on their home communities to form groups and the site
was run by the units of such groups.

Slide 163

Slide 164

Slide 165

Slide 166

Slide 167

Slide 16842

Jun Ueno(Slide 173) The school ground was used as a parking lot.
(Slide 174) This is the kitchen. Teams of the self-governing organization took turns to prepare meals threetimes a day for the evacuees, around 500 in number at that time.
(Slide 175) The school infirmary was used as the headquarters of the Red Cross medical team. As you
know, it was still very cold at that time, and there were risks of influenza and O-157 outbreak. The school
nurse and the staff of the medical team jointly made the utmost effort to prevent infectious diseases.
(Slide 176) The first semester began on April 22, a little later than usual. The school continued to function
as an educational facility and as an emergency evacuation site concurrently until August.
(Slide 177) Also at this school, students were at school when the earthquake occurred. They were having arehearsal for the coming graduation ceremony in the gymnasium. Fortunately, all students survived. Then,they were divided by class and by gender into each classroom and started refuge life on that night. The
school principal offered the gymnasium to a crowd of evacuees, which were as many as 1,000 in number
right after the earthquake. This school has around 300 students and nearly half of them lost their houses in
the city.

Commemorative Lectures

Commemorative Lectures

Slide 169

Slide 170

Slide 171

Slide 172

Slide 173

Slide 174

Slide 175

Slide 176

Slide 177

43

Commemorative Lectures(Slide 178) Evacuees included elderly people and handicapped people, so-called “people vulnerable todisasters.”(Slide 179) Those people were taken care of at the health room. There were also young families with babies
and small children.
(Slide 180) Again, a complete loss of information occurred here, too. Telephones were dead. No TV, noradios, no Internet. There were no means to obtain information, and there was complete darkness.
(Slides 181-184) These are temporary residences. As the school ground was used as a parking lot, theschool had no space for physical class activities until August.

Slide 179

Slide 180

Slide 181

Slide 182

Slide 183

Slide 184

Slide 185

Slide 186

Slide 187

Slide 188

Slide 189

Jun Ueno

Slide 178

44

Commemorative Lectures
They managed to finish physical class curricula, using gymnasiums of undamaged neighboring elementary
schools or junior high schools. The students had to take a bus to go to this school and that school once aweek.
(Slides 185-195) July, August… The school gradually recovered its original functions, and as I said before,
it finished functioning as an evacuation site and things returned to normal in August.
(Slides 196-198) The photo shows how people live in rather deserted temporary residences. These people
have lost their jobs and have no income source. What is worse, they are separated from their own local
Commemorative Lecturescommunities, which is a cause of fear for their future.

Slide 191

Slide 192

Slide 193

Slide 194

Slide 195

Slide 196

Slide 197

Slide 198

Slide 199

Slide 200

Slide 201

Jun Ueno

Slide 190

45

Commemorative Lectures
Jun Ueno(Slide 199) As I have repeatedly mentioned, schools have functioned as an emergency evacuation site or ashelter for long periods as in the case of the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake.
That night, it was cold and snowy and was completely dark with no power supply. The only two oilheaters that the school had were for elderly people. Others took off all the curtains in classrooms to wrap
themselves up for warding off the cold. Making temporary toilets by digging ditches in school grounds was
also the same as in the case of the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake.
As emergency food, one bun for each person was finally delivered on the second day and rice balls were
provided from undamaged neighboring municipalities. Thanks to such assistance, disaster victims managed
to survive, but the life securing stage seems to have taken three times longer than in the case of the Great
Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake.(Slide 200)
(Slide 201) The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology compiled the urgent
recommendations in June. I also joined the compilation work as a member and made suggestions onfunctions that schools should fulfill at each stage.
(Slide 202) As you can see, schools are very important as community shelters. Schools are always expected
to function as such, whether they wish to or not. Therefore, it is important to consider what functions
schools should fulfill at each stage in an emergency.
Furthermore, the problem common in these disasters is the loss of information after the whole town orcity is destroyed. Even if there is much water stored in a tank, they are not sure how long they need tosurvive by themselves with the water and food they have at hand. Problems with toilets are extremely
serious. The cold and darkness without power supply also constitute major problems.
At the time of the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, which intensively struck an inner-city area,
emergency power supply vehicles came to schools functioning as shelters promptly from areas not affected,
such as Hiroshima and Nara, and they had power as early as the next day. However, this time, theearthquake damaged huge areas, which made it much more difficult to restore logistics.
Special attention needs to be paid to those who have difficulties in taking refuge, such as elderly people
and young families with babies and small children. I know many cases at the time of the Great
Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake where handicapped people could not stay comfortably at shelters and had nochoice but to return to their half-broken residences. This is extremely dangerous.
One of the problems to be emphasized this time was how to prevent infectious diseases.
Furthermore, I would like to stress the significance of the role of teachers at schools.

Slide 202

Slide 203

46

Slide 204

Slide 205

Slide 206

47

Slide 207

Jun Ueno

For example, the vice principal of Shizugawa Junior High School, with whom I have been on familiar
terms through the investigation, stayed at school for 48 days without going back home and took care of thestudents and evacuees. He had no means of knowing what happened to his own house or his family rightafter the earthquake, but he chose to stay at school for the students and evacuees.
The situation was the same in many other schools, as in the case of the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake.
I would also like to stress that it was Japanese teachers’ high professional sense and calm and dedicatedefforts that enabled schools to maintain functions as emergency evacuation sites.
Nevertheless, I am not sure whether such duties should be assumed by teachers. This needs to be
discussed fundamentally. I myself cannot reach a conclusion.
(Slides 203-204) Well, let me change the subject.
In addition to schools that sheltered many evacuees, there were many other schools that were severely
hit by the tsunami.
(Slide 205) The first floor of this school was destroyed by the tsunami. The children and local residents
evacuated to the rooftop and were rescued by a helicopter of the Self Defense Force next morning. It musthave been very cold.
The school is located 1.2 kilometers from the Sendai Bay, and the stained parts were flooded. At present,
the school uses part of another school that was not damaged by the tsunami.
(Slide 206) I heard that 129 schools were damaged somehow by the tsunami, but still only 19 of them havefull-fledged reconstruction plans.
(Slide 207) Needless to say, the neighboring area was utterly destroyed. If they intend to move the whole
neighborhood to higher elevations, they need to picture how to reconstruct the whole town and how toreconstruct the school, otherwise they cannot make any concrete plans.
I always say that a school represents a town and a town represents a school. It is not enough to only
move the school to a higher place for safety but need to consider how to revive the town as a whole andhow to revive the school accordingly.
(Slide 208) At the committee meeting, in which Professor Kabeyasawa, the next lecturer, and I participate
as members, we talked about the proposal to construct schools at higher places or otherwise prepare
evacuation routes to higher places.
(Slide 209) One example is a school that has a tall school building. There actually were cases wherestudents and teachers survived by evacuating to the third floor, the fourth floor, or the rooftop.

Commemorative Lectures

Commemorative Lectures

Commemorative Lectures(Slide 210) For example, instead of trying to make a plan solely for a school, it would be a nice idea tointegrate a school with other various community facilities and construct them at safe places in harmony
with the whole community, so that they can serve as the headquarters in an emergency.
(Slide 211) Or, it would also be nice if a school normally serves as various platforms for the local
community jointly with parks, daycare centers, and other community facilities and, in an emergency,
becomes a base for resident support.
I presented these pictures as urgent recommendations. These are of course some examples of themeasures. When I visit the devastated areas in Sanriku in the Tohoku region, I strongly feel the significanceof the perspective to consider how to reconstruct industries and businesses in these areas, how to revitalize
communities, and how to rebuild schools in line with these moves. However, I have to admit that there still
is a long way to go.
(Slide 212) I think that the Japanese people are now being tested concerning how the whole nation can
support or back up efforts of these devastated areas for the recovery in a true sense.
(Slide 213) Thank you very much for listening.
(Applause)
Moderator:

Jun Ueno

Thank you very much, Professor Ueno
Well, let us take a ten-minute break.

Slide 208

Slide 209

Slide 210

Slide 211

Slide 212

Slide 213

48

Lecture

Damages to School Buildings
Caused by the Great East
Japan Earthquake- Investigation and Post- earthquake
Evaluation by Architectural Institute ofJapan and Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology Toshimi Kabeyasawa
Professor, Doctor of Engineering,
Earthquake Research Institute,
The University of Tokyo, Japan

Toshimi Kabeyasawa
1976 B.Arch., Faculty of Engineering, The University of Tokyo
1978 M.Arch., Faculty of Engineering, The University of Tokyo
1980 Assistant, Faculty of Engineering, The University of Tokyo
1981 Assistant, Faculty of Engineering, Yokohama National University
1987 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Engineering, Yokohama National University
1996 Professor, Earthquake Research Institute, The University of Tokyo
Doctor of Engineering, Architect on Structure Design, Architect
Awards and Academics
1989 The Encouragement Prize of Architectural Institute of Japan 1989
2008 The Prize on Construction of 18th NIKKEI BP
2008 Project general manager, Committee on Reinforced Concrete Construction,
Architectural Institute of Japan
2011 Project general manager, Subcommittee on Seismic Capacity of Educational Buildings,
Architectural Institute of Japan
Chairman, Committee on Technology Evaluation and Vice-chairman, Committee on
Seismic Evaluation, The Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association
Chairman, Committee on Seismic Evaluation, The Building Center of Japan49

Mr. Toshimi Kabeyasawa:(Slide 1) Hello, I am Kabeyasawa from the Earthquake Research Institute.
I would like to talk under the title as introduced. I will report on the damage to educational facilities, inparticular damage by the shock of the earthquake. Damage due to the ground motions, or structural damage,
did not attract people’s attention this time, but the Architectural Institute of Japan conducted investigationon commission from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). This is
the report of the results of the investigation.
(Slide 2) The latest earthquake was accompanied with the tsunami and, in particular, the nuclear accident inFukushima prefecture. Therefore, how to construct educational facilities cannot be discussed without
considering the ongoing radiation problems. Although damage due to the ground motions has not attracted
much attention, a considerably wide area actually suffered the damage.
(Slide 3) The Architectural Institute of Japan independently conducts investigation of damage on various
buildings, but regarding educational facilities, it investigated around 700 buildings in detail in commission
from MEXT. The investigation was not merely to investigate damage but to categorize damage in relation
to reconstruction. As explained in the case of New Zealand where the three categories1, 2, and 3 were used,
the investigation by the Architectural Institute of Japan used five categories, while taking into consideration
how to reconstruct damaged facilities in the future. You may know this very well.

Toshimi Kabeyasawa

Commemorative Lectures

Moderator:
Now, we will go on to the third part.
The last lecture is by Mr. Toshimi Kabeyasawa, professor of the Earthquake Research Institute of the
University of Tokyo, entitled “Damages to School Buildings Caused by the Great East Japan Earthquake–Investigation and Post-earthquake Evaluation by Architectural Institute of Japan and Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology–.”
Please refer to the materials at hand for the profile. Let me introduce you Professor Kabeyasawa.

Slide 1

Slide 2

Slide 3Slide 4

Slide 5Slide 650

Slide 7

Slide 8Slide 9Slide 10Slide 11

Slide 1251

Toshimi Kabeyasawa

Major targets were reinforced concrete school buildings and steel gymnasiums, public halls, and othereducation-related facilities. The total number was 778. I will later explain statistical data.
(Slide 4) Today, I will talk about the ground motions, damage to reinforced concrete school buildings,
damage to gymnasiums which are framed with steel with the bottom parts made of reinforced concrete,
what we have learned from these facts, and what we should do for structural planning in the future.
(Slide 5) I have seen various cases of earthquake disasters, but I personally had special feelings about thelatest one. The title of this slide says “Kabeyasawa from/to Fukushima.” I am from Fukushima and myparents’ house is located there, so I could enter Fukushima the very next day. Since then, I visited theprefecture for investigation 17 times, or for more than a one-month period in total.
(Slide 6) Fukushima prefecture consists of three regions, Aizu region, Nakadori, and Hamadori, roughly
divided by the southern part of the Abukuma Mountains and the Ou Mountain Range. The Aizu region was
also included in the investigation targets, but the damage was not so serious, and I did not visit there.
Instead, I think I was able to visit almost all major cities in Nakadori and Hamadori.
(Slide 7) First, I will briefly explain ground motions. Available ground motion data are the results compiled
later. The K-net did not function for about three days right after the earthquake due to the blackout, andduring this period, we did not understand how large the earthquake was while we were conducting theinvestigation.
However, even in Tokyo I knew that the earthquake was an extremely huge one of magnitude 9 and thetremors lasted for around two minutes. The duration was significantly long, compared with, for example,
the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu Earthquake. Nevertheless, the impact on buildings was not as strong as that ofa near field earthquake.

Commemorative Lectures

Commemorative Lectures

Commemorative Lectures
Toshimi Kabeyasawa

There are many ways for explaining why a near field earthquake has a strong impact on buildings.
(Slide 8) However, to put it simply, a little bit longer frequency of around one to two seconds, instead of ashort frequency, may sometimes be generated due to overlapping of waves. We have learned from theearthquake in Kobe that an earthquake with a rather slow frequency, a frequency of around one second or alittle bit longer than one second, causes tremendous damage to structures. This time, the level of suchdamage causing frequency components was half or less of that observed in Kobe.
(Slide 9) In other words, the Great East Japan Earthquake was of the level close to the design loadings,
while the Hyogo-ken Nanbu Earthquake was far larger than the design level, from 2 times larger to 2.5
times larger. In a sense, the Great East Japan Earthquake showed how much damage would be caused by anearthquake approximately the same level as the design loadings.
(Slide 10) As you can see, far field and near field earthquakes have different features, but a critical impact
on buildings is caused by near field earthquakes. Last year’s earthquake in New Zealand was also a nearfield earthquake. It does not mean that as we have experienced a magnitude 9 earthquake we do not need toconsider a risk of collapse of conventional buildings. Rather, we have to bear in mind the fact that nearfield earthquakes occur once every ten years, or once or more every ten years somewhere in Japan.
(Slides 11-12) These show acceleration response spectra of ground motions. Although some significant
responses of 3G or 4G are observed at some points, they are extremely short frequency components and it
may be surprising but they do not directly cause collapse or damage of buildings. Frequency components ofground motions are very significant in terms of damage on buildings.
(Slide 13) Still, some epicenters were near the coast or off Iwaki and certain spots near the epicenters show
large spectra around one second.
(Slide 14) Around these areas, structural damage was considerable. I will show you later.

Slide 13

Slide 14

Slide 15

Slide 16

Slide 17

Slide 1852

Toshimi Kabeyasawa(Slide 15) In recent years, or last several decades, near field earthquakes have become more problematice.
Two big near field earthquakes occurred in Kobe and Niigata, which were 2 times to 3 times stronger thanthe design loadings. Damage caused by such near field earthquakes may be more significant in the field ofstructural engineering. However, this time, an extremely huge earthquake occurred far away, from 200
kilometers to 400 kilometers off the coast.
(Slide 16) Let me talk about what happed at the University of Tokyo. This is the building of the Earthquake
Research Institute. Building No. 2, which has been retrofitted, is over 40 years old. It is made of reinforced
concrete.
(Slide 17) Building No. 1 is a base isolated structure. I was in this building. I felt very long and slow
motions but was not at all scared.
(Slide 18) Building No. 3 is a steel building and received very characteristic damage(Slide 19) In these buildings and the surrounding ground, many seismographs are installed and responses ofbuildings are measured. At the ground surface, ground motions of around 0.2G, or about 165gal or 176 gal,
were measured. At the base of RC and base isolated buildings, it becomes nearly halved. This is aphenomenon called input dissipation.
Responses of the upper part of base isolated buildings further decrease. The acceleration response wasonly around 84gal and people inside were completely safe. However, in the case of RC buildings, theacceleration response increases by around three times, therefore, the response of the upper part of Building
No. 2 was around 0.3G. The worst are steel buildings. The input was around 0.2G but the response of theupper part of Building No. 3 was around 0.7G. In the case of the latest earthquake, base isolated buildings
showed excellent seismic performance and RC buildings in Tokyo also showed rather good performance.
Steel buildings were problematic. Even in Tokyo, rooms on the fourth floor of steel buildings weredamaged rather severely. Many of those in Tohoku received even worse damage.
(Slide 20) Now, I will show you damage in Fukushima prefecture.

Commemorative Lectures

Commemorative Lectures

Slide 19

Slide 20

Slide 21

Slide 22

Slide 23

Slide 2453

Commemorative Lectures
Toshimi Kabeyasawa

The earthquake was of the level that almost reached the design loadings. The seismic intensity in
Fukushima city was around upper 5 to lower 6. (Slide 21) Directly after the earthquake, no casualties instructures were reported. Later, some were reported, but basically, it was announced that no one was killed
due to the collapse of structures.
(Slide 22) Still, structures were damaged. This is called Pancake Crush. If people had remained inside, itwould have been rather dangerous.
(Slide 23) According to the interviews, the building collapsed like this in two or more minutes after
inhabitants felt the ground motions. Therefore, 50 to 60 people inside the building could all escape, andthree were confined but rescued later.
(Slide 24) This building is Y-shaped, which was the cause of such serious damage. The building was old
and lacks adequate shear reinforcement.
(Slide 25) It may be a little too much detail, but if an earthquake occurs at this zone in a vertical direction,for example, these become short columns due to influences of retaining walls and hanging walls. These arecolumns with short deformable height. As retaining walls and hanging walls have no influence in the span
direction, these become long columns. The loadings differ completely between short columns and longcolumns, and short columns first bear the earthquake load or often bear most of the whole load of theearthquake. Such phenomenon is well known, but it occurred at this building by chance in a typical manner.
(Slide 26) This building collapsed as seen in the upper photos. Other buildings had gone through seismic
diagnosis and had been retrofitted. The collapsed building was the only one that was left as it was. It was
unfortunate.
(Slides 27-28) These are photos of an elementary school in Fukushima city.
(Slide 29) It has long been common knowledge that significant damage is caused by the earthquake load
being concentrated on short columns, as was observed in the latest earthquake.

Slide 25

Slide 26

Slide 27

Slide 28

Slide 29

Slide 3054

Slide 31

Slide 32

Slide 33

Slide 34

Slide 35

Slide 36

Slide 37

Slide 38

Slide 39

55

Toshimi Kabeyasawa(Slide 30) The damage was also similar.
(Slide 31) This is a kindergarten building, one story high.
(Slide 32) In this building as well, the earthquake load concentrated on short columns of the northern side
and walls and columns failed to share the load.
(Slide 33) In the end, the building was severely damaged although the calculated seismic performanceindex was 0.67, which was close to the required level 0.70.
(Slide 34) This is the present situation of the kindergarten.
(Slide 35) Notable damage was observed at a hall, which is a RC building with steel roof. This is theprefectural cultural center located in the center of Fukushima city. The windows were broken at the RC
part.
(Slide 36) However, the structure itself was not so damaged. But as you see, the ceiling fell off. The same
happened in wider areas not limited to Fukushima city. More than a year has passed, but this cultural centeris still left unrepaired.
(Slide 37) This is another exhibition hall. It is one of the characteristics of the Great East Japan Earthquakethat the ceiling fell off not only in old buildings but also in rather new buildings.
(Slide 38) The damage was as serious to a degree that might have caused casualties if there had been people
inside. Ceiling design has not been concretely defined as part of structural design, and this should be
reviewed.

Commemorative Lectures

Commemorative Lectures

Commemorative Lectures(Slide 39) This is Date City, located east of Fukushima. The city became famous because high radiationlevels were detected.
(Slide 40) This is part of the damage of Date City. The photo shows cherry trees. Date City is known for its
production of peaches, but they were also damaged due to the earthquake.
(Slide 41) As you have seen, the intensity of the earthquake was a little bit stronger in Date than in
Fukushima, but still it was at the level of lower 6. Damage caused by short columns can be observed on thesecond floor.
(Slide 42) The building was severely damaged to a level requiring reconstruction.
(Slides 43-44) Such damage was not so common but was observed in several school buildings. Buildings
are assessed with the seismic performance index. The calculated seismic performance index was around0.38 for the aforementioned building that needs to be reconstructed. The index for another building wasaround 0.47 and this building was only moderately damaged and may be repaired and retrofitted, thus notneeding to be reconstructed.
(Slide 45) Damage to gymnasiums was notable this time. Not only old gymnasiums but also new ones wereconsiderably damaged. Please look at the joint part, where steel beams are anchored to the concrete wall.
(Slide 46) This part was pulled hard and part of the concrete fell off.

Slide 41

Slide 42

Slide 43

Slide 44

Slide 45

Slide 46

Slide 47

Slide 48

Toshimi Kabeyasawa

Slide 4056

Slide 49

Slide 50

Slide 51

Slide 52

Slide 53

Slide 54

57

Toshimi Kabeyasawa

If this had happened at the time of the first quake, it would be nothing as all people had already escaped.
However, the damage was caused by an aftershock on Aril 7, when there were many evacuees in the
gymnasium. It was around 11 o’clock at night that concrete fragments fell close to some evacuees that were
sleeping. This means there was a possibility for a serious secondary disaster.
(Slides 47-48) I will skip a detailed explanation as it may be too technical, but the force acting on theanchored part is calculated in detail using these models at the design stage.
(Slide 49) I will not explain in detail, but I suspect that the calculation method employed at present is itself
insufficient.
(Slide 50) We assume that the earthquake load acts in the same direction, but actually it does not.
(Slide 51) When columns at both ends start to vibrate independently, a kind of pulling force starts to act.
However, such phenomenon is not taken into account in the present structural calculation, I think.
(Slide 52) Similar damage was also observed at the time of the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake. There
was a case in which the joint part of the edges of the ceiling structure, which was only an overlaid precast
concrete roof, not a steel roof, was broken and the ceiling as a whole fell down. Fortunately, the earthquake
occurred early in the morning at 5:47 and the accident caused no casualties.
(Slide 53) There still are around 4,000 buildings with a similar structure, including 2,000 in school facilities.
These need to be retrofitted as soon as possible. This is a technique imported from a foreign country, thename of which I will not mention here, that is free from earthquakes. The technique was imported including
the details concerning joint parts, but when we import foreign techniques of this sort, special attention isrequired, as in the case of Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP.
(Slide 54) Next, I will talk about the middle part of Nakadori, Fukushima. Around here, in Koriyama andNihonmatsu, the earthquake load seems to have been larger to the south, not based on records but on theseriousness of the damage. This may be due to the quality of the ground.

Commemorative Lectures

Commemorative Lectures

Commemorative Lectures
Toshimi Kabeyasawa(Slide 55) Some buildings nearly collapsed like this.
(Slide 56) The first floor of this building does not have enough earthquake resisting walls. There should besuch walls throughout the first to the third floors, but a somewhat larger staff room needed to be made on
the first floor and the first floor does not have earthquake resisting walls though floors above do. As a result,independent columns received too much load and were crushed. We could observe damage whose causes
were very clear.
(Slide 57) As in the case of the aforementioned building that lacks enough earthquake resisting walls in thelower floors…
(Slide 58) There are three columns, but when the room at the end of the hall is used as a special class room,
which often happens, columns decrease from three to two in number. This is not at all special, but is very
common as a design for a special class room. Such buildings are apt to be damaged at these columns.
(Slide 59) Other kinds of damage were all caused by the concentration of the earthquake load on shortcolumns.
(Slides 60-62) Regarding cases in Koriyama, I will focus on the effects of retrofit, earthquake-resistantreinforcement. This building had been partially retrofitted and only part that had yet to be retrofitted wasseverely damaged.
(Slide 63) Only the east part of this building had been retrofitted in FY2010, but the whole building is
structurally continuous.

Slide 55

Slide 56

Slide 57

Slide 58

Slide 59

Slide 60

Slide 61

Slide 62

Slide 63

58

Commemorative Lectures

Slide 65

Slide 66

Slide 67

Slide 68

Slide 69

Slide 70

Slide 71

Slide 72

59

Toshimi Kabeyasawa

Slide 64

Commemorative Lectures

The retrofit work was completed for the east part in FY2010 and the remaining part was to be retrofitted in
FY2011. However, the earthquake occurred in March 2011. (Slide 64) The earthquake almost destroyed
said remaining part, (Slide 65) whereas; the retrofitted part was scarcely damaged.
This shows that even in the case of a single building only partially retrofitted, the retrofitted part and theremaining part respond completely differently. This may be due to expansion and contraction of the floor. It
is necessary to note that complete Floor Rigid Diaphragm Action is unrealistic.
(Slide 66) This is the aforementioned structurally discontinuous building. The retrofitted part was scarcely
damaged but the remaining part was destroyed and needs to be reconstructed.
(Slide 67) I also checked this building closely, but the damage was quite minor.
(Slide 68) However, this part not retrofitted was severely damaged.
(Slide 69) This is in Fukushima city. It was proved that rather old buildings, even those over 40 years old,that had been retrofitted with braces or walls showed rather good seismic performance.

Commemorative Lectures
Toshimi Kabeyasawa(Slide 70) On the other hand, some retrofitted buildings or those assessed as satisfying certain seismic
criteria were, not severely damaged, but rather moderately damaged. They are examples showing an
insufficient strength index, but I will not explain this in detail here.
(Slide 71) This building in Tochigi prefecture had also been retrofitted, but only up to the second floor, andits third floor was assessed to be strong enough. However, the first and the third floors were also
considerably damaged and the whole building needs to be reconstructed in spite of having been retrofitted
partially. Such a case was rather rare but this actually happened.
(Slide 72) Regarding to what extent Japanese schools have been retrofitted, this shows the situation as ofApril 2010. Those already retrofitted account for nearly 80%, including those that need not be retrofitted in
the first place.
(Slide 73) The percentage of retrofitted schools was only 30% around ten years ago but increased graduallyby several percent every year, reaching nearly 80% now. At this pace, in several years or in less than adecade, retrofit will be completed for all schools. As was proved in the latest earthquake, retrofitted
buildings generally showed excellent seismic performance.
(Slide 74) Looking at the distribution of seismic performance indices of schools waiting for retrofit, aroundone-fifth of them had a very low index, below half of the required level. Around 20% of old schools have
yet to be retrofitted and 20% of them are in danger, being highly likely to collapse in the event of a large
earthquake. In the calculation, several percent, or 4 or 5 percent of schools, may receive serious damage.
(Slides 75-77) This is also a typical case of damage to a school building caused by inadequate shear
reinforcement and short columns on the north side. (Slides 78-80) A certain number of schools wereseverely damaged, as there may be one in each municipality.

Slide 73

Slide 74

Slide 75

Slide 76

Slide 77

Slide 7860

Commemorative Lectures

Commemorative Lectures(Slide 81) This gymnasium was built in 1985. Like this one, some of the gymnasiums that meet the newseismic criteria applicable at present were also moderately or severely damaged.
(Slide 82) The aforementioned damage can be observed again. The part of the concrete where steel beams
are anchored fell off.
(Slide 83) I suspect that fundamental problems lie in its design.
(Slide 84) This is another case of damage to a gymnasium. This gymnasium is also new.
(Slide 85) The ceiling was damaged. When the ceiling is damaged in this manner, the gymnasium cannot be
used as a shelter or for any other purposes. I heard that nearly 100 gymnasiums were damaged at the ceilinglike this. Especially in Fukushima, they had difficulties in securing enough shelters or reopening schools
due to such damage to gymnasiums. Those gymnasiums have yet to be repaired, I think.
(Slides 86-87) This is a public hall. From outside, the building seems to be undamaged, but was actually
moderately damaged.
(Slide 88) The third floor is the municipal assembly hall. Steel beams were bridged over a large span, andthe edges thereof were broken, which caused the ceiling to collapse.
(Slide 89) The joint parts of the beam edges were broken and the ceiling fell down. (Slide 90) Ultimately,
the hall cannot be used any longer.

Slide 80

Slide 81

Slide 82

Slide 83

Slide 84

Slide 85

Slide 86

Slide 87

Toshimi Kabeyasawa

Slide 7961

Toshimi Kabeyasawa

Commemorative Lectures

The first floor and the second floor were also affected somehow. (Slide 91) As shown in cross section, steel
beams were bridged here and maybe this column and this column… As a precast concrete floor was justoverlaid, extremely huge force may have concentrated on the bolt at this edge.
(Slides 92-97) Similarly in Shirakawa, one or two buildings were moderately or severely damaged. Thisbuilding was constructed in 2008, only three years ago, and is assessed to have received minor damage.
However, in the end, the building cannot be used any longer. It is made of reinforced concrete but has amixed structure with wooden roof and beams as well as steel braces.

Slide 88

Slide 89

Slide 90

Slide 91

Slide 92

Slide 93

Slide 94

Slide 95

Slide 96

Slide 97

Slide 98

Slide 99

62

Commemorative Lectures

Commemorative Lectures(Slide 98) As a design, such structure would be very stylish or beautiful, but the edge parts will be
extensively damaged. You have to note that responses to an earthquake are completely different in abuilding with a mixed structure, compared to those where floors are fastened with reinforced concrete.
(Slide 99) You need to understand that it is very difficult to design such a building.
(Slide 100) You cannot design and construct any building by merely ensuring that the current criteria aresatisfied in a simple stress analysis.
(Slide 101) Next, this is Hamadori. (Slide 102) The damage was caused by the tsunami. Many buildings
were damaged by the tsunami also in Fukushima Prefecture.
(Slide 103) Damage caused by the tsunami accounted for a larger percentage.
(Slide 105) This school is located at around 3 kilometers from the seashore, but almost all wooden housesaround the school were swept away. (Slide 104) The stain on the wall shows that the height of the tsunami
was around 2 meters. Similar evidence could be found at other places as well.
(Slides 106-107) It may be in Iwaki city that the ground motion was the strongest in Fukushima prefecture.
The third asperity or the third epicenter was as near as 50 kilometers off the coast, and the city received
extremely strong motions, which were close to those caused by near field earthquakes and had a rather longfrequency of around one to two seconds.

Slide 101

Slide 102

Slide 103

Slide 104

Slide 105

Slide 106

Slide 107

Slide 108

Toshimi Kabeyasawa

Slide 10063

Toshimi Kabeyasawa

Commemorative Lectures(Slide 108) This is the only building severely damaged among those constructed after 1970.
(Slide 109) This is a RC building located on a hill that is around 30 meters in height. It is assumed thatground motions were amplified due to the land form. This is a rather unique case.
(Slide 110) This is a gymnasium considerably damaged although it had been retrofitted.
(Slide 111) The upper structure had been retrofitted, but the foundation was uneven, mixed with pilefoundation here and spread foundation in the center. As a result, the spread foundation part subsided also
partially due to liquefaction. (Slides 112-113) Accordingly, the upper structure was subject to forced
deformation and the whole building bent.
(Slide 114) On the contrary, no serious damage has been reported basically in Aizuwakamatsu city, where
only minor damage was observed. However, ground motions were not necessarily weak but were recordedat the same level as those in Fukushima city. This is because in snowy regions, such as Aizu and Niigata,estimated snow load is included in the earthquake load in designing and buildings are constructed on arather high level based on severer design loadings, as you may generally recognize. Consequently, there
was no serious damage. Ground motions may have been a little bit weaker in reality, but it is consideredmore attributable to better seismic performance of buildings unique to the snowy region.

Slide 109

Slide 110

Slide 111

Slide 112

Slide 113

Slide 114

Slide 115

Slide 116

Slide 11764

Slide 118

Slide 119

65

Slide 120

Toshimi Kabeyasawa(Slides 115-118) This is what we have learned concerning the outline of damage. (Slide 119) What I would
like to stress most strongly is that structural designing or structural plans should not only focus on ensuringthat buildings do not collapse with ground motions at the level currently presumed, but should place
importance on assuring their post-earthquake functionality. Any damage even in design of non-structuralelements may make the building unusable for over a year and will cause inconvenience. If we know whatcannot be used after an earthquake, in advance, that would not cause so much trouble, but actually unusablebuildings are found one after another. It is the same for new buildings. One of the problems to be copedwith in the future is how to ensure that buildings will remain usable even after an earthquake.
(Slide 120) I think that we need to study it.
(Slide 121) This is vibration testing by E-Defense. We also intend to conduct various experiments of thissort, but MEXT has not been so interested. This involves some complicated matters concerning thevertically-divided administration, as these are under the jurisdiction of the Science and Technology section,
not of the Educational section. (Slide 122) Anyway, I would like MEXT to actively promote theseexperiments and studies. I have sufficiently conducted my own research so far, so I expect that young
people will take the initiative.
(Slide 123) While it seems that we already know about seismic disasters, there still are many that have notbeen made clear. This is the results of the investigation in Miyagi prefecture conducted after the earthquake.
As you see, the correlation between damage and seismic performance of buildings varies widely.
(Slide 124) This is the results of the complete survey targeting 4,000 buildings at the time of the earthquake
in Kobe in 1995. Even these results have yet to be fully analyzed and there remain questions. However, it
has been considered OK as the actual damage was smaller than the analysis results, but the reasons forconcluding that it is OK have not been clarified.
(Slide 125) This roughly shows damage rates regarding prefectural high schools in Fukushima, as there wasa list of prefectural high schools, although the total number of schools in the prefecture was unknown.
Damage rates were around 7% to 10% of the total. If limited to schools constructed from 1981, the rates of
those sustaining minor or more severe damage were around 10% to 15%. These figures are within thepresumed level in line with our experience and are not obtained through calculation. Calculated damage
rates would have been larger.

Commemorative Lectures

Commemorative Lectures

(Slide 126) This shows the correlation between damage and seismic indices at the time of the Great
Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake. An exceptional correlation can be observed here. (Slide 127) I studied thecauses thereof in various ways after the earthquake, but I will skip the explanation.
(Slide 128) In the case of the Great East Japan Earthquake, seismic indices had been calculated for most of
the buildings and the correlation between those indices and seismic damage has been available rather indetail. Therefore, we have to analyze those available data precisely. I think a preliminary report on thedamage caused by the Great East Japan Earthquake will be compiled in March 2012. We need to spend
years to further analyze them.
(Slide 129)

Toshimi Kabeyasawa

Commemorative Lectures(Applause)

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Professor Kabeyasawa.
Lastly, Mr. Fukuei Saito, Director of the Educational Facilities Research Center of the National Institutefor Educational Policy Research, will give a closing address.

Slide 121

Slide 122

Slide 123

Slide 124

Slide 125

Slide 126

Slide 127

Slide 128

Slide 129

66

III.

67

Closing AddressClosing Address
Fukuei Saito
Director of the Educational Facilities Research Centerof the National Institute for Educational Policy Research
Thank you very much for attending today’s Seminar on Educational Facilities Research. I appreciate
your attentiveness for many hours.
The earthquake that occurred in New Zealand in 2011 was covered by the Japanese media as well. New
Zealand is well known as a country with advanced earthquake-resistant technology and the damage causedby said earthquake attracted the attention of experts, but available information was rather limited comparedwith that for earthquakes in Japan. It was a precious opportunity for us to listen to a lecture
comprehensively explaining measures of earthquake resistance of school facilities and reconstruction
efforts in New Zealand from Ms. Kim Shannon and Mr. Wayne Tacon. This will be a great help for ourefforts in the future.
Professor Ueno lectured us on the situation of schools used as emergency evacuation sites at the time of
the Great East Japan Earthquake and on problems thereof, based on an abundance of data. Thank you verymuch. Professor Ueno strictly pointed out that we have failed to draw lessons from past earthquake
disasters. I think it is extremely important to consider means to enhance disaster prevention functions ofschool facilities nationwide.
Professor Kabeyasawa explained the structure and safety of school buildings in detail, based on the
results of the investigation and post-earthquake evaluation by MEXT and from an academic viewpoint.
Professor Kabeyasawa stated that earthquake-resistant measures we have promoted were proved to beeffective, while pointing out many problems, such as those concerning aseismic work for non-structuralelements and designing for rare cases.
I think that we, who live in earthquake-prone countries, are required to make constant efforts forcountermeasures against earthquakes. As we learned today about the changes in seismic criteria in New
Zealand, we have accumulated knowledge based on efforts made by our predecessors and from each of theearthquakes we have experienced, step by step. It is the duty for all related parties, including all of us
gathered here, to learn lessons from the recent disastrous earthquakes that occurred in New Zealand andJapan and promote further efforts for enhancing security and safety of educational facilities. It would be ourgreat pleasure if this seminar would contribute to promoting such efforts.
Lastly, I would like to extend my profound gratitude to all the speakers, Ms. Kim Shannon, Mr. Wayne
Tacon, Professor Jun Ueno, and Professor Toshimi Kabeyasawa. Thank you very much. This concludes
today’s seminar. Thank you very much.
(Applause)
Moderator:
This concludes the FY2011 Seminar on Educational Facilities Research by the National Institute for
Educational Policy Research. Thank you for your kind cooperation.

68

2012 National Institute for Educational Policy Research
Seminar on Educational Facilities Research
Educational Facilities in Earthquake Countries:
Exchange of Knowledge between New Zealand and Japan (REPORT)
Issue date: March, 2012
Publisher: National Institute for Educational Policy Research (NIER)
3-2-2 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 100-8951, Japan
Copyright 2011 by the National Institute for Educational Policy Research(NIER)All right reserved
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR EDUCATIONAL POLICY RESEARCH