3.2. Evaluation on Building Damage
Basic Terminology:
Damage: Destruction, deformation and inclination of a building, which includes
structural and non-structural elements, caused by an earthquake.
Damage index: Indices indicating degree of danger, class of damage for building
as a whole, damage level for each building element.
Safety: Building conditions which ensure the safety of human life even at a
possible severe earthquake.
Structural element: Building elements which compose the structural system toresist dead and live loads, and external loadings such as earthquake
excitation.
Non-structural element: Building elements other than structural elements likeexterior and interior wall, partition wall, ceiling, roof, and so on.
Retrofit: Strengthening the structural system of an existing building with poor
aseismic capability to fit the requirement of current building code.
Purpose:
Methodology of an evaluation on building safety after earthquake or tsunami
Important Points:
Timing:Timing
Evaluation Methodology
ExampleImmediate・First announcement of building ・Reports of eye witness & Feelings
damageby local habitants
・Broadcast
Within few days
・Quick inspection
・Evaluation into 3 ranks, inspected,
limited entry and no entry
・Seismic capacity assessment
Within few weeks ・Damage Classification
・Damage survey in a typicalarea
・Damage overview in damaged
area
Grade:
Grade
Minimum
Necessary
BetterBest

Methodology
Reports of eye witness &Feelings by local habitants
Instant evaluation
Evaluation on building safety

85

Deals
Information to habitants
Advice to habitants about Restoration
Advice to habitants about Retrofitting
Statistics of damages

3.2.1. First Announcement of Building Damage

Immediately after the earthquake occurrence, within a few hours, it is very
important to know the general damage distribution and identify the most severely damaged
areas where emergency rescue action is required. At this time, quick information transfer
becomes important though reports of eye witness or findings by local habitants. Suchinformation must be integrated for the effective rescue actions as well as building damage
evaluation considering the determination of priority or order of various response actions,and appropriate emergency plan must be managed and operated.
Considering the shutdown of computer systems due to the break of electric
power supply, the role of broadcast becomes important especially wireless network systems
for the collection of damage information.
A survey shall be performed to roughly assess the disaster level of buildings
within one or two days immediately after an earthquake. A small number of investigators
will also visually inspect the appearance of buildings while taking into consideration thereports by residents.

863.2.2. Quick Inspection of Damaged Buildings[1]This section mainly presents the method of quick inspection in Japan. The
methods in the U.S. and Turkey are attached as Other Example 1 and 2, respectively, at theend of the section.
Damaged buildings shall be inspected between the third day and the seventh
day after the earthquake, or for a longer period depending on the disaster level, to evaluatebuilding safety against aftershocks by the visual inspection of their appearance and in thebuildings' interiors by building structure engineers. The judgment result of this inspection
shall be classified as "inspected", "limited entry", or "unsafe" and posted near the building
entrance.

1) Purpose
The purpose of the quick inspection of damaged buildings is to judge the riskof collapse or tip-over of the buildings damaged by an earthquake or falling of building
components due to aftershocks as soon as possible, and to provide information on the risk ofusing the buildings before they are restored for long-term use. This should help prevent
secondary disasters that would endanger people in earthquake-stricken areas.

Explanation(1) The primary responsibility to ensure the safety of a building rests with its owner,building manager, or occupant. The owner and relevant people have the responsibility toensure the safety of the building damaged by an earthquake.
In case the damage by the earthquake is too large or there are a number ofowners for a building, however, it is not always possible for the owners of the damagedbuilding or relevant people to confirm the safety of the building by themselves. A
large-scale earthquake normally has a number of aftershocks. Buildings damaged by anearthquake will be destroyed further by the intense vibration of aftershocks and mightcollapse, thereby subjecting a number of people to the threat of secondary disasters.
Damaged buildings that would affect roads or adjacent houses in particular can hurt third
parties.
Therefore, from the viewpoint of the safety of citizens after an earthquake, it
is not desirable to entrust the entire responsibility for the safety of damaged buildings to theowners or relevant people without taking administrative action.
87

For this reason, the safety of damaged buildings shall be judged as part ofemergency action by local governments immediately after an earthquake.
This post-earthquake, quick inspection of damaged buildings is an action by
the Center for the Quick Inspection of Damaged Buildings, which is organized in the
Disaster Response Headquarters to quickly investigate buildings and other structures andoffer information from the professional viewpoint of architectural technology. This
inspection does not assess the monetary loss due to the disaster or judge whether thedamaged buildings can be used for a long period of time. The "criterion on the damage
classification" 1) will be applied to the judgement of whether the damaged buildings can beused for a long time or whether structural reinforcement is necessary for restoration.
(2) Aftershocks are usually smaller than that of the main shock; however, they aresometimes equal to or larger than the first earthquake. In addition, different earthquakes
often occur at an equal to or larger scale than that of the first shock after a short interval in
the same area, though they are not regarded as aftershocks from the viewpoint ofseismology. Recent, well-known typical combinations of an earthquake and a subsequent
earthquake that was larger in scale and damage are the Miyagi-ken-oki Earthquake inFebruary 1978 (M6.7) and the earthquake at the same place in June 1978 (M7.4); and theKagoshima-ken Nanseibu Earthquake in March 1997 (M6.2) and the earthquake (M6.3)
occurred in Satsuma area, Kagoshima Prefecture, in May 1997.
However, for judging the risk level, this criterion assumes that aftershocks
have smaller scales than that of the main shock. In case a building has been damaged further
by aftershocks to require changes in the risk level judgement, quick inspection will be
performed again.
(3) Buildings on a slope will collapse together with the ground if the slope collapses whenwater percolates downward through the ground at post-earthquake rains through fissurescaused by the earthquake. An example is the case of the 1990 Philippine earthquake when aslope cracked by the earthquake later collapsed due to a post-earthquake rain and washedaway a reinforced concrete building. This quick inspection will also pay attention to the riskof building collapse due to such non-aftershock phenomena.
These non-aftershock phenomena that cause building collapse include theeffects of typhoons and strong winds and snow loads after snowfall on earthquake-stricken
buildings. It is important to take into consideration the effects of strong winds and snowfall
immediately after an earthquake, particularly on wooden buildings and steel structurebuildings.
(4) To inspect facilities for the usability as a post-earthquake shelter, the safety against
aftershocks shall be examined more carefully and minutely. It is important to inspect not
only the safety of interior and exterior structures but also the safety and availability of gas
88and electricity, the water supply and drainage, and telecommunication facilities.
This criterion is designed to quickly judge the risk level of damaged buildings
by focusing on appearance inspection. The inspection and judgement manual focuses
especially on the inspection and judgement of damaged buildings in general by volunteer
inspectors.
Therefore, the inspection and judgement on shelter facilities may be made as aseparate duty by the Disaster Response Headquarters in the earthquake-stricken area. For
this reason, it may be required for small-scale local governments that do not haveengineering staff to seek for the cooperation of inspectors to judge damaged buildings. In
such a situation, it is desirable to carefully inspect the interior and exterior of damagedbuildings in detail according to this criterion and the inspection and judgement manual.

2) Scope of Application
This criterion on quick inspection applies to wooden, steel, reinforced
concrete and steel framed reinforced concrete buildings damaged by an earthquake. Because
buildings are different in the construction method and height depending on the type ofstructures and subsequently in the earthquake damage features and risk level, this criterion
on quick inspection is set for each type of structure.

Explanation(1) This criterion on quick inspection applies to the judgement of the risk of collapse ofearthquake-damaged buildings due to aftershocks and does not apply to that of buildings
damaged by other causes. For example, because different typhoons and strong winds havedifferent directions, pressures, and other characteristics, this criterion cannot directly beapplied to the judgement of the risk level of the buildings damaged by a strong wind against
the winds that follow in a later typhoon. In case an earthquake-damaged building ispotentially subjected to strong winds, however, it is required to pay attention to their effecton the building.
(2) This criterion on quick inspection summarizes the methods to judge the risk of wooden,
steel structure, reinforced concrete, and steel framed reinforced concrete buildings ofordinary construction due to an aftershock and other effects. However, there are somespecial-purpose buildings of special construction method that are different from theconventional methods. As such special buildings have little experiences with earthquake
damage, there is little knowledge of the method to judge the risk level. Hence, this criterion
does not make judgement on such buildings. Therefore, a special team should be organized,
including design engineers of the building, to judge the risk level in case such buildings are
89damaged in an earthquake. In addition, a separate inspection should be done for buildingsthat store dangerous materials; but such buildings are not covered by this criterion. In casethis criterion is applied to such buildings as an emergence measure, the risk level should be
judged while considering whether the buildings still have the capability to store dangerous
materials.
For these reasons, this criterion does not apply to the buildings of
non-conventional construction. More specifically, this criterion excludes high-risebuildings of ten stories or over, and buildings of long-span, space truss or suspension
structure, and other special construction methods.
In regard to building construction, the scope of application differs for wooden,
steel structure, reinforced concrete, and steel framed reinforced concrete buildings. Amongconcrete-based structures, this criterion may be applicable to precast concrete andreinforced concrete block buildings. In the case of precast structure, joints will more
seriously be damaged than structural members. In such a situation, because the judgement
based on the damage of joints is not prescribed, flexible actions are required to read joints in
the inspection sheet, which will be presented later, as columns for inspection andjudgement.
This criterion is not applicable to inspection of such buildings that are called
the buildings of a prefabricated method, wooden frame construction, or traditional
construction method for temples and shrines. If it is applied to such buildings, therefore, thespirit of the inspection should appropriately be observed.
To the buildings having some parts with tow or more of the following:
reinforced concrete, steel framed reinforced concrete, some steel structure, and somewooden structure, it is possible to apply the criterion on quick inspection for eachconstruction method that is presented below, and make comprehensive judgement based on
the judgement on each construction method. In this case, different inspection methods will
be used for the different construction methods.

3) Definition of Terms
In this criterion, terms are used according to the following definitions.
・ Quick inspection: Quick inspection implies both temporary and emergency
inspections on the assumption that there is an emergency that requires a number ofjudgements to be made during a short period of time immediately after an earthquake thathas damaged buildings. The judgement is temporarily made according to this criterion andmay be changed after the damage has been surveyed later by a detailed inspection with anample period of time.
90

・Degree of danger: The degree of danger means the level of the danger that affects
human life due to the destruction of building frames, and falling or tip-over of building
components. There are three ranks of degree of danger, "unsafe", "limited entry", and"inspected", based on the damage levels of different parts of the object building.
The term "inspected" is used to mean "safety" in the inspection and judgement
according to this criterion. However, the quick inspection of degree of danger based on an
appearance survey in a limited scope does not mean that inspection and judgement havebeen made to the extent that the "safety" of the building is guaranteed. It is only to confirm
that there are no "unsafe" or "limited entry" elements in the scope covered by the inspection.
If the result of judgement is expressed as "safe," it would lead to the misunderstanding thatthe building can be used safely for a long period of time. For these reasons, the term"inspected" is used in the criterion.
・ Class of damage: The class of damage means the level of earthquake-caused
destruction or deformation of buildings or objects attached thereto. There are three ranks ofdamage level, A, B, and C, in an ascending order, for the quick inspection of damagedbuildings.
・Damage level: The damage level means the level of destruction of members and partsof reinforced concrete and steel framed reinforced concrete buildings. The "criterion on
damage classification" [2] defines five levels of destruction, I to V, in an ascending orderaccording to the extent of damage. This criterion on quick inspection of damaged buildings
is related to the damage levels III and over.

4) Method of Inspection
To inspect damaged buildings and judge the degree of danger, those who are
qualified for quick inspection of damaged buildings visually inspect the appearance ofbuildings and their parts at the disaster site for settlement, inclination, and destruction.

Explanation(1) Quick inspection of damaged buildings is performed according to the request by local
governments by the inspecting building engineers (hereinafter referred to as "judges") who
have been trained on the technique of the criterion of quick inspection of damaged buildings,
and are registered at the prefectural governments. To ensure that judges correctly understandthe criterion on quick inspection of damaged buildings and the inspection and judgement
manual, and to ensure that damaged buildings are appropriately inspected and judged fortheir safety, judges are assumed to have expert knowledge equal to or at a higher level thanthat required for registered architects.
91(2) Buildings are visually inspected in principle from outside by using simple instruments.
In the quick inspection of damaged buildings, judges can quit further
inspection once the object building has been judged as "unsafe". However, even buildingsthat are judged as not damaged by an appearance inspection may have been seriously
damaged on the inside structure to cause collapse. Therefore, it is desirable to confirm that
there is no damage inside such apparently-intact buildings. In such a situation, it is also
possible to inspect the inside based on in situ interviewing of the users or owner of thebuilding.
(3) Simple instruments may be required to measure the settlement, inclination, or damageof buildings.
(4) Buildings are inspected by using a judgement and inspection sheet prepared for eachstructure type. However, there are buildings whose structural type cannot be judged fromoutside appearance. In particular, it is often difficult to distinguish between a wooden anda steel structure or between a reinforced concrete and a steel framed reinforced concrete
structure. Even a building apparently of reinforced concrete structure can be regarded as asteel framed reinforced concrete building if it has eight stories or over. Judge whether abuilding is steel or reinforced concrete by touching it or knocking to hear the sound. It is
often difficult to judge whether a building is of wooden or steel structure, unless the exterior
finish has dropped to expose the inside. In such a situation, it is appropriate to regard it asa wooden building for inspection, because such buildings are often of wooden structure
according to the past experience.
For buildings of mixed structures, select an appropriate inspection sheet after
confirming the damage level and judging the main structure, and use other inspection sheets
as necessity arises and record the condition of the building in the margin of the sheet.
(5) It is desirable to prepare a house map as shown in Fig.3.2.2-4 in order to identify thename and location of each building to be inspected.

5) Method of Judgement
Inspect the object building and judge the settlement, inclination, and damageof the structure according to the judgement criterion prescribed in the inspection sheet for
quick inspection of damaged buildings, and judge the degree of danger of the building asfollows based on the judgement result.
(1) Degree of danger of building
・Unsafe: Judge the building as "unsafe" if it has one or more C-ranked items withregard to settlement, inclination, or damage of building frames. Even though it has no rank
C items, judge the building as "unsafe," if it is of steel structure and has four or more92

B-ranked items, or if it is of reinforced concrete or steel framed reinforced concrete
structure and has two or more rank B items.
・Limited entry: Judge the building as "limited entry," if it has one or more B-ranked
items with regard to settlement, inclination, or damage of building frames.
・Inspected: Judge the building as "inspected" when it is not at the degree of danger of"unsafe" or "limited entry."(2) Risk level of components to fall or to be tipped over・Unsafe: Judge the object component as "unsafe," if it has one or more C-ranked
inspection items with regard to the possibility to fall or to be tipped over.
・Limited entry: Judge the object component as "limited entry," if it has one or more
B-ranked inspection items with regard to the possibility to fall or to be tipped over.
・Inspected: Judge the component as "inspected" when it is not at the risk level of"unsafe" or "limited entry".

Explanation(1) The degree of danger of a damaged building is judged separately for the risk to humanlife due to the collapse and for that due to building components that fall during
aftershocks or due to other causes. This is to express whether the building can be usedbased on the said two categories of danger by the method referred to in the next chapter.
Even when there is no damage to the building or no risk of collapse, it shall be judges
as unsafe if there are objects that would fall or be tipped over near the entrance of thebuilding that would endanger the users, owner, or third parties. In this manner, thedegree of danger due to the collapse of the building and that due to the objects thatwould fall or to tip-over shall be judged separately.

6) Action according to the judgement result
To notify the building owner, users, or third parties of the quick inspection
result, judges shall post the specified sticker at the entrance of the building or other places
where the sticker is easy to view. When it is possible, judges should explain the inspection
result to the building owner and advise about the prevention of danger. Judges shall also
post a sticker in the relevant place to notify the judgement result on the danger of objects
that could fall.

Explanation93

(1) Figs 3.2.2-1 to 3.2.2-3 show an example of the sticker for "unsafe", "limited entry", and"inspected", respectively.
(2) When the building has inclined to a large extent and has the possibility to fall over as arigid body at an aftershock, it is required not only to post a sticker for danger at the building
to arouse attention but also to indicate the danger to enter the area in which the building
would fall upon. In the 1995 Great Hanshin earthquake, a building that inclined
significantly (because it had broken columns on the first floor) totally collapsed during anaftershock and blocked nearby roads. In this case, the area crushed by the collapsed building
was approximately equal to the height of the building.
(3) The area that will be affected by an object attached to a building when it falls or it istipped over depends on its size and profile. As a guide, assume the dangerous area is thecircle on the ground immediately below the object that has a radius equivalent to half theheight where the object is installed. If there are canopies or screens on the route along
which the object will fall, their effect shall additionally be considered, since the object willrebound at such obstacles.
(4) Inspectors shall explain the judgment result to the building users, describe theallowable area of entry, and give easy-to-understand precautions required for entering thebuilding in the column for comments on the judgment sticker. Oral explanation may beenough or stickers can be omitted for some buildings.
Administrative action will be taken to prevent entry into buildings that would
affect the safety of third parties.

Fig. 3.2.2-1

Example of the sticker for “unsafe” (in red)94Fig. 3.2.2-2

Fig. 3.2.2-3

Example of the sticker for “limited entry” (in yellow)

Example of the sticker for "inspected" (in green)957) Changing the judgment
The judgment can be changed for buildings for which quick inspection ofdamaged buildings was performed, when effective measures have been taken later toprevent collapse or other categories of danger, or when the damage conditions have beenchanged or inspected in detail to have the original judgment changed.

Explanation(1) The primary purpose of the quick inspection of damaged buildings is to inspectdamaged buildings, judge the degree of danger based on the quick inspection and judgment
manual against the possibility of collapse or other categories of danger, and inform thebuilding owner of the judgment result. This is to prevent secondary disasters that would
affect human life and is not to judge whether the object building can be used for a long
period. The judgment is not linked with the certificate for damage that is used to apply for
subsidies for recovery from disaster. It is important to note that changing the judgment is anaction to be taken only when the degree of danger that affects human life has changed.
The original judgment shall also be changed when the damage has intensified
by aftershocks. When an aftershock at a comparatively large scale has occurred, quick
inspection and degree of danger judgment shall be performed again for all buildings in thedisaster area.
(2) When effective emergency reinforcement measures have been taken for a damagedbuilding to lower the degree of danger, or objects that would fall have been removed, thedegree of danger will be changed from "unsafe" to "limited entry", or from "limited entry"
to "inspected" based on the result of the second inspection and judgment.
The emergency reinforcement measures shall be limited to those that ensure
an effective result, such as replacing a damaged column with a reliable reinforcement
structure that can sufficiently bear the vertical load that has been born by the column.
Simple measures such as supporting a building that has inclined to a large degree withoblique beams will not constitute a reliable emergency reinforcement measure that allows
changing the judgment result. Because there are few documents on emergency
reinforcement technologies, this issue shall be investigated further. With regard to
emergency reinforcement or subsequent judgment, appropriate measures shall be taken,
including consultation with experts on the technology of buildings and structures.
(3) Since the quick inspection of damaged buildings is performed in a short period of time,
it may be changed later based on a detailed inspection. There may be cases where thejudgment shall be changed to "unsafe" after an interior inspection for buildings originallyjudged "limited entry" or "inspected" with a comment "according to an appearance
96

inspection", or to "limited entry" after a deliberate inspection for buildings originally judged
as "unsafe" because it was originally a borderline call and thus labeled to ensure safety.
However, a deliberate attitude is required in the latter case.

In the following pages, mono-color photos and full-color photos are presented.
Generally, the mono-color photos are quoted from Reference [1]. And the full-color photos
are produced by the members of Building Research Institute, Ministry of Construction, until
1995.

References[1] "Quick inspection manual for damaged buildings", The Japan Building Disaster
Prevention Association, Feb. 1998. (in Japanese)[2] "Damage classification method for damaged buildings post-earthquake and seismic
retrofit guideline", The Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association, Sept. 2001. (inJapanese)[3] "Zenrin House Map ’94, Chuo-ku, Kobe City (east part) ", Zenrin Co., Ltd., Jan. 1994.

97

(Kobe City Hall)

Fig.3.2.2-4 Example of House Map[3]Kobe City Chuo-ward (East Part)98

Total column should
be filled in with figures

RC
Table 3.2.2-1 Quick Inspection Sheet for Reinforced Concrete Buildings andSteel Framed Reinforced Concrete Buildings[1]Serial No.
Inspection date and hour
Name of the Inspector (county and prefecture / No.)Time of Inspection(／(／

Serial No.
))

Outline of the building
1 Name of the building
1.1 Building No.
2 Address of the building
2.1 Serial No. in the residential district map
3 Use 1.Detached house 2.Tenement style 3.Apartment house 4.Dwelling house combined with otheruses 5.Store 6.Office 7.Inn and Hotel 8.Public facilities such as a government building
9.Hospital and clinic 10.Day nursery 11.Factory 12.Warehouse 13.School 14.Gymnasium
15.Theater, amusement facilities 16.Others ()
4 Type of Structure
1.Reinforced concrete 2.Pre-cast concrete 3.Concrete block 4.Steel framed
reinforced concrete 5.Hybrid of () and ()
5 Number of stories
Above groundand underground
6 Size of the building
Dimensions of the first floor am×bm
Inspection Inspection method:(1. Appearance inspection only 2. Appearance and internal visualinspection)
Inspection 1 The degree of danger judged at a glance (mark the appropriate items with a circle, judge thebuilding to be dangerous, stop the inspection and skip to the comprehensive judgment).
1. Entire or partial collapse and fallen floors of the 2. Significant destruction of the foundation and its
building
significant displacement from the superstructure
3. Significant inclination of the building in whole or 4. Others ()
in partInspection 2 The degree of danger judged from the states of the adjacent buildings, the nearby ground, thebuilding frames and other factors
Rank A
Rank B
Rank C
Judgment ①Whether there are members that 1. No
2. Yes(1)
suffered damage severer than damagelevel III
Judgment(2)②Presence of danger caused by 1. No
2. Uncertain
3. Yesdestruction of the adjacent buildings
and the nearby ground③Settlement of the entire building 1. Less than 0.2 m
2. 0.2 m - 1.0 m
3. More than 1.0 m
due to destruction of the ground④Inclination of the entire building 1. Less than 1/60
2. 1/60 - 1/30
3. More than 1/30
due to differential settlement
Damage to columns [the floor (which suffered the most serious damage) through the inspecting for ⑤ and ⑥
below ()] (if bearing wall structure is in use, the length of the wall is substituted for the number ofcolumns)⑤Number of columns that suffered damage level V () / Number of columns inspected ()[Inspection rate (%)]
1. Less than 1 %2. 1 %-10%
3. More than 10 %⑥Number of columns that suffered damage level IV () / Number of columns inspected() [Inspection rate (%)]
1. Less than 10 %2. 10 %-20 %3. More than 20 %Judgment (2)1. Inspected
2. Limited entry
3. Unsafe(when all items are (when one of the (when one or more
given Rank A)
items is given Rank items are given Rank
B)C, or when two or
more items are given
Rank B)

Judgment of the degree of danger
Judgment is determined by judgment (1) or
judgment (2), whichever is greater

1. Inspected(internal
visualinspection required)

2. Limited entry

The degree of danger caused by falling and shifting of objects
Rank A
Rank B①Frame and glass of the 1. Almost no damage
2. Deformation and cracks
window②Exterior finishing material 1. Almost no damage
2. Partial cracking and(for wet construction)
crevices③Exterior finishing material 1. Slight damage such as 2. Crevices observed in the(for dry construction)
cracks in the joint
plate

Building No.
Serial No. in the residential district map
3
4
Above
groundUndergroundab

storiesstoriesmm
Inspection method

1①

Judgment (1)②③④
The most seriously damaged floor⑤⑥

Judgment (2)3. Unsafe

Judgment

Inspection 3④Signboard and fitting⑤Exterior escape stair⑥Others ()
Judgment of the degree of
danger

1. No tilt
1. No tilt
1. Safe
1. Inspected(when all items are
given Rank A)

2. A slight tilt
2. A slight tilt
2. Special attention required
2. Limited entry(when one or more item isgiven Rank B)

Rank C
3. Danger of falling
3. Significant cracking andspalling
3. Significant displacement of
the joint and destruction of theplate
3. Danger of falling
3. A significant tilt
3. Dangerous
3. Unsafe(when one or more item isgiven Rank C)

①
②
③
④
⑤
⑥
Judgment

Comprehensive judgment (the building should be judged here to be dangerous if it was judged to be
dangerous in Inspection 1; otherwise it should be judged according to the degree of danger in Inspection 2 orComprehensive judgment
in Inspection 3, whichever is greater).
1. Inspected (green)
2. Limited entry (yellow)
3. Unsafe (red)Comment (state whether danger is from the building frame, or from falling objects)

Note: comments should be the same as the notes written on stickers.

99

(a) About 2mm-wide X-shaped cracks on a column(b) Shear cracks on a short column at the left to right deformation is affected by the low
wall on the right side
Photo 3.2.2-1

Example of damage level III

100(c) A column that has not deformed with reinforcement bars exposed. Although a large
volume of covering concrete has come off, the column concrete has not come off.
Photo 3.2.2-1

Example of damage level III （Cont.）(a) The column capital concrete has come off and has exposed the vertical main
reinforcement. It is exposed in a wide area with a large crack along the reinforcementthat spread to the column center.
Photo 3.2.2-2

Example of damage level IV
101

(b) A large volume of concrete has come off and has exposed reinforcement bars in a widearea.

(c) A large volume of concrete has come off and has exposed reinforcement bars in a wide
area.
V.

If the column has deformed in the vertical direction, the damage will be at the level

Photo 3.2.2-2

Example of damage level IV （Cont.）102

(a) The reinforcement bars have bent and the concrete inside the column has collapsed.
The column has deformed in the vertical direction.

(b) The column capital and base have fractured due to bending shear and have deformed
the column in the vertical direction.
Photo 3.2.2-3

Example of damage level V
103

(c) See-through shear cracks on a wall; also the wall and column reinforcement bars are
significantly bent.
Photo 3.2.2-3

Photo 3.2.2-4

Example of damage level V （Cont.）

Example of the sinking and tilt of an entire building.

104

Photo 3.2.2-5

Example of building tilting at 2 degrees or more

Example of the damage due to partial inclination that is caused by the fracture of first-floor
columns
Photo 3.2.2-6

Example of the damage due to partial inclination

105

Example of the damage due to a large horizontal deformation caused by the damage ofcolumns
Photo 3.2.2-7

Example of the damage due to partial inclination

Photo 3.2.2-8

Example of a Rank C falling object
106

Total column should
be filled in with figures

S
Table 3.2.2-2 Quick Inspection Sheet for Steel Buildings[1]Serial No.
Inspection date and hour
Name of the inspector (county and prefecture / No.)Time of inspection(／(／

Serial No.
))

Outline of the building
1 Name of the building
1.1 Building No.
2 Address of the building
2.1 Serial No. in the residential district map
3 Use 1.Detached house 2.Tenement style 3.Apartment house 4.Dwelling house combined with otheruses 5.Store 6.Office 7.Inn and Hotel 8.Public facilities such as a government building
9.Hospital and clinic 10.Day nursery 11.Factory 12.Warehouse 13.School 14.Gymnasium
15.Theater, amusement facilities 16.Others ()
4 Type of Structure
1.Rigid frame 2.Brace 3.Prefabrication 4.Others ()
5 Number of stories
Above groundand undergroundab
6 Size of the building
Dimensions of the first floorm×m
Inspection Inspection method:(1. Appearance inspection only 2. Appearance and internal visualinspection)
Inspection 1 The degree of danger judged at a glance (mark the appropriate items with a circle, judge thebuilding to be dangerous, stop the inspection and skip to the comprehensive judgment).
1. Entire or partial collapse and fallen floors of the 2. Significant destruction of the foundation and its
building
significant displacement from the superstructure
3. Significant inclination of the building in whole or 4. Others ()
in partBuilding No.
Serial No. in the residential district map
3
4
Above
groundUndergroundab

storiesstoriesmm
Inspection method

1

Inspection 2 The degree of danger judged from the states of the adjacent buildings, the nearby ground, thebuilding frames and other factors
Rank A
Rank B
Rank C①Presence of danger caused by destruction of the 1. No
2. Uncertain
3. Yes①
adjacent buildings and the nearby ground②Inclination of the entire building due to differential 1. Less than 1/300
2. 1/300 - 1/100
3. More than 1/100②
settlement③Inclination of the building in whole or in part③
When the number of floors above the 1. Less than 1/100
2. 1/100 - 1/30
3. More than 1/30
floor where the inclination started is one
or less
When the number of floors above the 1. Less than 1/200
2. 1/200 - 1/50
3. More than 1/50
floor where the inclination started is two
or moreThe most ④Occurrence of buckling of member
1. No buckling
2. Local buckling
3. Overall buckling The most seriously damaged floor
seriouslyor significant local④
damagedbuckling
floor⑤Rate of bracing rupture
1. Less than 20 %2. 20 % - 50 %3. More than 50 %⑤()
⑥Rupture of the column-beam joint 1. No rupture
2. Partial rupture or 3. Rupture of more⑥
section and joint
cracksthan 20 %⑦Destruction of the column base
1. None2. Partial
3. Significant⑦⑧Occurrence of corrosion

1. Almostcorrosion

Judgment of the degree of danger

no1. Inspected(when all items are
given Rank A)(internal
visualinspection required)2.
Significant
corrosion in various
places
2. Limited entry(when three or lessitems are given
Rank B)The degree of danger caused by falling and shifting of objects
Rank A
Rank B①Roofing material
1. Almost no damage
2. Significant displacement

3. Pores observedin various places⑧

3. Unsafe(when one or more
items are given
Rank C, or whenfour or more items
are given Rank B)

Judgment

Inspection 3②Frame and glass of thewindow③Exterior finishing material(for wet construction)④Exterior finishing material(for dry construction)

1. Almost no damage

2. Deformation and cracks

1. Almost no damage
1. Slight damage such as
cracks in the joint

2. Partial cracking andcrevices
2. Crevices observed in theplate⑤Signboard and fitting⑥Exterior escape stair⑦Others ()
Judgment of the degree of
danger

1. No tilt
1. No tilt
1. Safe
1. Inspected(when all items are given
Rank A)

2. A slight tilt
2. A slight tilt
2. Special attention required
2. Limited entry(when one or more items
are given Rank B)

Rank C
3. Overall displacement anddestruction
3. Danger of falling
3. Significant cracking andspalling
3. Significant displacementof the joint and destructionof the plate
3. Danger of falling
3. A significant tilt
3. Dangerous
3. Unsafe(when one or more items
are given Rank C)

①
②
③
④
⑤
⑥
⑦
Judgment

Comprehensive judgment (the building should be judged here to be dangerous if it was judged to be
dangerous in Inspection 1; otherwise it should be judged according to the degree of danger in Inspection 2 or Comprehensive Judgment
in Inspection 3, whichever is greater).
1. Inspected (green)
2. Limited entry (yellow)
3. Unsafe (red)Comment (state whether danger is from the building frame, or from falling objects)

Note: comments should be the same as the notes written on stickers.

107

Photo 3.2.2-9 Damage of the PC curtain wall of a 5-story, moment resisting frame
structure office building

Photo 3.2.2-10

Yield and fracture of a beam end inside a 5-story, moment resisting frame
structure office building108

Photo 3.2.2-11 A building collapsed at low stories.

Photo 3.2.2-12

A building inclined to a large extent
109

Photo 3.2.2-13

Serious damage of piles

Photo 3.2.2-14 Danger of building site collapse
110Photo 3.2.2-15

A building with the risk of collapse

Photo 3.2.2-16 Surrounding area of the building settled due to ground liquefaction
111

Photo 3.2.2-17

A building inclined due to the lateral flow of the ground (displacement ofbulkhead)

Photo 3.2.2-18

A condominium inclined due to differential settlement
112

Photo 3.2.2-19 An inclined building

Photo 3.2.2-20

A building inclined at the 1st and 2nd floors only113

Photo 3.2.2-21

A locally buckled column

Photo 3.2.2-22

A totally buckled column
114Photo 3.2.2-23 Rupture of angle braces

Photo 3.2.2-24

Buckling of wide-flange-shaped braces
115

Photo 3.2.2-25 Rupture of a welded beam end

Photo 3.2.2-26 Rupture of a welded part between column and diaphragm116

Photo 3.2.2-27 Displacement of a concrete column base of insufficient encasing height

Photo 3.2.2-28 Concrete below a column base plate that has lost its axial load supporting
capacity.

117

Photo 3.2.2-29

Minor damage on an exposed column base

Photo 3.2.2-30 Example of Rank C falling object
118

Total column should
be filled in with figures

W[1]

Table 3.2.2-3 Quick Inspection Sheet for Wooden Buildings

Serial No.
Serial No.
Inspection date and hour
Name of the inspector (county and prefecture / No.)Time of inspection
(
／
(
／

)
)

Outline of the building
1 Name of the building
1.1 Building No.
2 Address of the building
2.1 Serial No. in the residential district map
3 Use 1.Detached house 2.Tenement style 3.Apartment house 4.Dwelling house combined with otheruses 5.Store 6.Office 7.Inn and Hotel 8.Public facilities such as a government building
9.Hospital and clinic 10.Day nursery 11.Factory 12.Warehouse 13.School 14.Gymnasium
15.Theater, amusement facilities 16.Others ()
4 Type of Structure
1.Conventional framework 2.Wood frame construction 3.Prefabrication
4.Others ()
5 Number of stories
1.One-storied house 2.Two-storied house 3.Others ()
6 Size of the building
Dimensions of the first floor am×bm
Inspection Inspection method:(1. Appearance inspection only 2. Appearance and internal visualinspection)
Inspection 1 The degree of danger judged at a glance (mark the appropriate items with a circle, judge thebuilding to be dangerous, stop the inspection and skip to the comprehensive judgment).
1. Entire or partial collapse and fallen floors of the 2. Significant destruction of the foundation and its
building
significant displacement from the superstructure
3. Significant inclination of the building in whole or 4. Others ()
in partInspection 2 The degree of danger judged from the states of the adjacent buildings, the nearby ground, thebuilding frames and other factors
Rank A
Rank B
Rank C① Presence of danger 1. No
2. Uncertain
3. Yescaused by destruction of
the adjacent buildings
and the nearby ground② Inclination of the 1. None or slight
2. Significant falling in 3. Destruction of theentire building due toor rising up of the floor roof truss and thedifferential settlement
and the roof
settlement of the entire
floor③Damage to the base
1. None2. Partial
3. Significant (withdestruction)④Tilt of the first floor of 1. Less than 1/60
2. 1/60 - 1/20
3. More than 1/20
the building⑤Damage to the walls
1. Slight cracks
2. Serious cracking and 3. Danger of falling
spalling⑥Corrosion and damage 1. Almost none
2. Partial chipping 3. Serious chippingaway of the section
away of the section
Judgment of the degree 1. Inspected
2. Limited entry
3. Unsafeof danger(when all items are (when one or more (when one or more
given Rank A)
items are given Rank items are given Rank
B)C)
The degree of danger caused by falling and shifting of objects
Rank A
Rank B①Roofing tile
1. Almost no damage
2.
Significant
displacement② Frame and glass 1. Almost no damage
2. Deformation andof the window
cracks③Exterior finishing 1. Almost no damage
2. Partial cracking andmaterial (for wet
crevices
construction)④Exterior finishing 1. Slight damage such as 2. Crevices observed inmaterial (for dry cracks in the joint
the plateconstruction)

Building No.
Serial No. in the residential district map
3
4
5
a
b

m
m
Inspection method

1

①

②
③
④
⑤
⑥
Judgment

Inspection 3⑤ Signboard andfitting⑥ Exterior escapestair⑦Others ()
Judgment of thedegree of danger

Rank C
3. Overall displacementand destruction
3. Danger of falling
3. Significant cracking
and spalling

1. No tilt

2. A slight tilt

3.
Significant
displacement of the joint
and destruction of theplate
3. Danger of falling

1. No tilt

2. A slight tilt

3. A significant tilt

1. Safe2.
Specialattentionrequired
2. Limited entry(when one or more items
are given Rank B)

3. Dangerous

1. Inspected(when all items are given
Rank A)

3. Unsafe(when one or more items
are given Rank C)

①
②
③

④
⑤
⑥
⑦
Judgment

Comprehensive judgment (the building should be judged here to be dangerous if it was judged to be
dangerous in Inspection 1; otherwise it should be judged according to the degree of danger in Inspection 2 orComprehensive Judgment
in Inspection 3, whichever is greater).
1. Inspected (green)
2. Limited entry (yellow)
3. Unsafe (red)Comment (state whether danger is from the building frame, or from falling objects)

Note: comments should be the same as the notes written on stickers.

119Photo 3.2.2-31

A scene of apparent unsafe

Photo 3.2.2-32

A scene of apparent unsafe
120

Photo 3.2.2-33 Differential settlement of a building (Rank A)
This mono-color photo is produced by BRI members.

Photo 3.2.2-34 Differential settlement of a building (Rank B)
121

Photo 3.2.2-35 Differential settlement of a building (Rank C)
This mono-color photo is produced by BRI members.

Photo 3.2.2-36 Damage on a foundation (Rank C)
122

Photo 3.2.2-37

Tilting of a building at the first floor (Rank B)

Photo 3.2.2-38

Tilting of a building at the first floor (Rank C)
123

Photo 3.2.2-39 Damage on a wall (exterior wall) (Rank B)

Photo 3.2.2-40 Damage on a wall (interior wall) (Rank B)
124

Photo 3.2.2-41 Damage on a wall (exterior wall) (Rank B)

Photo 3.2.2-42 Damage on a wall (exterior wall) (Rank B)

125

Photo 3.2.2-43 Damage on a wall (exterior wall) (Rank C)

Photo 3.2.2-44

Ant damage (Rank C)
126

Photo 3.2.2-45

Ant damage (Rank C)

Photo 3.2.2-46 An object that can fall (roof tile) (Rank C)
This mono-color photo is produced by BRI members.

127

Photo 3.2.2-47 An object that can fall (Rank B)

Photo 3.2.2-48 An object that can fall (Rank C)
128

Photo 3.2.2-49 An object that can overturn (block wall) (Rank C)

129

Other Example 1[Rapid Evaluation Method in the United States][1]1) Objective
The objective of Rapid Evaluation is to quickly, and with a minimum of
manpower, inspect and evaluate buildings in the damaged area. Following a damaging
earthquake, there is usually a scarcity of skilled manpower available to conductbuilding-by-building inspections. It has been the experience to date in California that most
initial post event inspection are done by building inspectors from the local building
department or from nearby communities. These individuals are employed by building
departments to inspect construction, check plans, evaluate dangerous conditions, andperform similar tasks. As a rule, most building departments have many more building
inspectors than structural plan checkers or structural engineers.

Rapid Evaluation is designed to utilize the talents and experience of building
inspectors and other people with similar experience in construction. This does not, of course,
preclude the possibility of using experienced structural engineers, architects, etc., to do
initial evaluations.

Once all buildings in a given area have been inspected and those that areapparently safe or obviously unsafe have been posted, the remaining structures, theso-called gray-area buildings, are left for a Detailed Evaluation by a structural engineer.
This approach conserves the generally limited structural engineering resources for thosebuildings that require more extensive visual examination and detailed knowledge ofstructural design to evaluate.

2) Qualifications of Damage Inspectors
The Rapid Evaluation method is designed for use by individuals with at least
5 years of experience in general building design, construction, or inspection. This includes
building inspectors in particular as well as volunteer civil/structural engineers, architects,
building contractors, and others who have been involved in the building design andconstruction process. While the procedures given in Section 3) are fairly general and theexpertise of structural engineers is not

130Table3.2.2-4

Basic Rapid Evaluation Criteria[1]Condition

Posting

1. Building has collapsed, partially collapsed, or moved off its foundation

UNSAFE

2. Building or any story is significantly out of plumb

UNSAFE

3. Obvious severe damage to primary structural members, severe racking of UNSAFE
walls, or other signs of severe distress present
4. Obvious parapet, chimney or other falling hazard present

AREA
UNSAFE

5. Large fissures in ground, massive ground movement, or slope UNSAFE
displacement present
6.

Other hazard present (e.g., toxic spill, asbestos contamination, broken gas UNSAFE orline, fallen power line)
AREA
UNSAFEessential, it is desirable to use individuals familiar with the structural aspects of building
construction. The damage inspectors need to have a basic familiarity with building
construction so that structural damage or any unusual situations (e.g., cracks in the ground,falling hazards) can be readily recognized. Individuals with previous post earthquake
building safety evaluation experience as well as those who have participated in special
training programs will generally make excellent choices.

3) Rapid Evaluation Procedure and Criteria
This procedure begins with a reconnaissance of a damage area, or a suspected
damage area. The general level of damage or lack of damage should be noted because this isoften an important clue to the likelihood of finding damage and to its severity. When abuilding is selected for evaluation, Rapid Evaluation is done by first examining the outsideof the structure. The inspector should walk around the entire structure, if this is possible.
Ordinarily, only the exterior of the building is inspected at this time, unless there is asuspected or reported problem. This is done primarily to maximize the number of131inspections in the immediate post event period. If a building is clearly in an unsafe
condition, it should not be entered.

Each building is evaluated using the six basic Rapid Evaluation criteria given in Table
3.2.2-4. These are used to rate the building's condition with respect to safety of occupants
and the public.

The six criteria selected for the Rapid Evaluation process were chosen for being externallyobservable conditions or items of damage that, individually or collectively, are sufficient towarrant use of the Unsafe or, in the case of falling or other hazards, the Area Unsafe posting
categories. Because the Rapid Evaluation process is designed to conserve anticipatedlimited manpower resources, the damage assessments are necessarily coarse. Inspectors are
to look for readily observable, gross kinds of structural distress, such as partial collapse,
leaning buildings, and partial chimney collapse. In addition, geotechnical conditions, suchas slope movement, that threaten building safety are grounds for posting a structure Unsafe.
A Rapid Evaluation form is given in the next page.
Buildings that are apparently safe are to be posted Inspected, and the Inspected placard is to
be marked to indicate whether this inspection was "exterior" only or "exterior and interior".
Generally, an initial Rapid Evaluation will be only of the exterior for reasons discussed
above. If occupants report a problem, or if the building cannot be adequately viewed fromthe outside, or if a problem is suspected, the interior should also be inspected.
Unsafe buildings must be posted as soon as possible with the Unsafe placard and theoccupants informed that they must leave the premises immediately. Placards must be placedat all entrances.

Because many structures will not fall easily into either the Inspected (i.e., apparently safe)or Unsafe classifications, the third posting classification, Limited Entry, will also have to be
used. This is to be used when the level of safety concern is doubtful and the structure's
condition is neither apparently safe nor obviously unsafe.

132

Table3.2.2-5

Rapid Evaluation Inspection Procedure[1]1. Examine the entire outside of the structure.
2. Examine the ground in the general area of the structure for fissures, bulged ground, orsigns of slope movement.
3. Ordinarily enter a building only when the structure cannot be viewed sufficiently fromthe outside or when there is suspected or reported problem such as gross nonstructural
distress (e.g., fallen ceiling or badly damaged partitions visible from the outside). Do notenter obviously unsafe structures.
4. Evaluate the structure using the six criteria (Table 3.2.2-4), and complete the Rapid
Evaluation form. Doubtful buildings should be slated for Detailed Evaluation. Make sure
exitways are clear.
5. Post the structure according to the results of the evaluation. Use one of the three placards(Inspected, Limited Entry, or Unsafe). On the Inspected placard, indicate whether only the"exterior" or the "exterior and interior" was inspected by checking the appropriate box. Post
every entrance to a building classified Limited Entry or Unsafe.
6. Explain the significance of Limited Entry or Unsafe postings to building occupants, andadvise them to leave immediately. Areas designated Area Unsafe must also be evacuated.

Limited Entry placards are to be placed at each entrance, and the occupants informed of thesignificance of the damage. Generally, entry is permitted only for emergency purposes, andthis will be indicated on the placard. A structure designated Limited Entry must be given a
subsequent Detailed Evaluation, and this requirement is indicated by the damage inspector
on the Rapid Evaluation form.

The entire Rapid Evaluation procedure is summarized on Table3.2.2-5.

References[1] ATC20, Procedures for Post-earthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings, Applied
Technology Council, 1989.
[2] ATC20-1, Addendum to the ATC20 Post-Earthquake Building Safety Evaluation
Procedure, Applied Technology Council, 1995.
133

Table 3.2.2-6

134

[1]

Other Example 2

Damage classification forms[1] in Turkey are shown in the following pages. These
forms were proposed by the Specialist Team of Japan International Cooperation Agency toTurkey government, at the time of the Izmit, Turkey Earthquake of August 17, 1999. Other
forms proposed by the local government in Turkey were also used.

Reference[1] Fumitoshi Kumazawa, Takashi Kaminosono, Yoshiaki Nakano; “Quick Inspection
Procedure Applicable to RC Buildings in Turkey,” Proceedings of the Third Japan-Turkey
Workshop on Earthquake Engineering, pp.400-402, 21-25 Feb. 2000.

135

Table 3.2.2-7

136

[1]

Table 3.2.2-7 (Cont.)137

Table 3.2.2-7 (Cont.)

138

3.2.3. Damage Classification[1]This section mainly presents the method of damage classification in Japan.
The methods in the U.S. and Italy are attached as Other Example 1 and 2, respectively, atthe end of the section.
To evaluate the safety of damaged buildings for permanent use, the class ofdamage shall be judged during a period from the 7th to 60th days, or for a longer perioddepending on the disaster level, after an earthquake has occurred. This involves doing adetailed survey to classifying the damage as slight damage, light damage, moderate damage,major damage and collapse. The survey is of the external appearance and inside of theobject building and is done by building construction engineers according to the request of
the building owner.

1) Definition and purpose of damage classification
The damage classification is for building construction engineers to enter theobject building damaged by an earthquake to inspect its settlement, inclination, and damageof structure, classify the damage as one of the above five levels, and judge whether
restoration work is necessary for continued use.
Immediately after an earthquake, building construction engineers do both of
the following:(1) Judge the danger of the object building to collapse or that of the objects attached thereto
to fall down or overturn at aftershocks, post a sticker to indicate "unsafe", "limited
entry", or "inspected", and provide the building owner and third party pedestrians with
the information whether entry is allowed, in order to avoid danger as part of "quick
inspection", and(2) Assess the class of damage of the structure of the damaged building as a next step andjudge whether restoration work is necessary for continued use based on the result of the" damage classification ".
The above steps are to expedite the restoration of damaged buildings anddisaster area.
Major objects of the damage classification are the buildings judged as"unsafe" or "limited entry" due to structural damage by the quick inspection or thosebuildings judged as damaged equally or more seriously by other technological judgment. In
addition, the degree of danger of the buildings judged as "inspected" is also judged inprinciple if the owner continues to use or permanently uses the building. This is because theresult of the quick inspection, which is mainly based on an appearance inspection during ashort period of time immediately after the earthquake, may change when the damage is139

inspected more thoroughly at a later date.
In the damage classification, the earthquake-resistance capability remainedwith the object building or the residual aseismic performance ratio R (%) is assessed. R is
an indication introduced into this criterion to express the ratio between the aseismic
performance levels before and after the building is damaged; it is estimated based on thedamage of the structure to judge whether restoration work is necessary for continued use.
Because this requires expert knowledge of building structure, the class of damage isnormally judged by building construction engineers (Class 1 registered architects, Class 2
registered architects, and registered architects for wooden buildings).
For each structural type, such as reinforced concrete, steel framed reinforced
concrete, steel structure and wooden structures, a criterion on damage classification andguideline for restoration technology are prepared. Then, a procedure based on the class ofdamage of the building, the residual aseismic performance ratio R and the seismic intensity
scale in the area is used to judge the necessity or degree of required restoration work.
Inspectors use the announced seismic intensity scale or determine a scale when seismic
intensity in the area concerned can be judged based on the actual ground conditions, disastersituation and the scale of seismic intensity in the neighboring areas. There are generally
directions involved in the intensity of earthquake ground motion and structuralcharacteristics (strength and toughness) of buildings. The ground motion sometimes works
favorably on buildings to reduce damage depending on the combination of dominantdirections. In such a case, therefore, it is important to carefully judge the necessity anddegree of restoration work.

2) Significance and the procedure for restoration from disasterTo restore damaged buildings promptly, it is extremely important for
construction engineers, facility owners, and building managers to thoroughly discuss
restoration strategies in advance and prepare a restoration procedure. Fig. 3.2.3-1 shows
an example of the procedure for restoration from disaster. As seen in the figure, there arenormally several ordered stages in the restoration procedure.
(1) 1st stage (immediately after the occurrence of disaster): Quick inspection (survey ofthe safety against aftershocks)(2) 2nd stage (after the confusion is calmed to some extent): Damage classification (surveyof the class of damage and the necessity of restoration work)(3) 3rd stage (during the stabilized period): Restoration plan and work

140

Occurrence of earthquake(1) Quick inspection･Inspected(Green)･Limited entry(Yellow)･Unsafe(Red)

Emergency action(2) Application of the criterion on damage classification
Restoration obviously
impossible

Class of damage
Judgment of the necessity of restoration work

Restoration
unnecessary

Restorationnecessary

Restoration
impossible(3) Application of the technical guideline
for restoration
Restoration plan
Judgment of the applicability ofrepair and strengthening*

No

Applicable

RepairStrengthening

Continued use(permanent use when the building has been so restored.)

Demolition and removal* The possibility of restoration shall be comprehensively judged from the technological
viewpoint while taking into consideration economy and possibility of performing
restoration work
Fig. 3.2.3-1

Example of a flow of restoration work from a disaster.[1]As different aspects should be judged in different ways, the flow will become
more complicated in actuality depending on the magnitude of disaster and structure type. It
shall be noted that until the restoration of damaged buildings is completed, the aseismic
performance available for permanent use is not guaranteed, and it is only a temporary
measure to use the damaged buildings for the time being. Even if it is judged possible torepair a slightly damaged building for continued use, it shall be retrofited to ensure the141earthquake resistance stipulated in the law (hereinafter referred to as the "aseismic
retrofitting expedition act").
The following are the definition of each item in the flow in Fig. 3.2.3-1 anditems to be noted.
・Quick inspection: The quick inspection is to inspect the structure and building framesof the object building, its periphery and risky objects to fall or overturn, and judge whether
the use of the building shall be limited to prevent secondary disasters due to aftershocks.
・Temporary measure: The temporary measure is to install temporary support members
to prevent the collapse of buildings or prevent damage from propagating on buildings,
members, and parts judged as "unsafe" (with a red sticker) or "limited entry" (with a yellow
sticker) by the quick inspection or judged as equivalent with regard to the degree of danger
by other technical standards. This also involves removing objects that could fall or overturn,take protective measures, and set entry prohibited areas.
・ Restoration: Restoration is to recover or improve the structural performance,
durability, and functions of buildings damaged by an earthquake, including the following
repair and strengthening.
・Repair: Repair is to recover the structural performance of damaged buildings to theoriginal level (before the disaster).
・Strengthening: Strengthening is to improve the structural performance above theoriginal level (before the disaster).
・Continued use: Continued use is to use damaged buildings temporarily by applying
repair, strengthening, and other measures for the period until permanent use is approved.
・Permanent use: Permanent use is to use damaged buildings for a long period of timeafter applying permanent restoration measures.

3) Scope of application and items to be noted
The criterion on damage classification and technical guideline for restoration
are prepared for each structure type. However, there are buildings of special construction,
which are different from the conventional construction method, that are built for special
purposes after deliberate discussions. Because such special buildings have few experiencesof earthquake damage and thus one has little knowledge of the method to judge the damagelevel, this criterion does not assume the judgment on such buildings. If such buildings
have been damaged by an earthquake, a special team shall be organized including design
engineers of the building, therefore, to judge the damage level. The following are structure
types out of the scope of this criterion. See relevant provisions for more information on each142

type.
・High-rise building
・Long-span structure
・Traditional construction for shrines and temples
The relevant criterion shall be applied to each part of buildings that havemixed structures, such as indoor gymnasiums whose substructure is composed of concreteand superstructure or roof is made of steel. A number of buildings at the 1995 Hyogo-ken
Nanbu earthquake had damage to their joint between the above two parts. The damage
caused the anchor bolts to slip off or the concrete to come off. The damage level at the joint
and the method of restoration should be determined according to the criterion of damage
classification and guideline for the restoration for steel structure buildings.
In addition, different earthquakes often occur in the same area withmagnitudes equal to or a larger than that of the first earthquake that occurred a little earlier;
however, they are not regarded as aftershocks in terms of seismology. Recent, well-known,
typical combinations of an earthquake and a subsequent earthquake that was larger in scaleand damage are the Miyagiken-oki Earthquake in February 1978 (M6.7) and the later
earthquake at the same place in June 1978 (M7.4), and the Kagoshimaken-Hokuseibu
Earthquake in March 1997 (M6.2) and the later Kagoshima Prefecture Satsuma area
earthquake (M6.3) in May 1997. As referred to above, it shall be noted that the restorationof damaged buildings after an earthquake does not necessarily guarantee the aseismic
performance for permanent use because it is only a temporary measure to use the damagedbuildings for the time being. Even if it is possible to repair a slightly damaged building foruse, it is requested to confirm that the restored building satisfies the aseismic performance
stipulated in the Aseismic Retrofitting Expedition Act, and appropriately retrofit it toguarantee permanent use in case it does not.

In the following pages, mono-color photos and full-color photos are presented.
Generally, the mono-color photos are quoted from Reference [1]. And the full-color photos
are produced by the members of Building Research Institute, Ministry of Construction, until
1995.

References[1] "Damage classification method for damaged buildings post-earthquake and seismic
retrofit guideline", The Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association, Sept. 2001. (inJapanese)143

Table 3.2.3-1 Investigation Sheet for Judging the Class of Damage
to Reinforced Concrete Buildings and Steel Framed Reinforced Concrete Buildings[1]Serial No.:Time of inspection:

Inspection date and hour:
Inspector:
Inspector's position:

1. Outline of the building
1.1 Name of the building:
1.2 Address of the building:
1.3 Owner of the building:
Address for contact:
Address for contact:
1.4 Person for contact:
1.5 Use (Choice of multiple items allowed):□Office □Housing □Apartment □Store □Factory □Warehouse □School □Day nursery□Government building □Public hall □Gymnasium □Hospital □Others ()
1.6 Type of structure: □Reinforced concrete □Pre-cast concrete □Concrete block□Steel framed reinforced concrete □Hybrid structure of () and ()
1.7 Structural form:□Rigid frame □Bearing wall □Others ()
1.8 Structure of the foundation:□Spread foundation □Piling foundation (Type:)
1.9 Size of the building: () stories above and () stories under the ground, penthouse (stories)
Dimensions of the first floor: about (m)×(m)
1.10 Geographical features of the site: □Flat □Slope □Plateau □Basin □Others ()
1.11 Surrounding geographical features of the site: The site is (m) away from a precipice, (m) away from a river, the sea, a lake ora swamp (Note: no entry is needed when the distance to each feature is 50 m or more)
1.12 Exterior finish (Choice of multiple items allowed):□Fair-faced concrete □Mortar □Tile □Stone pitching □Curtain wall
□PC plate □ALC plate □Block □Others ()
1.13 Drawings and specifications
Structural calculation sheet: □Retained □Not retained
Drawings for design presentation: □Retained □Not retained
Construction record: □Retained □Not retained
1.14 Construction date Year () (□1971 or earlier □1972 or later □unknown)
2. Class of damage
2.1 Judgment based on the collapse of the building and the falling in of its floors
Whether the collapse or the falling occurred:□Yes (Proceed to 2.3, omit calculation, and classify the damage to the superstructure as "collapse") □No (move to 2.2)
2.2 Judgment based on the settlement and the inclination of the foundation
Damage to the foundation
Whether the pile was damaged: □Yes □No □unknown
Whether liquefaction of the ground occurred: □Yes
① Settlement of the foundation S =m②Inclination of the foundation θ x =

rad.

θy =

（0.01 rad. = 0.573 degree，

rad.

2

2

=

rad.

1 degree = 0.01745 rad.）

Table 1
Class of damage to the building with the piling foundation
Settlement of the foundation (m)
0
0.1
0.3
No
Light
Moderate※
damagedamagedamage1/300
LightModerate
Moderate
Major
Inclination
damagedamagedamagedamageof the1/150 Moderate
Moderate
Major
Major
foundation
damagedamagedamagedamage
1/75
Major
Major
Major
Major
damagedamagedamagedamage※:Excluded from the assumption as it requires a detailed inspection.

Table 2
Class of damage to the building with the spread foundation
Settlement of the foundation (m)
0.05
0.1
0.3
No
Light
※
※
damagedamage1/150
LightModerate Moderate
Inclination※
damagedamagedamageof the1/75
Moderate Moderate
Major
Major
foundation
damagedamagedamagedamage
1/30
Major
Major
Major
Major
damagedamagedamagedamageClass of damage by the settlement and the inclination of the foundation□No damage□Light damage□Moderate damage
2.3

θ = θ x +θ y□No □unknown□Major damage

Judgment based on the residual aseismic performance ratio R of the superstructure① The most seriously damaged floor and the direction of the damage
Floor (
) Direction: □Direction of the short side □Direction of the long side② Necessity of zoning:□Unnecessary (judgment is made from the entire building)□Necessary (judgment is made from zone to zone with zones shown in a floor plan or the like)

144

Table 3.2.3-1 (Cont.)③

The result of inspection of the damage level of structural members*Enter the appropriate number of columns or walls in parentheses and total them.
With regard to the "wall with the double-side column", one span of the wall should be counted as one wall.
Shearing column Bending column Wall with no Wall with the Wall with thecolumnsingle-side
double-sidecolumncolumnTotal of members (
)
+ (
)
+ (
)
+ (
)
+ (
)
=
Number ofmembers
+ (
+ (
+ (
+ (
=
(
)①
)②
)③
)④
)⑤
inspected
①×1

+

②×1

+

③×1

+

④×2

Total

(

)

(

)

+

⑤×6

=

(

)

= AorgDamage level 0

( )

+ ( )

+ ( )

+ ( )×2

+

( )×6

=

(

)

= A0

Damage level I( )×0.95+ ( )×0.95+ ( )×0.95+ ( )×1.9+( )×5.7

=

(

)

= A1

Damage level II( )×0.6+ ( )×0.75+ ( )×0.6+ ( )×1.2+( )×3.6

=

(

)

= A2

Damage level III( )×0.3+ ( )×0.5+ ( )×0.3+ ( )×0.6+( )×1.8

=

(

)

= A3

Damage level IV( )×0+ ( )×0.1+ ( )×0+ ( )×0

+

( )×0

=

(

)

= A4

Damage level V( )×0+ ( )×0+ ( )×0+ ( )×0

+

( )×0

=

0

∑ A =A + A + A + A + A + A
j

④

0

1

2

3

4

5

= A5
=(

)

Residual aseismic performance ratio R

R=∑ A ×100 = (
j

Aorg

(

)
×100 = ())

Class of damage by the residual aseismic performance ratio R of the superstructure□No damage（ R = 100 ）□Slight damage（ 95 ≤ R < 100 ） □Light damage（ 80 ≤ R < 95 ）□Moderate damage（ 60 ≤ R < 80 ） □Major damage（ R < 60 ）□Collapse ( R can be considered almost 0 because of thecollapse of the building and the falling in of its floors)
3. Damage to other parts
Damage to accessory structures (when damaged, enter in the blanks the damage conditions, dangerous places and whether action should betaken)□Floor slab:□Not damaged□Damaged（）□Penthouse:□Not damaged□Damaged（）□Exterior escape stair:□Not damaged□Damaged（）□Roof-top chimney:□Not damaged□Damaged（）□Connecting corridor:□Not damaged□Damaged（）□Expansion joint:□Not damaged□Damaged（）□Others ():□Not damaged□Damaged（）
4. Judgment of the necessity of the restoration
Announced seismic intensity scale: □VI-plus or higher □VI-minus □V-plus □V-minus or lower (Detailed inspection required)
Table 3 Necessity to restore the foundation
Class ofdamageLight
Moderate
Major
Seismic
damagedamagedamageintensity
scale
V-minus or
×
×
×
lower
V-plus△××
VI-minus○△
×
VI-plus or○○△
higherTable 4 Necessity to urgently restore the superstructure
Class of
Moderate
Major damage
Slight damage
Light damage
damagedamageor collapsed
Seismic
intensity
95 ≤ R < 100
80 ≤ R < 95
60 ≤ R < 80
R < 60scale
V-minus or
×
×
×
×
lower
V-plus◎△△△VI-minus◎○(△)△△
VI-plus or
◎
◎(○)
○(△)
△
higher*( ) applies to the buildings constructed in 1971 or earlier

・Class of damage to the foundation: □No damage □Light damage □Moderate damage □Major Damage
・Necessity to restore the foundation:□Unnecessary (no damage) □Repair (○) □Repair (detailed inspection desirable) (△) □Detailed inspection (×)
・Class of damage to the superstructure:□No damage □Slight damage □Light Damage □Moderate damage □Major damage □Collapse
・Necessity to urgently restore the superstructure:□Unnecessary (no damage) □Small repair (◎) □Emergency restoration(repair of the structure) (○) □Emergency measure or
emergency restoration (△) □Detailed inspection (×) □Indisputably no possibility of emergency restoration (collapse)

145

Table 3.2.3-2 Criterion on the damage level [1]Damage level ofcolumn and bearing
Description of damage
wall
Cracks invisible from a remote distance (widthⅠ
0.2 mm or less)
Cracks visible with the naked eye (width 0.2 to
Ⅱ
1 mm)
Ⅲ
Ⅳ

Ⅴ

Comparatively large cracks with small amountsof concrete coming off (width 1 to 2mm)
Large cracks (wider than 2mm) in quantities
with concrete came off to expose reinforcement
in a wide area
Reinforcement bent and the inside concrete
came off with the column (bearing wall)
apparently deformed in the vertical andhorizontal directions, and settled or inclinedwith reinforcement sometimes broken.

146

Holding

Residual horizontal
strength
Residual verticalstrength

None
None

Holding

Ⅰ

Ⅱ

Ⅲ

Horizontal load

Damage Level

Decrease

Ⅳ

Ⅴ

Compression failureof covering concrete
Yield of main
reinforcement

Buckling of main reinforcement,
Compression failure and exfoliationof concrete

Cracks occur

Deformation(a) Case of member with plastic deformation capability (Bending resisting member)

Residual horizontal
strength
Residual verticalstrength
Ⅰ

Decrease

None

Holding

Decrease

None

Ⅳ

Ⅴ

Ⅱ

Ⅲ

Horizontal load

Damage Level

Holding

Exfoliation of covering
concrete, Extension ofshear cracks
Rupture of shear
reinforcing bar,
Buckling of main
reinforcement
Cracks occur

Deformation(b) Case of member which breaks in brittle fracture (Shear resisting member)

Fig.3.2.3-2 Concept of load-deformation relationship and damage level [1]147Photo 3.2.3-1

About 2-mm-wide X-shaped cracks on the column and large cracks on the
covering concrete

Photo 3.2.3-2 Covering concrete has come off to a large extent, but the column structure
concrete has not come off much. The reinforcement is slightly exposed without
deformation.
148

Photo 3.2.3-3

About 2-mm-wide diagonal cracks on the wall without concrete coming off
or without compression failure.

Photo 3.2.3-4 Diagonal cracks on the wall and cracks at the joint between lower beam partand wall plate that is caused by sliding without deformation of vertical wall reinforcement.
149

Photo 3.2.3-5 Cracks wider than 2 mm on the column with concrete that came off toexpose reinforcement, but without buckling or deformation

Photo 3.2.3-6

Concrete seriously came off to expose reinforcement to a large extent, but
without buckling or deformation
150

Photo 3.2.3-7 Covering concrete seriously came off and a number of diagonal cracks
wider than 2 mm, but without buckling or deformation of reinforcement.

Photo 3.2.3-8 Diagonal cracks on the wall and cracks at the joint between lower column
part and wall plate that was caused by sliding with local deformation of part of the verticalwall reinforcement.
151

Photo 3.2.3-9 A number of large diagonal cracks on the wall and column to expose
reinforcement without buckling, break, or deformation in the vertical direction.

Photo 3.2.3-10 The main reinforcement buckled, hoop hock disconnected, and insideconcrete that came off with apparent deformation into the vertical and horizontal directions.
152

Photo 3.2.3-11 Large see-through cracks on the wall with significantly-bent wall
reinforcement.

Photo 3.2.3-12 Large and oblique see-through diagonal cracks on the wall with concretecoming off.
153

Photo 3.2.3-13 The 1st floor columns broken to cause a story collapse and the 2nd story
and above fallen down.

.Photo 3.2.3-14 The 1st floor columns broke thus significantly tilting the entire building154

Photo 3.2.3-15 The three spans of the 1st floor on the right side have broken and caused astory collapse. On such a building, the damage should be judged separately for the threespans and the rest of the building.

155

Table 3.2.3-3 Investigation Sheet for Judging the Class of Damage to Steel Buildings[1]Serial No.:Time of inspection:

Inspection date and hour:
Inspector:
Inspector's position:

1. Outline of the Building
1.1 Name of the building:
1.2 Address of the building:
1.3 Owner of the building:
Address for contact:
Address for contact:
1.4 Person for contact:
1.5 Use (Choice of multiple items allowed):□Office □Housing □Apartment □Store □Factory □Warehouse □School □Day nursery□Government building □Public hall □Gymnasium □Hospital □Others ()
1.6 Type of structure: □Steel □Hybrid structure of () and ()
1.7 Structural form:□Rigid frame □Brace □Truss □Others ()
1.8 Structure of the foundation:□Spread foundation (individual footing, continuous footing, mat foundation)□Piling foundation (Type:)
1.9 Size of the building: () stories above and () stories under the ground, penthouse (stories)
Dimensions of the first floor: about (m)×(m)
1.10 Geographical features of the site: □Flat □Slope □Plateau □Basin □Others ()
1.11 Surrounding geographical features of the site: The site is (m) away from a precipice, (m) away from a river, the sea, a lake ora swamp (Note: no entry is needed when the distance to each feature is 50 m or more)
1.12 Exterior finish (Choice of multiple items allowed):□Fair-faced concrete □Mortar finishing on metal lath □Tile □Stone pitching□Curtain wall (metal, glass) □PC plate □ALC plate □Block □Others ()
1.13 Drawings and specifications
Structural calculation sheet: □Retained □Not retained
Drawings for design presentation: □Retained □Not retained
Construction record: □Retained □Not retained
1.14 Construction date Year () □unknown
2. Inspection and evaluation (Check off the appropriate items)
2.1 Inspection of structural framework and damage classification
The most seriously damaged floor and the direction of the damage
Floor (
) Direction: □Direction of the short side □Direction of the long side
Structural form
Class
Foundationof(a) Rigid frame(b) Brace
damageX
Y X□ □ The compression braceⅠs□ 1/300 < ψ ≤□ 1/500* < φ ≤ 1/150
is slightly buckled and□ Members start to yield□
1/150
deformed□ Cracks occur in the □□ Cracks occur in thecolumn base concrete
column base concrete□ □ The high strength boltⅡs
□ 1/150 < ψ ≤□ 1/150 < φ ≤ 1/100
slips□ The panel zone yields□
1/100
anchorbolt □ □ The
anchorbolt□ Theelongates
elongates□ The tension braceyields□ □ φ ≤ 1/50
Ⅲs
□ 1/100 < ψ ≤□ 1/100 < φ ≤ 1/50
□ Local buckling and □ □ The brace rupture rate
1/50
deformation is slightis 20% or less
□ The
joint
sectionrupturesⅣs□ 1/50 < ψ ≤□ 1/50 < φ ≤ 1/30
□ □ 1/50 < φ ≤ 1/30
□ Local buckling and □ □ The brace rupture rate
1/30
deformation is medium
is 20 to 50%
□ The
joint
section □rupture rate is 20% orlessⅤs□ 1/30 < ψ□ 1/30 < φ□ □ 1/30 < φ□ Local buckling and □ □ The brace rupture rate
deformation is serious
is more than 50%
□ The
joint
section □rupture rate is morethan 20%(c) Truss
Y
□

X
□

□

□

□

□

□
□
□
□
□

The ceiling brace ispartially buckled anddeformed
Cracks occur in thecolumn base concrete
The truss is slightly
buckled and deformed
outwardThe
anchorbolt
elongates

Y
□

□
□

□

□

The
truss
is
significantly buckled
and deformed outward

□

□
□

□

The buckling anddeformationofdiagonal and chordmembers are slight

□

□
□

□

The buckling anddeformationofdiagonal and chordmembers are serious
The joint section(including the anchor
section) ruptures
Collapse

□

□

□

□

Ⅵs
□ Collapse□ □ Collapse□ □□Note 1: ψ is a residual deformation angle caused by the maximum relative settlement.
Note 2: φ is a residual angle of inclination of the column (* For buildings with a roof truss, such as a gymnasium, the lower limit of thisangle should be 1/300.)

156

Table 3.2.3-3 (Cont.)
The class of damage to structural framework (The highest and appropriate class of damage in each category of the foundation and thestructural form in the above table)
X
□Ⅰs
□Ⅱs
□Ⅲs
□Ⅳs
□Ⅴs
□Ⅵs
□No appropriate item (OS)
Y
□Ⅰs
□Ⅱs
□Ⅲs
□Ⅳs
□Ⅴs
□Ⅵs
□No appropriate item (OS)
2.2

Inspection of finishing and non-structural members, and damage classification
Damaged partClass(a) Finished internal and externalof(b) Ceilingwall
damageX
YXⅠw□ Slight cracks in the □ □ Displacement and separation □corner sectionof the ceiling member
Ⅱw

□
□

Ⅲw

Ⅳw

□

Displacement ofjoint
Slight spalling

the

□

□

□

Partial spalling

□
□

□
□

Serious cracks over theentire surface
Partial spalling
Swelling out□

Serious spalling

□

□
□

□

Overall spalling

□
□

□
□

Very serious overall spalling□(c) Opening
A little awkward
opening-closing andslight cracks
Destruction of many
corner sections
Difficulty in opening
and closing
Destruction of the
majority of cornersections
Impossibility
inopening and closing
Significant
destruction

Y□

Standard for
estimating the
maximumhorizontal angle〜1/150□1/150〜1/50□□

1/50〜1/30
□
□

1/30〜

The class of damage to finishing and non-structural members (The highest and appropriate class of damage in the above table)X□Ⅰw (including "no appropriate item")
□Ⅱw
□Ⅲw
□Ⅳw
Y
□Ⅰw (including "no appropriate item")
□Ⅱw
□Ⅲw
□Ⅳw
3. Comprehensive judgment (Check off the appropriate items)
Judge by the classes of damage to the structural framework, finishing, and non-structural members according to the table below.
X
□
□
□
□
□

Slight damage
Light damage
Moderate damage
Major damage
Collapse

Ⅰw
Ⅱw
Ⅲw
Ⅳw
4.

Y
□
□
□
□
□

Announced seismic intensity scale
Ⅰ

Ⅱ

Ⅲ

Ⅱs

Ⅲs

Ⅳ

VminusⅣs

Vplus

VIminus

Os

Ⅰs

Ⅴs

Slight damage

LightModerate

Major

damagedamagedamageVIplusⅦ

ⅥsCollapse

Other matters taken notice of157

Photo 3.2.3-16 Damage of the PC curtain wall of a 5-story, moment resisting frame
structure office building

Photo 3.2.3-17

Yield and fracture of a beam end inside a 5-story, moment resisting frame
structure office building
158

Photo 3.2.3-18

A building collapsed at low stories.

Photo 3.2.3-19

A building inclined to a large extent
159

Photo 3.2.3-20

Serious damage of piles

Photo 3.2.3-21 Danger of building site collapse
160

Photo 3.2.3-22

A building with the risk of collapse

Photo 3.2.3-23 Surrounding area of the building settled due to ground liquefaction
161

Photo 3.2.3-24

A building inclined due to the lateral flow of the ground (displacement ofbulkhead)

Photo 3.2.3-25

A condominium inclined due to differential settlement

162

Photo 3.2.3-26 An inclined building

Photo 3.2.3-27

A building inclined at the 1st and 2nd floors only163

Photo 3.2.3-28

A locally buckled column

Photo 3.2.3-29

A totally buckled column
164Photo 3.2.3-30 Rupture of angle braces

Photo 3.2.3-31 Buckling of wide-flange-shaped braces165

Photo 3.2.3-32 Rupture of a welded beam end

Photo 3.2.3-33 Rupture of a welded part between column and diaphragm
166

Photo 3.2.3-34 Displacement of a concrete column base of insufficient encasing height

Photo 3.2.3-35 Concrete below a column base plate that has lost its axial load supporting
capacity.
167

Photo 3.2.3-36

Minor damage on an exposed column base

Photo 3.2.3-37

Example of Rank C falling object
168

Table 3.2.3-4 Investigation Sheet for Judging the Class of Damage to Wooden Buildings[1]Check List for Judging the Class of Damage (1)Serial No.:Time of inspection:

Inspection date and hour:
Inspector:
Inspector's position:

1. Outline of the building
1.1 Name of the building:
1.2 Address of the building:
1.3 Owner of the building:
Address for contact:
1.4 Person for contact:
Address for contact:
1.5 Use: □Housing □Apartment □Store □Dwelling house combined with a store □Office □School □Factory□Warehouse □Inn □Hospital □Barn □Others ()
1.6 Construction date (Date of construction:
Date of extension / reconstruction:)
1.7 Size of the building: □One-storied house □Two-storied house □Others ()
Area of the first floor: (m2)
1.8 Use of metal･Metal at framework joint (□Used □Practically unused)
1.9 Survey of durability･Construction method of external wall □Stud wall framing finished on both sides□Column-exposed wall of Japanese traditional method･Stud wall framing finished on both sides (□cement rendering □siding boards □wood siding)･Deterioration of column-exposed wall □Termite damage and rot more than half on external columns and the ground sill
□Termite damage and rot locally on external columns and the ground sill
□No abnormality in particular･Highly durable specifications□High-durability specifications of Finance Corporation□High-level specifications of Finance Corporation□High-level specifications similar to the above□Nothing in particular
1.10 Construction method of the inside of the building･Inside of the building (□Stud wall framing finished on both sides □Column-exposed wall)
2. Inspection on damage conditions
2.1 Inspection for estimating the maximum relative story deformation angle
Buildingframe

Residual deformation

1/120 rad.

Brace
Nails came loose

Corner sectionsof the opening
had cracks

Cracks in thecorner sectionsof the opening
spreadOther
placesthan the cornersections of the
opening also had
cracksSashgaskets
came off

SidingExterior
finishingmaterial

External
wall
Cementrendering

Corner sectionsof the opening
had cracks

Part of the sash
gaskets came off

Openings, etc.

ClothfinishingInterior
finishingmaterial

Inner
wall
Columnexposed
wall

Corner sections
had wrinkles

Corner sections
got torn and the
middle section
had wrinkles
Marksofdisplacement
were
left
betweencolumns
andwalls

Corner sections
had tears thatranverticallyand the middle
section got torn
Crevices were
occurred
betweencolumns
andwalls

1/90 rad.
Swelling out
Cracks in thecorner sectionsof the opening
spread and partof the sections
came loose
Cracks in otherplaces than thecorner sectionsof the opening
spreadSash crescentswere damaged

169

1/40 rad.
Multiple braces
buckledCorner sectionsof the opening
had
multiplecracks that ran
vertically

General part ofexternal
wall
had cracks

General part ofexternal
wall
hadmultiplecracksSash crescentsand glass werebrokenTears in the
middle section
spreadMultiple jointsof plaster boards
got torn

Multiplesash
crescents
andpanes of glass
were broken
The majority ofjoints of plasterboards got torn

Crevices
betweencolumns
andwalls were 3-5mm wideCrevices
betweencolumns
andwalls were 5mm
wide and more

Multiple
crevices between
columns
andwalls were 5mm
wide and more

Shoji screens got
torn

Openings, etc.

1/60 rad.
Some of braces
buckledCorner sectionsof the opening
had cracks thatran verticallyTable 3.2.3-4 (Cont.)
2.2

Inspection of each part

(1) Ground●Ground□The ground has slight crack.
□The ground has many cracks.
□The ground has collapsed.
●Differential settlement□Differential settlement has occurred.
●Retaining wall
□Retaining walls are damaged.
●Liquefaction□Liquefaction has occurred.
(2) Foundation●Foundation□Damaged□Ruptured□Moved□Washed away
□Overturned●Outer foundation□The outer foundation has cracks 0.3mm wide and more and less than 200mm long in 2 to 5 places.
□The outer foundation has suffered local destruction and spalling and falling off of finishing mortar.
□The outer foundation has one or two cracks that are so serious that the foundation is isolated from the ground sill with the resultthat it is unable to support the superstructure on the sill.
□The outer foundation is in no condition to support the superstructure.
●Anchor bolt
□Some anchor bolts have come out.
□Some anchor bolts or nuts are missing.
(3) Floor framing●Level□The floor is slightly out of level.
□The floor is significantly out of level.
□All the floor boards are significantly out of level.
●Ground sill, floor post
□The floor post has slipped somewhat from its footing.
□The floor post has slipped a few centimeters off its footing.
□The sill has slipped somewhat from the foundation.
□The column has slipped somewhat from the sill.
□The floor post has fallen off from its footing.
□The sill has slipped significantly from the foundation.
□The column has slipped significantly from the sill.
□All sills, columns and floor posts have fallen off from their foundations or footings, and the majority of sleepers and floor joists
have dropped down.
□The rot of the ground sills and the floor posts has been noticed, and the termite damage to these features has been noticed.
●Floor boards□Slight displacement of the floor frame and the wall has been noticed.
□The joint of the floorboards has a gap.
□The floorboard is displaced.
□The floorboard is broken.
●Bathtub and toilet□The bathtub and the toilet are displaced a few centimeters.
□The bathtub and the toilet are significantly displaced.
(4) Framework●Framework material□Cracks are observed in framework materials such as a column or a beam.

170

Table 3.2.3-4 (Cont.)●Face plate of the bearing wall
□Destruction of the face plate is observed.

breakage.
□Munegawara tiles are overall displaced, broken, and havefallen off, and other tiles are also significantly displaced.
□Almost all tiles are displaced, broken, and have fallen off.
●Roofing material□When a metal plate is used as the roofing material, suchdamage as coming off of plates is observed in their joint
sections.
●Ridge□Destruction of the ridge is observed.

(6) Finishing material●Cement rendering and other finish□In the wall of cement rendering, tile or plaster finish, theperiphery of the corner sections of the opening have slightcrack.
□In the wall of cement rendering, tile, or plaster finish, thefinishing material in many places has fallen off.
□In the wall of cement rendering, tile, or plaster finish, themajor part of the finishing material has scaled off or fallen
off.
□All the finishing material has fallen off.
●Boards□Such boards as one made of sprayed a plywood sheet anda siding board have slight displacement in their joint
sections.
□Part of the boards have cracks and displacement in theirjoint sections of the finished surface.
□The majority of the boards have significant displacementin their joint sections of the finished surface and in part of
the joint sections of the nailed facing materials, and they
have come loose in part of the nailed facing materials.
And they have suffered destruction of the corner sectionsof the facing materials.
□Nails have come loose and some of them are missing in
the majority of the boards.
●Fittings□The aluminum sash refuses to open and close, its locking
is broken, and its beads sealant strips have come off.
□There is a gap between the wooden sash and the wall.
□The pane of glass in the aluminum sash is broken.
□The aluminum sash has come off and is broken.
□The aluminum door is broken.
□The wooden sash is broken.
□The wooden fitting is broken.
□All fittings and sashes are broken.
●Inner wall
□There are gaps along the periphery of the inner wall.
□The plywood sheet of the inner wall is displaced.
□The plywood sheet of the inner wall has come off or comeloose.
□The plywood sheet of the inner wall is broken withcoming off or falling off.
●The tile and others on the external wall and in the bathroom
and the toilet□ The joints of tiles on the external wall and in thebathroom and the toilet have cracks.
□Tiles on the external wall and in the bathroom and thetoilet have come off.
□Wall cloth is torn.
□Tiles on the external wall and in the bathroom and thetoilet have fallen off.
□The rot and termite damage of the external wall have been
noticed.
(7) Roof●Level□The roof is out of level.
●Roof truss□Part of the roof truss is broken.
□The roof truss has suffered serious destruction, and the
majority of roofing materials are damaged.
□The rot of the backing of the roof and the small roof has
been noticed.
●Roofing tile
□ Part of munegawara tiles (kanmurigawara andnoshigawara tiles) are displaced and broken. Other tiles
have suffered no breakage.
□Munegawara tiles are significantly displaced, broken, andhave fallen off, but other tiles have suffered a little

171

Table 3.2.3-4 (Cont.)
Check List for Judging the Class of Damage (2)3.

Serial No.:

Inspector:

Class of damage to buildings (Check off the appropriate items)
Item ofPart
Damage calculation formula and damage level
damageLength of damaged foundation (Foundation(outer foundation)

Rate ofdamageDamageconditions

Floor framing(floor framing of
the first floor)

Rate ofdamageDamageconditions

m (number))
×100＝(

Length of outer foundation (Rate ofdamageDamageconditions

Less than 15%□Ⅰ

15〜30%□Ⅱ

30〜65%□Ⅲ

65〜85%□Ⅳ

85% or more
□Ⅴ

□Ⅰ

□Ⅱ

□Ⅲ

□Ⅳ

□Ⅴ

Area of damaged floor (m2)

Area of the first floor (m2)

×100＝(

Rate ofdamageDamageconditions

Finishing material(Finished surface ofthe external wall)

Rate ofdamageDamageconditions

10〜30%□Ⅱ

30〜60%□Ⅲ

60〜85%□Ⅳ

85% or more
□Ⅴ

□Ⅰ

□Ⅱ

□Ⅲ

□Ⅳ

□Ⅴ

×100＝(%))

Number of columns on the first floor ()

Less than 10%□Ⅰ

10〜30%□Ⅱ

30〜60%□Ⅲ

60〜85%□Ⅳ

85% or more
□Ⅴ

□Ⅰ

□Ⅱ

□Ⅲ

□Ⅳ

□Ⅴ

Roof
(Roof of Top floor)

Damageconditionsm)×100＝(

Length of bearing wall on the first floor (%)m)

Less than 10%□Ⅰ

10〜30%□Ⅱ

30〜60%□Ⅲ

60〜85%□Ⅳ

85% or more
□Ⅴ

□Ⅰ

□Ⅱ

□Ⅲ

□Ⅳ

□Ⅴ

Area of damaged wall (m2)

Area of external wall (m2)

×100＝(%)

Less than 15%□Ⅰ

15〜40%□Ⅱ

40〜65%□Ⅲ

65〜85%□Ⅳ

85% or more
□Ⅴ

□Ⅰ

□Ⅱ

□Ⅲ

□Ⅳ

□Ⅴ

m2)

Area of damaged roof (Rate ofdamage%)Less than 10%□Ⅰ

Length of damaged bearing wall (Bearing wall(bearing wall on thefirst floor)%)m (number))Number of damaged columns (Framework(columns on thefirst floor)

Class ofdamage×100＝(%)

m2)

Area of roof (Less than 15%□Ⅰ

15〜40%□Ⅱ

40〜65%□Ⅲ

65〜85%□Ⅳ

85% or more
□Ⅴ

□Ⅰ

□Ⅱ

□Ⅲ

□Ⅳ

□Ⅴ

Comprehensive class of damage
To classify the damage of each part as one of five classes (slight damage, light damage, moderate damage, major damage, andcollapse), buildings will be surveyed from two viewpoints: the rate of damage and the damage conditions. When the levels determined by
the rate of damage and the damage conditions are different, the higher level should be adopted for the pertinent part. The average of the172Table 3.2.3-4 (Cont.)
Announced seismic intensity scale
Ⅰ

5.

Ⅱ

Ⅲ

Ⅳ

V-minusV-plus

VI -minus

VI- plus

Ⅶ

Judgment of the necessity of the restoration
The necessity of the restoration shall be judged according to the following Table.

Necessity of strengthening or other measures
Disaster level
Moderate
Major damage
Slight damage
Light damage
Seismic intensity scale
damage/ Collapse
V-minus or lower△
××
×
V-plus○△××
VI-minus○○△
×
VI-plus or higher○○○△○: Restoration by repair△: Restoration by repair or strengthening (Detailed examinations are required based on the survey results related torestoration planning.)
×: Restoration by strengthening, or demolition (Detailed examinations are required based on the survey results related
to restoration planning.)

173

Photo 3.2.3-38

Slight damage

Photo 3.2.3-39 Moderate damage
174

Photo 3.2.3-40 Major damage

Photo 3.2.3-41 Destruction
175

Photo 3.2.3-42 Light damage

Photo 3.2.3-43 Moderate damage
176

Photo 3.2.3-44 Major damage

Photo 3.2.3-45 Destruction
177

Photo 3.2.3-46 Moderate damage

Photo 3.2.3-47 Major damage
178

Photo 3.2.3-48 Destruction

Photo 3.2.3-49

Slight damage

This mono-color photo is produced by BRI members.

179

Photo 3.2.3-50 Light damage

Photo 3.2.3-51 Moderate damage

180

Photo 3.2.3-52 Major damage

Photo 3.2.3-53
181

Destruction

Photo 3.2.3-54

Slight damage

This mono-color photo is produced by BRI members.

Photo 3.2.3-55 Light damage

182

Photo 3.2.3-56 Moderate damage

Photo 3.2.3-57 Major damage
183

Photo 3.2.3-58 Destruction

184

Other Example 1[Detailed Evaluation Method in the United States] [1]This method is primarily used to evaluate the safety of buildings posted
Limited Entry after a Rapid Evaluation. Normally this will be done by having engineersfamiliar with building design observe the damage and assess its impact on life safety. Ideally,
this evaluation will be carried out by a team of at least two structural engineers, both ofwhom have experience in the seismic design of buildings similar to those being inspected.
In the aftermath of a large quake, however, this ideal may be impossible, and alternative
teams will probably have to be used. One such alternative is the use of a team consisting of
one structural engineer and one building inspector.
The inspection team should closely examine the entire building, inside and out,
particularly its structural system (i.e., whatever parts are exposed and viewable). Ordinarily,
they will not perform destructive exploration such as removal of plaster or gypsum walls toview the structural system, although in many cases this may be required of the owner before
a full assessment can be made.
The overall purpose of a Detailed Evaluation is to evaluate safety andrecommend a posting classification. The Detailed Evaluation is intended to provide
reasonable assurance that the structural system, as well as elements of the building that
could cause falling hazards, are sufficiently safe before the building is put back into service.
Considerable use of judgment by the inspection team will generally be required since it isvery difficult, if not impossible, to develop damage evaluation procedures and guidelinesthat can be used without judgment.

References[1] ATC20, Procedures for Post-earthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings, Applied
Technology Council, 1989.
[2] ATC20-1, Addendum to the ATC20 Post Earthquake Building Safety Evaluation
Procedure, Applied Technology Council, 1995.

185

Table 3.2.3-5

186

[1]

Table 3.2.3-5 (Cont.)

187

Other Example 2

Damage classification forms in Italy[1] are shown in the following pages.

Reference[1] Manuale per la Compilazione della Scheda di 1° Livello di Rilevamento Danno, Pronto
Intervento e Agibilità per Edifici Ordinari Nell’emergenza Post-Sismica”, Gruppo
Nazionale per la Deifesa dai Terremoti, Nov.2000.

188

Table 3.2.3-6 [1]189Table 3.2.3-6 (Cont.)

190

Table 3.2.3-6 (Cont.)

191

Table 3.2.3-6 (Cont.)192

3.2.4. Damage Survey in a Typical Area[1]To promptly assess the cause of damage, buildings around the seismic center
should be surveyed several weeks to several months after an earthquake has occurred.
The survey working groups of the Hyogo-ken Nanbu Earthquake,
Architectural Institute of Japan, surveyed almost all buildings in Kobe and Ashiya cities aswell as part of Nishinomiya city. Summarized below are the numbers of buildings in
Chuo-ku pertinent to different survey items whose location can be identified on the map.
(1) Outline of the survey by the Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake Survey WG, Architectural
Institute of JapanAt the beginning of February 1995, the members of Kinki Branch, Hyogo-ken
Nanbu Earthquake Survey WG, Architectural Institute of Japan, surveyed the damagedbuildings with respect to the purpose of use, structure type, number of stories above ground,and the class of damage.
(2) Summary of the survey results obtained by the Hyogo-ken Nanbu Earthquake Survey
WG, Architectural Institute of Japan
In total, 9,321 buildings were surveyed.

See Table 3.2.4-1 for theircategories.
When the surveyed buildings are classified by the structure type, 3,953 arewooden, 2,276 are RC, 1,271 are S structure, and 119 are SRC structure. In terms of thenumber of stories, they include 2,935 two-story buildings, 1,045 three-story, 839 four-story,
and 416 five-story buildings, which represent a wide range of building profiles. In termsof the class of damage, 458 buildings fell down or collapsed and 605 suffered a major
damage. The buildings at these two disaster levels account for about 16% of the total. Six
buildings were completely destroyed by fire.

Reference[1] “A temporary survey report for building damages due to the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu
Earthquake”, Building Research Institute, Ministry of Construction, Aug. 1995. (inJapanese)

193

Table 3.2.4-1

Summary of the survey results by the Architectural Institute of Japan[1]Total:
9,321 buildings

No.
1.

Item
Location2.

Purpose of use

3.

Structure type

4.

Number of stories

5.

Class of damage

Category
1 - Chuo-ku, Kobe city
2 - Unknown
Total
1 - Hotel
2 - Office
3 - Apartment houses
4 - Store
5 - Factory
6 - Warehouse
SchoolHospital
Government offices
Parking lot
Hall
7 - Others
8 - Multi-purpose
99 - UnknownTotal
1 - Cast-in-place RC structure
2 - Precast RC structure
3 - SRC structure
4 - S structure
5 - Others
6 - Complex structure
99 - Unknown
Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 to 30
UnknownTotal
1 - Falling or Collapse
2 - Major damage
3 - Moderate damage
4 - Light damage or less5 - Burnt down
6 - Partially burnt
99 - Unknown
Total

194

Number of buildings
9269
52
9321
51
1263
4872
1622
68
65
74
78
37
72
6
149
312
652
9321
2276
0
119
1271
3953
55
1647
9321
235
2935
1045
839
416
212
150
153
96
148
3092
9321
458
605
1078
6890
6
0
284
9321

3.2.5. Damage Overview in Damaged Areas[1]To assess the cause of damage, buildings around the seismic center should besurveyed on and after to several months after an earthquake has occurred.
Using the data of the Quick Inspection of building damage, the macro analysis
was performed to understand the outline and the tendency of damage.
1) Object building
Because of the main object building of the Quick Inspection was a condominium,"House" and "Condominium" occupy the majority of the usage of investigated buildings.
In assessment, buildings are classified into three groups, i.e. reinforced concrete (RC)structure, steel (S) structure and wood structure. RC structure also includes the steel
framed reinforced concrete (SRC) structure. Each building was inspected by using theinvestigation sheet.
2) Assessment result "X"
The buildings are automatically classified into three categories; those are "Safe","Damaged" and "Fatal" according to totalization of the description in investigation sheet.
Since there were some incompleted sheets in which only a few items like address orbuilding name were filled, automatic judgement was impossible for such buildings.
Among of them, if there were no special description in the margin of the sheet, thebuilding is assumed "Safe" and the rest are labeled "X". The real damage level of "X"buildings is decided later from special description and other source etc. However, in thisreport "X" remains "X" as it was firstly classified. It will be done after the Quick
Inspection data used in the Geographic Information System (GIS) is fixed.
3) Lack of data
The investigation sheet of some "Safe" buildings was not made in Akashi-city andAmagasaki-city (a total number of such buildings is uncertain). It is understood that thedata and the result of analysis about both cities are less reliable.
4) Suffering rate
The suffering rate RS Shows the rate of unsafe buildings and is calculated from following
expression.
: total number of buildings
N
NF + ND
N F : number of “Fatal” buildings
RS =N
N D : number of “Damaged” buildings
5) Assessment area
Following names are used to divide the Hyogo prefecture into the Mainland side andAwaji island.
Hyogo area 8 cities : Akashi, Kobe, Ashiya, Nishinomiya, Takarazuka, Itami,
Amagasaki and Kawanishi on the Mainland.
195

Awaji area 7 towns : Awaji, Hokudan, Higashiura, Ichinomiya, Tsuna, Sumoto andSeidan on the Awaji island.
For each figures and tables in this report, the name of the cities and towns are arranged
sequentially from west to east (Akashi to Kawanishi) in Hyogo area and north to south(Awaji to Seidan) in Awaji area according to the distance from the epicenter.

Reference[1] “A Survey Report for Building Damages due to the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu
Earthquake”, Building Research Institute, Ministry of Construction, Japan, March 1996.

196

197

Fig. 3.2.5-1 Damage Overview in Damaged Area[1]