Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Seismic Isolation Retrofit of A Medical Complex by Integrating Two Large-Scale Buildings
Seismic Isolation Retrofit of A Medical Complex by Integrating Two Large-Scale Buildings
Paper:
1. Introduction
Seismic risk mitigation of the hospitals which become
medical treatment bases at the time of disasters is very important in high seismicity countries such as Japan. Those
hospitals need to ensure not only the safety of buildings
but also the operability of medical treatment even during and after large earthquakes. The seismic isolation is
one of the most effective and practicable countermeasures
against earthquakes because it drastically reduces seismic response due to devastating ground shaking. Since
extensive damage of hospitals was experienced by the
Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake in 1995, seismic isolation structures have been adopted for a lot of new hospital
208
buildings in Japan. On the other hand, old and new buildings often exist together adjacently in large-scale hospitals, and earthquake damages of the old buildings may
significantly reduce the entire functions of medical treatment. The need to retrofit aging hospitals was made all
too clear when three old structures of a six-building facility in Ojiya City were so severely damaged in the 2004
Mid-Niigata Prefecture earthquake that emergency medical operations could not be maintained [3]. Typical structural damage involved building joints, nonstructural components, furniture, and equipment, as shown in Fig. 1.
It also took much time to restore the buildings and their
function.
A similar situation will probably happen in the hospital of Hamamatsu City that is located in a high seismicity area in Japan. The hospital will lose its functions and
emergency operations for a large earthquake, because of
damage of the two old buildings. Therefore, it was necessary to retrofit those two buildings effectively. Given
its central location and importance as a medical treatment facility, the hospital would have to continue its functions and emergency service during retrofitting and reconstruction. The sections that follow provide a background
of the retrofitting methodology, building integration, and
the evaluation of microtremor measurement. Site-specific
strong ground motions in a hypothetical Magnitude 8
earthquake in a subduction zone under the site are then
simulated, and the performance and safety of retrofitted
building evaluated using time-history response analysis of
simulated earthquake motion.
Fig. 1. Typical damage of a hospital in the 2004 Mid-Niigata Prefecture earthquake (Photos were taken by Yoe Masuzawa).
Building No.3
Building No.3
Connecting building
Connecting building
Building No.2
Building No.1
EXP. J
Building No.2
South building
Building No.1
EXP. J
Building No.3
Building No.2
Building No.1
209
Building No.3
Building No.2
Building No.2
Building No.1
3000 2600
PHRFL
PH3FL
PH2FL
3850
7FL
52600
3900 3900
8FL
3850
9FL
6FL
3950
5FL
4400
4FL
4300
3FL
4250
250
3000
2300
5000
GL
2FL
1FL
B1FL
B.PL
6000
6000
6000
6000
50400
5
6000
6000
8400
6000
6000
6000
30000
5000
6
10
11
12
6000
13
6000
14
6000
15 16 17
6000
18
6000
19
6000
42000
20
6000
21
6000
22
6000
23
24
Building No.1
500
5000
Section
3000
600
4200
Anchorage zone
Prestressing cable
8000
Building No.2
600
Rebar dowels
Plan
after connection [4, 5]. The integrated building was measured when connection was completed on floors 7-9 and
the roof before seismic isolation construction was started.
Building microtremor records, natural periods, particle
orbits, and vibration-mode shapes were obtained, and the
effects of connection confirmed. Fig. 6 shows where microtremor sensors were deployed. Recording used servo
velocity sensors, a 16-bit analog-to-digital converter, and
a notebook PC. Longitudinal (X) and transverse (Y) components of microtremors in velocity were recorded at each
location. The sampling rate was 100 Hz and the recording
of each record was 180 seconds long. Three sets of samplings were recorded for each pattern. The following five
patterns were observed in simultaneous measurement by
up to eight sensors:
Pattern 1: 1C, 1E, and 1W on the ninth floor by recording
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.4 No.3, 2009
[3C] [2W]
[2C] [2E]
11600
37400
12250
5000 8550
[1W] [1C]
[1E]
[12C]
9F
6F
3F
1F
B1F
Building No.3
Building No.2
Building No.1
CH-8
CH-2
CH-4
2
1
0
0.2
3
0.3
CH-1
CH-2
CH-3
CH-4
CH-5
CH-6
CH-7
CH-8
0
0.2
0.3
[Before connection]
Y
X
Y
X
Y
X
0.4
0.5
Y
X
Y
X
Y
X
Y
X
0.6
0.7
0.8
[After connection]
0.4
0.5
0.6
Period (sec)
0.7
0.8
CH-3
CH-1
CH-1
CH-2
CH-3
CH-4
CH-5
CH-6
CH-5
CH-7
X
Building No.1
Building No.3
CH-6
Connecting location
Building No.3
Building No.2
Building No.1
[Before connection]
Vibration period: 0.59 sec
[After connection]
Vibration period: 0.58 sec
Figure 7 shows the sensor layout for Pattern 3. Microtremor sensors were installed on the ninth floor near
the center of gravity of each building and in the connecting location. Fig. 8 shows Fourier amplitude spectra for
microtremors obtained in the same observation pattern.
Histories 20.48 seconds long were selected from records,
followed by zeroes 20.48 seconds long, and put through
Fourier transformation to obtain spectra smoothed with a
0.2 Hz Parzen window. Before the buildings were connected, the predominant period in the transverse (Y) direction of Building Nos.1 and 2 were equaled 0.59 seconds, but a variation in the peak period was also confirmed
in spectra. Note that after connection, Building Nos.1
and 2 and the connecting location show concordance in
predominant periods in each direction. To determine the
predominant direction in each peak period, the horizontal particle orbit was obtained with each velocity record
integrated to displacement with a band-pass filter whose
211
45
Symbol
Type
Size (mm)
Number
NLmax (kN)
LRB900S
900x900
51
6,036
5,311
RB900S
900x900
4
644
SL300S
300x300
4
CLB061
712
6
1500x345
CLB133
1,515
6
1570x465
7
CLB250
2,380
1670x465
Cross linear bearing
3
3,743
CLB385
1770x555
CLB780
1970x740
5
8,798
CLB1000 2480x1270
3
12,054
Note: "NLmax" shows calculated maximum reaction force under normal load
00
70
00
22
0
80 00
00
40
20
70
00
25
50
00 00
8
08
46
00
7
79
16 088
6
60
00
60
00
17
00
Building No.3
00
Connecting building
7900
60
3110
00
22600
8600
6100
60
Building No.2
00
6100
60
2500
&
00
Building No.1
60
60
42 00
00
0
3600
4000
20003000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000
6000
6000
6000
6000
6000
50400
6000
5450
8400
6000
6000
6000
6000
30000
5000
6000
6000
:
LRB900S
RB900S
CLB250
SL300S
100
225
1550
550
465
1670
1350
900
225
Laminated-rubber
900
1350
225
615.5
419
Laminated-rubber
Rubber layers: 12 x 3.0 mm
Steel plates: 11 x 2.2 mm
Dowel
615.5
625
1650
250
185.6
40
300
40
499.1
419.1
40
225
Rubber shim
25 28
132.6
448
Dowel
368
Lead plug
40
100
625
1500
20
600
65
90
580
235 235
65
1600
220
50
1400
400
580
Existing column
400
270
15
Pmax=17.677 M N
10
/*=0.5
5
0
1350
1950
10
/*=1.0
: confinement stress
1
2
3
4
Vertical displacement (mm)
Reinforcement column
(specified compressive strengths: 36 MPa)
0
5
1000
Steel bracket
(grade: SS400 (JIS G 3101))
435
830
435
300
1000
300
1350
1950
Non-shrink mortar
(40 mm thickness)
1000
400
300
1100
Hydraulic jack
(capacity: 3000 kN)
300
1000
1600
300
1600
scale tests showed that vertical load support was sufficient. Fig. 14 shows construction of temporary support
from phases 1 to 8. In phases 1 to 2, structural members of
the existing frame underground are reinforced except for
intermediate parts of the column. In phase 3, steel brackets and prestressing cables are installed and prestress installed in cables. In phase 4, hydraulic jacks are installed,
preloading force acts on brackets, and the axial force of
the column is released. In phases 5 to 6, a diamond wire
sawing machine is installed on the column and the existing column cut off and removed. In phase 7, seismic
isolation devices are installed and upper and lower joints
fixed using high-flow concrete or nonshrink mortar. In
phase 8, all temporary support components are removed,
completing the job. A maximum of four temporary support sets were used together and rotated in the construction flow. To ensure earthquake resistance of 0.2 G even
in the middle of construction in the basement, temporary
steel braces and other earthquake-resistant elements were
installed. In basement usable as floor area, seismic isolation retrofitting was implemented, and then fireproof panels attached to columns to enclose seismic isolation devices.
Structural member
reinforcement
Steel
bracket
Temporary supporting
removal, and completion
PC cable
Hydraulic
jack
Seismic
isolation
device
Wire saw
q
strike
q
X(N)
q
X(N)
Y(E)
rake
q
(3)
strike
Asp.6
Asp.6
Asp.5
(1)
35qN
35qN
Asp.4
Asp.2
(2)
Asp.4
Asp.3
SITE
(2)
Asp.2
Asp.3
SITE
KiK-net(SZOH28)
15
15
4.1
2km
km
KiK-net(SZOH28)
137qE
138qE
.2k
m
F re
m
34qN
ac
e
8.3
85.5k
eS
urf
km
25
dip
ac
e
30
km
34qN
7.3
8 9.2k
eS
urf
15 .0
.4k
m
Asp.1
.2k
m
25
F re
dip
15 .0
30
.4k
m
Asp.1
(3)
Asp.5
(1)
Y(E)
rake
139qE
137qE
138qE
139qE
Fig. 15. Tokai earthquake seismic fault model used for theoretical method (left) and statistical method (right).
214
100
10
cm
10
Vs
Layer
Depth
Thickness Density Vp
No.
(m)
(m)
(g/cm3) (m/s) (m/s)
1*
50-200
150
2.1
2,020 510
2*
200-840
640
2.3
2,280 840
3*
840-900
60
2.5
2,870 1,280
4*
900-1,000
100
2.5
4,140 1,840
5** 1,000-1,900
900
2.5
4,600 2,500
6** 1,9002.6
5,300 3,000
10
0g
al
Displacement
Asperity 1
4.80 m
Asperity 2
6.93 m
Asperity 3
3.35 m
Asperity 4
4.84 m
Asperity 5
2.78 m
Asperity 6
3.90 m
Background
1.78 m
tokai-1_NS
tokai-1_EW
tokai-2_NS
tokai-2_EW
tokai-3_NS
tokai-3_EW
m
0c
10
Parameter
Strike
208 deg
Dip
15 deg
Length
154.14 km
Width
89.25 km
Upper depth
7.28 km
Slip
89 deg
Rupture velocity
2.7 km/s
1000
0.1
10
Period (sec)
Ground motion
Acceleration (gal)
1000
Max:624.73gal
-1000
Velocity (cm/sec)
100
Max:92.80cm/sec
-100
200
Displecement (cm)
Max:141.58cm
-200
0
Time (sec)
215
60000
Building No.1
Building No.2
40000
Standard
Hard case
Soft case
20000
0
-20000
-40000
Kb2
Qy
Kb1
Dy
-60000
-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500
Displacement D (mm)
Building No.2
RF
Building No.1
9F
8F
7F
6F
Connecting
element
5F
4F
3F
2F
1F
Seismic isolation layer
1/312.5
Floor
Story
Floor
Story
1/312.5
47.32 cm
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.003
Story-drift angle (rad.)
0.004
Force of first
shear failure/1.25
10
20
30
40
Displacement (cm)
50
60
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.003
Story-drift angle (rad.)
0.004
Force of first
shear failure/1.25
Floor
20000
40000
60000
Story-shearing force (kN)
80000
20
30
40
Displacement (cm)
50
60
10
Floor
Story
47.32 cm
Story
200
400
600
Acceleration (gal)
800
20000
40000
60000
Story-shearing force (kN)
80000
200
400
600
Acceleration (gal)
800
Fig. 21. Time history response analysis results of the upper structure and the seismic isolation layer (stiffness of seismic isolation
layer: hard case).
be less than allowable stresses. In all target values, an importance factor (I=1.25) was configured as a safety margin
for seismic performance.
6. Conclusions
We have developed a methodology of seismic isolation retrofit by integrating a couple of adjacent buildings,
and actually applied it to the two large-scale buildings at
the Hamamatsu Medical Center. This is the first hospital retrofitting using seismic isolation in Japan. We have
detailed the seismic retrofit scheme integrating the two
buildings using prestressed concrete slabs. From the microtremor measurements and evaluated building vibration
before and after integration, confirming that integration
was successful. During retrofitting, we used temporary
support with steel brackets and prestressing cables to install seismic isolation equipment safely and economically.
In the seismic design phase, we simulated broadband input earthquake ground motion for a hypothetical Magnitude 8 earthquake near the site, and confirmed structural
safety and functionality by evaluating seismic building
performance based on time-history seismic response analysis.
Acknowledgements
We thank the staffs of Hamamatsu City and Hamamatsu Medical Center for their generous understanding and cooperation during design and construction phases. Overall building renovation
was designed by Yokogawa Architects and Engineers, Inc. We
thank Messrs. Takashi Yamada and Eiji Yoshikawa for their encouraging support in project design and supervision. We thank
Dr. Takumi Toshinawa of Meisei University for microtremor measurement.
Name:
Yoshiaki Hisada
Affiliation:
Dr. of Eng., Professor, Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Kogakuin University
References:
[1] Y. Masuzawa and Y. Hisada, Seismic Isolation Retrofit of a Prefectural Government Office Building, Proc. of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, CD-ROM, 2004.
[2] Y. Hisada, A Hybrid Method for Predicting Strong Ground Motions at Broad-frequencies Near M8 Earthquakes in Subduction
Zones, Proc. of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, CD-ROM, 2000.
[3] Report on the Damage Investigation of the October 23, 2004 Mid
Niigata Prefecture Earthquake, Architectural Institute of Japan,
2006.8. (in Japanese).
[4] T. Toshinawa and Y. Masuzawa, Vibration Characteristics of 9Story SRC Buildings Connected with Expansion Joints, Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting, Architectural Institute of Japan, B-2, pp. 73-74, 2005.9. (in Japanese).
[5] Y. Masuzawa and T. Toshinawa, Vibration Characteristics of 9Story SRC Buildings Connected with Expansion Joints, Part 2:
Vibration Characteristics After Integrating Two Buildings, Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting, Architectural Institute of Japan, B-2, pp. 157-158, 2008.9. (in Japanese).
[6] Y. Masuzawa and Y. Hisada, Development a Temporary Supporting Method for Seismic Isolation Retrofit and Evaluation of Vertical Load Support Capacity Based on Full Scale Tests, Journal of
Structural and Construction Engineering, Architectural Institute of
Japan, Vol.74, No.638, pp. 701-710, 2009.4. (in Japanese).
[7] The 7th material of Special Investigation Committee for a Tokai
earthquake, Central Disaster Management Council secretariat,
Cabinet Office, Government of Japan, 2001.8. (in Japanese).
[8] Digital Strong-Motion Seismograph Network (KiK-net), National
Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention.
http://www.kik.bosai.go.jp/
Address:
1-24-2 Nishi-Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 163-8677, Japan
Brief Career:
1989 Research Associate, Waseda University
1993 Research Associate, University of Southern California
1995 Lecturer, Kogakuin University
1999 Associate Professor, Kogakuin University
2004- Professor, Kogakuin University
Selected Publications:
Name:
Yoe Masuzawa
Affiliation:
Assistant Business Promotion Manager, Risk
Management Department, Engineering & Risk
Services Corporation
Address:
Akasaka Kikyo Bldg., 3-11-15 Akasaka, Minato-ku, Tokyo 107-0052,
Japan
Brief Career:
1995 Taisei Corporation
1997 Yokogawa Architects & Engineers, Inc.
2006- Engineering & Risk Services Corporation
2009- Visiting Fellow of Kogakuin University
Selected Publications:
219