Tohoku University

Graduate School of Engineering

Department of Architecture and Building Science
Methodology on New Materials based Structural System
(TM70028000)

Discussion between rigid and flexible structures in Japan

Laboratory of Performance Control Systems

Richard Edo. Godfrey Montero
(C3TM9703)

2023.11.21 [Rev – 2023.12.06]

Table of contents 2

▪ Introduction

▪ 1st Discussion – Sano v Mashima (1924-1926)

▪ 2nd Discussion – Muto v Mashima (1930-1931)

▪ 3rd Discussion – Muto v Tanabashi v Mashima (1935-1936)

▪ Conclusions
Introduction – Great Kanto Earthquake (1923) 3

Overview
Table 1. Characteristics of Great Kanto and Great Tohoku Earthquakes
関東大震災 東日本大震災
1923年9月1日 2011年3月11日
発生日時
11時58分 14時46分
地震の大きさ
7.9 9.0
マグニチュード (Mw)

直接死・行方不明 約10万5000人 約1万8000人

全壊・全焼住家 約29万棟 約12万棟

経済被害 約55億円 約16兆9000億円

GDP比 約37% 約3%

Adapted from Nikkei Asia Inc., 2023

What’s the ideal earthquake-resistant building?

Figure 1. Buildings collapsed after the Great Kanto Earthquake in 1923

Source: Schencking, 2013
Introduction – Discussion about Structural Systems 4

• After this event, many believed that the ideal structure to withstand earthquakes and fires was a reinforced
concrete building. However, others questioned the dynamic behavior of these structures during earthquakes.

Rigid School Flexible School

(T＜1.0s) (T≥1.0s)

Toshikata Sano Muto Kiyoshi Kenzaburo Mashima

Figure 2. Promotors of the rigid and flexible structure theories in Japan

1st Discussion – Sano v Mashima (1924-1926) 5

Sano (~1924)
• Sano went to the United States to study the structures affected by the
1906 San Francisco Earthquake. After that, he continued his studies in
Europe until he returned to Japan in 1914.

• From this experience, he believed that buildings in earthquake prone

countries should have enough stiffness to withstand the following
minimum lateral force:

𝐹 = 𝑘𝑊
𝑘: Seismic intensity
𝑊: Seismic weight

• Based on the seismic records reported by Prof. Omori, in 1924 he set the
seismic intensity with a value of 0.1.

• Additionally, these should be fire-resistant structures.

• Therefore, he concluded that earthquake-resistant structures should be

Figure 3. Pictures of (a) Reinforcement of Surugadai
made of reinforced concrete. School, (b) Prof. Omori and (c) Prof. Sano
1st Discussion – Sano v Mashima (1924-1926) [cont.] 6

Mashima (1924)
• Based on his experience as naval engineer, Mashima questioned
the future response of reinforced concrete buildings proposed by
Sano.

• He believed that the deterioration due to the environmental

conditions and past earthquakes will reduce the lateral stiffness,
and therefore, increase the natural period of the structure.

• Since Omori estimated that the dominant period for ground

motions in Tokyo was around 0.7 and 0.8 s, and most RC shear wall
buildings had a natural period below 1.0 s, he was concerned that
resonance could occur for damaged structures.

• After this structures were categorized as rigid or flexible:

▪ Rigid – T＜1.0s / Flexible– T≥1.0s

Figure 4. Maximum response of a single-degree-of-freedom

system excited by harmonic force with period of 1 s
Adapted from Chopra, 2020 & Ohno, 2023
1st Discussion – Sano v Mashima (1924-1926) [cont.] 7

Mashima (1924)
• Additionally, Mashima observed that some RC shear wall structures exhibited a brittle behavior. Probably, because
the lateral strength capacity of this elements was limited.

• On the other hand, Mashima started to pay attention to Pagodas. Historically, these structures had a good
response against earthquakes.

• To avoid the resonance effect, Mashima proposed to use flexible structures with natural periods above 1.5 s.

Figure 5. Example of pagoda structure (Horyu-ji) Figure 6. Maximum response of a single-degree-of-freedom

Modified from Nishikawa, 2018 system excited by harmonic force with period of 1 s
Adapted from Chopra, 2020 & Ohno, 2023
1st Discussion – Sano v Mashima (1924-1926) [cont.] 8

𝑊 𝐴 𝑊
Mashima (1924) 𝐴=
𝐻
𝑔→𝑘= =
𝑔 𝐻

• Mashima suggested to use structural steel moment frames with

reinforced concrete floor slabs, and light-weight non-structural
components.

• To avoid complex calculations due to continuity effects, the building

should be divided in units of moment frames connected by simply
supported beams.

• He suggested using the estimations for seismic intensity presented by

Mononobe.

Figure 8. Relationship between seismic intensity and

Figure 7. Conceptual structure proposed by Mashima probability of collapse for wooden houses
Source: Mashima, 1924 Modified from Mononobe, 1924
1st Discussion – Sano v Mashima (1924-1926) [cont.] 9

Sano (1926)
• Sano replied to Mashima’s comments about the seismic intensity
method.

• For Sano the proposed static method had the capacity to provide a
good estimate of the seismic forces, even if the problem was dynamic.

• In relation to Mashima’s method he pointed out the following:

• The method ignored the presence of long period waves in the

seismic signal.

• The proposed formulas were not practical.

• The continuity problem objected by Mashima could be solved by

using the slope deflection method proposed by Wilson (1918).

• It is possible to have earthquakes with dominant period over 1.5 s

in Tokyo. Figure 9. Slope-deflection method for
indeterminate structures
Modified from Wilson et al., 1918
1st Discussion – Sano v Mashima (1924-1926) [cont.] 10

Mashima (1926)
• This was the last reply from Mashima to Sano. Once again, he insisted in how the seismic intensity method
oversimplified the earthquake phenomena.

• Higher peak acceleration not necessarily means damage. To demonstrate this, he referred to past events:
Amplitude Period Acceleration
Record Date
(mm) (s) (mm/s²)

1 1893 - 1 - 4 3.5 0.3 771.1

2 1894 - 6 - 20 76.0 1.3 887.7 High damage

3 1895 - 1 - 18 41.0 0.9 997.2

Low damage
4 1895 - 11 - 11 6.1 0.2 3004.0

5 1896 - 8 - 20 2.9 0.3 636.0

6 1896- 12 – 17 1.9 0.2 938.0

Table 2. Ground motions recorded in Japan between 1893 and 1896

Source: Mashima, 1927
2nd Discussion – Muto v Mashima (1930-1931) 11

North Izu Earthquake (1930)

• In 1930 an earthquake of Ms = 7.3 occurred in North Izu.

• It was estimated that 272 persons died during this event, and at
least 2165 houses were damaged.

• This event reminded society about the Great Kanto Earthquake

and led architects to debate again the ideal earthquake-resistant
structure for Japan.

• After this Muto (1931) published some guidelines for earthquake-

resistant design.

Figure 10. Photographs of North Izu Earthquake

Source: Municipality of Mishima, 1930
2nd Discussion – Muto v Mashima (1930-1931) [cont.] 12

Muto(1931)
• Muto used to be one of Sano’s students. He continued the debate with Mashima.

• First, by applying the Fourier spectrum over Omori and Imamura’s seismic records, it was demonstrated that
earthquakes are composed of multiple types of waves with different periods. Therefore, flexible structures are not
exempt from the resonance effect.

• Since cycles become longer when the signal is attenuated, flexible structures have more chances of being exposed
to resonance.

Figure 11. Acceleration response spectrum for seismic records of the Great Kanto Earthquake
Source: The University of Tokyo, 2021; Kazunori & Ogawa, 2014
2nd Discussion – Muto v Mashima (1930-1931) [cont.] 13

Muto (1931)
• He argued that pagodas have been able to withstand earthquakes not just because they are flexible, but because of
the influence of damping and other mechanisms to dissipate energy.

Figure 12. Concept of structural response for Horyu-ji Temple

Adapted from Nakahara et al., 2000; Noukakuken, 2016
2nd Discussion – Muto v Mashima (1930-1931) [cont.] 14

Muto (1931)
• Structural response of pagodas:

Figure 13. Concept of structural response for Horyu-ji Temple

Source: Nakahara et al., 2000
2nd Discussion – Muto v Mashima (1930-1931) [cont.] 15

Muto (1931)
• When RC buildings are cracked, the damping also increase. Hence, the seismic forces shall be lower than expected.

Figure 14. Relationship between damage and damping for a RC beam test
Source: Chambreuil et al., 2023
2nd Discussion – Muto v Mashima (1930-1931) [cont.] 16

Mashima(1931)
• Mashima responded that previous earthquakes have demonstrated that
flexible structures can withstand long duration motions because of their
capacity to dissipate energy.

• There were many rigid buildings heavily damage during the first shock, and
then in aftershocks (due to the increase in the natural period).

Figure 15. Yokohama Specie Bank before and after Great Kanto Earthquake Figure 16. Rigid buildings damaged during Great
Source: Fujishima, 2021 Kanto Earthquake
Source: Jiji Press, 2023
2nd Discussion – Muto v Mashima (1930-1931) [cont.] 17

Mashima (1931)

Figure 17. Resonance effect and the ratio between structure natural period and ground motion predominant period
Modified from Mashima, 1924
3rd Discussion – Muto v Tanabashi v Mashima (1935-1936) 18

Tanabashi (1935)
• Tanabashi proposed to study the earthquake resistance in terms of
potential energy available in the structure.

• At the time, his approach only considered the response of a linear system.
Study for nonlinear condition was in progress.

• Mashima believed that Tanabashi was on his side. Based on his results, for
a certain seismic force level the potential energy of a flexible structure was
larger than in the case of a rigid structure.

• However, Tanabashi indicated that both structural systems could have the
same potential energy.

• For Tanabashi, the ideal structure was between a rigid and flexible
structure.

Figure 18. Potential energy of structures

Modified from Tanabashi, 1935
Conclusions 19

• Sano and Muto proposed to use the rigid theory for designing
earthquake-resistant buildings. Based on the intensity of the
ground, the structure will exhibit an inelastic behavior.

• Mashima proposed the use of flexible buildings. His focus was

avoiding resonance. In this case, the response of the structure will
be limited to the elastic range.

• Tanabashi suggested a hybrid theory based on energy

considerations. The ideal structure will be between a rigid and
flexible structure.

• After many discussions, there was no conclusion for the debate

between rigid and flexible structures. Specially, after the dead of
Mashima in 1941.

• Due to the relevance of Sano and Muto in the architecture field,

the rigid theory was used as the base for the Japanese Seismic
Design Code. Figure 19. Photographs of Sato, Muto, Mashima and Tanabashi
Conclusions [cont.] 20

• Both parties proposed their best solutions based on

the available data and tools. Thanks to this discussion
the base for the structural design in Japan was settled
and improved.

• According to modern history, both structural systems

can work if they are properly designed and depending
on the context and geometry of the building.

• For high-rise structures is difficult to ignore the theory

for flexible structures. Muto realized this when he
designed the Kasumigaseki Building in 1963.

Figure 20. Aerial photography of Kasumigaseki Building

References 21

Chambreuil, C., Giry, C., Ragueneau, F., & Léger, P. (2023). Identification methods of material-based damping for cracked reinforced concrete beam
models. Earthquake Engineering Structural Dynamics. 52. 2156-2178. Wiley.

University of Tokyo, (2021). Seismic record from Great Kanto Earthquake. Retrieved from: https://www.eri.u-tokyo.ac.jp/feature/18603/

Kazunori, K., & Ogawa, Y. (2014). Estimation of Predominant Periods in Tokyo Lowland on the bases of Compensated Seismograph during the 1923
Kanto Earthquake. Tokyo Metropolitan Civil Engineering Technical Support and Human Resource Development Center.

Mashima, K. (1924). About the selection of earthquake-resistant structures. Journal of the Japan Society of Civil Engineers. 10(4). 49-77. Tokyo:
Japan Society of Civil Engineers.

Mashima, K. (1926). Theory of multi-story earthquake-resistant structure. Journal of the Japan Society of Civil Engineers. 12(2). 229-303. Tokyo:
Japan Society of Civil Engineers.

Mashima, K. (1926). Comments on various theories on earthquake-resistant structures of Prof. Sano. Journal of the Japan Society of Civil Engineers.
12(5). 965-974. Tokyo: Japan Society of Civil Engineers.

Mashima, K. (1931). Response to Prof. Muto observations on theory for flexible structures. Architectural Magazine, 12-17. Tokyo: Architectural
Institute of Japan.

Mononobe, N. (1925). Relation between the destructive power of earthquakes and the percentage of collapse of wooden framed houses in Japan.
National Research Council of Japan.

Muto, K. (1929). Structural design of earthquake-resistant houses. Architectural Magazine. 529. 1581-1587. Tokyo: Architectural Institute of Japan.
References 22

Muto, K. (1931). Doubts on theory for flexible structures of Prof. Mashima. Architectural Magazine. Tokyo: Architectural Institute of Japan.

Nakahara, K. (2000). Earthquake response of ancient five-story pagoda structure of Horyu-ji temple in Japan. World Conference Earthquake
Engineering.

Nikkei Asia (2023). 100th anniversary of the Great Kanto Earthquake. Retrieved from https://asia.nikkei.com/static/vdata/infographics/kanto-
earthquake-46hours/

Nishikawa, S. (2018). Incorporating Science and Technology for Disaster Reduction, the Japanese Experience.

Sano, T. (1915). Key points for earthquake-resistant structural design. Architectural Magazine, 12-17. Tokyo: Architectural Institute of Japan.

Sano, T. (1926). Various theories on earthquake-resistant structures. Architectural Magazine, 39-66. Tokyo: Architectural Institute of Japan.

Shencking, C. (2013). The Great Kanto Earthquake and the Chimera of National Reconstruction in Japan. Columbia University Press: NYC.

Shibata, A. (2010). Major earthquakes and the development of seismic engineering (Part 1 – Before World War II). Tohoku University.

Shibata, A. (2012). 50 years of earthquake engineering. Tohoku University.

Tanabashi, R. (1931). Opinion regarding the destructive power of earthquakes and the earthquake resistance of buildings. Architectural Magazine.
491. 39-66. Tokyo: Architectural Institute of Japan.

Yamanaka, M., Fujimoto, T., & Mizuno, R. (2015). A study on flexible structure in flexible structures vs rigid structures – Part 1. Nihon University:
Tokyo.
Thank you for your attention!
Questions / Answers
Question 25

• 1. Can the term natural period be used for earthquakes?

Answer

• Based on academic papers, the typical term used for

the case of earthquakes is “predominant period”.

• Slides were modified accordingly.

𝜔Τ𝜔𝑛 = 𝑇𝑛 Τ𝑇
• Also, the figure for resonance effect is modified.

Figure 21. Maximum response of a single-degree-of-freedom

system excited by harmonic force with period of 1 s
Adapted from Chopra, 2020 & Ohno, 2023
Question 26

• 2. Are there statistics about the types of buildings that collapsed during the North Izu Earthquake?

Answer

• After searching on the internet,

statistics for the North Izu
Earthquake (1930) were not
found.

• According to the Imperial

Earthquake Investigation
Committee (1925), at least 1537
reinforced concrete buildings
were damaged during the Great
Kanto Earthquake (1923).

• However, this event was the one

that Mashima referred to.
Table 1. Statistics of buildings damaged during the Great Kanto Earthquake
Source: Hayashi et al., 2010
Question 27

• 3. How would you define the limit value of the natural period for defining rigid and flexible structures?

Answer

• I would define the limit value based on the characteristics of

the existing lateral forces such as earthquake and wind loads.

• If only gravity load are applied to the structure, there is no

meaning in defining it as rigid or flexible.

• For the case of earthquake loads, I would suggest conducting a

statistical analysis to determine the range of predominant
periods for the ground motions of the site.

• Then for wind loads it is required to understand the minimum

period where the structures are susceptible to the gust effect.

• Additionally, it is necessary to take into consideration the P-Δ

effect. Figure 22. Concept of structural response for Horyu-ji Temple
Adapted from CFIA, 2014; ASCE, 2016
Question 28

• 4. What are the connections for structural members in pagodas?

Answer

Figure 23. Concept of structural response for Horyu-ji Temple

Adapted from Nakahara et al., 2000; Noukakuken, 2016
Question 29

• 4. What are the connections for structural members in pagodas?

Answer

Figure 24. Concept of structural response for Horyu-ji Temple

Adapted from Nakahara et al., 2000; Tanabashi, 1960; NHK, 2009
References 30

American Society of Civil Engineers. (2016). ASCE 7-16 Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. Virginia:
ASCE.

Chopra, A. (2020). Dynamic of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Colegio Federado de Ingenierios y Arquictectos. (2014). Código Sísmico de Costa Rica 2010 Rev. 2010. San José: CFIA.

Hayashi, S., Makihara, S., Fukuwa, N. & Tobita, J. (2010). Damage of reinforced concrete buildings during the 1923 Great Kanto Earthquake based
on damage investigation reports. Journal Structure Construction Engineering. 75(648). 251-260. Tokyo: Architectural Institute of Japan.

Nakahara, K., Hisatoku, T., Nagase, T. & Takahashi, Y. (2000). Earthquake response of ancient five-story pagoda structure of Horyu-ji temple in
Japan. World Conference Earthquake Engineering.

NHK Broadcasting Center. (2009). Begin Japanology: Five-Story Pagodas. Shibuya: NHK. Retrieved from: https://youtu.be/mBaml32Jam8

Tanabashi, R. (1960). Earthquake resistance of traditional Japanese wooden structures. Disaster Prevention Research Institute Bulletin 40.