Government of Nepal Japan International

DUDBC Cooperation Agency

Day : 1
Session : 1.1

Transition of Japanese Aseismic Design

Standard for Buildings

The Project for

Promotion of Nepal National Building Code Compliance for Safer Building Construction

JAPAN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AGENCY (JICA)

JICA EXPERT TEAM
Past Earthquakes, Disasters and Aseismic Design Standards 2

1964 Niigata
1968 Tokachi-Oki
1981 Nobi

1948 Fukui
1978 Miyagi-Ken-Oki
1995 Hyogo-ken-Nambu

1923 Kanto
1945 Mikawa
1946 Nankai

1944 Tounankai
Past Earthquakes, Disasters and Aseismic Design Standards 3

• 1981 Nobi EQ (M8.4) Active Fault

• Severe damage to wooden and brick masonry housings

• 1914 ”Earthquake-resistant structure of houses” by Toshikata

Sano
• Application of constant lateral force factor of 0.1

• 1920 Regulation for Buildings in Urban Area

• The first law for structure
• Self-weight was of concern．
• Design Method : Allowable stress design
• Limitation of building height (up to 31m)
Past Earthquakes, Disasters and Aseismic Design Standards 4

• 1923 Kanto EQ (M7.9) Collapsed Building

• Severe damage to brick masonry housings
• Less damage to RC buildings
• Human loss by fire following

• 1924 Amendment of Regulation for Buildings in Urban Area

• Seismic force = 0.1G
• Safety factor for short period = 3
• Bracings shall be provided for wooden housings. Casualty by Fire Following
Past Earthquakes, Disasters and Aseismic Design Standards 5

• 1944 Tounankai EQ (M8.0) Collapsed Building

• 1945 Mikawa EQ (M7.1)
• 1946 Nankai EQ (M8.1)
• Earthquakes occurred at Nankai Trough
• Less information due to Word War II

• 1944 Temporary Standard in Word War II

• Seismic force = 0.15G Damage to Coastal Area
• Introduction of importance factor
• Note: Current standard does not mention the importance
factor since it is the minimum requirement.
Past Earthquakes, Disasters and Aseismic Design Standards 6

• 1948 Fukui EQ (M7.1) Collapsed Building

• Collapse of 7-storey RC department store

• 1950 Building Standard Law

• Seismic force = 0.2G
• Safety factor for short period = 1.5
• Note : Seismic force was doubled, but, safety factor was
reduced by half.
• Requirement of minimum total wall length for wooden Damage to Urban Area
housings
• Removal of usage factor (importance factor)

• 1952 Publication of Zone Factor

• Reduction factor of seismic force
Past Earthquakes, Disasters and Aseismic Design Standards 7

• 1964 Niigata EQ (M7.9) Tilting of Buildings by Liquefaction

• Damage by liquefaction was focused.
• Small number of human damage

• 1965 Revision of Fire Service Act

• Due to the fire in petrochemical industries

• 1966 Law for Earthquake Insurance

Falling-down of Bridge by Liquefaction

• 1964 Recommendation for High-rise buildings

• Applicable for buildings whose height is 45m or more.

• 1965 Revision of Building Standard Law

• Removal of height limitation
Past Earthquakes, Disasters and Aseismic Design Standards 8

• 1968 Tokachi-Oki EQ (M7.9) Damage to School Building

• Less damage to wooden housings
• Severe damage to RC buildings due to brittle failure of short
columns

• 1971 Revision of Building Standard Law

• Revision of spacing of hoops and stirrups
• Previous: 30cm
• Revised: 15cm (middle portion) and 10cm (end portion) Collapse of Short Column
• Requirement of reinforcement of foundation of wooden
housings

• 1972-1976 MLIT Project

• Application of technology for high-rise buildings
• Evaluation of ductility
Past Earthquakes, Disasters and Aseismic Design Standards 9

• 1978 Miyagi-Ken-Oki EQ (M7.4) Damage to 1st Story of RC Building

• Collapse to RC walls
• Damage to non-structural elements

• 1981 Revision of Building Standard Law

• So-called “New Seismic Design”
• 2-step procedure
• Introduction of ultimate strength
Damage to Gas Holder
• Reflection of dynamic response effect
Past Earthquakes, Disasters and Aseismic Design Standards 10

• 1995 Hyougo-Ken-Nambu EQ (M7.3) [Kobe earthquake] Damage to 1st Story of RC Building

• 1st earthquake whose JMA intensity is 7
• Severe damage to old wooden housings
• Very few damage to buildings by “New Seismic Design”
• The efficiency of “New Seismic Design” was proven.

• 1995 Retrofitting Promotion Act

• Reflecting lessons learned from Kobe earthquake Damage to Middle Storey
• Enforced from Dec.25, 1995
Past Earthquakes, Disasters and Aseismic Design Standards 11

2007 Niigata-Ken-Chuetu-Oki 2008 Iwate-Miyagi-Nairiku

2007 Noto Peninsula

2005 Fukuoka-Ken-Seihou-Oki
2005 Miyagi-Ken-Oki

2005 Chiba-Ken-Hokuseibu

2004 Niigata-Ken-Chuetu
Past Earthquakes, Disasters and Aseismic Design Standards 12

• 2004 Niigata-Ken-Chuetsu EQ (M6.8) Damage to Wooden Houses

• 2nd earthquake whose JMA intensity is 7
• Series of aftershocks were focused.

• 2005 Earthquake Disaster Prevention Promotion Council for

Housings and Buildings
• Determination of target for retrofitting
• Necessary action for achievement
• Examination how the act should be Derailing of Shinkansen, Bullet Train
• Examination of enlightening and information dissemination
• Examination of earthquake insurance
Past Earthquakes, Disasters and Aseismic Design Standards 13

• 2005 Fukuoka-Ken-Seihou-Oki EQ (M7.0) Damage to Department Store

• Earthquake occurred in the area where few past earthquakes
were observed.

• 2005 Earthquake Disaster Prevention Strategy

• Reduce the casualty and economic loss against Tokai
earthquake by half
• Increase the retrofitting rate up to 90%
Damage to Wooden Houses
• 2005 Suggestion by Earthquake Disaster Prevention Promotion
Council for Housings and Buildings
• Increase the retrofitting rate up to 90%
• Others
Past Earthquakes, Disasters and Aseismic Design Standards 14

• 2005 Chiba-Ken-Hokuseibu EQ (M7.0) Damage to Ceiling of Swimming Pool

• Damage to life-line was focused.

• 2005 Miyagi-Ken-Oki EQ (M7.2)

• Damage to ceiling was focused.

• 2005 Policy of Urgent Retrofitting of Buildings

• Revision of Retrofitting Promotion Act
• Promotion of retrofitting of public buildings, such as schools,
hospitals and government offices

• 2006 Enforcement of Revised Retrofitting Promotion Act

On Current Aseismic Design Standard (1) 15

Design Check

Static Analysis
Buildings of 3 stories or
Allowable stress design
less

Buildings of 31m height Check of regularity in Check by shape

Allowable stress design
or shorter shape

Buildings of 60m height

Allowable stress design Ultimate story capacity Check by capacity
or shorter

Capacity Spectrum Method

Buildings of 60m height Check by drift angle
Serviceability check Safety check
or shorter

Time History Response Analysis

Buildings of 60m height, Dynamic response analysis : Determine seismic load,
Check by drift angle
Base-isolated buildings Pre-design, Serviceability Check, Safety Check

Immediate Occupancy Life Safe

On Current Aseismic Design Standard (2) 16

• Comparison with Previous Design

• Basic Concept
Ground Motion in PGA Previous Code Current Code
80 Gal Life Safe (L/S) Immediate Occupancy (I/O)
400Gan N/A Life Safe (L/S)

• Performance in Past Disasters

Ground Motion in PGA Previous Code Current Code
Medium Damage : 35% Medium Damage : 20%
Kobe EQ (1995)
Severe Damage : 30% Severe Damage : 10%
Tohoku EQ (2011) Damaged : 19% Damaged : 10%
Medium Damage : 49% Medium Damage : 54%
Kumamoto EQ (2016)
Severe Damage : 46% Severe Damage : 15%
On Current Aseismic Design Standard (3) 17

• Features
• Employs two limit stage
• 1st Design
• Base shear coef. : 0.2G
• Design of members by allowable stress design
• Check of building irregularity in case thar 2nd Design is not conducted.
• Performance check for I/O
• 2nd Design
• Base shear coef. : 1.0G >> reduced by the ductility
• Story shear capacity check
• In case thar story shear capacity is smaller than required capacity, 1st design is
redone.
• Performance check for L/S

• Introduction of nonlinear behavior

Static Analysis 18

• Required Capacity for Immediate Occupancy ; �� = �0 × � × �� × ��

• �� ; Story shear coefficient
• �0 ; Standard base shear coefficient (= 0.2)
• � ; Zone factor
• �� ; Vibration characteristic factor
• �� ; Distribution of story shear in vertical direction

• Required Capacity for Life Safe ; �� = 5 × �0 × � × �� × �� × ��� × ��

• �� ; Structure characteristic factor to reduce required capacity of stories
• ��� ; Shape factor to adjust required capacity of stories
• Others ; Diitto
Zone Factor 19

• Zoning was based on Seismic Hazard Analysis

• Utilizing past researches

• Zone factors were given by experts’ opinion

• Insufficient observation records to examine long
time activity
• Knowledge on seismic activity was not
homogeneous through the country.
• Extreme difference in zone factor is not
preferable, since Japan islands are located high
seismic region.
Vibration Characteristics Factor 20

• �� = 1, (� < �� )
• �� = 1 − 0.2 � �� )2 , (�� ≤ � < 2�� )
• �� = 1.6 �� �, (2�� ≤ �)
• � ; Period of 1st mode
• �� ; 0.4 (Hard soil), 0.6 (Medium soil), 0.8 (Soft soil)
Structure Characteristic Factor 21

• � � is given as follows

RC Steel

Beam/Column Shear Wall Beam/Column Brace

Ductile 0.30 0.45 0.25 0.25-0.40

0.35 0.50 0.30 0.30-0.40

0.40 0.55 0.35 0.35-0.45

Brittle 0.45 0.55 0.40 0.40-0.50

Note : This table summarizes Ds values. More detailed tables are provided for design.
Shape factor 22

• ��� is given as the product of �� and ��.

• �� : Stiffness factor
• �� : Eccentricity factor

δ : story drift ��������� ��������

�� �� = ℎ δ �� =
ℎ : story height ������� ������
�� = �� �
� � = �� ��
Distribution of Story Shear in Vertical Direction ; Ai-distribution 23

1 2�
• �� = 1 + ��
− ��
1+3�
�
�=� ��
• �� = �
�=1 ��

• � : natural period
Distribution of Ai factor Distribution Story Shear

• Feature of Ai-distribution
• Regression of dynamic analysis (Linear
and Nonlinear)
• Characteristics of dynamic behavior is
included.
• Effect of natural period (=building stiffness)
can be reflected.
Design of Members and Performance Check 24

• 1st Design
• Working stresses in all members shall be within the allowable stress.
• Story drift shall be less than 1/200.
• No damage concentration is prevented. (if not, 2nd Design is required)
• Stiffness ratio is 0.6 or greater.
• Eccentric ratio is 0.15 or small.

• 2nd Design
• Capacity of each story shall not be less than required one.
• Story drift shall be less than 1/100.
On performance-Based Design (1) 25

• Concept of Performance Design

• Method is designer-based.
• Performance shall be checked for some limit state.

• Pros
• Discretion is given to designer.
• More cost-effective material or method can be used.

• Cons
• Laborious in explaining the design method for many ordinary designers
• Performances to be checked 3 or more levels
• So, performance-based design has not been prevailed in Japan.
On performance-Based Design (2) 26

Ground Motion Intensity Level

nc e
rm a
e rfo
hP
H ig

Minimal performance
level required by
Standard

Damage State

Serviceability Repairability Safety

Limit Limit Limit
THANK YOU !