Report On Severely Damaged Reinforced Concrete Buildings by 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake, Japan

10a-0015 The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 17WCEE

Sendai, Japan - September 13th to 18th 2020
Paper N° C001228
Registration Code: S-A02001
REPORT ON SEVERELY DAMAGED REINFORCED CONCRETE

BUILDINGS BY 2016 KUMAMOTO EARTHQUAKE, JAPAN
H. Shiohara(1), M. Saito(2), S. Tajiri(3) and T. Mukai(4)

(1)
Professor, School of Engineering, the University of Tokyo, shiohara@arch.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp
(2)
Structural Engineer, Shimz Corporation, saito.masaya@shimz.co.jp
(3)
Associate Professor, School of Engineering, the Univeresity of Tokyo, tajiri@arch.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp,
(4)
Senior Research Associate, Building Research Institute, t_mukai@kenken.go.jp
Abstract
2016 Kumamoto Earthquake with an MJMA = 6.5 foreshock and an MJMA = 7.3 main shock rocked the Kumamoto
Prefecture on Kyushu Island of Japan on April 14 and April 16, 2016 respectively. Structural observation of four
reinforced concrete moment resisting frame buildings suffered significant structural damage are reported as selected
benchmarks for the seismic performance of low-rise reinforced concrete building structures in Japan. Two of them are
two-story corridor structures of school building, connecting two buildings at two levels, remained standing but were left
with extremely large residual lateral drift in the short span direction more than five percent at the first story after the main
shock. The lateral load capacity are checked and it is revealed that they satisfied the level of the current requirement of
the code. Nonlinear time history responses were calculated to base ground motions recorded at the near site of the
buildings to evaluate the actual seismic demand of the buildings and to correlate the level of lateral capacity and the level
of the damage, to assess the validity of the lateral strength demand requirement of the current code. The other two
structures are two-way moment resisting frame building structures which nearly collapsed and demolished with severe
structural damage to beam-column joints. To both of the buildings, story drift are concentrated at one of intermediate
stories and the beam-column joints, which located at the top and the bottom of the intermediate story, the core concrete
was fallen and the buckling of the longitudinal rebars in column were observed. Due to the failure of the beam-column
joints, the vertical load support capability seemed to be lost and anchorage of longitudinal beam bars anchored in the
beam-column joint may be lost, which caused the partial collapse of the buildings. The conformity of the detailing of the
beam-column joint to the current seismic provisions are checked and the seismic demand and lateral capacity are
compared by push-over analysis. It is revealed that the transverse reinforcement for the beam-column joints are minimal
in both cases. The capacity of the gravity load carrying system without the contribution of the failed beam-column joints
of one of the buildings are calculated by the yield line theory to assess the gravity collapse potential and compared with
the observed damage to evaluate the validity of the current seismic provisions for reinforced concrete beam-column joints.
Keywords: Reinforced concrete, Moment resisting frame, Beam-column Joint, Partial collapse, Gravity load capacity
© The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering - 10a-0015 -


1. Introduction
2016 Kumamoto Earthquake with an MJMA = 6.5 foreshock and an MJMA = 7.3 main shock rocked the
Kumamoto Prefecture on Kyushu Island of Japan on April 14 and April 16, 2016. Fifty people were killed in
the Earthquake. While various types of structural damage to Reinforced Concrete (RC) buildings were
observed to new and old buildings [1,2], structural damage observation and the lesson of selected low-rise
reinforced concrete buildings are reported here.
2. Collapse of two-story corridor structures of school buildings

One of the building type reported here is two-story corridor structures of school buildings, connecting two
main school buildings for class at the second floor level, which barely escaped collapse but extremely large
residual lateral drift were left of more than five percent at the first story in the direction of short span. Whereas
the main buildings has little damage. The lateral load capacity of the first story are revealed that they satisfied
the code minimum requirement. Nonlinear time history responses were calculated to evaluate the actual
seismic demand of the buildings subject to base ground motions recorded at the near site of the buildings.
Correlation of the level of lateral capacity and the level of the damage is compared. The validity of the lateral
strength demand requirement of the current code are examined to know the reason of the peculiar type of
buildings.
2.1 General information
Building A is of a two-story reinforced concrete. The structural system is moment resisting frame (RCMF)
with 1 bay 2 frames with two spans completed in 2013 in Town of Otsu, Kikuchi-gun, Kumamoto Prefecture.
The first story is open frame while the frames in span direction are with non-structural RC spandrel walls
isolated to column with gap to avoid interaction on the second story. Figure 1 shows the plan and the elevation
while Table 2 lists the member section detail. The type of soil is grade II and the super structure is supported
by bearing piles. The design compressive strength of concrete is 24MPa, the grade of longitudinal
reinforcements are SD345 (JIS G 3801). Although beam sway collapse mechanism are predicted according to
G2 G2 G2 RFL
Structural slit W = 829kN
3800 C1 C2 C1 C1 C1
C1 G2 C2 G2 C1
Y2 2FL
W = 793kN
3100
G1 G1 G1 G2 G2 G2
4050
G2 G2 C1 C2 C1 C1 C1
Y1 GL
C1 C2 C1
Y
6650 6650 1400
X 6650 6650 3100
X1 X2 X3 X1 X2 X3 Y1 Y2 unit in mm
1st floor plan Y1 frame elevation X1 frame elevation
(a) Building A
G0 G0 G0 G0
RFL
70
3370
C0 C0 C0 C0 C0 C0 W = 730kN
C0 G0 C0 G0 C0 G0 C0
1000
Y2 G0 G0 G0 G0
2450
G0 G0 G0 G0 2FL
550
G0 G0 G0 W = 816kN
4350
Y1
C0 C0 C0 C0 C0 C0 C0 C0 C0 C0
1600 4900 5000 4900 1200 GL
X1 X2 X3 X4
4900 5000 4900 2450
1st floor plan
N
Fig. 1 – Building A unit in mm
Y1 frame elevation X1 frame elevation
(b) Building B
2

W = 793kN
3100
10a-0015 G1
G2
G1
G2
G1
C1
G2
4050 The 17th
2
G2
World CConference on
C1
G2
Earthquake
C1
Engineering
C1
Y1 GL
C1 C2 C1
Y
6650 6650 1400 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 17WCEE
X 6650 6650
Sendai, 3100 13th to 18th 2020
Japan - September
X1 X2 X3 X1 X2 X3 Y1 Y2 unit in mm
1st floor plan Y1 frame elevation X1 frame elevation
(a) Building A
G0 G0 G0 G0
RFL
70
3370
C0 C0 C0 C0 C0 C0 W = 730kN
C0 G0 C0 G0 C0 G0 C0
1000
Y2 G0 G0 G0 G0
2450
G0 G0 G0 G0 2FL
550
G0 G0 G0 W = 816kN
4350
Y1
C0 C0 C0 C0 C0 C0 C0 C0 C0 C0
1600 4900 5000 4900 1200 GL
X1 X2 X3 X4
4900 5000 4900 2450
1st floor plan
N
unit in mm
Y1 frame elevation X1 frame elevation
(b) Building B
Fig. 2 – Building B
Table 1 – Member section and reinforcing detail of Buildings A and B
(a) Building A (b) Building B

section column beam section column beam
D22 D19
2 C1 C2
C0
1&2 G0
G1 G2 C0
1 C1 C2
dimension 600 × 400 300 × 600
dimension 450 × 450 400×800 hoop stirrup
hoop D13@200 stirrup D13@200 D10@100 D13@100
unit in mm unit in mm
the design document, flexural yielding
section column
at the top andbeam
bottom of the section
first story column beam
column
dominated the structural
behavior, minor residual story drift of 1/500 remained D22after the earthquakes. D19
2 C1 C
Building B is another two-story RC2 moment resisting frame with identical C0
structural system with 1 bay 2
frames with three spans, completed in 1981 in Town of Mashiki, Kami-mashiki-gun, GKumamoto
1 & 2 0 Prefecture.
G G C0
The plan and the section
1
detail
C1
are shown
C 2
in Fig.1 2 and Table
2 2 respectively. The compressive strength of
concrete is 21MPa and the grade of the reinforcement is SD30dimension (JIS G 600
3801).
× 400 The
300 ×verdict
600 of the seismic
vulnerability assessment
dimensionin 2007 450is× 450
seismic retrofit400×800
is not necessary. The sample
hoop corestirrup
compressive strength of
D10@100 D13@100
concrete was 22.8MPa and 20.9MPa,hoop D13@200
which isstirrup
veryD13@200
close to design strength 21MPa. Failure of fist story
columns in flexure at the bottom and the top was severe. Concrete crushing and local buckling of longitudinal
bar were observed. Residual story drift at the first story was 1/17 and quite large.
2.2 Pushover analysis and collapse mechanism
The buildings conformed to new seismic provisions introduced in 1981 are called Shin-taishin and are
required to determine the collapse mechanism and the assessment of lateral capacity. Member strength such


Fig. 3 – Pushover curves
as shear should be larger than shear demand at the collapse mechanism to guarantee prevention of premature
failure to assure ductile behavior of the structural system. To determine the collapse mechanism, pushover
analysis are common in practical design recently using package software available in market. The reliability
of the push over analysis depend on the assumption of non-linear structural modeling parameters.
Non-linear pushover analysis was carried out using a commercial software CANNY99 [3] under lateral
force distribution of Ai; standard distribution factors in Building Standard Law. The corridor building and the
adjacent main buildings were confirmed to be isolated by expansion joints, so the structure is modeled as
independent building. The software incorporates the one component model for beam; two non-linear rotational
springs at member ends and connecting elastic line element for beams, where tri-linear primary curve are
calculated for cracking point and yielding point by flexural analysis and an assumption of yield stiffness, while
the column is modeled by fiber model, assuming concrete constitutive model and bi-linear model for steel.
Shear deformation is included in linearly elastic member. The beam-column joint is rigid. Concrete strength is
from the design strength in Building A and the sample core strength in Building B. Yield point of reinforcing
bar is assumed to be110% of nominal yield point to consider the expected average strength.
The relation of story drift ratio and story shear as well as the relation of base shear and the ratio of top
floor displacement to total height of the building are shown in Fig. 3. The base shear coefficient at mechanism
are calculated to be 0.68 and 0.58 in frame direction and transverse direction respectively for Building A. The
coefficient for Building B is 0.71 and 0.42, both of which is much larger than the current requirement of seismic
provision of 0.30. So they satisfy the current seismic code in Japan with margin.
Predicted collapse mechanism is beam sway mechanism. Observed collapse mechanism was story sway
mechanism at the first story. They are contradicted each other. By considering the upper bound of beam
flexural yield moment by assuming all the slab reinforcement is effective in T-slab section, the base shear at
collapse mechanism increases to 0.70 and 0.64. Even in this case, the column-to-beam strength ratio in
transverse direction decreased to between 1.27 and 1.80, which is contradict to the observed collapse
mechanism. The reason of the difference of collapse mechanism shed the reliability of current modeling
practice and need further investigation of the reason.
2.3 Non-linear Static Procedure for estimation of maximum response
Equivalent SDOF models are determined from the pushover curve of the structures. Three site response spectra
of observing stations near the buildings are used. They are 1)the municipal building of Otsu;1.8km south west


maximum accleration m/s2
40
(a) Ohtsu (b) KiK-net Mashiki (c) Mashiki Municipal Building
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
period , sec period , sec period , sec
NS (pre-shock) NS (main shock)
Design Spectra (Soil Type II)
EW (pre-shock) EW (main shock)
Fig. 4 – 5% damping acceleration response spectra of observed base motion at near sites
ductility factor μ ductility factor μ

0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 8 10
30 30
X-direction Y-direction Y-direction
20 Design
20 Design
Design
spectrum spectrum spectrum
10 5% damping 5% damping 10
Sa , m/sec2
Sa , m/sec2
0 0
30 30 30
X-direction Y-direction Y-direction Y-direction
KiK-net
20 main shock main shock 20 20
main shock
Ohtsu Ohtsu
10 pre-shock pre-shock 10 pre-shock 10
5% damping 5% damping
0 0 0
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400 500
Sd , mm/sec2 Sd , mm/sec2
Fig. 5 – Response estimation by demand spectrum and capacity spectrum
to Building A, 2)KiK-net Mashiki; 1.4km northwest of Building B and 3)the municipal building of
Mashiki;1.2km west of Building B). The site response spectra for 5% damping are shown in Fig. 4, where the
code based design spectrum are overlaid. The demand spectra and the capacity spectra are overlaid in Fig. 5,
where the intersection of the capacity and the demand spectra means the predicted response.
It is revealed that the estimated maximum displacement response of Building A is equivalent to ductility
factor (μ) of 2 for code spectra, while response to the Otsu spectra gives μ = 1.2 in the transverse direction.
The response is equivalent to 1.9% story drift if lateral drift distributed evenly at 1st and 2nd story, while it is
3.1% if all the drift occurred only at the first story. The estimated maximum ductility factor response of
Building B in transverse direction (Y-direction) is μ=5.0 for seismic code demand, μ=7 and 7.5 at foreshock
and main shock respectively for KiK-net Mashiki, and μ=11 and μ=12.5 at foreshock and main shock
respectively for Municipal building of Mashiki, equivalent to first story store drift of 6.0% and 9.6%.The two
building are confirmed to have code required lateral capacity. But the reality is the base motion level exceeded
the required level and caused local collapsed of Building B. But the observed damaged to the main buildings
of the both schools were minor. Further investigation is necessary to find rational explanation the strange
contrast of damage to different type of structure.


3. Collapse of low-rise two way moment resistant frame structure

The seismic design provisions for RC beam-column joint has been introduced since 1991, where the first joint
shear capacity equation was given in Japan. At 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Earthquake, not a few new buildings
are reported to have had some or severe damage to beam-column joints which conformed to the joint shear
provisions. Two low rise RC buildings with damage to beam-column joints had been identified in Kumamoto.
Both of Pre-Shintaishin Building C and Shintaisin Building D had suffered partial collapse and excessive
residual drift. It should be noted that Japanese current seismic provisions for beam-column joint has a
significant difference from those of the US and the NZ. That is no mandate confinement detailing provisions
for joint hoops except minimum requirement of 0.2% and no mandate requirement for column-to-beam
strength ratio.
3.1 General information
Building C is a five-story RC municipal building of Uto City completed in 1965. Seismic vulnerability
assessment carried out in 2003 put a verdict of insufficient earthquake resistance, but no retrofit work was
done. The verdict was mainly due to the brittle columns vulnerable to shear failure. The structural system is
two way moment resisting frame structure with pentagon plan connected to auxiliary structure with rectangular
plan as shown in Fig. 6. The two structures are continuous only by monolithic RC slab at each floor with
thickness of 120mm and length of 745mm along the joint. The part of pentagon building toppled severely
whereas the building of the rectangular plan was kept intact due to stiffness and strength of staircases
incorporated in the structure. The connecting slab had fractured severely with concrete fell off after the main
shock.
The use of the building was municipal office. The story height of the 3rd story or higher are 3600mm
and the span length is 8900mm in the two perpendicular direction. The first story plan is extended to
RC slab
RFL
W=3333kN
6300 6300 6300 6000
staircase 3600
5FL
G3 G4 G4 G3 3600 W=3141kN
G4
G2 G2 4FL
A1 B3 3600 W=3048kN
G2 G2 G2 G2 3FL
office
3230 W=3164kN
A2 G2 G2 B2 2FL
1670 W=9788kN
3300
A3 B1 GL
6300 6300 6300 6300 6300 8910 8910
unit in mm A1 A2 A3 unit in mm
(a) second floor plan (b) elevation of B1 frame
Fig. 6 – Plan and elevation of Building C

Table. 2 – Member section and reinforcing detail of Building C
(a) column (b) beam

5F 4F 3F 2F RF 5F 4F 3F
in out in out in out
A2B1
700×500 700×600 700×650 850×850 G1
A1B1 350×900
700×700 700×700 700×700 850×850 stirrup 9φ @200

hoop 9φ @120 D25 D22 D19 D16
unit in mm


RFL
5FL
4FL
exterior beam-columun joint
3FL
2FL
concrete crushing corner beam-columun joint
Fig. 7 – drawing of frame B1 damage and photos of damaged beam-column joint

accommodate the space for reception. The plan, elevation are shone in Fig. 6 and typical member sections are
listed in Table 2. The structure was constructed on a pile foundation. Concrete compressive strength records
tested in 2003 for seismic assessment were larger than 180kg/cm2; design strength of concrete. The tensile test
of longitudinal coupon collected from collapsed building showed larger yield point of 399MPa, than the
nominal yield point of 295MPa.
The damage of the outer frame is depicted in Fig. 7 which was drawn based on the photo image. The
center column of the outer frame at the 4th story popped outside losing gravity supporting capability triggered
by the failure of beam-column joint at the top and the bottom of the column. The concrete in the joint crushed
and fell off completely, and the longitudinal reinforcements buckled. The cracks due to failure of anchorage
of beam bar were developed in the joint panel at the side of the corner joint. No shear failure of columns or
beams were not observed.
Building D is a five-story RC structure for a fire fighter training facility which belongs to a fire station
completed in 1988 in Town of Mashiki, Kumamoto Prefecture. The first and second story is stiff and strong
due to thick RC shear walls monolithically constructed with the frames with thickness of 160mm. From the
3rd to 5th floors are MRF with four columns and no shear wall. The plan, elevation and section reinforcing
detail are shown in Fig. 8. The flexural reinforcement in beams in x-direction and y-direction is common from
RFL
G4 W=407kN
Y4 3500 C1 RF 5F 4F 2,3F 2,3F
C1 5FL
G4 W=420kN
1745 4580
G4 3500 C1 C1 G1 G1 G1 G1 G4
4FL section
Y3 W=390kN
G4 3500 C2 C2 3-D22 5-D22 6-D22 3-D22 3-D22
3FL 2-D22 3-D22 4-D22 3-D22 3-D22
Y2 D22 350×650 400×650 400×650 400×650 350×650
G3 W=753kN
3500 C2 stirrup D10@200 D13@100 D13@100 D10@150 D10@150
C2 C3 C3
5010
G1 G1 2FL
W=822kN 4F - RF 1F - 4F
G2 3640 C2 C2 C3 C3
Y1 GL
section C1 C2
Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 12-D19 16-D19
X1 X2 X3 D19 550×550 550×550
shear wall (thickness 160mm)
hoop D10@100 D10@100 unit in mm
(a) floor plan (b) X3 frame elevation (c) section of beam and column
Fig. 8 – Plan and elevation of Building D


concrete crushing resin panel

E W N S RFL
5FL
beam-columun joint on 3rd floor
4FL
3FL
Y2 Y1 X1 X2 beam-columun joint on 4th floor
Fig. 9 – Damage of Building D
Loading direction
5000 0.20
1st story
Base shear coefficient
4000
2nd story
3000 3rd story
0.10
2000 4th story
5th story
1000
0 0.00
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2
A1 A2 A3
Story drift angle , % Average story drift ratio , %
Collapse mechanism
(a) Building C plastic hinge
Loading direction
2000 0.50
1st story
0.40
2nd story
0.30
1000 3rd story
4th story 0.20
Base shear coefficient
5th story 0.10

Story shear , kN
1000 0.00 X1 X3
2000 0.50
1st story 0.40
2nd story
3rd story
0.30
1000
4th story 0.20
5th story
0.10
1000 0.00
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 Y1 Y2 Y4
Story drift angle , % Average story drift ratio , %
Collapse mechanism
(b) Building D plastic hinge
Fig. 10 – Pushover curves and collapse mechanism by non-linear static analysis

the 3rd to the roof floor, while the width of the beam in x-direction is 350mm which is smaller than 400mm of
y-direction. The structure is supported by a pile foundation. According to the structural calculation document,
the structural type is ductile moment resisting frame. The observed damage to the structural members in x-
direction and y-directions are shown in Fig. 9. It is known that after the foreshock, the crush of beam-column
joint concrete on 3rd floor severed particularly and fell off, while the damage to beam or column were minor
and cover concrete did not fell off. After the main shock, damage to beam-column joints got severer with more


cracks and crushing of concrete, lot of cover concrete fell off and reinforcing bar became visible. By the
aftershocks, the residual story drift increased to 5% in y-direction and 1% in x-direction. The building was
demolished in a few weeks after the main shock.
3.2 Pushover analysis and collapse mechanism
Non-linear pushover analysis was carried out using CANNY99 [3] to assess the collapse mechanism and lateral
resistant capacity of Buildings C and D. The model are same as those used for the corridor building in Section
2.2. Each shear wall is modeled with a fiber model for flexure action and a non-linear shear spring for bending
and shear deformation respectively. Shear cracking force and shear strength of shear walls were calculated by
equations in AIJ Guidelines [4]. The flexural resistance of out-of-plane direction is also considered. The beam-
column joint is assumed to be rigid and have infinitely strong to shear. Compressive strength of concrete used
for the Building C is the strength of the sample core test listed in the vulnerability assessment report, while the
strength of concrete used for Building D is design strength of 21MPa. Model for tensile yield point of
reinforcing bar are from tensile test of coupon taken from Building C, while 110% of nominal yield point is
assumed for Building D. Lateral load distribution coefficients Ai are assumed. The story drift-story shear
relations and collapse mechanism are shown in Fig. 10, where occurrence of plastic hinges on the column
means yielding of all the tensile reinforcing bars in the fiber model section.
The collapse mechanism of Building C is beam-sway mechanism along the stories on 3rd story and
higher. The base shear coefficient at the collapse mechanism is 0.19, which is smaller than current code
requirement. Building D shows collapse mechanism of local lateral sway mechanism at 3rd and 4th story and
the base shear coefficient are 0.55 in both directions, which is much larger than required minimum value of
0.40 specified in the current code.
3.3 Evaluation of beam-column joint seismic design and detailing
The seismic design of beam-column joints of Building C and Building D are evaluated how they
conformed to the recent provisions adopted by AIJ. The values calculated are for; a) ratio of joint shear demand
to capacity, b) ratio of bond strength to bond capacity of longitudinal passing through the beam-column joint,
c) ratio of development strength of longitudinal reinforcement in beam-column joint, d) column-to-beam
strength ratio, and e) amount of joint hoops in transverse reinforcement ratio, are shown in Fig. 11. The values
of a) b) c) are based on AIJ Guidelines [5], while d) are calculation based on reference [4] at axial force at
collapse mechanism obtained by the pushover analysis above. The column-to-beam strength ration [4] are
calculated as the ratio of nodal moments of beams and columns. The mechanical properties for steel and
concrete is same as those used for pushover analysis. The actual anchorage length of beam bars in beam-
column joint is not known so, they are assumed as 75% of column depth for Building C and column-depth
minus 100mm for Building D respectively.
The beam-column joint of Building C satisfies the current Japanese seismic provisions for joint shear,
anchorage in beam-column joint and development strengths, while joint hoop reinforcement ratio is 0.1%
smaller than minimum requirement. The column-to-beam strength ratio is very close to 1.0, which may be the
reason of severe joint failure which cause losing concrete in joint core, leading to lateral deformation
concentration at the 4th story, increasing the contribution of vertical reinforcement in joint, causing buckling
of longitudinal bars in beam-column joint. The loss of the beam-column joint core concrete triggered the loss
of anchorage of the transverse beam longitudinal bars. So the failure of beam-column joint caused the loss of
the integrity and failure of gravity support structure system at the 4th story near the central column on the outer
frame.
The beam-column joint of Building D almost satisfied the seismic provisions of anchorage, while the
safety margin of bond capacity and joint shear strength is barely1.0 or a little bit smaller than 1.0 at some
exterior beam-column joints in loading direction of slab tension. The joint hoop ratio of beam-column joint
having large damage is 0.36% and satisfied the minimum requirements of seismic provisions [5].


Loading direction Loading direction
3.55 1.54 4.77 1.54 2.88 1.54 2.69 0.43 1.86

N/A 1.07 N/A 0.10 0.10 0.10
6.15 1.93 2.54 2.14 2.24 1.93 4.34 0.84 2.02

N/A 1.48 N/A 0.09 0.09 0.09
4.27 1.79 2.43 2.34 2.12 1.79 2.74 1.04 1.98

N/A 1.30 N/A 0.08 0.08 0.09
2.17 1.74 1.59 1.93 1.36 1.74 1.71 0.97 1.56
N/A 1.08 N/A 0.07 0.07 0.07
2.37 2.40 1.64 2.66 1.35 2.04 2.02 1.09 1.73
N/A 1.06 N/A 0.07 0.07 0.07
(a) Building C (B1 frame)

Loading direction Loading direction Loading direction Loading direction
1.55 1.24 0.90 1.24 1.16 0.91 1.15 1.24 1.02 1.24 0.92 0.83
N/A N/A 0.20 0.20 N/A N/A 0.20 0.20
2.17 1.24 0.91 1.24 2.31 1.52 2.30 1.24 1.05 1.24 1.81 1.31
N/A N/A 0.20 0.20 N/A N/A 0.20 0.20
1.63 1.15 0.79 1.15 1.50 1.36 1.72 1.15 0.90 1.15 1.48 1.40
N/A N/A 0.37 0.37 N/A N/A 0.37 0.37
N/A 1.35 N/A 1.35 N/A N/A 2.30 1.35 1.02 1.24 2.21 N/A
N/A N/A 0.36 0.36 N/A 0.95 0.36 0.36
X1 frame Y1frame
(b) Building D
A B A: joint shear capacity mergin D D: colum-to-beam strength ratio
C B: anchorage capacity mergin E E: transverse reinformcement ratio %
C: beam bar bond capacity mergin
Fig. 11 – Performance index of beam-column joints of Building C and Building D
Reinforcing detail found in the structural drawing are shown in Fig. 11. The amount of longitudinal
reinforcement at the bottom of beam is less and some of them are not passing through the joint but anchored
with 90 degree bending downward in the joints. When the beam-column joint failure begins, the anchorage
was lost and pulled out, which jeopardize the beam capability to back up the vertical load redistributed to resist
the downward movement.
By assuming only the longitudinal reinforcing bar can support the axial load after the beam-column joint
core concrete fell off, the axial stress level in reinforcing bars normalized with yield point due to gravity load
supported by the column are estimated as an index relating vulnerability of buckling. The index is 0.68 and
0.41 for 4th and 5th story columns respectively for central column on the outer frame B1 of Building C. The
values for Building D is 0.18 and 0.21 at the beam-column joint of 3rd floor level which are much smaller than
those of Building C. In case of Building C, the index is larger and the buckling of vertical reinforcing bars
triggered the partial collapse at 4th story. On the contrary, the index is smaller for Building D and no buckling
occurred in the beam-column joint, which may have prevented from partial collapse of Building D.
3.4 Ultimate gravity support capability by yield line theory
Upper bound theorem and yield line theory are applied to the fifth and the roof floors system of Building C to
investigate the gravity collapse scenario. The mechanism shown in Fig. 13 are assumed to calculate external
work by the gravity and the inner work dissipated by the plastic deformation caused by a unit vertical
displacement. They are compared to assess the floor system capacity to back up the loss of axial force in the
central column on the outer frame. External work considers the contribution of the distributed weight of slab,
10


700
700 D16 D22, D16 550
D22 550
2-9φ 2-9φ D19 D19
D22 D25
D22 D22
900 900
650 650
D22, D19 9φ@240 9φ@240

D13 D13
D19 D22, D19 D13@150 D13@150
D16 D22, D16
400 400
350 350
9φ@240 D13@150 D13@150
9φ@240 D25, D22 D22 D22
550 550
350 600 350 650 350
350
D22
D22 D22 700 550 D19 550 D19
700 D19 D22
D16
5th floor joint 4th floor joint 4th floor joint 3rd floor joint unit in mm
(a) Building C (b) Building D
Fig. 12 – Reinforcing detail of beam-column joint
2795 2970 2970 2970 2970 2795

B’
Girder
Δ=1
M– Beam
yield line 2795
Positive yield line
M+ 2970 Negative yield line
5th story A A’
2970
4th story
Section B-B’ B M+ M– : Positive and negative
M– M–
3rdth story yield moment of beam
θ θ and slab
M+ M+
A1 A2 A3 Section A-A’ unit in mm
(a) Assumed mechanism at ultimate load (a) Yield line on the slab
Fig. 13 – Assumed yield lines for estimation of load at collapse mechanism
beam, girder and column whereas the internal work considers the plastic deformation of slabs, beams and
girders. The external work is 948.2kNm and the internal work is 826.6kNm [6]. So it is interpreted that the
loss of the central column on 4th story causes the local collapse at 4th story after the failure of beam-column
joints. In reality, the anchorage of beam reinforcing bars pulled out and vulnerability to the collapse is higher.
4. Concluding remarks and recommendations

2016 Kumamoto Earthquake left collapsed or severe damage in some reinforced concrete building. Among
those buildings, low rise building; a two two-story buildings which had excessive residual story drift and two
five story buildings with significant damage to beam-column joint are selected and investigation was made to
obtain lessons to improve the current seismic design provisions.
Building A and Building B experienced a very large residual story drift concentration at the first story.
The lateral capacity of collapse mechanism is larger than code provisions, two times for Building A and 1.6
times for Building B. In spite of such large margin of the strength, the maximum residual story drift at the first
story were estimated as 3% and 6% for Building A and B respectively. One reason is very strong ground
11


motion recorded, which is larger than design spectrum adopted in the current seismic code, which have been
implicitly considered maximum story drift of 2% for RC ductile frame structure by experts. So it is expected
the buildings may collapsed if they had minimum capacity by seismic code specifies. But still there is a
question the main building of the school class, which is usually three or four story moment resisting frame
structure did not suffer such damage anywhere. The corridor building should have some special factors which
caused the response of the buildings quite different from other buildings on the same site. The other lesson is
moment resisting frame with two story need special attention to strength, ductility and collapse mechanism by
preparing for unexpected stress magnification due to slab effect in T-beam section to secure the intended
collapse mechanism and preventing failure of beam-column joint.
Building C and Building D was designed as beam-sway mechanism had suffered significant failure to
some beam-column joints, in spite the dimension of the joint is large enough to conform to the joint shear
seismic provision. The problem was insufficient joint confinement with column-to-beam beam strength ratio
close to 1.0. It caused joint shear failure and the concentration of lateral story drift at a particular story. In case
the failed exterior beam-column joint do not have bearing sufficient vertical reinforcement and no backup
gravity supporting structural system, the vertical longitudinal bar passing through the joint buckled and
triggered the partial collapse and structural instability. The lessons from the buildings are, lightly reinforcing
beam-column joint needs confining joint hoops to prevent joint shear failure. In particular the building with
exterior beam-column joints supporting large gravity load is essentially vulnerable to gravity collapse of the
building if there is no redundancy in gravity support system.
5. Acknowledgement
This report is based on a joint research of the University of Tokyo and Building Research Institute.
Municipal government of Town of Mashiki and Town of Otsu are acknowledged for the building information
they provided. The base acceleration record used in the earthquake response estimation was courtesy of Japan
meteorological Agency and National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience.
6. References
[1] Architectural Institute of Japan (2018): Report on the Damage Investigation of the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquakes.
(in Japanese)
[2] Building Research Institute and National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management (2016): Quick Report of
the Field Survey on the Building Damage by the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake, Technical Note of NILIM No. 929,
Building Research Data No.173. (in Japanese)
[3] Li Kang-Ning (1996): CANNY99, Manual for Three Dimensional Nonlinear Dynamic Structural Analysis
Computer Program Package.
[4] Architectural Institute of Japan (2016): AIJ Standard for Lateral Load-carrying Capacity Calculation of Reinforced
Concrete Structures (Draft). (in Japanese)
[5] Architectural Institute of Japan (1999): Design Guidelines for Earthquake Reistant Reinforced Concrete Buildings
Based on Inelastic Displacement Concept. (in Japanese)
[6] Saito M, Shiohara H, Tajiri S and Mukai T. (2018): Structural Observation of Reinforced Concrete Buildings
Collapsed or Severely Damaged by 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake, Proc. of the 15th Synpoium on Earthquake
Engineering, 1864-1873, Sendai, Japan (in Japanese)
12

Report On Severely Damaged Reinforced Concrete Buildings by 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake, Japan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report On Severely Damaged Reinforced Concrete Buildings by 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake, Japan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10a-0015 The 17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering

17th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 17WCEE