KAWASE 2013 Mid and Long-Term Issues and Strategy for Earthquake Disaster Prevention - KYOTO UN

Mid and Long-Term Issues and Strategy for Earthquake Disaster Prevention- From a View Point of Safety Control of Built Environment -

Hiroshi KAWASE

SynopsisThis manuscript describes the important yet remaining issues for earthquake disaster

prevention and risk reduction on urban built environment and effective strategies for itunder the foreseeable mid or long-term considerations. The fundamental problems in thecurrent seismic safety of buildings are primarily based on the non-rational and quiteobsolete code implementation in the Japanese building code. The situation has beenproved to be true as pro-side during the Off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku Earthquake (theGreat Higashi-Nihon Disaster), while as down-side during the Kobe Earthquake (theGreat Hanshin-Awaji Disaster). The author summarized what we have to learn fromthese painful lessons and proposes a new strategy directly derived from the summariesbased on the previous experiences without preoccupation.

: Keywords: building code, rigid structure concept, strong motion prediction, moderatelyshort-period pulse

1.

(built environment)

56 A 25 6

Annuals of Disas. Prev. Res. Inst., Kyoto Univ., No. 56 A, 2013

? 1 ?

2.

)

30

(2011)

)

0.5%1%

40

126,467

(2013)

90

40126,467

(2011)

1%80001

40100

2011

126,467(

90

126,467

11,699

2011

18,55025710

(

18,550

90

Fig.1 JMA seismic intensity distribution for the mainshock of Tohoku earthquake of 2011 (JMA, 2011).

Fig.17140K-NET/KiK

2012; Kurata and Irikura, 2012; Kaw


1

40NET/KiK-net

22

100

2


M9


((K-NET Tsukidate, MYG004)

18(


M9


, 2011)NET Tsukidate, MYG004)

6

1,000gal

Fig.2MYG004

(Asano and Iwata,2012; Kurata and Irikura, 2012; Kawabe et al. 2012)


NET Tsukidate, MYG004)4

, 2011)

MYG004

(Asano and Iwata,abe et al. 2012)

? 2 ?

Fig.2 Acceleration time histories of three components ofground motions observed at K(NIED, 2011).

Photo 1 Situation around the Ksite (Morikawa and Goto, 2011).

MYG0042,933Gal

Fig.2 Acceleration time histories of three components ofground motions observed at K(NIED, 2011).

Photo 1 Situation around the Ksite (Morikawa and Goto, 2011).

(

2,933Gal

6

(, 2011)

(

Fig.2 Acceleration time histories of three components ofground motions observed at K-NET Tsukidate, MYG004

Photo 1 Situation around the K-NET Tsukidate, MYG004site (Morikawa and Goto, 2011).

, 2011)

2011)

, 2001)

Fig.2 Acceleration time histories of three components ofNET Tsukidate, MYG004

NET Tsukidate, MYG004

Photo 1

6

(, 2011)

Fig.2 Acceleration time histories of three components ofNET Tsukidate, MYG004

NET Tsukidate, MYG004

6

, 2011)

Fig.3 Peak ground accelerations and estimated damageratios of buildings at Ket al., 2011).

Fig.4 Comparison of observed velocity response spectraat Kseismic code requirements for three ground conditions(Kawase et al., 2011).

Fig.3 Peak ground accelerations and estimated damageratios of buildings at Ket al., 2011).

Fig.4 Comparison of observed velocity response spectraat K-NET Tsukidate (MYG004) site and current levels ofseismic code requirements for three ground conditions(Kawase et al., 2011).

Fig.

Fig.4

RC 9

Fig.3 Peak ground accelerations and estimated damageratios of buildings at K-NET and KiK

Fig.4 Comparison of observed velocity response spectraNET Tsukidate (MYG004) site and current levels of

seismic code requirements for three ground conditions(Kawase et al., 2011).

Fig.35

K-NET Tsukidate(MYG004)

S 5

Fig.3 Peak ground accelerations and estimated damageNET and KiK-net sites (Kawase


seismic code requirements for three ground conditions

9

NET Tsukidate(MYG004)

0.05

Fig.3 Peak ground accelerations and estimated damagenet sites (Kawase


seismic code requirements for three ground conditions

NET Tsukidate(MYG004)

0.5

10

? 3 ?

3.

Fig.5 Trajectories of velocity seismograms at theobservation sites and the JMA seismic intensity 7 areas inKobe during the 1995 Hyogo(Matsushima and Kawase, 2009).

Fig.

18

10

Fig.5 Trajectories of velocity seismograms at theobservation sites and the JMA seismic intensity 7 areas inKobe during the 1995 Hyogo(Matsushima and Kawase, 2009).

Fig.57

1995

7.3

6.9

Fig.5 Trajectories of velocity seismograms at theobservation sites and the JMA seismic intensity 7 areas inKobe during the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake(Matsushima and Kawase, 2009).

7.3

6.9

Fig.5 Trajectories of velocity seismograms at theobservation sites and the JMA seismic intensity 7 areas in

ken Nanbu earthquake

6500

Fig.5 Trajectories of velocity seismograms at theobservation sites and the JMA seismic intensity 7 areas in

ken Nanbu earthquake

Fig.6 DMatsushima and Kawase (2009) for the 1995 HyogoNanbu earthquake. Three initials are observation sites.

Fig.7 Three dimensional basin structure used byMatsushima and Kawase (2009) for the strong motionsimulation of the 1995 HyogoRed squares are observation sites.

Fig.8 Peak ground velocity distribution of simulatedground motions on the engineering bedrock calculatedfrom the five asperity model and the 3D basin structure(Matsushima and Kawase, 2009).

Fig.6 Distinctive five asperity model proposed byMatsushima and Kawase (2009) for the 1995 HyogoNanbu earthquake. Three initials are observation sites.

Fig.7 Three dimensional basin structure used byMatsushima and Kawase (2009) for the strong motion

ulation of the 1995 HyogoRed squares are observation sites.


Fig.7

(2008)

istinctive five asperity model proposed byMatsushima and Kawase (2009) for the 1995 HyogoNanbu earthquake. Three initials are observation sites.


ulation of the 1995 Hyogo-Red squares are observation sites.


(2008)

(2008)5

istinctive five asperity model proposed byMatsushima and Kawase (2009) for the 1995 HyogoNanbu earthquake. Three initials are observation sites.


-ken Nanbu earthquake.Red squares are observation sites.


(2008)

Fig.6

istinctive five asperity model proposed byMatsushima and Kawase (2009) for the 1995 Hyogo-kenNanbu earthquake. Three initials are observation sites.


ken Nanbu earthquake.

Fig.8 Peak ground velocity distribution of simulatedground motions on the engineering bedrock calculatedfrom the five asperity model and the 3D basin structure

? 4 ?

600m

50cm/s120150

Fig.9 Nonlinear hysteresfor ordinary Reinforced Concrete buildings (Nagato andKawase, 2001). The maximum value in the base shearcoefficient is the yield strength and the maximum valuein the relative deformation angle is the deformation limit,which is assumed to be 1/30.

Fig.9

600m1,000m

S

50cm/s150cm/s

5

Fig.9 Nonlinear hysteresfor ordinary Reinforced Concrete buildings (Nagato andKawase, 2001). The maximum value in the base shearcoefficient is the yield strength and the maximum valuein the relative deformation angle is the deformation limit,

hich is assumed to be 1/30.

1

Fig.9 Nonlinear hysteresis curve (three connected lines)for ordinary Reinforced Concrete buildings (Nagato andKawase, 2001). The maximum value in the base shearcoefficient is the yield strength and the maximum valuein the relative deformation angle is the deformation limit,

hich is assumed to be 1/30.

10km

1kmFig.8

is curve (three connected lines)for ordinary Reinforced Concrete buildings (Nagato andKawase, 2001). The maximum value in the base shearcoefficient is the yield strength and the maximum valuein the relative deformation angle is the deformation limit,

Fig.8

is curve (three connected lines)for ordinary Reinforced Concrete buildings (Nagato andKawase, 2001). The maximum value in the base shearcoefficient is the yield strength and the maximum valuein the relative deformation angle is the deformation limit,

1/30

Fig.9

(, 1935)

1/10

, 1935)

Fig.9

1935

1935

? 5 ?

Fig.10 Peak ground acceleration versus equivalentfrequency (PGA/2would be lines from lower left to upper right(PGV=100cm/s and 250cm/s). The red shaded zonecorresponds tothe green shaded zone corresponds to the physicalpossibility limit.

800Gal

250cm/s

Fig.10 Peak ground acceleration versus equivalentfrequency (PGA/2PGV) diagram. Equiwould be lines from lower left to upper right(PGV=100cm/s and 250cm/s). The red shaded zonecorresponds to the heavy damage possibility limit whilethe green shaded zone corresponds to the physicalpossibility limit.

1999

45

100cm/s

250cm/s

Fig.10 Peak ground acceleration versus equivalentPGV) diagram. Equi

would be lines from lower left to upper right(PGV=100cm/s and 250cm/s). The red shaded zone

the heavy damage possibility limit whilethe green shaded zone corresponds to the physical

2

2000

100cm/s

2,000Gal

Fig.10

Fig.10 Peak ground acceleration versus equivalentPGV) diagram. Equi-velocity lines



2000

1994

2,000Gal

Fig.10

Fig.10 Peak ground acceleration versus equivalentvelocity lines



1994

3,000Gal

0.5

Fig.11 The same peak ground acceleration versusequivalentthe observed values during the 2011 Tohoku earthquake.

Fig.11

K-NET

3,000Gal

0.52

Fig.11 The same peak ground acceleration versusequivalent frequency (PGA/2the observed values during the 2011 Tohoku earthquake.

Fig.11

NET(MYG004)100cm/s

3,000Gal

0.5Hz4Hz

Fig.11 The same peak ground acceleration versusfrequency (PGA/2

the observed values during the 2011 Tohoku earthquake.

3,000Gal(MYG004)

0.52

(2001)

0.5Hz4Hz

Fig.11 The same peak ground acceleration versusPGV) diagram but with


3,000Gal

100cm/s

0.5Hz2Hz

Fig.11 The same peak ground acceleration versusPGV) diagram but with


? 6 ?

(2000)

Fig.12 Average yield strength ratios of RC buildingsderived from the damage statistics and the simulatedstrong motions during the 1955 Hyogoearthquake (Nagato and Kawase , 2001).

(1981

0.95

4.

Fig.12

Fig.12


)3.8

0.951.8

0.26

(~100km)


(~100km)

Fig.12 Average yield strength ratios of RC buildingsderived from the damage statistics and the simulatedstrong motions during the 1955 Hyogo-ken Nanbuearthquake (Nagato and Kawase , 2001).

2.6

Fig.12 Average yield strength ratios of RC buildingsderived from the damage statistics and the simulated

ken Nanbu

10

OK

? 7 ?

1923

1924

5.

(

1981

1915

, 1924)

1935(, 1935)

1981

1924

10

, 1935)

al., 2011)

Fig.13 JMA seismic intensity of the predicted strongmotions for the three segment simultaneous rupturescenario of the hypothesized Nankai Trough earthquakeof M8.7 and building damage estimates (Baoyintu, 2013)derived from theNagato and Kawase (2001).

al., 2011)

Fig.13 JMA seismic intensity of the predicted strongmotions for the three segment simultaneous rupturescenario of the hypothesized Nankai Trough earthquakeof M8.7 and building damage estimates (Baoyintu, 2013)derived from the damage prediction model proposed byNagato and Kawase (2001).

4 -

Fig.13 JMA seismic intensity of the predicted strongmotions for the three segment simultaneous rupturescenario of the hypothesized Nankai Trough earthquakeof M8.7 and building damage estimates (Baoyintu, 2013)

damage prediction model proposed byNagato and Kawase (2001).

2

-

((Baoyintu et


damage prediction model proposed by

)(Baoyintu et


damage prediction model proposed by

? 8 ?

Fig.13(Baoyintu, 2013)

5

2005M6

M60.530M615M712

M7

6.

104

? 9 ?

80%

10,000

1,000

7.

(2013) http://www.kahoku.co.jp/spe/pe_sys1115/20130517_01.htm.

(2011), 2011, (), .

(2011)232011 , http://www.seisvol.kishou.go.jp/eq/2011_03_11_tohoku/201103111446_smap.png

(2011) http://www.mlit.go.jp/common/000142182.pdf.

(2011)2011 , http://www.kz.tsukuba.ac.jp/~sakai/113.htm.

(1915), .(1935), 105, 578-587.

(2001)RC, , 544, 31-37.

(2013)(). (NIED) (2011): http://www.

kyoshin.bosai.go.jp/kyoshin/topics/TohokuTaiheiyo_20110311/nied_kyoshin2j.pdf.

(1924), , 10, 2, 297-312.

(2000)1995

, ,534, 33-40.

(2009)1995 ,B, Vol.55, 537-543.

(2011): (2011.4.8), 1.2, http://committees.jsce.or.jp/report/system/files/1_2_0.pdf.

Asano, K. and T. Iwata (2011): Strong ground motion

? 10 ?

generation during the 2011 Tohoku-Oki Earthquake,AGU 2011 Fall Meeting, U42A-03, December 2011,also at http://sms.dpri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/k-asano/pdf/jpgu2011.pdf.

Baoyintu, Kawase, H., and Matsushima, S. (2011):Broadband Strong Ground Motion Prediction forHypothetical Tonankai Earthquake Using StatisticalGreen's Functions Method and Subsequent BuildingDamage Evaluation, Proc. of the 4th IASPEI/IAEEInternational Symposium on Effects of Surface Geologyon Seismic Motion, August 2326, 2011, University ofCalifornia, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, USA.

Kawabe, H., K. Kamae and H. Uebayashi (2011): Sourcemodel of the 2011 Tohoku-Chiho Taiheiyo-Okiearthquake, Seismological Society of Japan Fallmeeting, B2205, 2011, also at http://www.rri.kyoto-u.

ac.jp/jishin/.Kurihashi, S. and K. Irikura (2011): Source model for

generating strong ground motions during the 2011 offthe Pacific Coast of Tohoku earthquake, Earth PlanetsSpace, Special Issue, 63, 571-576.

201375

? 11 ?

Documents

KAWASE 2013 Mid and Long-Term Issues and Strategy for Earthquake Disaster Prevention - KYOTO UN