kawase 2013 mid and long-term issues and strategy for earthquake disaster prevention - kyoto un
TRANSCRIPT
-
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
Fig.1 JMA seismic intensity distribution for the mainshock of Tohoku earthquake of 2011 (JMA, 2011).
1
40NET/KiK-net
22
100
2
2012; Kurata and Irikura, 2012; Kaw
M9
Fig.1 JMA seismic intensity distribution for the mainshock of Tohoku earthquake of 2011 (JMA, 2011).
((K-NET Tsukidate, MYG004)
18(
2012; Kurata and Irikura, 2012; Kaw
M9
Fig.1 JMA seismic intensity distribution for the mainshock of Tohoku earthquake of 2011 (JMA, 2011).
, 2011)NET Tsukidate, MYG004)
6
1,000gal
Fig.2MYG004
(Asano and Iwata,2012; Kurata and Irikura, 2012; Kawabe et al. 2012)
Fig.1 JMA seismic intensity distribution for the mainshock of Tohoku earthquake of 2011 (JMA, 2011).
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
Fig.4 Comparison of observed velocity response spectraNET Tsukidate (MYG004) site and current levels of
seismic code requirements for three ground conditions
9
NET Tsukidate(MYG004)
0.05
Fig.3 Peak ground accelerations and estimated damagenet sites (Kawase
Fig.4 Comparison of observed velocity response spectraNET Tsukidate (MYG004) site and current levels of
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.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.7
(2008)
istinctive 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 Hyogo-Red 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).
(2008)
(2008)5
istinctive 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
-ken Nanbu earthquake.Red 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).
(2008)
Fig.6
istinctive five asperity model proposed byMatsushima and Kawase (2009) for the 1995 Hyogo-kenNanbu earthquake. Three initials are observation sites.
Fig.7 Three dimensional basin structure used byMatsushima and Kawase (2009) for the strong motion
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
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
2000
1994
2,000Gal
Fig.10
Fig.10 Peak ground acceleration versus equivalentvelocity lines
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
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
the observed values during the 2011 Tohoku earthquake.
3,000Gal
100cm/s
0.5Hz2Hz
Fig.11 The same peak ground acceleration versusPGV) diagram but with
the observed values during the 2011 Tohoku earthquake.
? 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
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).
)3.8
0.951.8
0.26
(~100km)
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).
(~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
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 by
)(Baoyintu et
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 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 ?