Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Review:
Two revised seismic design codes in the Building Standard Law of Japan, which were revised in 1981 and 2000, are simply reviewed with the transition of Japanese seismic design code in this paper. The central feature of the seismic code revised in 1981 was the introduction of a two-phase earthquake design. Allowable stress design was employed for rst-phase earthquake design targeting the safety and serviceability of buildings during medium-level earthquake activity. Second-phase earthquake design, which is ultimate strength design, was added to provide safety against severe earthquake motion. On the other hand, the seismic code revised in 2000 precisely denes performance requirements and verication based on accurate earthquake response and limit states of a building. The capacity spectrum method is used for evaluating the earthquake response. The code is applicable to any type of material and buildings such as seismic isolation systems as long as material properties are well dened and structural behavior is appropriately estimated.
Keywords: the Building Standard Law of Japan, seismic design code, two-phase earthquake design, performance based earthquake design
Both the Urban Building Law and the Building Standard Law specied loading, allowable stress, and certain minimum requirements for detailing members. Other details of structural design, such as structural analysis and proportioning of members, are specied in Structural Standards issued by the Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ). These standards, prepared separately for each structural material, supplement the law and are revised more frequently to add new knowledge and provide for new materials as they develop. The seismic design building code was radically changed in 1981 in the largest revision since 1924. Up to this revision, large earthquake events in which many buildings suffered severe damage had occurred, particularly the 1968 Tokachi-oki earthquake, which signicantly damaged buildings designed based on building regulations then in force. Action undertaken as a consequence of this event included partial revision of the Building Standard Law, a large-scale revision of AIJ Standards incorporating shear design for reinforced concrete buildings and the establishment of a review procedure for existing buildings for seismic safety. A ve-year-project conducted from 1972 to 1977 aimed at establishing a new and rational seismic design method. This was released in 1977 as a proposal for a new aseismic design method for buildings. The 1978 Miyagiken-oki earthquake, which resulted in damage as severe as the 1968 Tokachi-oki earthquake, demonstrated the complexity of urban disaster in the city of Sendai, whose population exceeded 600,000. This triggered the implementation of the Ministry of Construction proposal. In July 1980, the Enforcement Order of the Building Standard Law was revised. It was also announced that this Order, together with supplementary documents, would be enacted from June 1, 1981. The central feature of the revised seismic design code was the introduction of a two-phase earthquake design. Conventional seismic design was retained, with some modications, as rst-phase earthquake design targeting the safety and serviceability of buildings during mediumlevel earthquake activity. Second-phase earthquake design was added to provide safety against severe earthquake motion. The 1995 Hyogoken-nanbu Earthquake caused much loss of human lives and severe damage or collapse of buildings [4]. Many lessons among scientists and engineers were learnt about earthquake preparedness, disaster
341
Kuramoto, H.
response, seismic design, upgrading of existing buildings and introduction of new technologies, which assure high safety levels of buildings against destructive earthquakes. The recognized need for new-generation seismic design led to the development of performance-based engineering [5], which specically addresses life safety, reparability, and functionality. Seismic provisions in the building code were signicantly revised in 2000 from prescriptive to performancebased to enlarge choices of structural design, particularly the application of newly developed materials, structural elements, structural systems, and construction. It is expected to encourage structural engineers to develop and apply new construction technology. Under the revised code, the precise denitions for structural performance requirements and verication are specied based on clear responses and limits. The code is applicable to any materials and buildings including seismic isolation systems on the condition that material properties are well dened and building behavior properly predicted. In the following two chapters, a simple review of the above-mentioned two revised seismic design codes is attempted.
4. h > 60m
Box (1) is for buildings prevalent in Japan, including low-rise reinforced concrete with generous amounts of shear walls, for which there is ample experience in seismic design and evidence of seismic behavior. First-phase design, basically unchanged from the previous building code, should provide sufcient seismic resistance to withstand severe earthquakes, so second-phase design is not applied to these buildings. Boxes (2) and (3) involve second-phase design. The most important step in second-phase design is the evaluation of maximum lateral load capacity (box (9)), but considerations in boxes (6)-(8) are included in second-phase design. The evaluation of story drift (box (6)) is intended to eliminate exible structures experiencing excessively large lateral deection under seismic loading. In ordinary reinforced concrete buildings, this check is not critical, but results of calculations are required later for items in box (7) or (9). Buildings up to 31 m high (box (2)) involve a choice of ow into boxes (7) and (8) or into box (9). Box (7) requires a check of the rigidity factor and eccentricity. The rigidity factor refers to the vertical distribution of lateral stiffness checked to eliminate buildings with one or more exible stories among other stories, such as the soft rst story. Checking for eccentricity provides protection against excessive torsional deformation. These checks are followed by the application of a set of additional minimum requirements specied by MLIT (box (8)) to ensure certain strength and ductility. The option of boxes (7) and Journal of Disaster Research Vol.1 No.3, 2006