5th ASEP Convention on Concrete Engineering, Practice and Technology (A.

CONCEPT), 19-21 May 2016

SURVEY OF RETROFIT METHODS OF RC BUILDINGS IN JAPAN

Andres Winston C. Oreta

Professor, De La Salle University, Manila
Fellow, Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines (ASEP)
Email: andyoreta@yahoo.com

Abstract
The Philippines, like Japan is an earthquake country. Lessons can be learned from Japan on the
advancement of seismic retrofitting of existing structures. The author visited Japan in the
summer of 2015 to conduct a survey of retrofit methods of reinforced concrete (RC) buildings in
Japan. The survey of Japanese retrofit methods of RC buildings showed the various ways of
increasing the lateral performance of buildings and houses. This paper will describe examples of
retrofitting methods observed by the author such as (a) PITA Column Method (Yahagi Corp.),
(b) CESRet Method (Yahagi Corp) and (c) Skills Meiko Inner Column (SMIC) of Meiko Corp.
Seismic isolation systems developed by Shimizu Corporation will also be described.
I. Promotion of Safer Buildings
In Japan the Building Standard Law (BSL) was enacted to safeguard the life, health, and
property of people by providing minimum standards concerning the site, structure, equipment,
and use of buildings. The BSL has been amended usually when damage occurs in existing
buildings after an earthquake event. Okazaki (2010) in his report presented the initiatives on
promoting safer buildings in Japan. For example, the tie hoop spaces were reduced in the
revision of 1971 to improve ductility of RC columns after the Offshore Tokachi Earthquake in
1968 (Okazaki 2010). In the 1995 Hanshin-Awaji Great Earthquake, severe damage were
observed on many buildings designed by the 1981 code. To prevent the recurrence of such kind
of damage on existing buildings, the “Act for Promotion of Retrofitting” was enforced in
December 1995 wherein the owners of buildings that are used by a large number of people are
urged to make efforts to have their buildings undergo seismic performance evaluation and
seismic retrofitting. The national and local government provided incentives such as a subsidy
program for seismic performance evaluation (e.g. 1/3 of the cost will borne by the owner and the
rest will be subsidized by both the local and national government) and retrofitting (77% for
owner and the rest by the government). In addition to the subsidy program, the national
government has also revised the taxation program so that the income tax would be deducted by
10% for those who retrofitted their house (max. 200,000 yen).

II. Innovative Retrofit Methods in Japan

The site visits and tours of the research facilities of the various Japanese construction companies
and meetings with experts have provided useful information about the state-of-the-art in seismic
retrofitting of structures.

There are several conventional methods of strengthening existing buildings; addition of

reinforced concrete shear walls or steel bracing, thickening existing walls, shear reinforcement of
columns by jacketing reinforced concrete, steel plate or carbon fiber sheet. These methods are
 5th ASEP Convention on Concrete Engineering, Practice and Technology (A.CONCEPT), 19-21 May 2016

effective to increase strength and stiffness of buildings. However their construction is mostly
done inside the building, which burdens the users or residents of the buildings inconvenience to
some extent. To avoid such disturbance on normal operations of the building, exterior
strengthening method or seismic isolation retrofit are preferred these days. Construction work
can be done outside the building or in limited area, which enables the undisturbed or less
disturbed usage of the buildings.

Addition of Inner Columns

The Skills Meiko Inner Column (SMIC) of Meiko Corp. is one retrofitting method for building
frames which has advantages over braced system as shown. The space remains open for people
to pass by. SMIC used precast concrete enclosed steel (CES) which is installed as additional
frame to increase the lateral resistant of buildings (Figure 1 and Photo 1).

Figure 1. SMIC Retrofitting Method vs Braced Frame

(http://www.meikokensetsu.co.jp/skills/earthquake/smic/)
 5th ASEP Convention on Concrete Engineering, Practice and Technology (A.CONCEPT), 19-21 May 2016

Photo 1. Before and after application of SMIC

(http://www.meikokensetsu.co.jp/skills/earthquake/smic/)

Photo 2. (a) Parking Building with SMIC applied. (b) At the building site (Gotanda, Tokyo)
where SMIC was used.

Externally-Connected Strengthening Frames

Another alternative to braced frames to increase the lateral capacity of a building is by attaching
an external frame on the existing frame of the structure. Yahagi Corp. developed various
retrofitting methods for buildings especially the methods where additional frames were
connected externally. They have two methods: (a) PITAColumn Method, and (b) CESRet
Method.

PITA Column means “Plate Included Concrete Tightly Attached Column.” As shown in Figure
2, anchors are attached at the existing columns and beams and the reinforced plate is attached
and covered with concrete. The additional external frame can have various configurations as
shown in Figure 3.
 5th ASEP Convention on Concrete Engineering, Practice and Technology (A.CONCEPT), 19-21 May 2016

Figure 2. PITA Column Method (Ref. Yahagi Corp. Brochure)

Figure 3. PITA Column retrofitted buildings (Ref: PITA Column Method Association Brochure)
 5th ASEP Convention on Concrete Engineering, Practice and Technology (A.CONCEPT), 19-21 May 2016

CES-Ret means “Concrete Encased Steel Retrofit.” In CES-Ret, instead of a plate, precast H-
steel section is attached to existing column, beams or walls as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. CES Retrofitting Method (Ref. Yahagi Corp. Brochure)

Photo 2. At the Yahagi Corp. Research Center. PITA Column Frame at the back.

Seismic Isolation Systems

The tour of the Shimizu Institute of Technology at Tokyo revealed the advanced research
facilities on earthquake engineering in Japan. Shimizu has invested in the study, analysis and
design of earthquake-resistant buildings using seismic isolators. Three different types of seismic
isolated buildings stand in the grounds of the Shimizu Corporation’s Institute of Technology in
Tokyo. Each of the three buildings employs a different seismic isolation method, and is installed
with earthquake-sensing devices. The main building in the institute is a 6-story, long-span,
seismic isolated structure which utilizes a column-top seismic isolation (CTSI) system. The
 5th ASEP Convention on Concrete Engineering, Practice and Technology (A.CONCEPT), 19-21 May 2016

building is supported by six columns resting on 1000 mm diameter rubber-bearing seismic

isolators (Nakamura et al. 2011).

Photo 3. The Shimizu Institute of Technology main office and the column-head resting on a
seismic isolation system. (Photos from http://www.shimz.co.jp/english/index.html and Getty Images)

A wind-tunnel testing laboratory is housed in a building that partially floats on water and stands
on rubber bearings was constructed to demonstrate the new technology. The principle in this
design is that 50% of the load is carried by the water and the other 50% rests on water-proof
rubber bearing foundation. This is the first building that utilized the partially floating seismic
isolation (PFSI) system.

Photo 4. Partially Floating Structural System at Shimizu Institute of Technology

(http://www.shimz.co.jp/english/index.html)

Another unique building at the institute is the core-suspended isolation (CSI) system in front of
the main building. The pendulum seismic isolation mechanism for the building consists of two
layers each of four inclined rubber bearings, installed at the top of a reinforced concrete core,
from which three floors of office structure are suspended by high-strength steel rods. Fluid
dampers are placed between the core shaft and the suspended office structure to control the
motion of the building (Nakamura et al. 2011).
 5th ASEP Convention on Concrete Engineering, Practice and Technology (A.CONCEPT), 19-21 May 2016

Photo 5. (a) CSI System (Nakamura 2011) (b) The actual building using CSI.

Shimizu has an Advanced Earthquake Engineering Laboratory where the E-Beetle and E-Spider
are located. The E-Beetle, a large-scale shaking table reproduces seismic motions involving
horizontal accelerations of 2,700 gals and displacements of ±80 cm. While the E-Spider, a large-
stroke shaking table, measures 4 m square and simulates long-period seismic motions. Shimizu
Corp. has also a wind tunnel testing lab.

Photo 6. (a) E-Beetle, (b) E-Spider. Photos from http://www.shimz.co.jp/english/index.html

III. Enforcement of Retrofitting of Buildings in Japan

The enforcement of retrofitting of existing buildings in Japan have been strictly implemented.
Old houses using traditional construction have been demolished and replaced with new buildings
designed using the latest code. In the university, most of the buildings have been retrofitted.
Examples of seismic retrofitting methods can be observed at Nagoya University (Photo 7) and
Tokyo Institute of Technology (Photo 8) where the existing buildings before the Kobe
Earthquake were retrofitted using various configurations of braces and external frames.
 5th ASEP Convention on Concrete Engineering, Practice and Technology (A.CONCEPT), 19-21 May 2016

Photo 7. Retrofitted Buildings at Nagoya University

Photo 8. Retrofitted Buildings at Tokyo Institute of Technology

IV. Advancing Seismic Retrofitting of Existing Buildings

Okazaki (2010) presents a framework on how seismic retrofitting can be advanced in

earthquake-prone countries like Japan and the Philippines. The first issue is how to convince
building/home owners to retrofit their buildings to improve building safety if found unsafe after a
detailed seismic evaluation. The building owners can be given a choice on retrofitting, or
improving building safety if information on the current loss or cost (CL), i.e. the loss or cost
caused by retrofitting, and the future probable loss or cost (FL), i.e. the expected loss or cost
caused by collapse of the house, including the loss of family due to probable future earthquakes.
In principle, if a person conceives CL < FL, retrofitting is reasonable. (He/she may be motivated
for retrofitting). However, if a person conceives CL > FL, retrofitting is not reasonable. (He/she
may not be motivated for retrofitting). Given the information about CL and FL, a more rationale
decision can be made by the owners.

To advance seismic evaluation and retrofitting in existing buildings, the government must
change the paradigm related to disaster management. The framework presented by Okazaki
(2010) are modified incorporating the practice in the Philippines on calamity fund. The present
practice (Figure 5) in many countries like the Philippines is that the government provides aid to
disaster victims whose houses were destroyed by the earthquake through its calamity fund.
Okazaki (2010) proposed in Figure 6 “that any earthquake disaster management policies should
be restructured to be in favor of those who keep their houses safe (“safe people”) and not in favor
of those who keep their houses unsafe (“unsafe people”).” This can be done by providing
incentives to “safe people” such as lower property taxes or discounts and lower premiums in
 5th ASEP Convention on Concrete Engineering, Practice and Technology (A.CONCEPT), 19-21 May 2016

insurance. At present the government is now reserving a portion of its calamity fund for disaster
risk reduction and seismic retrofitting should be covered in this fund.

No incentive for safe

houses

Support for recovery

Calamity Increase of vulnerable
of victims from the
houses
Fund government

Large casualties and

property damage due to
earthquakes

Figure 5. Current cycle of unsafe houses

Calamity Strong incentives for safe Tax

Fund houses Incentives

Reduced support for

recovery of victims from Increase of safe houses
the government

Decrease casualties and

reduced property
damage due to
earthquakes

Figure 6. Proposed cycle of unsafe houses

 5th ASEP Convention on Concrete Engineering, Practice and Technology (A.CONCEPT), 19-21 May 2016

Concluding Remarks

The short visit in Japan in 2015 produced a lot of information that will be useful in the
researcher’s teaching and research activities in the Philippines. The survey of Japanese retrofit
methods showed the various ways of increasing the lateral performance of buildings and houses.
New technologies were observed such as the use of external frames and SMIC as an alternative
to braced frames. Seismic isolation systems have progressed as demonstrated by the buildings
designed and constructed by Shimizu Corporation. Japanese technology is quite advanced and
sophisticated considering the availability of advanced research facilities. However, Filipino
structural engineers can learn the principles, localized and adapt these concepts in similar
buildings in the Philippines that requires seismic retrofitting. The Philippines, like Japan is an
earthquake country. The advancement of seismic retrofitting of existing structures must be
promoted extensively. As a start, Filipino structural engineers must initiate the seismic
retrofitting of important structures like schools and hospitals.

Acknowledgement
The author/researcher wish to express his deepest appreciation to Prof. Hikaru Nakamura, host
professor at Nagoya University for arranging the research visit and accommodation in 2015.
Thanks also to all the people – professors, researchers, experts, civil engineers, technicians and
staff of the various Japanese companies (Yahagi, Meiko and Shimizu). The funding support
provided by AUN/SEED-Net and JICA during the short visit in Japan is deeply appreciated.

References

 Getty Images. http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/the-safety-security-center-

constructed-by-the-core-news-photo/116416669
 Kawamura, S. et al (2000). “Seismic Isolation Retrofit in Japan,” 12WCEE
 Okazaki, Kenji (2010). Incentives for Safer Buildings: Lessons from Japan. GAR 2011,
ISDR.
 Nakamura, Yutaka, et al (2011). “Report On The Effects Of Seismic Isolation Methods
From The 2011 Tohoku–Pacific Earthquake”, Seismic Isolation And Protection Systems 2:1
(2011), Mathematical Sciences Publishers + Anti-Seismic Systems International Society