• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Engineer: Tough Japanese building codes worked

mark handler

SAWHORSE
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
11,665
Location
So. CA
March 12, 2011

Engineer: Tough Japanese building codes worked

Says strict standards did their job; Tall buildings there are designed to sway in temblor as a tree would in wind

(CBS News) Friday's earthquake in Japan was the world's fifth most powerful since 1900, but most of the nation's buildings are still standing in the wake of Friday's ultra-strong earthquake, having suffered only minimal damage.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/12/earlyshow/saturday/main20042459.shtml

How did they come through the shaker in such good shape?

Structural engineer Bill Faschan, who's designed cutting-edge commercial towers, hotels, sports stadiums and museums around the world, says some of the strictest building codes in the world

He noted on "The Early Show on Saturday Morning" that Japan is part of the Pacific's "Ring of Fire" of nations especially vulnerable to powerful temblors, which is why Japanese codes are so tough.

The Ring of Fire, he told co-anchor Russ Mitchell, is "a very active seismic center. It's one of the most active in the world. So it presents real challenges, particularly, to design major building structures."

Japanese building codes, Faschan says, "are very comparable to American codes. They bring together the best knowledge in the world to date on how to resist seismic events. And I think you've seen that in the behavior of the buildings in Tokyo."

That city's tall buildings literally swayed as the quake shook the ground.

"They're supposed to sway," Faschan pointed out. "The basic idea, particularly (for) a tall building, is it's supposed to act like a tree. A tree in the wind, it sways back and forth. And in a seismic event, it's very similar. Obviously, the ground (is) shaking as opposed to the building being moved back and forth by the wind, but (it's) the same idea. It's supposed to move. It's supposed to give."

Faschan says he's not surprised by the lack of damage in Tokyo, though, "There could be more severe effects in Tokyo (from a future quake) than we're seeing from this particular quake, because (this one) was at some distance from the city. There are faults that are closer that could have lesser energy released, but because they're closer, they have more impact."

He added he's impressed by how buildings in Tokyo held up, saying, "It's very satisfying for me to see that you can protect life in that way and that everything we try to do works."

Pointing to a model of a building he designed in Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam, Faschan explained that, "It's not so much size, to use that term, but its height. In other words, if you have a short building, you can maybe imagine that it's pretty stiff. If the ground moves, it moves right along with it. But if you go back to the tree analogy, if you have a tall building ... this one at certain angles is very slender, so it acts like a tree. It will bend. It will give, and it won't break. So that's the nature of taller buildings. They're actually safer. You wouldn't necessarily think that."

How much extra does it cost to construct a building that's quake-resistant?

"In real terms, it's not that big a premium. And it's a small percentage. Probably, in terms of the cost of the overall building, maybe 5 percent, 10 percent, depending on where you are. The percentage will be higher in a place like Japan, than say here in New York."

Why was it that the quake in Haiti, which was much less powerful, leveled so many structures?

"The problem in a place like Haiti is there's not as much modern building construction. A lot of what's built is relatively stout, you know, it's both ... heavy, and it's a little fragile. And it's kind of weak. I mean, that's the nature of, you know, masonry construction, which is what predominates in a lot of places around the world like Haiti. And unfortunately, a lot of it's not modern, so it doesn't take advantage of what has been learned, say, over the course of our lifetime."
 
The argument given, the building codes are strict, is sort of foolish.

There is no impediment to building to the Japanese codes in Podunk Midwest USA. There is just no reason to build to that standard. (Yea. Yea. Sure there was a small quake in 1812 or so.)

It appears that some buildings were just washed away by the waters. So much for the code standards of Japan. Earthquake resistant buildings that get washed away. Failure to design for the water does not make a good design.

---

But overall the designers and builders seem to have done a reasonable job on modern buildings. I expect there will be some buildings that were properly designed and met code that will need to be torn down. But that is life.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The denial and misinformation begins.

Nobody is recommending that buildings in low seismic regions be designed the same as buildings built in high seismic regions such a the west coast. In the US the earthquake building code provisions are tied to the expected level of shaking so that they will be more rigorous where the potential ground shaking was high and less so when the expected accelerations were lower. Thus it is still important to comply with the appplicable earthquake design provisions in the code. If the local risk is low the earthquake requirements are less.

The New Madrid earthquakes were not small in fact the New Madrid earthquakes were some of the largest earthquakes in the US. The reason the West Coast pays attention to earthquakes is because they are fairly common. In the mid west the large ones occur less frequently and as a result individuals pay less attention to them. When the next large one occurs in the mid west there will be much more damage because many individuals have been in denial.

While it is not current practice to design for tsunamis the tsunamis impacted only a small portion of the buildings in Japan. If the codes in Japan were not as good as they are the damage would have been more extensive. We should not let the failure of the codes to consider twunami effects act as an excuse to deal with the risks associated with earthquakes. This is especially true for locations in the mid west.
 
Mark K said:
The denial and misinformation begins.
I am glad you pointed out that you were starting the denial and misinformation not I.

Getting the risk wrong is common for building codes. Outside of government $10s of billions of dollars is a really big mistake. As are the thousands of lives lost. You might also note the long term economic consequences of the lax building codes for power plants in Japan.

Before you counter that the engineers should have anticipated the risks:

They could but the building codes give a false sense of security. The codes dictate the engineering. And as others have said "they build to the minimum allowed." The minimum is always wrong. Here it was wrong in the wrong direction. And any engineer worth his salt could tell that. But you don't keep a job saying that the codes are wrong.
 
GHRoberts

You misinterpreted the quote of my posting. We disagree who is in denial.

Note that at least in the United States building codes do not apply to nuclear power plants. These plants are regulated by the NRC.
 
Mark K ---

I believe that the NRC enforces a very strict building code. I suppose a large number of engineers think that there are issues that are mistreated in that code. So many non-professionals think that the NRC's building code is in error that it is pretty difficult to site a nuclear power plant.

But if you want to believe there is no building code for nuclear power plants, feel free to do so.
 
GHRoberts said:
Failure to design for the water does not make a good design.
Japan has made extensive efforts to reclaim lowland areas to support their growing population, airports, and port-related infrastructure. Their design for water included high seawalls (similar to Galveston) which they apparently assumed would preclude the need for building homes elevated on piers. It's always a risk-benefit analysis.

I have friends who lived near Sendai up until a couple of years ago. They watched the first aerial video feeds (Thursday night PST) and literally saw their town, their church and their friends' homes being washed away in the wave.

I guarantee you that Japan takes preparation more seriously than we do in Southern California. Our turn is coming...
 
The natural disasters have engulfed many countries before Tsunami hits Japan but due to remarkable building structures , the devastation remained limited.I think every region of the world has been hit by major natural disasters except USA and Its our turn now.
 
Why, thanks for the cheery prediction, Nostradamus.

I would be willing to bet the fine folks in Louisiana and other Gulf States, as well as those in Ca hit by wildfires and earthquakes of their own would be relieved to know that their natural disasters were not major.
 
The U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency warned that a serious earthquake in the New Madrid Seismic Zone could result in "the highest economic losses due to a natural disaster in the United States," further predicting "widespread and catastrophic" damage across Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri and particularly Tennessee, where a 7.7 magnitude quake or greater would cause damage to tens of thousands of structures affecting water distribution, transportation systems, and other vital infrastructure. The earthquake is expected to also result in many thousands of fatalities, with more than 4,000 of the fatalities expected in Memphis alone.

According to some scientists, however, that is nothing compared to what an 8.0 earthquake could do to the New Madrid Region. An earthquake of that size on the New Madrid Fault would destroy 60 percent of Memphis, killing tens of thousands and causing over $50 billion dollars in property damage in the city alone.

The potential for the recurrence of large earthquakes and their impact today on densely populated cities in and around the seismic zone has generated much research devoted to understanding in the New Madrid Seismic Zone. By studying evidence of past quakes and closely monitoring ground motion and current earthquake activity, scientists attempt to understand their causes and recurrence intervals
 
In the New Madrid the potential for damage is likely much more than in California because many of the buildings were not designed for any earthquake loads and because the earthquake will impact a larger area. In addition in California many of the really bad buildings were demolished in past earthquakes while in New Madrid the time between major earthquakes is so long that effectively none of the existing buildings have been exposed to a major earthquake.
 
David Henderson said:
GH Roberts do you think anyone can design a building that can withstand a 50' wall of water moving at 500 mph?
The saving of life was in the earthquake, not the flooding. highrise buildings did not fall.

And yes some of the poured in place concrete buildings did survive the tsunami
 
David Henderson said:
GH Roberts do you think anyone can design a building that can withstand a 50' wall of water moving at 500 mph?
The 500 mph is in deep water with a short wave--it slows down and piles up taller when entering shallow water and over land.

In one city a 5 story hospital had floors 1-4 washed out but many survivors on the 5th floor

The magnatude of the quake and the height of the Tsunami were way over the maximum design event anticipated by code, seismic experts, and the engineers.

Note that there have been over 250 aftershocks greater than 5, 49-- 6+ and 3-- 7+ since the big 9.0.

Haiti was a 7.0.
 
David Henderson said:
GH Roberts do you think anyone can design a building that can withstand a 50' wall of water moving at 500 mph?
The title of this threat is: "tough Japanese building codes worked."

My comment was that with 10 thousand dead, huge areas completely destroyed, and 4 nuclear reactors in trouble it appeared to me that the building codes were not suitable for the event.

There was some video showing signage: "end of tsunami danger zone." There was devastation for miles below (and above) the signage. It appears that a tsunami was a known risk and that the risk was ignored by the building codes. The hospital mentioned by Frank seems to be an exception. While the entire lower portion of the building was destroyed (except for the concrete and steel structure), the upper floor provided a safe refuge. Of course most of the structures lacked any refuge area.

---

When the Apollo 105(??) capsule caught on fire during a test and burned (killing 3) on the ground, one of the astronauts made a comment on the reason for the fire: Lack of imagination. We never imagined the test was dangerous.

The same lack of imagination killed a lot of people in Japan.
 
A tsunami was a known risk, but an earthquake of this magnatude greatly exceeded what had been considered the maximum probable quake and the tsunami greatly exceeded the maximum expected height overtopping the seawalls designed to protect against them. A tsunami risk is known but the probability is so remote that life hazard is reduced by an evacuation warning system that did save many lives. The costs to build against it or to not use this land based on a once in a 1000 or more years event is not feasible even for a nation with Japan's wealth.

There are many forseable but remote risks we do not routinely design buildings to withstand--for example vehicle hits including airplanes--we condem more buildings after they are hit by vehicles than for fire damage. But we do not put guardrails in front of the convenience store to keep the drunk's from making them a drive in as they go for more beer.
 
The Japanese earthquake was 500 times more powerful than the one that caused so much damage in Christchurch. Historically Japanese homes have been well suited for riding out earthquakes as they are light and flexible, like our wood framed buildings. For a tsunami, what can one do? As pointed out above one can only design for so many possibilities. We've already succeeded in this country of creating so many regulations that we've priced out an ever growing number of people from being able to own a home.
 
The takeaway is that the Japanese building codes appear to have done reasonably well in dealing with earthquakes. My impression is that designing for tsunami loads is not required under the Japanese regulations, they definately are not addressed in the IBC although we have flood loading.

Some observations:

---Historically tsunamis have not been seen as a major risk in most locations so not a lot of effort has been spent to characterize tsunami design variables and develop design standards.

---People do not do a good job in dealing with infrequent events such as tsunamis.

---The magnitude of the tsunami exceeded that projected. This was evidenced by the sea wall at the nuclear power plants being overtopped.

---Historically the strategy for dealing with tsunamis is to evacuate but this was complicated when the fault was near by thus not leaving a lot of time.

---The long term solution is probably to relocate these towns away from low areas near the coast.

---It is probably not feasible to design the traditional wood houses in Japan to resist tsunami loading.

---Concrete buildings could likely be designed to survive but then the people would probably still drowned while the building survived.

Some areas such as Cresent City California and Hawaii do recognize the potential risk and to varying degrees take steps to minimize the impact.

When people talk about the earthquake being 500 to 3000 times some reference earthquake they are talking about the energy released. The magnitude of the shaking does not increase by that multiplier. While there may be some increas in the maximum accelerations what happens is that the area subject to the maximum shaking extends ove a broader area and the shaking lasts longer.
 
Aside from the building codes everyone should view this disaster (as well as New Orleans) as a government fiasco. Those who survived this long are either in their homes or in shelters and are running out of food and fuel. There seems to be little productive organized assistance.

This is the third large disaster where the US has bungled giving assistance. The first day I mentioned to friends that the US military had large water pumps and all that is necessary to get the nuclear plants cooled off. Now I hear the pumps are only now on site and sitting there. Most likely days late. Most likely never to be used.

Then there are those without food and heat now. The temporary shelters are running out of food and fuel. Only ad hoc transportation is being provided to get the people in shelters out to places where they can stay for a longer term. And as soon as people move out of the shelters more who had been in their homes and are now out of food and fuel there are moving in.

---

Today I hear that 150 tons of boron is needed. 8 cargo plane loads. Should have been on site by now. Not just thinking about it now.
 
They are now evaluating our local North Anna Nuclear Power Station after the Virginia Quake, It seems that the ground accellerations were above the maximum forseable quake that the plant was designed for. No safety critical damage has been discovered, yet. Some pipe insulation damaged and cracks in the Administration Building. Plant is about 11-12 miles from where I live.

http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2011/08/30/nrc-inspection-ordered-after-indication-quake-may-have-exceeded-north-anna-nuclear-plant-design-limits-082902.aspx

http://enenews.com/quake-hit-virginia-nuclear-reactors-unanalyzed-condition-significantly-degrades-plant-safety-data-shows-quake-exceeded-design-basis
 
Top