Masuzawa, Y. and Hisada, Y.

Paper:

Seismic Isolation Retrofit of a Medical Complex by Integrating

Two Large-Scale Buildings
Yoe Masuzawa and Yoshiaki Hisada
Risk

Management Department, Engineering and Risk Services Corporation, Japan

Akasaka Kikyo Bldg., 3-11-15 Akasaka, Minato-ku, Tokyo 107-0052, Japan
E-mail: masuzawa@ers-co.jp
Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Kogakuin University, Japan
1-24-2 Nishi-Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 163-8677, Japan
E-mail: hisada@cc.kogakuin.ac.jp
[Received March 8, 2009; accepted May 25, 2009]

We developed a methodology of seismic isolation

retrofit integrating adjacent buildings using prestressed concrete slabs, and applied it to two largescale buildings in Hamamatsu City in Shizuoka Prefecture in Japan. It is the first seismic isolation retrofit
of hospital in Japan. The two steel-reinforced concrete
buildings were nine stories high with one basement,
and had been constructed in 1973 and 1975 based
on an old structural design code. The two buildings
were integrated into one building by connecting individual floors using post-tensioned prestressing cables
through slabs. A comparison of microtremors before
and after the integration confirmed that the integration worked well. Seismic isolation devices were set
up mainly in basement columns using temporary support involving steel brackets and prestressing cables to
install devices safely and economically (Masuzawa et
al., 2004 [1]). In the seismic design phase, broadbandgenerated earthquake ground motions for a hypothetical Magnitude 8 earthquake near the site were simulated using a hybrid method (Hisada, 2000 [2], etc.).
Safety and functionality were verified by evaluating
structural seismic performance based on time-history
seismic response analysis.
Keywords: seismic isolation retrofit, structural integration of buildings, medical complex, performance-based
design, site-specific strong ground motion prediction

1. Introduction
Seismic risk mitigation of the hospitals which become
medical treatment bases at the time of disasters is very important in high seismicity countries such as Japan. Those
hospitals need to ensure not only the safety of buildings
but also the operability of medical treatment even during and after large earthquakes. The seismic isolation is
one of the most effective and practicable countermeasures
against earthquakes because it drastically reduces seismic response due to devastating ground shaking. Since
extensive damage of hospitals was experienced by the
Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake in 1995, seismic isolation structures have been adopted for a lot of new hospital
208

buildings in Japan. On the other hand, old and new buildings often exist together adjacently in large-scale hospitals, and earthquake damages of the old buildings may
significantly reduce the entire functions of medical treatment. The need to retrofit aging hospitals was made all
too clear when three old structures of a six-building facility in Ojiya City were so severely damaged in the 2004
Mid-Niigata Prefecture earthquake that emergency medical operations could not be maintained [3]. Typical structural damage involved building joints, nonstructural components, furniture, and equipment, as shown in Fig. 1.
It also took much time to restore the buildings and their
function.
A similar situation will probably happen in the hospital of Hamamatsu City that is located in a high seismicity area in Japan. The hospital will lose its functions and
emergency operations for a large earthquake, because of
damage of the two old buildings. Therefore, it was necessary to retrofit those two buildings effectively. Given
its central location and importance as a medical treatment facility, the hospital would have to continue its functions and emergency service during retrofitting and reconstruction. The sections that follow provide a background
of the retrofitting methodology, building integration, and
the evaluation of microtremor measurement. Site-specific
strong ground motions in a hypothetical Magnitude 8
earthquake in a subduction zone under the site are then
simulated, and the performance and safety of retrofitted
building evaluated using time-history response analysis of
simulated earthquake motion.

2. Hamamatsu Medical Center

Hamamatsu Medical Center, a five-building treatment
complex having over 600 beds, is one of Shizuoka Prefectures most important medical facilities, and one whose
building function and emergency medical services would
be needed in a large earthquake. The two buildings, designed under the old seismic design code, were found in
seismic diagnosis to be inadequate under the current code.
Figure 2 shows a birds-eye view of Hamamatsu Medical Center and Fig. 3 the first floor and typical floor plans
of existing hospital. Each building was structurally in-

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.4 No.3, 2009

Seismic Isolation Retrofit of a Medical Complex by Integrating

Two Large-Scale Buildings

(a) Structural damage

(b) Building joint damage [3]

(c) Nonstructural component damage [3]

(d) Furniture damage [3]

(e) Overhead tank movement [3]

(f) Piping joint damage

Fig. 1. Typical damage of a hospital in the 2004 Mid-Niigata Prefecture earthquake (Photos were taken by Yoe Masuzawa).

Building No.3

Building No.3

Connecting building

Connecting building

Building No.2
Building No.1

EXP. J

Building No.2
South building

Building No.1

1st floor plan

South building

Fig. 2. Birds-eye view of Hamamatsu Medical Center (the

photo referred to the medical center brochure).
30m

dependent, but arranged adjacently, and connected with

the expansion joint mutually. Building No.1, built in
1973, and Building No.2, built in 1975, and now to be
retrofitted, have steel-reinforced concrete frames, nine
stories and one basement, and three-story penthouses on
their roofs, as detailed in Table 1. Building No.1 is a
plan rotated 60 degrees at the center of building. Building
No.2 is nearly rectangular. In those buildings, diagnosis
and treatment sections are arranged in low layer floors,
and medical wards are located in upper floors.

3. Seismic Retrofitting Methodology

3.1. Overview
Seismic retrofitting, started in autumn 2006, was completed as scheduled in autumn 2009. Fig. 4 shows framing elevation of the two buildings after retrofitting. Under proposed retrofitting, prestressed concrete slabs would
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.4 No.3, 2009

EXP. J
Building No.3

Building No.2

Building No.1

9th floor plan

Fig. 3. Floor plans of Hamamatsu Medical Center.

Table 1. Building description.
Building No.
1
2
Year completed
1973
1975
Building area (m2)
2,035
1,532
Floor area (m2)
12,915
10,008
Site
Hamamatsu City, Shizuoka Prefecture
Stories
9 plus 1 basement
Building material
Steel-reinforced concrete structure
Eave height (m)
37.10
Structure
Moment-resisting frames and shear walls
Foundation
Spread
Site stratum
Fine silt sand

209

Masuzawa, Y. and Hisada, Y.

Building No.3

Building No.2

Building No.2

Building No.1

3000 2600

PHRFL
PH3FL

3800 650 5150

PH2FL

Connection by prestressed concrete slab (Fig. 5.)

RFL

3850

7FL

52600
3900 3900

8FL

3850

9FL

6FL

3950

5FL

4400

4FL

4300

3FL

4250
250

3000
2300

5000

GL

2FL
1FL

B1FL
B.PL

Seismic isolation device

6000

6000

6000

6000

6000
50400
5

6000

6000

8400

6000

6000

6000
30000

5000
6

10

11

12

6000

13

6000

14

6000

15 16 17

6000

18

6000

19

6000
42000
20

6000

21

6000

22

6000

23

24

Fig. 4. Framing elevation of Building No.1 and No.2 (unit: mm).

3.2.2. Microtremor Measurement and Building Vibration Features

To investigate building vibration features before and after integration, microtremors were measured on November 21, 2004, before connection, and on June 16, 2007,
210

Building No.1

500

5000

Section

3000
600

4200

Anchorage zone
Prestressing cable

8000

3.2. Building Integration and Microtremor Measurement

3.2.1. Integration Overview
Figure 5 shows the connection section and plan for
a typical floor. To ensure joint strength and ductility,
slabs were connected to buildings using post-tensioned
prestressing cables penetrating both slabs and adjacent
girders and anchored to existing building frames. Anchorage zones were fastened to frames by anchor dowels to transmit stress between slabs and frames. Connections were assumed to not resist slab out-of-plane (bending) because they were connected only with prestressing
cables through the centers of slabs. Connections thus both
ensured slab in-plane strength and avoided placing undue stress on existing frames. Safety against cable strand
elongation was ensured with minimum adhesion and by
reducing prestressing force to 80% of the allowable load.
Seismic performance is evaluated in detail Section 5.1.

Building No.2

600

be installed and connected between the two buildings on

each floor. Buildings would then be isolated mainly underground using 89 seismic isolation devices. Before reconstruction, all building equipment and facilities were
renewed and moved from the basement to the roof and
medical equipment potentially disturbed by reconstruction work moved, enabling reconstruction to be conducted
while building functions and medical services continued.

Rebar dowels

Plan

Fig. 5. Detail of buildings connection (unit: mm).

after connection [4, 5]. The integrated building was measured when connection was completed on floors 7-9 and
the roof before seismic isolation construction was started.
Building microtremor records, natural periods, particle
orbits, and vibration-mode shapes were obtained, and the
effects of connection confirmed. Fig. 6 shows where microtremor sensors were deployed. Recording used servo
velocity sensors, a 16-bit analog-to-digital converter, and
a notebook PC. Longitudinal (X) and transverse (Y) components of microtremors in velocity were recorded at each
location. The sampling rate was 100 Hz and the recording
of each record was 180 seconds long. Three sets of samplings were recorded for each pattern. The following five
patterns were observed in simultaneous measurement by
up to eight sensors:
Pattern 1: 1C, 1E, and 1W on the ninth floor by recording
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.4 No.3, 2009

Seismic Isolation Retrofit of a Medical Complex by Integrating

Two Large-Scale Buildings
Building No.2

[3C] [2W]

[2C] [2E]

11600
37400
12250
5000 8550

[1W] [1C]

[1E]

[12C]

9F

6F

3F
1F
B1F

Fig. 6. Locations of microtremor sensors (unit: mm).

Building No.3

Building No.2

Building No.1

CH-8
CH-2

CH-4

2
1
0
0.2
3

0.3

CH-1
CH-2
CH-3
CH-4
CH-5
CH-6
CH-7
CH-8

0
0.2

0.3

[Before connection]

Y
X
Y
X
Y
X

0.4

0.5

Y
X
Y
X
Y
X
Y
X

0.6

0.7

0.8

[After connection]

0.4

0.5
0.6
Period (sec)

0.7

0.8

Fig. 8. Fourier amplitude spectra for microtremors obtained

at ninth floor (Pattern 3).

CH-3

CH-1

CH-1
CH-2
CH-3
CH-4
CH-5
CH-6

CH-5

CH-7
X

Building No.1

Fourier spectrum (mkine*sec)

Building No.3

CH-6

Connecting location

Fig. 7. Sensors layout in observation pattern 3 at ninth floor.

Building No.3

Building No.2

Building No.1

[Before connection]
Vibration period: 0.59 sec

in two directions simultaneously.

Pattern 2: 2C, 2E, 2W, and 1C on the ninth floor by
recording in two directions simultaneously. 1C was set
only for the integrated building.
Pattern 3: 1C, 2C, 3C, and 12C on the ninth floor by
recording in two directions simultaneously. 12C was set
only for the integrated building.

[After connection]
Vibration period: 0.58 sec

Pattern 4: 1C on the ninth, sixth, third, first, and basement

floors by recording alternately in two directions. The sensor in the basement was set only for the existing building.
Pattern 5: 2C on the ninth, sixth, third, first, and basement
floors by recording alternately in two directions.

Fig. 9. Predominant directions using microtremor before

and after connecting No.1 and No.2.

Figure 7 shows the sensor layout for Pattern 3. Microtremor sensors were installed on the ninth floor near
the center of gravity of each building and in the connecting location. Fig. 8 shows Fourier amplitude spectra for
microtremors obtained in the same observation pattern.
Histories 20.48 seconds long were selected from records,
followed by zeroes 20.48 seconds long, and put through
Fourier transformation to obtain spectra smoothed with a
0.2 Hz Parzen window. Before the buildings were connected, the predominant period in the transverse (Y) direction of Building Nos.1 and 2 were equaled 0.59 seconds, but a variation in the peak period was also confirmed
in spectra. Note that after connection, Building Nos.1
and 2 and the connecting location show concordance in
predominant periods in each direction. To determine the
predominant direction in each peak period, the horizontal particle orbit was obtained with each velocity record
integrated to displacement with a band-pass filter whose

typical period is the predominant period of each mode.

From displacement time histories in the longitudinal and
transverse directions, 1-second sections with high amplitude were selected and horizontal particle orbits shown.
Vibration-mode shape for each natural period was obtained the same as for horizontal particle orbits. Fig. 9
shows horizontal particle orbits obtained on the ninth floor
in Pattern 3 with band-pass filters at each of 0.59 seconds before buildings were connected and 0.58 seconds
after connection when the peak periods of Building Nos.1
and 2. The predominant directions of the two buildings
differed before connection, but corresponded after connection, clearly showing that integration was effective.
Note also that Building No.3, which was not connected
to the integrated buildings, vibrated independently. Natural periods and the vibration modes for individual and integrated buildings are shown based on microtremor mea-

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.4 No.3, 2009

211

Masuzawa, Y. and Hisada, Y.

45

Symbol

Type
Size (mm)
Number
NLmax (kN)
LRB900S
900x900
51
6,036
5,311
RB900S
900x900
4
644
SL300S
300x300
4
CLB061
712
6
1500x345
CLB133
1,515
6
1570x465
7
CLB250
2,380
1670x465
Cross linear bearing
3
3,743
CLB385
1770x555
CLB780
1970x740
5
8,798
CLB1000 2480x1270
3
12,054
Note: "NLmax" shows calculated maximum reaction force under normal load

00

70

00

22
0
80 00
00
40



20

70

00
25

50
00 00

8
08



46

00



7
79
16 088
6



Seismic isolation device

Lead rubber bearing
Natural rubber bearing
Elastic sliding support

60

00





60

00

17

00

Building No.3

00

Connecting building

7900

60

3110

00

22600
8600
6100

60



Building No.2
00



6100

60

2500

&





00

Building No.1



60
60
42 00
00
0

3600



4000



20003000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000

6000

6000

6000

6000

6000
50400

6000

5450
8400

6000

6000

6000

6000
30000

5000

6000

6000

:














Fig. 10. Arrangement of seismic isolation devices (unit: mm).

LRB900S

RB900S

CLB250

Gross weight: 26.9 kN (LRB) / 26.6 kN (RB)

Gross weight: 9.4 kN

Friction coefficient: under 0.01

SL300S

Gross weight: 13.8 kN

Friction coefficient: 0.01

Shear modulus of rubber: 0.588 MPa

100

225

Shear modulus of rubber: 0.392 MPa

1550

550

465

1670

1350

900

Linear Motion rail

225

Linear Motion block

Laminated-rubber

900
1350

225

615.5

419

PTFE sliding surface

Laminated-rubber
Rubber layers: 12 x 3.0 mm
Steel plates: 11 x 2.2 mm

Dowel

615.5

625

1650

250

185.6

40

300

40

499.1

419.1

Linear Motion rail

Linear Motion block

40
225

Stainless steel plate with

special lubrication film

Rubber shim

25 28
132.6

Rubber layers: 34 x 5.8 mm

Steel plates: 33 x 4.3 mm

448

Dowel

368

Lead plug

40

100

625

1500

Fig. 11. Constitution of seismic isolation devices (unit: mm).

surement in conjunction with eigenvalue analysis results

in Section 5.1.

3.3. Seismic Isolation Retrofit

Figure 10 shows the arrangement of 89 seismic isolation devices 75 in basement columns, 8 under eleva212

tor shafts, and 6 under the entrance base. We used 51

lead rubber bearings (LRB) 900 mm on a side, 4 natural
rubber bearings (RB) 900 mm on a side, 4 elastic sliding supports (SL) 300 mm on a side, and 30 cross-linear
bearings (CLB) of 6 different types with different load
limits for isolation. Fig. 11 shows four types of seismic
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.4 No.3, 2009

Seismic Isolation Retrofit of a Medical Complex by Integrating

Two Large-Scale Buildings

20

600
65

90

580

235 235

65

1600

220
50

PC cable (SEEE F200)

300 100

1400

Bond surface of steel bracket

400

580

Existing column

100 400 150 400 150 400 100

1700

400

Vertical load P (MN).

270

Shear cotter bar

(bar size: D13 (13 mm rebar))
(grade: SD295A (JIS G 3112))

15

Pmax=17.677 M N

10

/*=0.5

5
0

1350

calculated reaction force of column

*

1950

10

/*=1.0

: confinement stress
1
2
3
4
Vertical displacement (mm)

Shear strength (MPa)

Reinforcement column
(specified compressive strengths: 36 MPa)

0
5

1000

Fig. 13. Load-displacement relation of the prestressed joint

(six-cable type).

Steel bracket
(grade: SS400 (JIS G 3101))

435

830

435

300

1000

300

1350

1950

Non-shrink mortar
(40 mm thickness)

1000

175 250 175

400

300

1100

Hydraulic jack
(capacity: 3000 kN)

300

1000
1600

300

1600

Fig. 12. Temporary supporting system (six-cable type)

(unit: mm).

isolation device in the seismic isolation layer. Bearing

ratio to the building weight (sustained loading) of LRB,
RB, CLB, and SL was 64%, 5%, 30%, and 1% respectively. Square rubber bearings were used to make reinforcement columns as small as possible. The cross-linear
bearing combines orthogonal linear motion (LM) guides
consisting of LM rails and blocks up and down and varying in size with the load capacity. Elastic sliding supports
consist of laminated rubber with polytetrafluoroethylene
(PTFE) friction surfaces and stainless steel plates with
special lubrication film.
Steel brackets and prestressing cables were used in temporary support to ensure that isolation devices were installed safely and economically (Masuzawa et al., 2004
[1]). Fig. 12 shows temporary support used to insert a
seismic isolation device in a column. The number of prestressing cables used depended on the maximum reaction
calculated for each column. The feasibility of temporary
support was confirmed through full-scale experiments [6],
with an example of experimental results shown in Fig. 13.
Note the load-displacement relationship of the six-cable
specimen, which was measured at prestressed joints between steel brackets and reinforcement columns. FullJournal of Disaster Research Vol.4 No.3, 2009

scale tests showed that vertical load support was sufficient. Fig. 14 shows construction of temporary support
from phases 1 to 8. In phases 1 to 2, structural members of
the existing frame underground are reinforced except for
intermediate parts of the column. In phase 3, steel brackets and prestressing cables are installed and prestress installed in cables. In phase 4, hydraulic jacks are installed,
preloading force acts on brackets, and the axial force of
the column is released. In phases 5 to 6, a diamond wire
sawing machine is installed on the column and the existing column cut off and removed. In phase 7, seismic
isolation devices are installed and upper and lower joints
fixed using high-flow concrete or nonshrink mortar. In
phase 8, all temporary support components are removed,
completing the job. A maximum of four temporary support sets were used together and rotated in the construction flow. To ensure earthquake resistance of 0.2 G even
in the middle of construction in the basement, temporary
steel braces and other earthquake-resistant elements were
installed. In basement usable as floor area, seismic isolation retrofitting was implemented, and then fireproof panels attached to columns to enclose seismic isolation devices.

4. Site-Specific Strong Ground Motion Simulation

A hypothetical Magnitude 8 earthquake near the site
was simulated in the seismic design phase. A fault model
was located in a subduction zone of the Suruga Trough
where a very high possibility exists of earthquake occurrence in the near future. To create broadband input
earthquake ground motion for performance-based design,
site-specific strong ground motion was simulated using
a hybrid combination (Hisada, 2000 [2], etc.) of theoretical methods at low frequency and statistical methods at high frequency. Fig. 15 shows the hypothetical
seismic fault earthquake model, with main source parameters and asperity slipping displacements shown in Table 2. The source model was defined based on the asper213

Masuzawa, Y. and Hisada, Y.

Existing frame before

retrofit

Structural member
reinforcement

Steel
bracket

Temporary supporting
removal, and completion

Seismic isolation device

installation and fixation

Steel brackets and cables

installation and tensioning

PC cable

Hydraulic jacks installation

and preloading

Hydraulic
jack

Existing column removal

Wire saw installation /

Existing column cutting

Seismic
isolation
device
Wire saw

Fig. 14. Construction process by the temporary supporting method.

q


strike

q

X(N)

q

X(N)

Y(E)
rake

q


(3)

strike

Asp.6

Fracture initiation point

Asp.6
Asp.5

(1)

35qN

35qN

Asp.4
Asp.2

(2)

Asp.4
Asp.3

SITE

(2)

Asp.2

Asp.3

SITE
KiK-net(SZOH28)

15

15

4.1

2km

km

KiK-net(SZOH28)

137qE

138qE

.2k
m

F re
m

34qN
ac
e
8.3

85.5k

eS
urf

km

25

dip

ac
e

30

km

34qN

7.3

8 9.2k

eS
urf

15 .0

.4k
m

Asp.1

.2k
m
25

F re

dip

15 .0

30

.4k
m

Asp.1

(3)

Fracture initiation point

Asp.5

(1)

Y(E)
rake

139qE

137qE

138qE

139qE

Fig. 15. Tokai earthquake seismic fault model used for theoretical method (left) and statistical method (right).

ity model of the Central Disaster Management Council

of the Cabinet Office, Government of Japan [7]. Table 3
shows the deep ground structure using a flat-layered structure model from seismic bedrock (Vs=3000 m/s) to engineering bedrock (Vs=510 m/s). Parameters of individ-

214

ual layers reference KiK-net observation point data [8],

etc. Seismic waves at the building basement 8 m deep
and Vs=220 m/s were evaluated using equivalent-linear
earthquake response analysis based on a one-dimensional
stress-strain relationship. Input earthquake motions were

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.4 No.3, 2009

Seismic Isolation Retrofit of a Medical Complex by Integrating

Two Large-Scale Buildings

Table 3. Deep ground structure model.

100

10

cm
10

Vs
Layer
Depth
Thickness Density Vp
No.
(m)
(m)
(g/cm3) (m/s) (m/s)
1*
50-200
150
2.1
2,020 510
2*
200-840
640
2.3
2,280 840
3*
840-900
60
2.5
2,870 1,280
4*
900-1,000
100
2.5
4,140 1,840
5** 1,000-1,900
900
2.5
4,600 2,500
6** 1,9002.6
5,300 3,000

10
0g
al

Displacement
Asperity 1
4.80 m
Asperity 2
6.93 m
Asperity 3
3.35 m
Asperity 4
4.84 m
Asperity 5
2.78 m
Asperity 6
3.90 m
Background
1.78 m

tokai-1_NS
tokai-1_EW
tokai-2_NS
tokai-2_EW
tokai-3_NS
tokai-3_EW

m
0c
10

Parameter
Strike
208 deg
Dip
15 deg
Length
154.14 km
Width
89.25 km
Upper depth
7.28 km
Slip
89 deg
Rupture velocity
2.7 km/s

1000

Pseudo velocity (cm/sec)

Table 2. Main source parameters and asperity slipping displacement.

Reference: *KiK-net observation point (SZOH28) [8]

**
Central Disaster Management Council [7]

Table 4. Maximum ground motion waveform amplitudes in

building response analysis.
Vel
Dis
Acc
(cm)
(cm/s2) (cm/s)
Site-specific
Tokai-3_EW
624.73
92.80 141.58
ground motion
Tokai-3_UD
215.82
26.57
26.98
Random*
635.16
75.62
22.85
Building code
El Centro_NS*
657.77
76.98
26.76
(very rare level)
Taft_EW*
717.09
75.19
27.16
98.75
24.37
Hachinohe_NS* 630.75
Note: *Ground motion names indicate phase characteristic
models.

0.1

10

Period (sec)

Fig. 16. Velocity response spectra of simulated waves.

Ground motion

Acceleration (gal)

1000
Max:624.73gal

-1000

Velocity (cm/sec)

100
Max:92.80cm/sec

-100
200

Displecement (cm)

simulated by considering three different hypocenters, as

shown in Fig. 15. Hypocenter model 3 is the worst-case
scenario for the site because of the forward directivity
effects of the fault rupture. Fig. 16 shows pseudo velocity response spectra of horizontal components in all
hypocenter models. The Tokai-3 model was selected as
the severest case at the effective period after seismic isolation retrofitting (horizontal, roughly 3 seconds). Fig. 17
shows EW components of acceleration, velocity, and displacement for the Tokai-3 model. Several synthesized input ground motions required by the current building code
were applied in addition to site-specific ground motion.
Table 4 shows maximum waveform amplitudes for sitespecific ground motion and ground motion based on the
building code at a very rare level used for the time-history
response analysis.

Max:141.58cm

-200
0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180

Time (sec)

Fig. 17. Simulated waves for Tokai-3 EW.

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.4 No.3, 2009

215

Masuzawa, Y. and Hisada, Y.

60000
Building No.1

Building No.2

Shearing force Q (kN).

40000

Standard
Hard case
Soft case

20000
0
-20000
-40000

Kb2
Qy
Kb1
Dy

-60000

Fig. 18. Three-dimensional frame model.

Table 5. Building model weight.

-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500
Displacement D (mm)

Fig. 19. Design shearing force-displacement relationship in

seismic isolation layer.
Table 7. Bilinear loop parameters in seismic isolation layer.

Table 6. Natural period by eigenvalue analysis and microtremor measurement.

Eigenvalue analysis
Microtremors
Building Mode
Period
Vibration
Period
Vibration
Condition order
(s)
mode
(s)
mode
1st
0.61
Transverse
0.57
Transverse
No.1
in existing 2nd
0.50 Longitudinal 0.48 Longitudinal
structure
3rd
0.41
Rotation
0.31
Rotation
1st
0.55
Transverse
0.47
Transverse
No.2
in existing 2nd
0.53 Longitudinal 0.40 Longitudinal
structure
3rd
0.44
Rotation
0.24
Rotation
0.63
Transverse
0.58
Transverse
No.1+No.2 1st
before
2nd
0.57 Longitudinal 0.50 Longitudinal
isolation
3rd
0.51
Rotation
0.47
Rotation

5. Seismic Performance Evaluation

5.1. Performance-Based Seismic Design Overview
5.1.1. Three-Dimensional Frame Model
To ensure the seismic safety of the building after
retrofitting, structural and vibration features of buildings
and the seismic isolation layer were evaluated. Fig. 18
shows a three-dimensional frame model for individual
buildings for static and eigenvalue analysis. Individual
floor weights in building models are shown in Table 5.
Static analysis was conducted using a load incremental method taking structural frame inelasticity into ac216

count. Analysis evaluated results for component element

stress and deflection, seismic isolation device axial force,
layer ductility, etc., as structural building features. Natural periods and vibration modes for existing and integrated buildings calculated by eigenvalue analysis based
on three-dimensional frame models are calculated in Table 6, which also shows results of microtremor measurement in Section 3.2. It was confirmed that theoretical vibration modes of both existing and integrated buildings
correspond roughly to those in microtremor measurement.
5.1.2. Characteristics of Structural Model
Restoring force characteristics of the seismic isolation
layer were made as a bilinear model that integrated shearing force-displacement relationships of all the seismic isolation devices. In the shearing force-displacement relationships of each kind of device, the natural rubber bearing was assumed to be linear, the read rubber bearing
and the elastic sliding support were assumed to be bilinear. The shearing force of the cross-linear bearing was
ignored because the coefficient of friction is very small at
below 0.001. Fig. 19 shows the restoring force characteristics in the seismic isolation layer at large earthquakes.
Due to a dependence on shear strain in restoring force
characteristics of lead rubber bearings, a shearing forcedisplacement relation in horizontal displacement of 430
mm, i.e., shear strain of 218% in rubber bearings corresponding to the maximum response in the seismic isolation layer was used for the analyses. Parameters of the
bilinear restoring force characteristics in the seismic isolation layer are tabulated in Table 7. Variations in the
stiffness and yield strength of the bilinear model originating in product error margin, secular change, temperJournal of Disaster Research Vol.4 No.3, 2009

Seismic Isolation Retrofit of a Medical Complex by Integrating

Two Large-Scale Buildings

ature change, and device-dependent factors as variations

in seismic isolation layer performance were considered.
In addition to standard conditions, hard case stiffness increased 21% soft case stiffness 14% in seismic isolation
layer stiffness were taken into account in the design as a
summation of the amount of variation in individual device
performance.
In analysis after seismic isolation retrofitting, seismic
isolation layers of each building were designed for the
same period features. In horizontal displacement of 430
mm, the equivalent period of the seismic isolation layer in
the standard condition was 3.4 seconds and that of the tangent period 4.0 seconds. From building model eigenvalue
analysis results after integration and seismic isolation,
when secant stiffness at the same deformation of seismic
isolation devices was used in the three-dimensional frame
model, the natural period in the longitudinal (X) direction
was 3.15 seconds and that in the transverse (Y) direction
3.16 seconds.
5.1.3. Seismic Response Analysis Model
A seismic response analysis model was made based
on static analysis results and time-history seismic response analysis was conducted. Fig. 20 shows the analysis model. A parallel multi-lumped mass model was made
by concentrating masses on individual floors. Shear forcedisplacement relation of the superstructure was modeled
by the tri-linear equivalent shear model that substituted
relationships between story-shear force and relative story
displacement of each story based on the static analysis.
A damping factor of the superstructure was assumed to
be 3% in proportion to an initial stiffness. For the seismic isolation layer, only a hysteresis damping based on
the restoring force characteristics was considered. Each
multi-lumped mass model in seismic response analysis
assumed at the center of gravity in each building. Parallel lumped masses were connected basically by a rigid
spring in the horizontal direction. One-third of the elastic
stiffness of the slab in axial and shear force was also analyzed as a case of insufficient stiffness of the connection.
To prevent torsion in the seismic isolation layer, the eccentricity ratio in horizontal maximum response displacement of the seismic isolation layer was minimized to less
than 1% and permissible deformation of seismic isolation
devices included a margin of 10% for maximum response
displacement. Minimum clearance in building circumference was ensured at 600 mm.
5.1.4. Structural Integration of Building
The following considerations were taken for new establishment slabs using prestressing cables:
a) For in-plane force, stress acting on a new slab was
calculated in both translational modes of the two
buildings based on seismic response analysis for
the parallel multi-lumped mass model and the other
mode that flexes via the joint between the two buildings based on static and modal analysis of a threeJournal of Disaster Research Vol.4 No.3, 2009

Building No.2

RF

Building No.1

9F
8F
7F
6F

Connecting
element

5F
4F
3F
2F
1F
Seismic isolation layer

Fig. 20. Seismic response analysis model.

Table 8.
Seismic performance targets for site-specific
ground motion and building code (very rare level).
Upper
structure
Seismic
isolation
layer
Foundation

a) within elastic strength of individual layer

b) below 1/312.5 (=1/250/1.25) of story drift angle
a) within safety deformation -- below 473.2 mm
(=591.6/1.25) for rubber bearings
b) within allowable tensile stress -- below 0.8
N/mm2 (=1/1.25) for rubber bearings
a) within allowable stress

dimensional model, and it was confirmed that this is

below allowable slab stress.
b) For out-of-plane force, slab bending resistance is not
expected in design, shown above, but it was confirmed that the amount of allowable strain in prestressing cable set based on yield strain of the cable
had sufficient margin for strain increments originating in bending deformation caused at slab edges by
the relative displacement of the two buildings. Working bending moment was also calculated for connection when the prestressing cable was extended to the
maximum, and it was also confirmed that margin was
sufficient for bending strength when axial force determined in seismic response analysis acted on the
connection.

5.2. Seismic Performance Targets

Table 8 shows seismic performance targets for the upper structure, seismic isolation layer, and foundation used
in response analysis. To maintain the upper structure to
be elastic range at each building layer, story drift angle of
main building frames was configured at 1/250 radian or
less. A seismic performance of seismic isolation devices
was desired to be less than safety deformation and allowable tensile stress, and foundation structure was desired to
217

Masuzawa, Y. and Hisada, Y.

1/312.5

Floor

Story

Floor

Story

1/312.5

47.32 cm

0.000

0.001
0.002
0.003
Story-drift angle (rad.)

0.004

Force of first
shear failure/1.25

10

20
30
40
Displacement (cm)

50

60

0.000

0.001
0.002
0.003
Story-drift angle (rad.)

0.004

Force of first
shear failure/1.25

Floor

20000
40000
60000
Story-shearing force (kN)

80000

20
30
40
Displacement (cm)

50

60

10

Floor

Story

47.32 cm

Story

200

400
600
Acceleration (gal)

800

Tokai-3_EW Random El centro_NS Taft_EW Hachinohe_NS

[Longitudinal (X) direction]

20000
40000
60000
Story-shearing force (kN)

80000

200

400
600
Acceleration (gal)

800

Tokai-3_EW Random El centro_NS Taft_EW Hachinohe_NS

[Transverse (Y) direction]

Fig. 21. Time history response analysis results of the upper structure and the seismic isolation layer (stiffness of seismic isolation
layer: hard case).

be less than allowable stresses. In all target values, an importance factor (I=1.25) was configured as a safety margin
for seismic performance.

5.3. Evaluation Results

Seismic retrofitted building performance was evaluated
based on static and dynamic analysis. Fig. 21 shows
seismic response analysis results for the upper structure
and seismic isolation layer after retrofitting for hard case
stiffness variations as the severest case. Figures at left
show results in the longitudinal direction and those at
right results in the transverse direction. Each direction
shows maximum story drift angle, displacement, storyshearing force, and floor response acceleration. The result of the response analysis, which was conducted under
the worst case scenario of site-specific ground motions
(Tokai-3 model), revealed that the maximum base shearto-weight ratio of upper structure and the maximum displacement of seismic isolation layer are 0.188 and 419.3
mm, respectively. Response results were confirmed to satisfy seismic performance targets for both upper structure
and seismic isolation layers, and that floor response acceleration was roughly 300 gal or less. From these analysis results, retrofitting for maintaining building function
and emergency medical activities in large earthquakes was
thus evaluated as effective.
218

6. Conclusions
We have developed a methodology of seismic isolation retrofit by integrating a couple of adjacent buildings,
and actually applied it to the two large-scale buildings at
the Hamamatsu Medical Center. This is the first hospital retrofitting using seismic isolation in Japan. We have
detailed the seismic retrofit scheme integrating the two
buildings using prestressed concrete slabs. From the microtremor measurements and evaluated building vibration
before and after integration, confirming that integration
was successful. During retrofitting, we used temporary
support with steel brackets and prestressing cables to install seismic isolation equipment safely and economically.
In the seismic design phase, we simulated broadband input earthquake ground motion for a hypothetical Magnitude 8 earthquake near the site, and confirmed structural
safety and functionality by evaluating seismic building
performance based on time-history seismic response analysis.
Acknowledgements
We thank the staffs of Hamamatsu City and Hamamatsu Medical Center for their generous understanding and cooperation during design and construction phases. Overall building renovation
was designed by Yokogawa Architects and Engineers, Inc. We

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.4 No.3, 2009

Seismic Isolation Retrofit of a Medical Complex by Integrating

Two Large-Scale Buildings

thank Messrs. Takashi Yamada and Eiji Yoshikawa for their encouraging support in project design and supervision. We thank
Dr. Takumi Toshinawa of Meisei University for microtremor measurement.

Name:
Yoshiaki Hisada

Affiliation:
Dr. of Eng., Professor, Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Kogakuin University

References:
[1] Y. Masuzawa and Y. Hisada, Seismic Isolation Retrofit of a Prefectural Government Office Building, Proc. of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, CD-ROM, 2004.
[2] Y. Hisada, A Hybrid Method for Predicting Strong Ground Motions at Broad-frequencies Near M8 Earthquakes in Subduction
Zones, Proc. of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, CD-ROM, 2000.
[3] Report on the Damage Investigation of the October 23, 2004 Mid
Niigata Prefecture Earthquake, Architectural Institute of Japan,
2006.8. (in Japanese).
[4] T. Toshinawa and Y. Masuzawa, Vibration Characteristics of 9Story SRC Buildings Connected with Expansion Joints, Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting, Architectural Institute of Japan, B-2, pp. 73-74, 2005.9. (in Japanese).
[5] Y. Masuzawa and T. Toshinawa, Vibration Characteristics of 9Story SRC Buildings Connected with Expansion Joints, Part 2:
Vibration Characteristics After Integrating Two Buildings, Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting, Architectural Institute of Japan, B-2, pp. 157-158, 2008.9. (in Japanese).
[6] Y. Masuzawa and Y. Hisada, Development a Temporary Supporting Method for Seismic Isolation Retrofit and Evaluation of Vertical Load Support Capacity Based on Full Scale Tests, Journal of
Structural and Construction Engineering, Architectural Institute of
Japan, Vol.74, No.638, pp. 701-710, 2009.4. (in Japanese).
[7] The 7th material of Special Investigation Committee for a Tokai
earthquake, Central Disaster Management Council secretariat,
Cabinet Office, Government of Japan, 2001.8. (in Japanese).
[8] Digital Strong-Motion Seismograph Network (KiK-net), National
Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention.
http://www.kik.bosai.go.jp/

Address:
1-24-2 Nishi-Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 163-8677, Japan

Brief Career:
1989 Research Associate, Waseda University
1993 Research Associate, University of Southern California
1995 Lecturer, Kogakuin University
1999 Associate Professor, Kogakuin University
2004- Professor, Kogakuin University

Selected Publications:

Y. Hisada, Broadband Strong Motion Simulation in Layered Half-Space

Using Stochastic Greens Function Technique, Journal of Seismology,
Vol.12, No.2, pp. 265-279, 2004.
Y. Hisada, M. Murakami, and S. Zama, Quick Collection of Earthquake
Damage Information and Effective Emergency Response by Collaboration
Between Local Government and Residents, Proc. of the 14th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, DVD, 2008.

Academic Societies & Scientific Organizations:

Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ)

Seismological Society of Japan (SSJ)
Seismological Society of America (SSA)
Japan Association for Earthquake Engineering (JAEE)

Name:
Yoe Masuzawa

Affiliation:
Assistant Business Promotion Manager, Risk
Management Department, Engineering & Risk
Services Corporation

Address:
Akasaka Kikyo Bldg., 3-11-15 Akasaka, Minato-ku, Tokyo 107-0052,
Japan

Brief Career:
1995 Taisei Corporation
1997 Yokogawa Architects & Engineers, Inc.
2006- Engineering & Risk Services Corporation
2009- Visiting Fellow of Kogakuin University

Selected Publications:

Y. Masuzawa and Y. Hisada, Seismic Isolation Retrofit of a Prefectural

Government Office Building, Proc. of the 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, CD-ROM, 2004.
Y. Masuzawa and Y. Hisada, Development a Temporary Supporting
Method for Seismic Isolation Retrofit and Evaluation of Vertical Load
Support Capacity Based on Full Scale Tests, Journal of Structural and
Construction Engineering, Architectural Institute of Japan, Vol.74, No.638,
pp. 701-710, 2009.4. (in Japanese).

Academic Societies & Scientific Organizations:

Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ)

Japan Association for Earthquake Engineering (JAEE)

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.4 No.3, 2009

219