In Japan, structural health monitoring (SHM) for building structures has received increased attention since the 2011 Tohoku earthquake, particularly regarding business continuity and functional recovery. Most applications are market-driven, and building owners deploy an SHM system at their own expense so that they can promptly assess the condition of their buildings as one of the tags denoted “Green,”“Yellow,” or “Red.” In 2015, the authors’ group began installing such an SHM system, and as of December 2023, 553 privately owned buildings have been equipped with this SHM system. This opinion paper presents the authors’ experiences to date on monitoring, utility of data, and interaction with building owners. It conveys three opinions that the authors believe to be most interesting, particularly in the context of the benefits of the “Caution (Yellow)” tag. The article briefly introduces SHM, followed by the specific system in question and the data accumulated over the years in Japan. The first opinion is that the damage criteria, that is, the boundaries among the three tags, should not be considered permanent but subject to updates based on experience and newly acquired data. The second opinion is that SHM is one of the best means to characterize the damage (and fragility) of major nonstructural elements, while “Caution (Yellow)” has inherent relevance to the nonstructural damage, particularly for initial damage states. The third opinion is that “Caution (Yellow)” is a good message for building owners and managers with a solid contingency plan that includes readily available building maintenance workers and engineers. On the contrary, it tends to frighten building owners and managers when such a contingency plan is absent, discouraging them from installing SHM. Overall, it presents some valuable insights of interest to those wishing to further such SHM systems on a broader scale.
Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) (1995) Preliminary Reconnaissance Report of the 1995 Hyogoken-nanbu Earthquake (ed. MNakashimaM MBruneau). Tokyo, Japan: AIJ (in Japanese).
2.
Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) (2001) Report on the Damage Investigation of the 2000 Western Tottori Prefecture Earthquake and the 2001 Geiyo Earthquake. Tokyo, Japan: AIJ (in Japanese).
3.
Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) (2004a) Report on the Damage Investigation of the May 26. 2003 off Miyagi Prefecture Earthquake and the July 26. 2003 Northern Miyagi Prefecture Earthquake. 5th ed.Tokyo, Japan: AIJ (in Japanese).
4.
Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) (2004b) Report on the Damage Investigation of the Tokachi-oki Earthquake in 2003. Tokyo, Japan: AIJ (in Japanese).
5.
Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) (2005) Report on the Damage Investigation of the 2005 West off Fukuoka Earthquake. Tokyo, Japan: AIJ (in Japanese).
6.
Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) (2006) Report on the Damage Investigation of the October 23, 2004 Mid Niigata Prefecture Earthquake, 2006 Edition. Tokyo, Japan: AIJ (in Japanese).
7.
Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) (2010) Report on the Damage Investigation of the 2007 Noto-hanto Earthquake and the 2007 Niigataken Chuetsu-oki Earthquake, 2010 Edition. Tokyo, Japan: AIJ (in Japanese).
8.
Cabinet Office of Japan (2007) Business Continuity Guidelines, First Edition—for the Mitigation of Disasters and Improved Disaster Response of Japanese Companies—A Commentary. Tokyo, Japan: Cabinet Office of Japan (in Japanese).
9.
CelebiM (2000) Seismic Instrumentation of Buildings, Open-file Report. Menlo Park, CA: United States Geological Survey, No. 2000-157.
10.
City and County of San Francisco (2001) Building Occupancy Resumption Program (BORP) (Rev. 2001). San Francisco, CA: City and County of San Francisco, Department of Building Inspection, Emergency Operation Plan.
11.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) (2013) The 2011 Tohoku Earthquake Tsunami (ed JMoriREisner ). Earthquake Spectra Special Issue 29(1): 0905.
12.
GiordanoPFIacovinoCQuqaSLimongelliM (2022) The value of seismic structural health monitoring for post-earthquake building evacuation. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering20: 4367–4393.
13.
JaiswalKWaldDPorterK (2010) A Global building inventory for earthquake loss estimation and risk management. Earthquake Spectra26(3): 731–748.
14.
Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association (1998) Manual on Post-earthquake Temporary Risk Evaluation of Damaged Buildings. Tokyo, Japan: Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association (in Japanese).
15.
Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association (2012[2011]) Standard for Seismic Evaluation of Existing Steel Buildings. Tokyo, Japan: Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association (in Japanese).
16.
Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association (2013[2009]) Standard for Seismic Evaluation of Existing Steel Encased Reinforced Concrete Buildings. Tokyo, Japan: Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association (in Japanese).
17.
Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association (2018[2017]) Standard for Seismic Evaluation of Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings. Tokyo, Japan: Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association (in Japanese).
18.
KandaKNakashimaMSuzukiYOgasawaraS (2021) “q-NAVI’’: A case of market-based implementation of structural health monitoring in Japan. Earthquake Spectra37(1): 160–179.
19.
KashimaTKoyamaSOkawaIIibaM (2012) Strong motion records in buildings from the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake. In: Proceedings of Fifteenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, 24–28 September.
20.
KawaguchiKKimuraTTsumuraYObaYNakasoYKawasakiKOkaKUemuraK (2018) Collapse of suspended ceiling of the auditorium in Kudan Kaikan (Part 1: Mechanical behavior of the ceiling and identification of the process of collapse). AIJ Journal of Technology and Design, Architectural Institute of Japan24(57): 855–860 (in Japanese).
21.
KayaYVenturaCHuffmanSTurekM (2017) British Columbia smart infrastructure monitoring system. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering44: 579–588.
22.
LangABuckalewJMayesRWadeK (2018) Second Generation B2B/BORP and Resilient Planning for Existing Buildings. Palm Springs, CA: SEAOC Convention.
23.
Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council (LATBSDC) (2020) An Alternative Procedure for Seismic Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings Located in the Los Angeles Region. Los Angeles, CA: LATBSDC.
24.
McCormickJMatsuokaYPanPNakashimaM (2008) Evaluation of non-structural partition walls and suspended ceiling systems through a shake table study. Seattle, WA: Proceedings of ASCE Structural Congress.
25.
MooreGA (1991) Marketing and Selling High-tech Products to Mainstream Customers or Simply Crossing the Chasm. New York: Harper Business Essentials.
26.
NakanoSTominagaKYoshimuraNKurosakiHUetaY (2008) Hearing Investigation on the Local Industry Damage and the Restoration Activities in the Niigataken Chuetsu-oki Earthquake. Journal of Safety Problems3(1): 24-29 (in Japanese).
27.
NakashimaMNagaeTEnokidaRKajiwaraK (2018) Experiences, accomplishments, lessons, and challenges of E—defense—tests using World’s largest shaking table. Japanese Architectural Review1(1): 4–17.
O’ReillyJHasegawaKShahnazaryanDPovedaJFukutomiYKusakaANakashimaM (2023) On the fragility of non-structural elements in loss and recovery: Field observations from Japan. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics53: 1125–1144.
30.
ShirasakiRKanaiTSasakiTAoiATagawaHKajiwaraKAraiTTakaokaMIwashitaM (2014) Development of damage mitigation technique for wide-area suspended ceiling systems using E-Defense (Part 8 response of seismically designed suspended ceiling with design force of 1.1G) In: A Summary of Annual Conference of Architectural Institute of Japan, Tokyo, Japan, 3–5 September, vol. 2, pp. 1101–1102. Kobe, Japan: Architectural Institute of Japan (in Japanese).
31.
SuzukiAKusakaANakashimaM (2023) Japanese attitudes toward risk control in seismic design in light of observation, prediction, and actual performance of building structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics52(13): 2378–2398.
32.
TakahasiR (1956) The ‘‘SMAC’’ strong motion accelerograph and other latest instruments for measuring earthquakes and building vibrations. In: Proceedings of first world conference on earthquake engineering, Berkeley, CA, 21–23 June, pp. 3–11. Oakland, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
33.
TakemuraM (1990) Magnitude-seismic moment relations for the shallow earthquakes in and around Japan. Journal of the Seismological Society of Japan43(1): 257–265 (in Japanese).
34.
The Small and Medium Enterprise Agency (2023) Guidelines for the Establishment and Operation of BCPs for Small and Medium Enterprises: Appendix-08, BCPs for Enterprises in the Niigata Chuetsu Earthquake. Available at: https://www.chusho.meti.go.jp/bcp/contents/level_a/bcpgl_08_08.html (accessed 23 August 2023).
35.
ThönsSLimongelliMLuD (2022) Special issue: A value of information perspective. Structural Health Monitoring21(1): 3.
WaldDLinKPorterKTurnerL (2008) ShakeCast: Automating and improving the use of ShakeMap for post-earthquake decision-making and response. Earthquake Spectra, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute24(2): 533–553.
