Trail to the epicenter of faulty math
(From The Japan Times May 1 issue)

耐震強度偽装事件の究明へ向けて

    It has been reported that Mr. Aneha has falsified quake-resistance data for designs of 98 condominiums and hotels. Mr. Aneha is suspected of having violated the law governing architects by allowing structural designer Mr. Mikio Akiba, who was also arrested, to use his name and title as a state-licensed "class-one architect."

    The other seven included Mr. Moriyoshi Kimura, president of Kimura Construction Co., a client of Mr. Aneha, and Mr. Togo Fujita, president of building inspection agency eHomes Inc.

    Kimura Construction built 56 of the 98 buildings constructed according to Mr. Aneha's falsified design data. For the time being, however, Mr. Kimura is suspected of violating construction industry law by window-dressing his company's financial reports for the business year ended June 2004. Mr. Fujita was the first person to report data falsification by Mr. Aneha to the Land, Infrastructure and Transport Ministry after discussing the matter with Mr. Susumu Ojima, president of Huser Co., a developer. Mr. Fujita was arrested on suspicion of falsifying his company's financial documents before acquiring official government certification as an inspector so that his firm could inspect designs of more varied types of buildings.

    It is hoped that the investigators will be able to determine which party first hit on the idea of using falsified quake-resistance data for building designs and thus unravel the process of falsifying design data, inspecting design data, constructing buildings using such designs, and then certifying and selling the buildings. The initial arrests did not include people from Huser Co., which sold a condominium built according to Mr. Aneha's data, or those from General Management Consultant Co., or Soken, which served as a consultant on more than 20 business hotels built according to fabricated data.

    Mr. Fujita, regarded by some as a whistle-blower, stresses that there was no negligence on the part of his firm. But eHomes failed to detect false designs in about one-third of Aneha-designed buildings. The investigators should find out whether the failure was a simple mistake or a result of long-standing negligence.

    The scandal surfaced in November when the Land, Infrastructure and Transport Ministry announced that Mr. Aneha had fabricated quake-resistance data in designs for 20 condominiums and a hotel in Tokyo, Chiba and Kanagawa prefectures, and that some of them might collapse if struck by an earthquake of upper-5 intensity on the Japanese scale of 7. Under a 1981 regulation, buildings must be strong enough to resist a quake of upper-6 intensity.

    The problem is that people other than Mr. Aneha also fabricated quake-resistance design data for many other buildings. In Hokkaido, a class-two architect is suspected of having fabricated such data for 34 condominiums. Fortunately or unfortunately, the Aneha scandal has helped call people's attention to the fact that the practice of fabricating building design data is pervasive.

    The Aneha scandal should be viewed in the larger context of government policy related to building safety, especially deregulation. As part of the government move to relegate as many duties as possible to the private sector, the Building Standards Law was revised to enable government-designated private agencies to certify building designs beginning in 1999. It is clear that some of these private agencies have put priority on earning profits rather than on assuring safety, and that some local governments, while in competition with such agencies, have lost the expertise needed to perform design inspections.

    Strangely, four legally acceptable calculation methods exist for structural designs as well as more than 100 software programs for such calculations, leading to different results from method to method. The government is considering strengthening the punishment for architects and construction industry people, but such an approach would be too simplistic. The government needs to present policy measures that substantially make the nation safer in the event of earthquakes. Investigations should eventually clarify the government's responsibility for allowing the fabrication of quake-resistance building data to spread.

The Japan Times Weekly: May 6, 2006
(C) All rights reserved

    98棟の建物の耐震強度を偽装したとされる姉歯元建築士は、建築デザイナー・秋葉三喜雄氏に一級建築士としての名義を貸し、建築士法に違反した容疑で逮捕された。

    他の逮捕者のうち、56棟の姉歯物件を建設したとされる木村建設の木村盛好社長は粉飾決算による建設業法違反の疑い、違法物件の検査確認をした民間指定検査機関「イーホームズ」の藤田東吾社長は、虚偽の増資をしたとして公正証書原本不実記載の疑いが持たれている。

    8人の中には、欠陥マンションを販売したデベロッパー「ヒューザー」と、欠陥ビジネスホテル建設について経営指導をしたコンサルタント会社「総合経営研究所」の関係者は含まれていない。

    事件の発端は、国交省が昨年11月、姉歯氏が東京都、千葉県、神奈川県に建てられた20棟のマンションと1棟のホテルの耐震強度を偽装していたことを発表したことだった。これらの建物は震度5強の地震で倒壊するおそれがあるという。

    問題の背景には、建築基準法改正により、1999年から民間の指定検査機関が建築確認、検査をできるようになったことがある。これらの機関が安全よりも利益を重視する一方、地方自治体は十分な建築検査を行えなかった。

    建築構造計算には4通りの合法的方法と100以上のソフトがあり、その組み合わせにより異なる結果が出るという。政府は建築士、建設業界関係者の違法行為に対し罰則の強化を検討しているが、それよりも地震に対する根本的対策を策定すべきである。捜査で耐震偽装問題についての政府の責任が明らかになるよう期待する。