Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
Earthquake is known to be an extreme shaking of tectonic plate. It does not lose a single
thing, but it really affects multiple risks to a community, potentially inflicting large economic,
and property. In consequence to this the researcher have in thought to hunt in into this problem
and find measurements to mitigate the possible large result of the said natural hazard.
Philippines is one of the countries in Asia who happens to be located above where 80%
causes of earthquakes take place, the Pacific Ring of Fire. Butuan City lies at the Northeastern
part of Agusan Valley where happens to near the fault line according to Philippine Institute of
Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS) together with the Department of Science and
Technology (DOST).
Butuan City's economy is growing as well as its population that's why many high-rise school
buildings where built. The Department of Education happens to build recently a Three Storey
Eighteen Classroom DepED – PAGCOR School Building at Fr. Sibayan Elementary School. As
1
the community of the school is growing it really needs an assessment to determine the
environment. It involves a combination of factors that determine the degree to which someone’s
life and livelihood is put at risk by a discreet and identifiable event in nature or in society (Blaike
et. al, 2000). Seismic Vulnerability, on the other hand, is the structure’s capacity to resist stresses
or hazards, which in this case are earthquakes, and to prepare, cope, and recover from such
In this study, the researcher aims to assess the seismic vulnerability of the reinforced
Butuan City has experienced a massive earthquake years ago, that's why the researcher
comes up with an idea of assessing the seismic vulnerability of the building using the Seismic
Index (Is) and Seismic Demand Index (Iso) because both were dependent to Seismic
Vulnerability of the building. It is a data that categorized the performance of a building during an
earthquake. Structural member's dimensions, building configuration and its physical state were
the included variables and it also measures the zone's seismicity, soil conditions and building
usage. The researcher's goal is to determine the seismic vulnerability of PAGCOR – School
2
1. To determine the Seismic Index of the building.
3. To determine whether the buildings will fall under low, medium or high vulnerability
state.
This study studies the connection of Seismic Index and Seismic Demand Index to the
seismic performance of the building when an earthquake take place. The researcher uses the
earthquake. This research is profitable to Fr. Sibayan Elementary School because it will be an
awareness for the possible seismic vulnerability of the PAGCOR – School Building. The city
will also benefit to this study in a sense that it will be a model for a rapid assessment of the other
buildings in Butuan City. This will also be a great help for the future researchers who wants to
The scope of this study is to determine the seismic index and seismic demand index for
the seismic vulnerability of a building with the given access by Fr. Sibayan Elementary School.
3
Using the method of Japan which is the, " Seismic Evaluation of Existing Reinforced Concrete
Buildings, 2001" the researcher only use the first screening with a 20 MPa constant compressive
strength design of concrete. For the computation of the deadload of the building the only
structural members to be considered were beams, walls, slabs, columns, stairs, ramps, and other
masonry units. The shear walls in each building considered only those walls surrounding the stair
wells, ramps and elevator shafts due to lack of instrument and incomplete details of structural
plans. The computation of the minimum live load was based on " Structural Code of the
4
Chapter 2
Related Literature
This chapter presents all the related concepts and studies which helped the researcher in
the implementation of the study. It also contains pertinent information about each certain subject
in interest,
The Japanese standard for evaluating the seismic performance of existing RC buildings,
especially low and medium-rise buildings up to six stories, uses a seismic index, Is, for judging
whether a building has enough capacity or not (Oreta A., et.al 2003). The general equation given
by Umemura (1980) for I S is, I S = I O x S D x T x G. This equation has been used in the 1990
Philippine Earthquake. Oreta, et.al (2003) used a modified equation for computing the I S value
this study, among the four indices on the formula, I O is the dominant value, the other three
indices are reduction factors less or equal to 1.0. Although IS can be computed at all floor levels
5
at each principal horizontal direction, the ground floor level will be used as it is the most critical
level.
Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association (2001) used the seismic index to
determine a building’s seismic performance. The method gathers the dimensions of each column,
beams, slab, walls, and other structural elements of the building. The study includes both site
IS=E0 ⋅ SD⋅T
The seismic performance of the building will be judged according to the standard for
judgement on seismic safety prescribed. The method undergoes three levels of screening
procedure. The seismic index IS shall be calculated in either first, second, or third level screening
procedure. The basic seismic index EO is calculated in each floor of every screening level
procedure. The irregularity index SD and time index T, in the first level screening procedure may
be used commonly for all level screening procedure and stories. Also, in each screening level in
calculating EO, the strength index C and ductility index F, and effective strength factor α must be
calculated and determined. A seismic demand index ISO is also calculated through this equation:
ISO = ES ∙ Z∙ G ∙ U
To compare it with the calculated IS to determine the seismic performance of the building,
where:
6
Clapano, et.al (2004) did a research paper about the seismic index of selected RC
buildings in Xavier University. The seismic safety of the buildings was determined by comparing
the computed Seismic Index with a critical value of 0.6. The Seismic Index (IS) critical value 0.6
was derived considering buildings experienced 25%-30% g level ground motion according from
the Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ). Clapano, et.al (2004) adapted the assumed values from
the AIJ manual for the average shear stresses basing on a 20 MPa compressive strength of long
columns, short columns, extremely short columns to be 0.687 MPa, 0.981 MPa, and 1.472 MPa
respectively. For shear walls with one boundary column, peripheral column, and two boundary
columns were assumed to be 0.981 MPa, 1.962 MPa, and 2.943 MPa respectively.
The same method was used by Alonzo, et.al (2005) in determining the Seismic Index of a
RC building designed using the NSCP 2001. However, the assumed values for the columns and
walls were adjusted because Umemura (1990) based his assumptions on a 20 MPa compressive
strength of concrete. The researchers used ratio and proportion in adjusting the values using a 28
In the study conducted by Mehani, et. al, (2012) that was presented in the 15th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, the said study pertains upon the retrofit and seismic
analysis on the existing reinforced concrete buildings in Algeria through the methods developed
by Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association (JBDPA) in 2001 and IIZIS/CGS method.
The said method (JBDPA) has mainly three (3) levels of analysis: first level screening which is
simple and yields a conservative result, second level screening based on how the columns,
vertical members of the structure will collapse, and the third level screening is being performed
with addition of the beams in the analysis. In the previous earthquake events in Algeria, by
observation of the gathered data, the columns were the dominant affected part in an occurrence
7
of a seismic activity (Bertero et.al., 1981) as such this study applies the second level screening of
In the IZIIS/CGS method for seismic vulnerability evaluation of the existing RC structures
follows a certain procedure of: data collection, the definition of the seismic hazard, the choice of
the soil acceleration at the bedrock, the seismic safety criterion, and the structural building safety
and damage analysis (IZIIS/CGS, 1993). In this study, the seismic hazard and the attenuation
laws were used to define the maximum expected bedrock acceleration as a function of a return
period of 500 years is set as Amax = 0.40g (Mehani et. al., 2011).
The building garnered results from the method developed by Japan Building Disaster Prevention
Association before the retrofitting of the structural members of ISo=0.604 and ISaverage = 0.3264 in
the longitudinal direction and ISaverage = 0.371 in the transversal direction. With these gathered
results, we could presume that the building before the retrofitting could not sustain its
be proposed.
With the strengthening plan being proposed and applied, the researchers have concluded that an
importance of seismically evaluating the strength and ductility of the structure in a quantitative
manner and a necessity to ponder in retrofitting the building in terms of the strength and ductility
characteristics of a building. They also stated that finding the most enough solution that could
both meet the technical and economic conditions was one of the most difficult things they have
encountered in retrofitting the building. The modification method gave a satisfying impact to
sustain the life expectancy of the structure and both criteria of the proposed methodologies,
JBDPA and IZIIS/CGS. Thus, it is important to note that, the retrofitting method being used
must also consider not only the building itself but also the environment that is surrounding the
8
building’s premises and if such approach may cause hindrance or block an access then, such
In another study conducted by Inoue together with Mehani, 2008 columns bounding a length of
wall with no openings for windows, doors, and etc., were classified as short columns.
A recent study in the Dominican Republic suggested that the seismic activities occurring there
were produced by faults that weren’t active at that time. The need to assess the seismic
performance of the buildings in the country, particularly the reinforced concrete (RC) ones was
of great importance especially, that some buildings were built before the establishment of the
first seismic code of the Dominican Republic. The Japanese method on the assessment of seismic
performance of RC buildings was adopted by the country. The method is mainly characterized
by the relationship of the seismic index (Is) and seismic demand index (Iso). The IS is a function
of basic seismic index (Eo), irregularity index (SD), and time index (T). While the ISO is a
function of basic seismic demand index (Es), zone index (Z), ground index (G), and usage index
(U). Using the first level screening, one RC building consisting of four stories was assessed and
the results suggested that the first and second floors were at “not good” (NG) condition and the
remaining were at OK condition. The first level screening doesn’t involve the importance of
reinforcing bars in helping with the building’s earthquake resistance. Thus, to be able to confirm
the results of the first level screening, the researchers pursued on the second level. In the second
level, the role of the reinforcing bars was recognized by including it on the computation. It was
found out that the results in the first level matched that of the second level. Although, the two
levels differ from each other with respect to their degree of assessment, it still manifested the
consistency and accuracy of using the Japanese method. The researchers did some modifications
to the Japanese method to fit with the setting of the subject country. They’ve concluded that the
9
sample building will experience damages on its first floor in an event of a strong earthquake.
According to the researchers, the Dominican Republic’s code for seismic vulnerability
assessment is not that strict compared to Japan. They’ve emphasized that only certain parameters
in order to know the structural behavior of a building was used on their code whereas the
Japanese is more detailed and stricter in terms of assessing the seismic performance of a
structure.
10
Chapter 3
Methodology
This chapter present the methods that the researcher would use, how data’s been
gathered, data processing and research locale. The systematic processes on how the researcher
This study is a quantitative type in which in involves data gathering and turning it
into numerical form so that it will have a conclusion through calculations. JBDPA (2001)
defined that the building seismic index IS is the function of its basic seismic index EO and the
modification factors irregularity index SD and time index T. The researcher only uses the first –
conducted. For the calculation of the strengths of the structural members the material strengths
and cross-sectional dimensions shall be investigated. The cracking of concrete and the
11
deformation of the structure shall be assessed for the computation of the time index. And for the
12
3.1.1 Seismic Index
To obtain the seismic index of the structure it should be calculated in each story
and principal horizontal direction of a building. For the irregularity index and time index it could
SD = Irregularity index
T = Time index
The basic seismic index of structure E0, which is to evaluate the basic seismic
performance of the building by assuming other sub - indices as unity, shall be calculated for each
story and each direction based on the ultimate strength, failure mode and ductility of the
building. The basic seismic index of structure EO of the i-th story in an n-story building is given
𝑛+1
EO = (CSC + α2CW + α3CC) × FSC For extremely short columns Eq. (3)
𝑛+𝑖
where:
numbered
Eq. (6).
14
3.1.3 Strength Index C
Using the cross-sectional areas of walls and columns it could calculate the strength index
C.
Ʈ𝐶 × 𝐴𝐶
CC = × βC Eq. (5)
∑𝑊
Ʈ𝑆𝐶 × 𝐴𝑆𝐶
CSC = × βC Eq. (6)
∑𝑊
𝐹𝐶
βC = @ FC ≤ 20 Eq. (7)
20
where:
τW1 = Average shear stress at the ultimate state of walls with two boundary
columns
τW2 = Average shear stress at the ultimate state of walls with one column
boundary
15
τW3 = Average shear stress at the ultimate state of walls without boundary
τSC = Average shear stress at the ultimate state of extremely short columns
AW1 = Total Cross-sectional area of walls in mm2 with two boundary columns
AW2 = Total Cross-sectional area of walls in mm2 with one boundary column
where the areas of boundary columns in the walls with one or two
ΣW = Total weight (including dead load and live load) supported by the story
concerned
16
Figure 3.2 Definition of cross-sectional area of wall, JBDPA 2001
screening level, failure mode and member deformation capacity, and response to earthquakes. A
standard value of the ductility index shall be defined as the ductility index of the shear wall, in
which shear failure precedes other failure modes. The ductility indices of the other members
For the ductility index of a vertical member it should be selected in table 3.1 according to
17
Table 3.1 Ductility Index in the first level screening, JBDPA 2001
quantifying the effects of the shape complexity and the stiffness unbalance distribution, and the
calculating the irregularity index for the first level screening procedures should be selected
respectively, considering the simplification and accuracy of calculation and the effect of index.
where:
Eq. (9)
q1i = [1 – (1 - Gi) × R1j] · · · · · i = a, b, c, d, e, f, i, j
Eq. (10)
q1i = [1.2 – (1 - Gi) × R1j] · · · · · i = h
18
R
Gi(Grade) (Adjustment
Factor)
A2
D Expansion Joint 0.01 < d 0.02 ≤ d < 0.01 d < 0.02 0.5
Balance
19
h Underground 1.0 ≤ h 0.5 ≤ h < 1.0 h < 0.5 0.5
Floor
Elevation i Story Height 0.8 ≤ i 0.7 ≤ h < 0.8 i < 0.8 0.5
Balance Uniformity
Soft Story
In determining the time index T it should be based on the first level inspection result
listed in table 2.4. The minimum T value at the column [C] in the table should be taken as the
(A)
(B) (C)
Item to be checked
Degree T value
(First Level Inspection)
20
Tilting of a building or obvious uneven 0.7
observed visually
observed
obviously observed
external wall
21
is observed
Trace 0.7
No experience 1
Age of building
19 years or less 1
22
Finishing condition
No problem 1
Table 3.3 Time Index T by the first level screening, JBDPA 2001
This study will be conducted at Fr. Sibayan Elementary School newly built PAGCOR –
School Building.
23
Chapter 4
Irregularity Index is the one who modifies the basic seismic index of the structure by
quantifying the shape complexity and evaluating the horizontal and elevation balance through the
formulated scores by the checklist of JBPA, 2001. The elevation balance inspects the plan
regularity; aspect ratio plan; narrow point; expansion joint; well styled area; and eccentric well
styled area. Horizontal balance examines the existing of an underground floor; story height
uniformity; and soft story. These are the equations that has been used to get the Irregularity
Index
where:
24
DepED – PAGCOR SCHOOL BUILDING
R Grade q
G - - - - - -
0.7217
elevation balance of the structure. Were in the horizontal balance the researcher gets 1 as the
grade of the building for its regularity. 0.8 for its aspect ratio plan, 1 for its narrow point, 0.8 for
its expansion joint and 1 for its well styled area and eccentric well styled area. In elevation
25
balance the grade of the building is 1 for the underground floor, 08 for the story height
uniformity and 1 for the soft story. The value of R (Adjustment Factor) has been given by the
checklist of the JBDPA, 2001. Getting the value of the irregularity index the researcher used the
A qualitative onsite investigation of the building has been done by using the table 3.3.
The lowest value of the said investigation that the researcher gets is the value of the Time Index
of the Building. The highest value of the time index is 1.0 which says that there is no obvious
tilting and uneven settlement of the building, no deflection of the beams and columns observed,
no rain leaks with or without rust of the reinforcing bars, no inclined cracking in columns,
minimal or no cracking in external walls were observed, no fire experience, no chemical has
been used, the building’s age is 19 years or less, and lastly there is a minimal or no spalling of
external finishing due to aging and deterioration of internal finishing . The middle correspondent
value of 0.9 was acquired due to the observed landfill site or former rice field, deflection of beam
and column were visually observed, inclined cracking of in columns is obviously observed,
countless cracking is observed in external wall, there is a rain leak without rust on the reinforcing
bar, fire experience but traceless, age of building is 20 years or older, and significant spalling and
deterioration of internal finishing is observed. And the lowest value was obtained can be
obtained if there is a tilting of the building or obvious uneven settlement was observed, rain leak
26
with rust of reinforcing bar was notice, there is a trace of fire experience, chemical has been
T-VALUE
DepEd-PAGCOR
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
School Building
The evaluated value of T or Time Index of the building (DepED- PAGCOR Building) is
1, were there is no obvious tilting and uneven settlement of the building, no deflection of the
beams and columns observed, no rain leaks with or without rust of the reinforcing bars, no
inclined cracking in columns, minimal or no cracking in external walls were observed, no fire
experience, no chemical has been used, the building’s age is 19 years or less, and lastly there is a
minimal or no spalling of external finishing due to aging and deterioration of internal finishing
27
4.3 Seismic Index and Seismic Demand Index
After various calculations, visual inspection, and plan geometry analysis of the reinforce
concrete building of Fr. Sibayan Elementary School the seismic index was obtained. The seismic
index was calculated in each level and direction of the building using the equation: IS = EO.SD .
T, were (Is) is the seismic index (Is), (E0) is the basic seismic index of the structure, (SD)
. The Basic Seismic Index (EO) for the first level screening is a function of the crosss-
sectional area of structural walls and columns and total weight of the building carried by the
storey concerned. The Seismic Index of a building is the lowest index from all the floors
evaluated and from all principal directions. Seismic demand index of the building was attained
through the principle developed by JBDPA (2001); the ISO = ESZGU. The value for ES is
constant which is 0.8 that has been based on the level screening, which is the first level
screening. Using the National Structural Code of the Philippines (2010), 6th edition the factors of
Z, G, and U were obtained and were calibrated to the Japan Standard since the method originated
in Japan. According to Dr. Tsuneo Okada (2016), Zone index Z, ground index G, and Usage
Index U are modification factors for Basic seismic demand index ES. Therefore, the default value
is 1.0. Zone Index Z of 1.0 is used for buildings in the highest seismic zone of the seismic design
code for new buildings in Japan. As for the Ground Index G, the evaluation standard explains
only qualitative issues; usually 1.0 is used for most cases. The usage index U is determined by
the building owner. In case of public buildings, Government or local governments determine.
28
The value of the three indices is 1 referred to the National Structural Code of the Philippines
(2010), 6th edition which indicates that the selected buildings belong to the occupancy category:
essential facilities.
The new building of Fr. Sibayan Elementary School, the DepED-PAGCOR School
Building is the only building that was been assisted by the researcher. The following tables in
this chapter will show the effect of the Irregularity and Time index into the Seismic Index of a
structure. The relationship between the Seismic Index and storey level are illustrated also in the
following tables. The selected building was evaluated at each storey and each principal direction
were gathered:
Building Name: DepED-PAGCOR School Building Location: Fr. Sibayan Elementary School, Baan 3Km
3 5.196484053 3.741469 LV
1 0.131239816 0.094493 HV
3 5.196484053 3.741469 LV
1 0.131239816 0.094493 HV
29
To compare the calculated IS and ISD, these are the following assumption to determine the
underground floor, no narrow parts, no presence of well-style area, soft stories and expansion
joint, and the uniformity of each story height have contributed to the value of 0.72 of the
Irregularity Index (SD) using Table 3.2. Building was constructed last May 2018 and it is 7
months old with zero presence of cracks and spalling on walls and columns which results of a
value of 1 in the Time Index (T) using Table 3.3. EO where obtained through calculations which
involves the building weight, cross-sectional areas of wall and columns. Levels 1 and 2 were
categorized as High Vulnerability in both X and Y direction since the Seismic Demand Index ISO
which is 0.8 is greater than the Seismic Index IS which is 0.094493 for level 1 and 0.456891 for
level 2. Both X and Y direction of level 3 were classify as Low Vulnerability for the Seismic
Index IS which is 3.741469 is greater than Seismic Demand Index ISO which is 0.8.
Although the building is only a 3 storey building, it was still categorized as High
Vulnerability; the structural walls and columns present on the building are not enough to resist
30
lateral motions as to the results on the first level screening. There is no presence of the shear wall
that could resist the lateral loads: hence a detailed assessment must be made.
The Seismic Index of a building is the lowest index from all the floors evaluated and
from all principal directions. A building is under a Low Vulnerability condition if its Seismic
Index IS is greater than the Seismic Demand Index ISO. If it’s IS is lesser than ISO but greater than
0.65ISO then is under Medium Vulnerability. And if it’s IS is lesser than 0.65ISO it is under High
Vulnerability. A total of one (1) reinforced concrete building were evaluated using the method
developed by JBDPA, 2001. The building is categorized as High Vulnerability since the IS is
lesser than 0.65ISO.
Considering the assumption for the cross – sectional area of structural walls and columns
due to lack of details of the As – Built Plans, a building’s Seismic Index can be greatly affected
with this assumption in the first level screening since in the first level screening, only deals with
the cross – sectional area of structural walls and columns and the weight being supported
contribute to the Seismic Index of a structure.
31
Chapter 5
The study determined the Seismic Vulnerability condition of the selected reinforced
concrete building. To determine the Seismic Vulnerability of a structure, two parameters must be
obtained; Seismic Index and Seismic Demand Index. Seismic index is taken as a function of the
Basic Seismic Index (EO), Time Index (T), and Irregularity Index (SD). The Seismic Index of a
building is the lowest index in each level and principal direction compared to the Seismic
Demand Index which is a function of the Basic Seismic Demand Index (ES), Zone Index (Z),
Ground Index (G), and Usage Index (U), will define the vulnerability of a building. According to
the results presented in Table 4.4, the DepED-PAGCOR School Building lies as a building with
High Vulnerability. The high vulnerability condition does not indicate that the building will
immediately fail during an event of an earthquake. This condition demonstrates that a structure is
vulnerable to any earthquake activities and is prone to severe damage and collapse.
32
In a qualitative ocular inspection, and based on the results, the presence of cracks and
spalling on walls and columns has a great impact as it will lessen the score of the structure’s
Seismic Index. The value of the Seismic Index is reduced up to 10% if there is a presence of
cracks and spalling on walls and columns. Although the building is newly constructed or aged 19
years below, with the presence of cracks and spalling on walls and columns, the value of 0.9 will
be used as the Time Index value thus reducing the Seismic Index.
The researchers recommended that this building that fell under the high vulnerability
condition must proceed to a more detailed assessment (second level) although the manual states
that it must be retrofitted. Directly retrofitting a structure using the first level screening results is
not practical and should be properly dealt through careful examinations of the structure itself.
The first level screening only considers the cross-sectional dimensions of columns and structural
walls, ignoring the support of the reinforcements. In reality, steel reinforcements on columns and
structural walls have a significant effect in resisting lateral force, hence proceeding to second
building for a better presentation of the vulnerability of the building in all directions and having a
2 or more high rise building to be assessed so that there is a comparison between the buildings
vulnerability. As discussed by Oreta et.al, 2003, the relationship between the seismic index and
the no. of stories present in a building, that was discussed in the paper entitled “Seismic
index and the no. of stories present has an indirect relationship; as the number of stories
increases, the seismic index decreases considering all columns have the same cross-sectional
area.
33
The method presented by the Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association is a model
of a well-structured and well-mannered evaluation where good quantitative results were attained.
It is necessary to evaluate the seismic vulnerability of the buildings present in the city. This study
can lead to a better development for rapid vulnerability assessment of existing reinforced
concrete buildings in Butuan City. However, the researchers would also like to recommend that
studies in the future should also aim to check the limitations of the method.
Apart from this, the researcher would also like to recommend that As-built plans
containing structural and architectural plans must be complete for a more efficient and effective
assessment. Details must be clearly specified for convenience and minimal assumptions to those
missing details.
case, conducting a seismic vulnerability assessment will help prevent further disaster. For this
reason, it is important to determine and improve the seismic capacity of existing reinforced
concrete buildings. Thus, the researchers conducted this study to determine the seismic
vulnerability condition of the selected buildings however, the results presented should not be
taken as the final condition to describe the structure’s capacity to resist earthquake motion,
hence, a more detailed assessment is highly recommended in order to fully develop and improve
the study.
34
35