SEISMIC INSTRUMENTATION OF BUILDINGS

By
Carlos M. Villaraza. FASEP

INTRODUCTION
Technology on building instrumentation for seismic monitoring has improved tremendously in
the past decade. The purpose of the Guidelines and Implementing Rules on Earthquake
Recording instrumentation for Buildings proposed by ASEP is to provide information on the
specifications and uses of earthquake recording instruments for buildings as provided in
Section 105.2 of the National Structural Code of the Philippines 2010 Volume 1, Sixth Edition
(NSCP 2010).
Installation of earthquake recording instruments was first required in the National Structural
Code of the Philippines 1992, Fourth Edition, wherein structural engineers were only interested
in the strength design capacity on the buildings based on seismic parameters provided in the
Uniform Building Code (UBC) of the United States, referral code of the NSCP. Structural code
developers started to recognize the importance of not only strength but serviceability and
performance as well. The experiences from the 1994 Northridge Earthquake in the US and the
1995 Kobe Earthquake in Japan gave credence to these considerations. DPWH therefore
deemed it necessary to improve our understanding of the building response based on real
seismic event from local earthquake generators by enforcing placement of earthquake
recording instrumentation for buildings as the NSCP provision was reiterated in 2001, Fifth
Edition, as well as in the latest 2010, Sixth Edition.
The NSCP 2010 states that "Unless waived by the building official, every building in Seismic Zone
4 over fifty (50) meters in height shall be provided with not less than three (3) approved
recording accelerographs. The accelerographs shall be interconnected for common start and
common timing."
The Philippines needs to have its own earthquake baseline data for validating the seismic
design parameters used during and future structural design of buildings, in order to support
earthquake disaster mitigation efforts. Hence, the waiver stated in the NSCP 2010 is
temporarily suspended until such time that considerable sets of adequate earthquake records
have been obtained for various specified types of buildings and relevant provisions in the
NSCP have been amended. However, for the purposes of the Earthquake Recording
Instrumentation for Buildings, the Department of Public Works and Highways' has identified
buildings in Table 1 to be necessarily installed by the said seismic monitoring system.

TABLE 1. EARTHQUAKE RECORDING INSTRUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS

TYPE AND HEIGHT OF
BUILDING

LOCATION

REQUIREMENTS

GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS
A.

Hospitals, schools and

other buildings fifty
(50) meters high and
above

Either of the following:

1. Three (3) accelerographs at
Ground floor/Lowest basement;
Middle floor; and Floor below Roof
2. One (1) accelerograph at Ground
floor/Lowest basement interphased
with two (2) triaxial accelerometers
at middle floor and floor below roof

1.

Accelerograph for recording

waveform and transformed to FFT

B.

Hospitals with 50-bed

capacity or more, and
schools with twenty
(20) classrooms or
more but not less than
three (3) storeys

Ground Floor / Lowest Basement

2.

With GPS capability

C.

Provincial / City /
Municipal Halls
and Buildings

Ground Floor Level

3.

Send data to data center of the

government Note: For
Provincial / City / Municipal
Halls, earthquake recording
instruments shall include
intensity meter.

EVALUATION OF SEISMIC BEHAVIOR AND PERFORMANCE OF STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS

There are three main approaches to evaluate seismic behavior and performance of structural
systems.
1. Laboratory Testing: Subsystems, components, or prototypes or large, scaled models of
complete systems are tested under static, quasi-static, or dynamic loading. This
approach does not necessarily demand a time-dependent testing scheme, such as a
shaking table or hydraulically powered and electronically controlled loading systems;
however, testing of structural systems under controlled simulated environments is
desirable. Laboratory testing has also contributed substantially to understanding of
dynamic soil properties and the interaction phenomenon between the soil and
structure.
2. Computerized Analyses: Using special purpose public-domain or private software,
structures are analyzed for prescribed loads determined either by code provisions or
postulated site-specific ground motions.
3. Natural Laboratory of the Earth: The third main approach to evaluate the behavior and
performance of structural systems is to use the natural laboratory of the Earth, by

observing and studying the performance (and possibly the damage to structures)
following earthquakes. By determining why specific designs lack earthquake resistance
and then by using extensive laboratory testing of modified designs, significant progress
in improved designs can be achieved. For such design studies a natural laboratory would
be a seismically prone area that offers a variety of structural systems; in optimum test
areas, strong ground motions as well as moderate-level motions would be experienced
frequently. Integral to the natural laboratory approach is the instrumentation of
selected structures so that their responses can be recorded during future earthquakes.
Thus, it is essential that integrated arrays of instrumentation be planned and installed to
assess thoroughly the relation of ground motion that starts at a source and transmitted
through various soils to a substructure and finally to a superstructure. The direction for
seismologists and engineers working together is clear; to develop integrated networks
which measure the seismic source, the transmittal of ground motion, and the structural
response processes.
OBJECTIVES FOR SEISMIC INSTRUMENTATION OF STRUCTURES
The main objective of seismic instrumentation program for structural systems is to improve
understanding of the behavior and potential for damage of structures under the dynamic loads
of earthquakes. As a result of this understanding, design and construction practices can be
modified so that future earthquake damage is minimized.
An instrumentation program should provide enough information to reconstruct the response of
the structure in enough detail to compare with the response predicted by mathematical models
and those observed in laboratories, the goal being to improve the models. In addition, the data
should make it possible to explain the reasons for any damage to the structure. The nearby
free-field and ground-level time history should be known in order to quantify the interaction of
soil and structure. More specifically, a well-instrumented structure for which a complete set of
recordings has been obtained should provide useful information to:
1. check the appropriateness of the dynamic model (both lumped-mass and finite
element) in the elastic range,
2. determine the importance of non-linear behavior on the overall and local response of
the structure,
3. follow the spreading nonlinear behavior throughout the structure as the response
increases and determine the effect of this non-linear behavior on the frequency and
damping,
4. correlate the damage with inelastic behavior,
5. determine the ground-motion parameters that correlate well with building response
damage, and
6. make recommendations eventually to improve seismic codes (elebi and others, 1987).
7. facilitate decisions to retrofit/strengthen the structural system as well as securing the
contents within the structures.

Code versus Extensive Instrumentation

The NSCP 2010, recommends, for seismic ZONE 4, a minimum of three accelerographs be
placed in every building over fifteen stories high. The purpose of this requirement by the NSCP
was to monitor rather than to analyze. NSCP-Code type instrumentation is illustrated in Figure
1a.

Figure 1. Typical Instrumentation Schemes

The NSCP-type instrumentation, because it is designed for monitoring, is not necessarily a

useful first stage for the instrumentation being discussed. Experiences from past earthquakes
show that the NSCP minimum guidelines do not ensure sufficient data to perform meaningful
model verifications. As an example, three horizontal accelerometers are required to define the
horizontal motion of a floor (two translations and torsion). Rojahn and Matthiesen (1977)
concluded that the predominant response of a high-rise building can be described by the
participation of the first four modes of each of the three sets of modes (two translations and
torsion); therefore, a minimum of 12 accelerometers would be necessary to record these
modes. If vertical motion and rocking are expected to be significant and need to be recorded, at
least three vertical accelerometers are required at the basement level. This type of
instrumentation scheme is called the ideal extensive instrumentation scheme herein and is
illustrated in Figure 1b.

Figures 1c and 1d illustrate typical special purpose instrumentations. Diaphragm effects are
best captured by adding sensors at the center of the diaphragm as well as the edges (Figure 1c).
Performance of base-isolated systems and effectiveness of the isolators are best captured by
measuring tri-axial motions at top and bottom of the isolators as well as the rest of the
superstructure (Figure 1d).
Furthermore, high-precision record synchronization must be available within a structure if the
response time histories are to be used together to reconstruct the overall behavior of the
structure.
Within the last decade plus, system identification techniques have made it possible to identify
structural characteristics (modal frequencies, modal damping) using recorded responses of
structures (Ljung, 1987). These methods have evolved into single-input single-output and multiinput multi-output versions that enable construction of modal shapes.
Like the superstructure, the foundation system needs to be instrumented to study its response.
This is easily accommodated along the instrumentation scheme of the superstructure. Placing
sensors at critical locations of the foundation to capture all its relevant motions will at a
minimum facilitate study of its behavior.
However, more information is required to interpret the motion of the foundation substructure
relative to the ground on which it rests. Engineers use free-field motions as input motion at the
foundation level, or they obtain the motion at foundation level by convoluting the motion
through assumed or determined layers of strata to base rock and deconvoluting the motion
back to foundation level. To confirm these processes requires downhole instrumentation near
or directly beneath a structure. Downhole data are especially scarce, although a few such arrays
have been developed. These downhole arrays will serve to yield data on:

the characteristics of ground motion at bedrock at a defined distance from a source and
the amplification of seismic waves in layered strata.

Instrumentation needs of a structure have been addressed by Rojahn and Matthiesen (1977),
Hart and Rojahn (1979) and elebi and others (1987).
USEFULLNESS OF THE INSTRUMENTATION RECORDS
Structural Engineers

Soil structures vary depending on location, so measurements taken at other sites can be
misleading. Actual measurements are useful for an engineer when deciding if a building is
reacting according to the building model or demonstrating a weakness.

Measuring real-time data on movement, strain and other measurements of the health of a
building or infrastructure may be related to the question: Does the structure react the way
the building model predicted?
An actual measurement of the stress or strain experienced by a building or infrastructure
during an earthquake or other significant event may be related to such questions as: Has
this building been exposed to more stress than it was designed for? Is it safe to occupy? Is
this dam at risk?

Building and Infrastructure Owners and Managers

It is useful to have real data from the site available immediately to base decisions on.
An instant measurement (internet or text) can assist in determining building safety for
occupants, related to such scenarios as:

The movement exceeded the building limits get everyone out immediately.
The movement was within the calculated building tolerances business as usual.
The movement was in between these levels get an engineer to physically
inspect the building

REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.

th

National Structural Code of the Philippines, Volume 1, 6 Edition.

D Skolnik et. al. A Quantitative Basis for Building Instrumentation Specifications,NSF CMMI Research and
Innovation Conference 2009 (Hawaii).
M. Celebi. Seismic Instrumentation of Buildings: Special GSA/USGS PROJECT (2002).
Guideline for ANSS Seismic Monitoring of Engineered Civil Systems Version 1.0.

*About the Author

Carlos M. Villaraza is a Structural-Earthquake Engineering Consultant. He has over forty years of extensive
experience in structural engineering design, seismic design parameter studies and seismic risk analyses. He
has been involved in the review of the earthquake provisions of the National Structural Code of the
Philippines since 1987 and Chairman of the NSCP 2010 General Requirements and Loads & Actions, a member
of the APEC Informal Network on earthquake provisions for the Harmonization of Building Codes in the APEC
Region and the review of ISO provisions covering lateral loads and general loading conditions.
A graduate of B.S. Civil Engineering from the University of Santo Tomas Manila (1976), he received his Post
Graduate Diploma in Earthquake from the International Institute for Seismology and Earthquake Engineering
in Japan (1986).

Email:

cmvillaraza@yahoo.com

Phone: (02)658 2773

FAX: (02)658 3660

CP: 09189224970