Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Background of the Study

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

vulnerability of the building when an earthquake hits it.

Vulnerability is a state of having an ability to withstand a certain effect of hostile

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

hazards (Lo et. al, 2010).

In this study, the researcher aims to assess the seismic vulnerability of the reinforced

concrete building at Fr. Sibayan Elementary School, PAGCOR- School Building.

1.2. Statement of the Problem

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

Building and these are the following objectives:

2
 1. To determine the Seismic Index of the building.

2. To determine the Seismic Demand Index of the building.

3. To determine whether the buildings will fall under low, medium or high vulnerability

state.

1.3. Significance of the Study

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

method developed in Japan because it is known to be a country experiencing a massive

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

study the vulnerability of a building.

1.4. Scope and Limitation

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

Philippines, 2010, 6th Edition".

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,

2.1 Review of Related Literature

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

following the Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) – Level 1 Screening procedure, I S = I O. In

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

inspections and structural calculations to determine the seismic performance of a building

presented by this equation in terms of structural elements:

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:

ISO ≤ IS : low vulnerability condition for all three screenings

ISO>> IS : high vulnerability that requires retrofitting of structure

ISO> IS : an uncertain condition that requires more detailed assessment

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

MPa compressive strength of concrete.

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

Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association.

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

functionality at an experience of an earthquake therefore; a conservative method of safety is to

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

course is not efficient.

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

conducted this study were further explained in this chapter.

3.1 Research Design

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 –

level screening for the value of IS.

In calculating the Seismic Index of the structure there will be an investigation to be

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

computation of the irregularity index the building design shall be considered.

Figure 3.1 Research Design

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

be used in all stories and direction.

IS＝E0 ⋅ SD⋅T Eq.(1)

where: E0 = Basic seismic index of structure

SD = Irregularity index

T = Time index

3.1.2 Basic Seismic 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

as a product of the strength index C and the ductility index F.

13
 𝑛+1
EO = (CW + α1CC) × FW For walls and columns Eq. (2)
𝑛+𝑖

𝑛+1
EO = (CSC + α2CW + α3CC) × FSC For extremely short columns Eq. (3)
𝑛+𝑖

where:

n = Number of stories of a building.

i = Number of the story for evaluation, where the first story is

numbered

as 1 and the top story as n.

CW = Strength index of the walls, calculate by Eq. (4)

CC = Strength index of the columns, calculate by Eq. (5).

CSC = Strength index of the extremely short columns, calculated by

Eq. (6).

α1 = Effective strength factor of the columns at the ultimate

deformation of the walls

α2 = Effective strength factor of the walls at the ultimate

deformation of the extremely short columns

α3 = Effective strength factor of the columns at the ultimate

deformation of the extremely short columns

FW = Ductility index of the walls

FSC = Ductility index of the extremely short columns

14
3.1.3 Strength Index C

Using the cross-sectional areas of walls and columns it could calculate the strength index

C.

(Ʈ𝑊1 × 𝐴𝑊1 )+(Ʈ𝑊2 × 𝐴𝑊2 )+( Ʈ𝑊3 × 𝐴𝑊3 )

CW = ∑𝑊
Eq. (4)

Ʈ𝐶 × 𝐴𝐶
CC = × βC Eq. (5)
∑𝑊

Ʈ𝑆𝐶 × 𝐴𝑆𝐶
CSC = × βC Eq. (6)
∑𝑊

𝐹𝐶
βC = @ FC ≤ 20 Eq. (7)
20

where:

CW = Strength index of walls

CC = Strength index of columns

CSC = Strength index of extremely short columns

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

τC = Average shear stress at the ultimate state of columns

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

in the story and effective to the discretion concerned in Fig. 3.2

AW2 = Total Cross-sectional area of walls in mm2 with one boundary column

in the story and effective to the discretion concerned in Fig. 3.2

AW3 = Total Cross-sectional area of walls in mm2 without columns in the

story and effective to the discretion concerned in Fig. 3.2

AC = Total Cross-sectional area of columns in mm2 in the story concerned,

where the areas of boundary columns in the walls with one or two

boundary shall be neglected in the calculations

ASC = Total Cross-sectional area of extremely columns in mm2 in the story

ΣAF = Total floor area supported by the story concerned

ΣW = Total weight (including dead load and live load) supported by the story

concerned

FC = Compressive strength of concrete in N/mm

16
 Figure 3.2 Definition of cross-sectional area of wall, JBDPA 2001

3.1.4 Ductility Index F

The ductility index of a vertical member shall be evaluated in consideration of the

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

shall be determined as a relative value to this standard value.

For the ductility index of a vertical member it should be selected in table 3.1 according to

the classification of the member.

17
 Table 3.1 Ductility Index in the first level screening, JBDPA 2001

3.1.5 Irregularity Index SD

The irregularity index SD is to modify the basic seismic index of structure EO by

quantifying the effects of the shape complexity and the stiffness unbalance distribution, and the

like on the seismic performance of a structure with engineering judgment. Methods of

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.

SD1 = q1a × q1b × ……. × q1j Eq. (8)

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)

1.0 0.9 0.8 R1i

A Regularity Regular A1 Nearly Regular Irregular A3 1.0

A2

B Aspect Ratio Plan b≤5 5<b≤8 8<b 0.5

C Narrow Part 0.8 ≤ c 0.5 < c ≤ 0.8 c < 0.5 0.5

D Expansion Joint 0.01 < d 0.02 ≤ d < 0.01 d < 0.02 0.5

Horizontal e Well-Style Area e ≤ 0.1 5<e≤8 0.3 < e 0.5

Balance

f Eccentric Well- f1≤ 0.4 f1≤ 0.4 0.4 < f1

Style & & & 0.25

Area f2≤ 0.4 0.1 < f2≤ 0.3 0.3 < f2

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

j Soft Story No Soft Story Soft Story Eccentric 1.0

Soft Story

Table 3.2 Classifications of items, and G-R values, JBDPA 2001

3.1.6 Time Index T

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

time index T for the first level screening.

(A)
(B) (C)

Item to be checked
Degree T value
(First Level Inspection)

20
 Tilting of a building or obvious uneven 0.7

Deflection settlement is observed

Landfill site or former rice field 0.9

Deflection of beam or column is 0.9

observed visually

No correspondence to the foregoing 1

Rain leak with rust of reinforcing bar is 0.8

observed

Cracking in Walls and

Columns Inclined cracking in columns is 0.9

obviously observed

Countless cracking is observed in 0.9

external wall

Rain leak without rust of reinforcing bar 0.9

21
 is observed

No correspondence to the foregoing 1

Trace 0.7

Fire experience Experience but traceless 0.8

No experience 1

Occupation Chemical has been used 0.8

No correspondence to the foregoing 1

30 years or older 0.8

Age of building

20 years or older 0.9

19 years or less 1

Significant spalling of external finishing 0.9

due to aging is observed

22
Finishing condition

Significant spalling and deterioration of 0.9

internal finishing is observed

No problem 1

Table 3.3 Time Index T by the first level screening, JBDPA 2001

3.2 Research Locale

This study will be conducted at Fr. Sibayan Elementary School newly built PAGCOR –

School Building.

23
Chapter 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Irregularity Index

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

SD1 = q1a × q1b × ……. × q1j

where:

q1i = [1 – (1 - Gi) × R1j] · · · · · i = a, b, c, d, e, f, i, j

q1i = [1.2 – (1 - Gi) × R1j] · · · · · i = h

24
 DepED – PAGCOR SCHOOL BUILDING

R Grade q

A Regularity 1 1 0.9 0.8 1

B Aspect Ratio Plan 0.5 1 0.9 0.8 0.9

C Narrow Part 0.5 1 0.9 0.8 0.9

D Expansion Joint 0.5 1 0.9 0.8 0.9

X
E Well Styled Area 0.5 1 0.9 0.8 1

Eccentric Well Styled 0.25 1 0.9 0.8 1

F
Area

G - - - - - -

H Underground Floor 0.5 1 0.9 0.8 1.1

Story Height 0.5 1 0.9 0.8 0.9

Y I
Uniformity

j Soft Story 1 1 0.9 0.8 1

0.7217

Table 4.1 Irregularity Index SD of the Building

Conducting an ocular inspection, the researcher evaluates the horizontal and

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

equations 8, 9, and 10.

4.2 Time Index

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

used, and building’s age is 30 years and older.

Table 4.2 Time Index T of the RC Buildings

T-VALUE

Vulnerability Time Index Deflection Cracking Fire Occupation Age Finishing

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)

irregularity index and (T) the time index.

. 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

namely the X (Long/Longitudinal) and Y (Short/Transverse) direction. The following results

were gathered:

First Level Screening

Building Name: DepED-PAGCOR School Building Location: Fr. Sibayan Elementary School, Baan 3Km

Date Constructed: May 2, 2018 Date Evaluated: November 24, 2018

Direction Storey EO SD T IS ES G Z U ISD Result

3 5.196484053 3.741469 LV

X 2 0.6345701952 0.72 1 0.456891 0.8 1 1 1 0.8 HV

1 0.131239816 0.094493 HV

3 5.196484053 3.741469 LV

Y 2 0.6345701952 0.72 1 0.456891 0.8 1 1 1 0.8 HV

1 0.131239816 0.094493 HV

Table 4.3 Evaluation of the Building

29
 To compare the calculated IS and ISD, these are the following assumption to determine the

seismic performance of the building:

ISO ≤ IS : low vulnerability condition for all three screenings

ISO>> IS : high vulnerability that requires retrofitting of structure

ISO> IS : medium vulnerability or an uncertain condition that

requires more detailed assessment

The DepED-PAGCOR School Building is a rectangular shaped building, has no

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.

4.4 Seismic Vulnerability

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.

Table 4.4 Seismic Vulnerability of the building

Seismic
Seismic
Building Name Demand Result
Index
Index
DepED-PAGCOR School
0.09 0.8 High Vulnerability
Building

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

Conclusion and Recommendation

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

level screening is recommended.

The researcher also recommends a 2-D seismic vulnerability representation of the

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

Structural Performance Evaluation of Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings”, the 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.

Preventing earthquake is impossible; however, mitigating vulnerability, which is in this

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