SEISMIC COEFFICIENT EXCEEDANCE

IN THE RECENT DESTRUCTIVE EARTHQUAKE EVENTS IN THE

PHILIPPINES
Henremagne C. Peñarubia

ABSTRACT: Rupture model simulation of the recent destructive seismic events in the Philippines such
as the 06 February 2012 Ms6.9 Negros Oriental Earthquake, the 15 October 2013 Ms7.2 North Bohol
Earthquake and the 10 February 2017 Ms6.7 Offshore Surigao Earthquake, employing the latest
earthquake hazard assessment tool and ground motion prediction models resulted to higher peak ground
acceleration (PGA) values at a region of low seismic zonal activity rate and greater than 0.5g at areas
closest to the epicenter and mapped fault rupture which exceeded the prescribed maximum seismic
coefficient, Ca used for base shear calculation of structures in the 2010 edition of the National Structural
Code of the Philippines. Damage to both engineered and non-engineered structures from these seismic
events and locations validates the need for fault segment-specific adjustments in the minimum prescribed
value for the entire archipelago.

KEYWORDS: seismic coefficient; peak ground acceleration(PGA); base shear

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Recent Destructive Seismic Events

At 11:49 in the morning on the 6th day of February 2012, a large magnitude earthquake struck
the coastal towns and communities of the province of Negros Oriental. The surface magnitude
was calculated at Ms6.9 and was felt in the whole island of Negros and in the neighboring
Islands of Panay, Cebu, Bohol, Antique and in northern Mindanao. Damages to roads, bridges,
buildings and houses were most severe along the coastal municipalities of Ayungon, Tayasan,
Jimalalud, La Libertad and the City of Guihulngan, all in Negros Oriental, where it was felt and
gauged using the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS) Earthquake
Intensity Scale (PEIS). Strongest was at PEIS VII-VIII (Destructive-Very Destructive). This
event was attributed to the movement of an unidentified buried fault located inland
approximately parallel to the east coast of Negros Oriental that generated multiple landslides,
rockslides, ground deformation and liquefaction in the epicentral area. It also generated coastal
uplift and a submarine landslide along the coast of the municipality of La Libertad that induced a
max tsunami height of approximately 5 meters along its shores (The 06 February 2012 Negros
Oriental Earthquake, Report of Investigation, November 2015).

More than a year and a half later, at 8:12 in the morning of the 15th of October 2013, an even
more destructive earthquake event struck the island of Bohol. It was generated by the North
Bohol Fault and was calculated at Ms7.2 located close to the municipalities of Sagbayan and
Catigbian, Bohol. It was felt in the whole island of Bohol and neighboring Islands of Cebu,
Negros, Panay, Leyte and northern Mindanao. The maximum reported intensity of ground
shaking was PEIS VIII (Very Destructive) and destroyed several centuries-old heritage churches
and many houses, buildings and roads in the epicentral area and in the coastal municipalities of
Inabanga, Clarin, Tubigon, Calape, Loon, Maribojoc, and Cortes. A six-kilometer-long surface
rupture in Inabanga and the uplifted marine terraces at Loon and Maribojoc were found and
documented (The 15 October 2013 Magnitude 7.2 Bohol Earthquake, PHIVOLCS Primer,
December 2013).

At 10:03 in the evening of the 10th of February 2017, another destructive seismic event shook
northeastern Mindanao and Southern Leyte. It was a Ms6.7 earthquake located just offshore
northeast of Surigao City. It was reportedly felt in the neighboring islands of Leyte, Bohol, Cebu,
Dinagat and Siargao in varying intensities. It was felt maximum at Surigao City and San
Francisco, Surigao del Norte at PEIS VII-VIII (Destructive-Very Destructive), where damage to
roads, bridges, buildings and houses were concentrated. More than 4 kilometers of surface
rupture was traced along the Surigao Fault in San Francisco Surigao del Norte while structural
and non-structural damage to engineered buildings such as hospitals, schools, hotels, malls at
more than 5 kilometers away from that fault were observed and documented (The 10 February
2017 Magnitude 6.7 Surigao del Norte Earthquake, PHIVOLCS Quick Response Team, April
2017).

The map below shows the locations of these recent destructive events and the background
seismicity along with the trace of the known active faults.

Figure 1 Mainshocks (stars), active faults (thick lines) and background seismicity (dots)
1.2 Objective

The purpose of this study is to simulate the recent destructive seismic events in the Philippines
using the latest earthquake hazard assessment tool and determine the probability that the seismic
coefficient used in calculating for the base shear in the design phase of the structure might have
significantly contributed in the structural and non-structural damages it incurred during the
event. This coefficient is critical in the calculation of the maximum spectral acceleration the
structure may sustain without collapse in its lifetime.

1.3 Methodology

The National Structural Code of the Philippines,Vol. I, 6th edition 2010, a referral code of the
National Building Code of the Philippines, whose stated purpose is to provide minimum load
requirements for the design of buildings, towers and other vertical structures, and minimum
standards and guidelines to safeguard life and limb, property and public welfare by regulating
and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials pertaining to the structural aspects
of all buildings and structures within its jurisdiction, provides maps, tables and technical
considerations to calculate for the seismic coefficient, Ca. This factor is determined taking into
consideration the potential magnitude of a seismic source, the distance to the vertical projection
of the seismic source on the surface, the soil profile type of the upper 30 meters, and the zone
factor, Z. The obtained value shall then be compared to the rupture model simulation results of
the recent destructive event at spectral period of 0.01 sec., (PGA), both for soft soil (Vs30=180
m/sec) and rock site response (Vs30=760 m/sec). The most recent destructive event considered
will then be simulated at the spectral period 0.1 sec, SA(0.1), which approximates T0 of the
seismic coefficient in the earthquake response spectra. Damage to engineered structures at more
than 5 kilometers away from the fault shall then be compared with the simulation results.

1.4 Earthquake Hazard Simulation

Inputs for the simulation such as fault geometry and other earthquake parameters were taken
from PHIVOLCS earthquake database and website at http://www.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph while the
moment magnitude, dip and rake angles were extracted from the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) website at https://earthquake.usgs.gov. The seismogenic depth fixed at 2 km and
20 km depths for the lower and upper boundaries; the shear wave velocity at 2.5 km and at 100
m depth of 2 km/sec and 1 km/sec, respectively, are assumed. The ground shaking intensity
model of Chiou and Youngs, 2014,
(http://docs.openquake.org/oqhazardlib/0.16_modules/openquakehazardlib/gsimchiou_youngs2014.html#
ChiouYoungs2014.get_mean_and_stddevs) was used. Finally, all these parameters were inputted
and run in the open-source software, OpenQuake Engine of the Global Earthquake Model
Foundation at https://www.globalquakemodel.org/openquake. (Silva et.al., 2012; Weatherill
et.al., 2012) to simulate the scenario-based seismic events.

2.0 ILLUSTRATIONS AND CALCULATIONS

2.1 Seismic Coefficient

2.1.1 NSCP Base Shear Calculation

The National Structural Code of the Philippines, 2010 edition, prescribes calculation of the
design base shear, V in Section 208.5.2.3.1, from which the structural members’ dimensions,
locations, quality and quantity will be derived. Equation 208-11 states V= 3CaW/R, where Ca is
the seismic coefficient, W is the total seismic dead load, and R is the numerical coefficient
representative of the inherent strength and global ductility capacity of lateral-force-resisting
systems. Ca is the acceleration value at the high frequency end of seismic design spectra and
from which the maximum acceleration that the structure will sustain in its lifetime will be
determined. It closely corresponds to the PGA value and spectral acceleration (SA) at 0.1 sec. in
actual earthquake response spectra.

2.1.2 NSCP Tables

Below are the NSCP 2010 tables that were referenced in this study, from which the seismic
coefficient, Ca was computed.

Table 1. Soil Profile Types (Table 208-2, NSCP 2010)

Soil Profile Average Soil Properties for Top 30 m of Soil Profile
Soil Profile Type Name/Generic Shear Wave SPT, N Undrained Shear
Description Velocity, VS (m/s) (blows/300 mm) Strength, SU (kPa)
SA Hard Rock >1500
SB Rock 760-1500
Very Dense Soil
SC 360-760 >50 >100
and Soft Rock
SD Stiff Soil Profile 180-360 15 to 30 50 to 100
SE Soft Soil Profile <180 <15 <50
SF Soil Requiring Site-Specific Evaluation

Table 2. Seismic Zone Factor Z (Table 208-3, NSCP 2010)

Zone 2 4
Z 0.20 0.40

Table 3. Near-Source Factor, Na (Table 208-4, NSCP 2010)

Closest Distance to Known Seismic Source
Seismic Source Type
≤ 5 km ≥ 15 km
A 1.2 1.0
B 1.0 1.0
C 1.0 1.0

Table 4. Near-Source Factor, Nv (Table 208-5, NSCP 2010)

Closest Distance to Known Seismic Source
Seismic Source Type
≤ 5 km 10 km ≥ 15 km
A 1.6 1.2 1.0
B 1.2 1.0 1.0
C 1.0 1.0 1.0
Table 5. Seismic Source Types (Table 208-6, NSCP 2010)
Seismic Source Definition
Seismic Source Type Seismic Source Description
Maximum Moment Magnitude, M
Faults that are capable of producing large
A magnitude events and that have a high rate M ≥ 7.0
of seismic activity
B All faults other than type A and C 6.5 ≤ < 7.0
Faults that are not capable of producing
C large magnitude earthquakes and that have M < 6.5
a relatively low rate of seismic activity
 Table 6. Seismic Coefficient, Ca (Table 208-7, NSCP 2010)
Seismic Zone Z
Soil Profile Type
Z = 0.2 Z = 0.4
SA 0.16 0.32 Na
SB 0.20 0.40 Na
SC 0.32 0.40 Na
SD 0.40 0.44 Na
SE 0.64 0.44 Na
Site-specific geotechnical investigation and dynamic site response analysis shall be
SF performed to determine seismic coefficients

Table 7. Seismic Coefficient, Cv (Table 208-8, NSCP 2010)

Seismic Zone Z
Soil Profile Type
Z = 0.2 Z = 0.4
SA 0.16 0.32 Nv
SB 0.20 0.40 Nv
SC 0.32 0.56 Nv
SD 0.40 0.64 Nv
SE 0.64 0.96 Nv
Site-specific geotechnical investigation and dynamic site response analysis shall be
SF performed to determine seismic coefficients

2.2 Seismic Coefficient Calculation Results

Table 8. Seismic Source Type A, Seismic Zone 4, Soil Profile Type SC

Distance from causative fault (km) Na Nv Ca
≤5 1.2 1.6 0.48
>5 1.0 1.2 0.40
≥ 15 1.0 1.0 0.40

Table 9. Seismic Source Type A, Seismic Zone 4, Soil Profile Type SD and SE
Distance from causative fault (km) Na Nv Ca
≤5 1.2 1.6 0.528
>5 1.0 1.2 0.44
≥ 15 1.0 1.0 0.44

Table 10. Seismic Source Type B, Seismic Zone 4, Soil Profile Type SC
Distance from causative fault (km) Na Nv Ca
≤5 1.0 1.2 0.40
>5 1.0 1.0 0.40

Table 11. Seismic Source Type B, Seismic Zone 4, Soil Profile Type SD and SE
Distance from causative fault (km) Na Nv Ca
≤5 1.0 1.2 0.44
>5 1.0 1.0 0.44
2.2.1 Response Spectra

Seismic Source Type B, Soil Profile Type SD and SE,

5.0 km from the Fault
Acceleration (g) vs Period (T, sec)
1.2
1
Ca 0.8
ata 0.6
at 0.4
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
T0 Figure 2 Earthquake Response Spectra
ta
at
2.3 Rupture Model Simulation

Table 12. Rupture Model Simulation Results

Seismic Source Seismic Source
Type B Type B
Seismic Zone 4 Seismic Zone 4
Soil Profile Soil Profile Type
Type SC SE

Legend:

PGA (g) PGA (g)

Mw 6.7 Negros Oriental Earthquake PGA contours at Vs30=760 and 180 m/sec., respectively

Seismic Source Seismic Source

Type A Type A
Seismic Zone 4 Seismic Zone 4
Soil Profile Soil Profile Type
Type SC SE

Legend:

PGA (g) PGA (g)

Mw 7.1 North Bohol Earthquake PGA contours at Vs30=760 and 180 m/sec., respectively
Seismic Source Seismic Source
Type B Type B
Seismic Zone 4 Seismic Zone 4
Soil Profile Soil Profile Type
Type SC SE

Legend:

PGA (g)
PGA (g)

Mw 6.5 Offshore Surigao Earthquake PGA contours at Vs30=760 and 180 m/sec., respectively

2.4 Damage Validation

A
B
C

Figure 3 Simulated SA (0.1) contour map of the Mw6.5 Surigao Earthquake at Vs30=360 m/sec. G

Figure 3 above shows the simulated SA (0.1 sec) contour map of the Mw6.5 Surigao Earthquake
superimposed on the road map of Surigao City and San Francisco, Surigao del Norte using a stiff
soil profile type, SD wherein Vs30=360 m/sec. The resulting heavy contour lines signify
acceleration values above 1.1g while dotted lines pertain to acceleration values between 0.44 and
1.1g. Thin straight lines refer to roads while thick lines delineate the fault.
The following comments were mostly taken from Peñarubia et al., 2017. Site A on the map is
approximately 7.0 km away from the fault and is PHIVOLCS’ seismic station in Surigao City
(SCP). The installed accelerograph recorded a maximum of 0.398g in one of its horizontal
directions while the other orthogonal components clipped. No significant damage was found on
the 23-year old 1-storey reinforced-concrete building. Site B is a 5-storey massive reinforced
concrete-framed commercial building in the City Proper, which was previously damaged in the
Mw6.0 03 July 2015 offshore Burgos, Siargao Earthquake (Peñarubia et al., 2015). It is about
7.5 km away from the fault which sustained moderate structural damage and severe non-
structural damage especially at the column joints and wall façade. Site C is a 5-storey multi-bay
RC-framed school building located in the City Proper and about 7.6 km away from the fault.
Damages were mostly non-structural albeit disturbing from the point of view of casual observers.
However, heavy parapet walls at the 6th floor roof deck were detached due to the ground shaking
and collapsed down to the 1st floor entrance canopy. Site D is a 7-storey RC-framed hotel
building located about 50 meters from the coast in Brgy Canlanipa, Surigao City and about 8.3
km away from the fault. Long linear cracks parallel to the floor beams were observed at 1 st and
2nd floor level external walls where stress may have been more likely concentrated during the
shaking, and pounding damage at the adjoining 3-storey building, being of different spectral
properties during the earthquake. Non-structural damages such as broken glass panels were also
observed at the interface of the two buildings. Site E is another 2-storey RC-framed hotel and
restaurant building in Brgy Luna which was damaged at the parapets and 2nd floor level. This site
is approximately 6 km away from the fault. Site F is the multi-storey RC-framed school and
hospital building close to the Airport Terminal in Brgy Luna, Surigao City which was
significantly damaged at the 1st floor level, at the least as this facility was immediately closed to
the public for repairs and renovation. This site is about 5.9 km away from the fault and is
reported to be situated on a former rice field. Site G is another large RC-framed commercial
building which was also damaged in the Mw6.0 03 July 2015 offshore Burgos, Siargao
Earthquake. Ruptured columns were observed from the roadside where steel reinforcements were
exposed and large sections of 2nd floor parapet walls almost collapsed. This site is more than 6
km away from the fault and is closer to the Airport Terminal wherein sections of the runway
were ruptured and buckled.

3. DISCUSSION
Simulation results for these recent destructive seismic events show peak ground acceleration
contours exceeding the values equivalent to the prescribed seismic coefficient for 1) seismic
source type A at site profile type SC (Ca = 0.48 at distances, d ≤ 5 km from the fault) and at site
profile type SE (Ca = 0.528 at d ≤ 5 km), and 2) for seismic source type B at site profile type SC
(Ca = 0.40 at distances, d ≤ 5 km) and at site profile type SE (Ca = 0.44 at d ≤ 5 km). These
simulations were made with shear wave velocity inputs pegged at the maximum per site profile
type so as to minimize peak ground acceleration exceedances and extract conservative results.
The assumed location of the Negros Oriental earthquake blind fault, a seismic source type B,
used in the simulation is approximately 2 km to the west of the Mw6.7 epicenter and about
parallel to the strike of the coastline. This geometric location is approximately at the center of the
aftershock regime that would have rendered even larger acceleration values at the populated
municipalities if located closer to the coast. All points on the map without any contour lines
signify acceleration values ≤ 0.4g or approximately PEIS VI to PEIS VIII. The density and
distribution of the PGA contours, which is more evident at soil profile type SC than at SE, implies
exceedances at many points on the epicentral area within and beyond 5 km distant from the
surface projection of the fault.

A relatively denser PGA contours in the Mw7.1 North Bohol earthquake simulation may be
attributed to the size of the event being more energetic by a factor of four. Additional dotted
contours on the map signify PGA values supposedly equivalent to prescribed seismic coefficient,
Ca values at distances between 5km and 15km from the seismic source. The concentration of
PGA contours in this seismic source type A along the strike of the North Bohol Fault and on the
hanging wall side of the fault, is primarily due to thrust faulting. This is almost similar to the
PGA contour distribution of the Mw6.7 Negros Oriental earthquake having almost identical
hypocentral depth, dip angle and faulting style. This faulting style, when reversed in direction,
manifested significant reduction in the PGA contours both in intensity and in density. The less
intense seismic source type B Mw6.5 Offshore Surigao earthquake with a rather closer to vertical
fault plane dip than the other two seismic events lump the more intense PGA contours proximal
to the causative fault and relatively a bit more evenly on both sides of the surface trace. These
fault segment-specific parameters demonstrate critical importance in the location and density of
large acceleration values and the resulting severity of damage to both engineered and non-
engineered structures in the epicentral area.

Figure 3 is a simulation of the Mw6.5 Surigao earthquake at SA (0.1), which approximates the
seismic coefficient, Ca at T0 in the response spectra of figure 2. Notice that the maximum
acceleration in the simulation, solid contour lines, exceeded the maximum value in the response
spectra even beyond 5 km away from the fault, while dotted contour lines on the map exceeded
0.44g. Despite the many uncertainties in the model simulation and in the actual performance of
the structure, this result implies that engineered buildings located on soil profile type SD and SE
may be considerably damaged structurally and non-structurally at this distance and more so if
closer to a seismic source type B with similar fault geometry and style of faulting as the Mw6.5
Surigao earthquake.

4. CONCLUSION

The recent destructive seismic events impacted damage to engineered structures not only at
locations less than 5 kilometers distant from the causative fault but also farther away partly due
to a more intense actual ground acceleration than calculated. The seismic coefficient used in the
base shear calculation during the design stage of a structure needs to be further studied and
adjusted as necessary to accommodate not only the size of the seismic source, near-source effect
and site-specific ground shaking response, but also the equally important fault segment-specific
geometries and activity rates. This may lead to a more suitable design inputs that increase the
stake of mitigating potential hazard at seismically active areas with higher probability of
occurrences as well as economically significant construction cost reduction at less active regions
in the country. The rupture model simulations used in this study may be further enhanced and
may as well be used to locate likely areas in the vicinity of the active faults that would probably
experience nearly identical ground accelerations in the event of another future destructive
earthquake nucleating from the same source region. It may also be utilized as a risk reduction
tool for urban planning and site-specific building rehabilitation and retrofit.
 REFERENCES

Chiou and Youngs 2014 Ground Motion Prediction Model

http://docs.openquake.org/oqhazardlib/0.16_modules/openquakehazardlib/gsimchiou_youngs2014.html#
ChiouYoungs2014.get_mean_and_stddevs

National Structural Code of the Philippines, 6th ed., Vol 1, 2010, NSCP C101-10 ISBN 2094-5477.
Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines (ASEP), Manila

Peñarubia, H.C., Fallarme, J.P.V., Polintan, A.A., Agonia, D.R. (2015). Report of Investigation of the
Mw6.1 03 July 2015 offshore Burgos, Siargao Island, Surigao del Norte, Philippines Earthquake,
PHIVOLCS QRT Report

Peñarubia, H.C, Ablan, R.G., Pondevida, G. (2017). On the Damage of Specific Buildings and Bridges in
Surigao City and San Francisco, Surigao del Norte due to the 10:03 PM 10 February 2017 Ms6.7
Earthquake offshore Northwest of Surigao City, Philippines, PHIVOLCS Technical Report

Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology website at http://www.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph

Philgis website at https://www.philgis.org

Silva, V., Crowley, H., Pagani, M., Monelli, D., Pinho, R. (2012). Development and application of
OpenQuake, an open source software for seismic risk assessment, Proceedings of the 15th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, paper n. 4917.

The 06 February 2012 Ms 6.9 Negros Oriental Earthquake, Report of Investigation, PHIVOLCS Quick
Response Team, November 2015

The 10 February 2017 Magnitude 6.7 Surigao del Norte Earthquake Primer, PHIVOLCS Quick Response
Team, April 2017

United States Geological Survey website at https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes

Weatherill, G., Pagani, H., Monelli, D., (2012). The Hazard Component of the GEM Modeller’s Toolkit:
A Framework for the Preparation and Analysis of Probabilistic Seismic Hazard (PSHA) Input Tools,
Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Henremagne C. Peñarubia is a registered Civil Engineer and working as a Science Research Specialist II
at the Earthquake Engineering and Strong Motion Section of the Seismological Observation and
Earthquake Prediction Division, Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS) –
Department of Science and Technology (DOST) since 1992. He may be contacted at PHIVOLCS Main
Office Bldg, C.P. Garcia Ave., UP Campus, Diliman, Quezon City. Tel.: 426-1468 to 79. Fax: 927-1087.
E-mail: henremagne.penarubia@phivolcs.dost.gov.ph; henre07@yahoo.com

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

My heartfelt appreciation to my wife, Lourdes, and to our children for their unselfish support and
understanding, and to every individual that shared their time and resources through the years, by whom
this research study was completed and presented.