Sharah Marie Joyce A. Quilario Dr. Gilford B.

Estores

2021190065 September 22, 2021

A Research Critique

On

Development of Seismic Vulnerability Curves of Key Building Types in the

Philippines

E.A.J. Tingatinga, B.M. Pacheco, J.Y. Hernandez Jr., M.C. Pascua, L.R.E. Tan, R.M.
Suiza, W.L. Mata, R.E.U. Longalong, U.P. Ignacio Jr., & F.J. Germar

(2019)

Introduction and Review of Related Literature

An earthquake is the shaking of the ground caused by the breaking of underground

rocks along a fault. It can be so weak that it cannot be felt but can also be destructive and
vicious enough to destroy cities. The Philippines is located at the Pacific Ring of Fire;
thus, it is prone to seismic and volcanic activities. One of the major active faults in the
country is traversing parts of Metro Manila and neighboring provinces such as Bulacan,
Rizal, Laguna, and Cavite. Its dynamic segments are the West Valley Fault and the East
Valley Fault. This paper shows the different vulnerability curves of four different building
groups: wood, masonry, concrete, and steel, using three different methods:
Computational Method, Empirical Method, and Heuristic Method. [1] The vulnerability
curve can be defined as the probability that an exposed element at risk reaches a given
level of damage, according to a specific measurement scale, under the effects of a natural
event of given intensity referring to an earthquake.
The vulnerability curve shows four different damage in line with their respective
Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale: Slight Damage, Moderate Damage, Extensive
Damage, and Complete Destruction. In Hazus MG 2.1 Section 4.3.1 Structural Damage,
we can see the complete definition of the damages according to its Building Group.

Problem Description

The article shows the different damage ratios of each building's key types
corresponding to the applied MMI scale. A variation of building types (materials) is
considered in this research, but the researchers didn't specify the material's strength. For
example, in steel structures is the material grade used. Another example is the concrete
compressive strength of the members. The strength of material also has an excellent
contribution to the building's structural integrity.

The damage ratios shown in the conclusion are only applicable to the structure's
geometry the researcher considers in this research. There will be a vast difference in the
damage ratio if we consider a different geometry and location.

Modeling, Results, Analysis, and Conclusion

The researchers analyzed four building groups: wood, masonry, concrete, and
steel. It also differs in its structural type. It is also categorized according to its height.
Although the researchers analyzed the common building groups here in the Philippines,
they didn't show the uniformity of the structure's geometry in their research. According to
Hazus MG 2.1 Section 3.2.1.1 Classification, the nonstructural elements and occupancies
also affect building damage.

The authors aim to show the seismic vulnerability curve of the building. They
showed what method for vulnerability curves is more convenient to use based on the
researchers' data. In the table given (Table 3: Fragility and Vulnerability Curves of Key
Building Types in the Philippines), each building types have a structural type that is more
vulnerable to earthquake. However, the authors failed to give all four methods a complete
vulnerability curve to all four ways because of the lack of available data for analysis.
 The authors use three methods to create a vulnerability curve. First is the
Computational Method by using nonlinear static pushover analysis and capacity
spectrum. But this is only applied to concrete and steel building types. The second is the
Empirical method using earthquake data from historical earthquake events and reported
post-earthquake damages to the buildings from PHIVOLCS and Geoscience Australia.
The third is the Heuristic Method, where the authors surveyed structural engineers about
their opinion on the damages of the different building groups under the considered
earthquake ground motion. This method only shows an objective result, and this will vary
depending on the number of surveys they conducted and the accuracy of the survey
presents.

The authors considered fourteen building types in their analysis, but there are 36
Building Types in Hazus MG 2.1 Table 3.1 – Building Structure Types. The selection of
building types considered here was not clearly explained. And also, the Storey Levels
considered were not clearly defined too.

Comment and Suggestion

The results can be further improved if they use an actual material strength, giving
us a more accurate result. The authors will have an accurate result if they consider
severely damaged structures. They should also limit the number of bays and the location
of the system is.

References

[1] Empirical vulnerability curves for Italian masonry buildings: evolution of vulnerability
model from the DPM to curves as a function of acceleration

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10518-020-00954-5

[2] Multi-Hazard Loss Estimation Methodology – Earthquake Model, Hazus – MH 2.1

Technical Manual