Engr. Michael B.

Baylon
Faculty, Civil Engineering Department
Adamson University
 What is a Fragility of a Structure?
•…the conditional probability of failure at a given
value of seismic response parameter as
maximum acceleration, velocity displacement,
spectral acceleration, effective acceleration Arias
intensity, etc.

Marin Kostov, “Seismic Fragility Analysis: Case Study” (2000)

http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/34/014/34014809.pdf
 Probability of Failure
•The probability of failure of a structure for an
expected lifetime (for example 50 years) can be
obtained from the annual frequency of failure,
bE, determined by the relation:
 db x 
 
b(x)is the annual frequency of exceedance of load

bE     P f x dx level x (for example, the variable x may be peak

ground acceleration), P(fǀx) is the conditional

 dx 
probability of structure failure at a given seismic
load level x. The problem leads to the assessment
of the seismic hazard b(x) and the fragility P(f I x).
3 MAJOR COMPONENTS

“ A sudden motion of the

PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE
1

0.9

0.8
E FFEC TS
Loss
0.7

ground caused by seismic waves 0.6

that are generated by the abrupt

0.5

0.4
Economic
0.3
OF
Breakdown
rupture of a fault” - 0.2
M.
LIVES
0.1

Shinozuka
Aftermath of the 2013 Bohol Earthquake
(Source: Google.com)
0
0 0.2 0.4
Aftermath of the 1995 Kobe Earthquake
0.6 0.8
(Source:
C B
1
Google.com)
1.2
PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION IN G

A As
1.4 1.6
Aftermath of the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake
1.8 2
(Source: Google.com)

(Source : http://foundation-specialists.com/bridge%20retrofitting%20page%202.htm)
(Source: Google.com)
MODE OF FAILURE

Figure 2. 1: Example of Shear Failure of Wushi Bridge Pier in Taiwan

(Source: www.fhwa.dot.gov)
TTheH EMagnitude
L T
S O
H
O CL
R
Magnitude
Magnitude
MagnitudeU
AETTIA
7.1I
O
7.3
7.8TONN
7.9OBJECTIVES:
7.2
Luzon
Mindoro
Moro
Casiguran
BoholEarthquake
Gulf
Earthquake
Earthquake
Earthquake
Earthquake (1990)
SPECIFIC:
GENERAL: ACCORDING TO PHIVOLCS

(1994)
(1968)
(1976)
(2013)
SEISMIC T he AS:
SUCH •• To
The
of
determine
researcher
The
Plaridel
generated
fragility curve
the
Digdig Fault
Bridge
thethat
damage
aims
from
1990will
Central
isindices
to develop
System
pushover
assess Luzon
and
that ranks
a seismic
the fault
analysis
Earthquake
the Plaridel
WHAT IF IT and Thetime
Bridge's history
nearest distance
structure analysis
of using
the structure
performance under toathethe
fault

We’re
ASSESSMENT AT B
5 DEADLIEST
UILDINGS
Pacific
HAPPENS
Affected
following
is MANILA45km and large part of Luzon,
parameters:
approximately
large magnitude of earthquake. Displacement

ARE WE READY FORDEAD THIS?

particularly in the uplands of GAPAN NUEVA
Ductility, Ultimate Ductility and Hysteretic
270
1621
3000 People
People
150People
78 People DEAD
DEADDEAD
DEAD
Philippine
DAMS ECIJA and BAGUIO
Energy Ductility.

RISK!!!
OFCaused
VITAL
40,000 People
MASSIVE
SERIOUS
3 Million
1530 Houses TRing
FamiliesAGAIN?
Earthquakes
Landslides
DAMAGE
Homeless
SWEPT OF
RANSPORTATION
• To determine

• To DAMAGED,
sets ofthat
It was so STRONG
the houses
parameters
in Manila
determine leaving
Fragility
of objective
curves
atleast 25%
along were1.TOTALLY
from some
the 3000derived
of thefrom

set of
CASUALTIES
STRUCTURES In Central Luzon LIFELINES fragility curves if the structure meets 0.4g
DESTROYED AFFECTED By
And Cordillera300 Fire
TSUNAMI
Region
People DEAD
The DigdigFault System (Source:phivolcs.dost.gov.ph)
peak ground acceleration design as
required by the National Structural Code of
The RUBY Tower
(Source:(Source: Google.com)
Google.com) the Philippines.
HE E T H OD O L O G

STRUCTURAL
SAP 2000
PLANS

(SOURCE: DPWH)
 PUSHOVER SEISMIC FRAGILITY CURVES IN Y
PARAMETERS FOR DIRECTION
1

DAMAGE HYSTERESIS
DUCTILITY 0.8

CURVE INDEX
MODEL

PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE
FACTORS 0.6
NONLINEAR
0.4
STATIC ANALYSIS
0.2
(REQUISO, 2013)
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION IN G
C B A As

1 SEISMIC FRAGILITY CURVES IN X

DIRECTION
0.8
NONLINEAR
PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE

PROBABILITY
0.6
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
SEISMIC
DAMAGE
(KARIM RANK
& YAMAZAKI, 2001)
OF
0.4
FRAGILITY
(HAZUS, 2003)
Maximum Displacement
EXCEEDANCE
OCCURENCE 0.2
Maximum Displacement
CURVE
And 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 And
1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Yield Energy Hyteretic Energy

PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION IN G
C B A As
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

Y DIRECTION
SEISMIC FRAGILITY CURVES IN X
1
1

SPERI OS MB AI CB I L I T Y
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
EXCEEDANCE
OFEXCEEDANCE

F R AOGFI L I T Y
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
PROBABILITYOF

0.5

O C CCU RURREVNEC E
PROBABILITY

0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2

0.1
0.1

0
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

X-DIRECTION C B A
Y-DIRECTION
PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION IN G
PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION IN G
As
C B A As
 C OENC COLMUMS IEONNDSA T IO N S
R
The As or the
Application ofcomplete damage
other modes state in
of failure has the highest
order count among all the
to add comparison
probability of damage
to other fragility state but based from the results, this damage state mostly
curves.
occurs
Usage of at the
higher
mostpeak ground
recent acceleration
ground which
motion data are less
locally likely at
available to occur in the
country.
study’s current time period in order to produce more reliable results.
Application
The of othercurves
sets of fragility methodsdueoftoseismic assessment
shear failure showson a structure
that the bridgeaspiers
to compare
the still
are results
safewith
fromthe fragility curves.
earthquakes that could occur in the Philippines.
Other structural elements of the Plaridel bridge as a focus of the study to further
do the total assessment of the bridge.
The bridge meets the minimum required design of the National Structural Code of
Application
the of retrofitting
Philippines of 0.4g peakschemes
groundto the bridge that would increase its strength
acceleration.
against large magnitudes of earthquake as the Philippines is in danger of being hit
by the “Big One”.
 A NOTE ON STRUCTURAL HEALTH
MONITORING (SHM)
• aims to give, at every moment during the life of a structure, a diagnosis
of the “state” of the constituent materials, of the different parts, and of
the full assembly of these parts constituting the structure as a whole
• a tool used to ensure the safety and soundness of structures.
• uses an assortment of sensors to collect and analyze data pertaining to
any damage or deterioration that a structure may receive over the
course of its life.
• The data that structural health monitoring systems acquire can help its
users avoid structural failures.
• fragility curves are calculated based not only on the geometry and
material properties but also on vibration data recorded by a structural
health monitoring system.
 References
•Research papers prepared by the
author, his research advisees, co-
authors
https://www.researchgate.net/
https://www.google.scholar.com
 Acknowledgment
•Dr. Lessandro Estelito O. Garciano of DLSU (author’s
research adviser)
•Dr. Ma. Cecilia Mendoza – Marcos (AdU CE Dep’t Chair)
•PHIVOLCS, DPWH, IRIS, KiK-net, PEER, USGS, Google
Map
Acknowledgment…
•The author’s research advisees
• UE-Caloocan, SY 2014-2015, 2015-2016:
Engr. Paul Daniel de Leon & Engr. Raymund Patrick Soriano
• AdU, SY 2016-2017, 2017-2018:
Engr. Jay-Em Argana & Engr. Arjohn Espino
•Engr. Gio Austin D. Mendoza of StructMasters
for technical assistance in Design & Analysis
software applications .
The Book

https://www.morebooks.de
https://www.amazon.com
Correspondence

michael.baylon@adamson.edu.ph

ikingbalon@gmail.com
T H AN K YO U