International Conference in Commemoration of 20th Anniversary of the 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake

Taipei, Taiwan, September 15-19, 2019

DEVELOPMENT OF A BRIEF CODE-BASED SEISMIC DIAGNOSTIC

TOOL FOR EXISTING RC BUILDINGS CONSIDERING VERTICAL
IRREGULARITIES

Andres Winston C. Oreta1 and Adrian Frederick C. Dy2

1Professor in Civil Engineering, De La Salle University. Manila, Philippines
1
BSMS Civil Engineer, De La Salle University. Manila, Philippines
Email: andres.oreta@dlsu.edu.ph

ABSTRACT

A brief seismic diagnostic tool (BSDT) that is localized and based on the National Structural Code of
the Philippines (NSCP) is developed as a tool for rapid visual screening of existing reinforced concrete
buildings in the Philippines. A BSDT that uses seismic code parameters from the NSCP would be easier
to use for local evaluators since local civil engineers are familiar with the NSCP parameters. Vertical
irregularities are also known to contribute to the vulnerability of buildings when subjected to ground
motion. This study will also present push-over analysis simulations of buildings with vertical
irregularities specifically (1) Vertical Geometric Irregularity, (2) Soft Story, and (3) Mass Irregularity.
Vertical irregularity parameters are introduced in the simulations and these parameters are introduced
to determine score modifiers for the assessment of vulnerability of buildings with vertical irregularities.
The result of the study is a more refined qualitative/semi-quantitative brief seismic diagnosis tool for
existing reinforced concrete buildings for the Philippines.

Keywords: National Structural Code of the Philippines, Rapid Visual Screening, Vertical Irregularity,
Reinforced Concrete Building

INTRODUCTION

Existing preliminary seismic risk assessment tools such as the “FEMA 154 - Rapid Visual Screening
(RVS) of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards” and the Japanese “Standard for Seismic Evaluation
of Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings” have been adapted in many countries including the
Philippines. These tools are used when a population of existing buildings need to be assessed for a more
detailed seismic evaluation. The scores obtained from an RVS survey are used for ranking buildings
based on potential seismic risk and buildings that score low are prioritized for detailed seismic
evaluation and possible retrofitting.

In preliminary seismic risk assessments, there are several parameters considered such as the soil type,
seismic zoning, structural system, material type, height, irregularities, and etc. These assessment tools
are widely used throughout different countries and accepted as an effective tool for risk assessment. Still,
improvements to the assessment tool can still be introduced which allows it to be more refined. One
such improvement that can be introduced is in the area of vertical irregularities. Vertical irregularities
are basically building characteristics that demands for more complex design due to the different seismic
demand experienced. An example of vertical irregularities are setbacks and soft stories. In most
assessment tools like FEMA 154, vertical irregularities are simply categorized into a single parameter.
Hence, this research was done to categorize the type and degree of vertical irregularity as parameters in
the RVS. Even FEMA recognized the deficiency of their checklist, that is why they came up with the
3rd Edition of FEMA P-154. This research was done before the publication of the 3rd Edition of FEMA
P-154.

In the 3rd Edition of FEMA P-154, there have been refinements in the Level 1 collection form where
two types of vertical irregularity are introduced – severe and moderate. Depending on the type of vertical
irregularity, a severe or moderate type is associated. For example, if a building has a first story with
large window openings or one of the stories is particularly tall compared to the other stories, then this is
considered a vertical irregularity. Out-of-plane setbacks are considered severe vertical irregularities.

1
International Conference in Commemoration of 20th Anniversary of the 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake
Taipei, Taiwan, September 15-19, 2019

Short columns or piers are considered severe vertical irregularities. Split levels where floor or roof
levels in one part of the building do not align with floor or roof levels in other parts of the buildings are
considered moderate vertical irregularities. An in-plane setback where elements of the seismic force-
resisting system at upper levels are offset from elements of the seismic force-resisting system at lower
levels is considered as a moderate vertical irregularity. FEMA P-154 has introduced an optional Level
2 Data Collection Form where the different types of vertical irregularities such sloping site, weak/soft
story, setback, short column/pier and split level with corresponding score modifier are listed. The
assessment of vertical irregularity especially on whether severe or moderate requires good judgement
and experience from the screener. FEMA P-154 states that “if there is doubt about whether any of the
following conditions exist, it is best to be conservative and assume that it does exist.” In spite the
improvement in the FEMA P-154, a more refined but simple procedure considering vertical
irregularities can still be introduced which this study will present using a vertical irregularity parameter.

This paper presents a study where a brief seismic diagnostic tool (BSDT) that is localized specifically
with respect to earthquake hazards and uses parameters in the National Structural Code of the
Philippines (NSCP) is developed as a tool for rapid visual screening of existing reinforced concrete
buildings in the Philippines. A BSDT that uses seismic code parameters from the NSCP would be easier
to use for local screeners since local civil engineers are familiar with the NSCP parameters. A more
detailed assessment of vertical irregularities namely (a) setback, (b) soft story, and (c) mass irregularity
is explored by conducting simulations using push-over analysis to determine the effect of the severity
of the vertical irregularity on the building performance and design. The present study is limited only to
low-rise buildings (no more than 5-stories) due to code limitations for a static type of analysis such as
the static pushover analysis. Furthermore, moment concrete frame structure types are only considered
since these types of buildings are most common among low-rise buildings in the Philippines.

SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK

The proposed brief seismic diagnostic tool (BSDT) assesses a reinforced concrete building where a
seismic risk index (SRI) is determined based on the following framework:
SRI = H x V x A (1)
Where H represents seismic hazard index, V represents structural vulnerability index, and A
corresponds to asset value index.

The seismic hazard index can be determined by considering seismic hazard factors such as the
seismicity of the site, distance to the seismic source, seismic source type and soil profile.

The structural vulnerability index represents the degree of susceptibility of the structure to earthquake
ground shaking and depends on the factors like the building type, building condition, vertical and plan
irregularities that contribute to the seismic vulnerability of the structure.

The asset value index in this study considers the importance and occupancy category of the building
on whether (a) essential facilities (b) hazardous facilities or (c) other structures.

Seismic Hazard Factors

(a) Seismic Zoning: Section 208.4.4.1 of the NSCP states that: “The Philippine archipelago is
divided into two seismic zones only. Zone 2 covers the provinces of Palawan, Sulu, and Tawi-
Tawi while the rest of the country is under Zone 4. Each structure shall be assigned a seismic
zone factor Z as follows:

Table 1. Seismic Zones in the Philippines

2
International Conference in Commemoration of 20th Anniversary of the 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake
Taipei, Taiwan, September 15-19, 2019

(b) Seismic Source Type. Section 208.4.4.4 of the NSCP defines the types of seismic sources and
states that “the location and type of seismic sources to be used for design shall be established
based on approved geological data and/or the most recent mapping of active faults by the
Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS).”

Table 2. Seismic Source Types

(c) Fault Location. NSCP Section 208.4.4.2 states that “in Seismic Zone 4, each site shall be
assigned a near-source factors as Table 208-4 and 208-5 in accordance based on the Seismic
Source Type” which is shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Near source factors

(d) Soil Type. From section 4.8.3.1 of the NSCP, “Soil profile types are defined by Table 208-2.
The soil effects are in direct relation with the seismic zoning.

Table 4. Soil Profile Types in Table 208-2 of the NSCP

3
International Conference in Commemoration of 20th Anniversary of the 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake
Taipei, Taiwan, September 15-19, 2019

Table 5. Seismic coefficients in Table 208-7 & 8 of the NSCP

Building Condition

The NSCP does not tackle the effects of building deterioration and condition directly in the seismic
provisions. The Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) is therefore used as a reference for the building
condition. It should be note that the descriptions shown under Table 6 is a general description of the
overall condition of the building. The most severe T-Value is chosen as the modifier for the building.

Table 6. Building Condition Assessment

Items Remarks T - Value
Deformation Building has an inclination or uneven settlement 0.7
Building located at reclaimed area 0.9
Visible deformation in beams or columns 0.9
None 1.0
Cracks on walls Leaks and rebars corrosion observed 0.8
or columns Visible inclined cracks on columns 0.9
A lot of visible cracks on walls 0.9
Leaks but not rebars corrosion observed 0.9
None 1.0
Fire Burned but not repaired 0.7
Burned but repaired 0.8
None 1.0
Building Use Chemical Compound 0.8
None 1.0
Building Age More than 30 years 0.8
More than 20 years 0.9
Less than 20 years 1.0
Finishing Severe deterioration of exterior walls 0.9
Severe deterioration inside 0.9
None 1.0

4
International Conference in Commemoration of 20th Anniversary of the 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake
Taipei, Taiwan, September 15-19, 2019

Asset Value
The asset value considers the importance and occupancy category of the building. As set forth in the
NSCP, an importance factor is set to a structure depending on its use or occupancy category (Table 7).
A building with an occupancy category of “Essential Facilities” include hospitals, public schools, fire
and police stations. These buildings are designated as essential facilities due to their role in the
functionality of the community before, during, and after disasters such as earthquakes.

Table 7. NSCP Importance Factor

VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF BUILDINGS USING PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

Vertical Irregularities

Vertical irregularities contribute to the vulnerability of buildings due to seismic ground shaking. Table
8 shows the list of vertical irregularities in the NSCP (Table 208-9).

Table 8. Vertical Irregularities

Irregularity Type and Definition
1. Stiffness Irregularity – Soft Story
A soft story is one in which the lateral stiffness is less than 70 percent of that in the story above or less than 80
percent of the average stiffness of the tree stories above
2. Weight (Mass) Irregularity
Mass irregularity shall be considered to exist where the effective mass of any story is more than 150 percent of
the effective mass of an adjacent story. A roof that is lighter than the floor below.
3. Vertical Geometric Irregularity
Vertical geometric irregularity shall be considered to exit where the horizontal dimension of the lateral-force-
resisting system in any story is more than 130 percent of that in an adjacent story. One-story penthouses need
not be considered.
4. In-Plane Discontinuity in Vertical Lateral-Force-Resisting Element Irregularity
An in-plane offset of the lateral-load-resisting elements greater than the length of those elements.
5. Discontinuity In Capacity – Weak Story Irregularity
A weak story is one in which the story strength is less that 80 percent of that in the story above. The story
strength is the total strength of all seismic-resisting elements sharing the story for the direction under
consideration

Pushover Analysis

In ppushover analysis, a structure is induced incrementally based on displacement or load with a lateral
loading pattern until a target displacement is reached or until the structure reaches a limit state. The
structure is subjected to the load until some structural members yield. The model is then modified to
account for the reduced stiffness of the building and is once again applied with a lateral load until
additional members yield. A base shear vs. displacement capacity curve and a plastic hinging model is
produced as the end product of the analysis which gives a general idea of the behavior of the building.
The building analyzed goes through various performance levels which describes a limiting damage
condition for a building. As the displacement of the building increases, so does the damage.

The performance levels are commonly defined as follows,

5
International Conference in Commemoration of 20th Anniversary of the 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake
Taipei, Taiwan, September 15-19, 2019

a) Immediate Occupancy IO: Damage is light and structure retains most of its original strength and
stiffness. There may be minor cracking on the structural members.
b) Life Safety LS: Substantial damage to the structure and the structure may have lost a large portion of
its strength and stiffness.
c) Collapse Prevention CP: Severe damage and little strength and stiffness remains. Building is unstable
and is near collapse.

A static pushover analysis using SAP2000 was utilized in this study. Due to the NSCP 2015 limitation
on irregular structures in using this method of analysis, only a low-rise five story building was modelled.
The number of bays vary in actual buildings but based on a survey of over 100 random low story
buildings around Manila, Philippines, 3 bay concrete buildings are the most common. Hence, a concrete
frame building with 3 bays at 6 meters is modelled. A story height of about 3 meters is kept constant
throughout each story except when the irregularity is introduced.

The model is also constructed considering code provisions as well as guidelines given by the ATC-40
document. Section sizes are determined so that it will be able to accommodate every type of model. The
model is made so that the fundamental period of vibration of the building does not exceed 1.0s to ensure
the first mode of vibration dominates. Other limits such as the maximum inter-story drift limit of 2.0%
is also observed. Figure 2 shows the geometry of the regular building model considered.

Figure 1. Regular Building

Default SAP2000 hinges are used in the analysis. M3 hinges are assigned on beam ends and P M2 M3
hinges are assigned on column ends as per ATC-40 recommendations. A triangular codal type of loading
is consider in the analysis wherein the loading on a story is a function of its mass and height from the
ground. The model is pushed to a target displacement determined automatically by SAP2000 using
ATC-40 recommendations. This target displacement is the displacement experienced by the building
given the design earthquake.

Plastic Hinge Formation

In structural analysis, the inelastic behavior of structural members may be modelled using plastic hinges.
For simplicity, plastic hinges are assigned at the ends of the structural members since this is where
yielding would most likely occur instead of along the member. For a given a seismic demand and
performance objective, the hinges develop at specific locations of the beams and columns. The
progression of the hinge can be illustrated using a hinge backbone. A limit state on the hinge rotation is
assigned to the hinge to determine its performance level (Immediate Occupancy, Life Safety, Collapse
Prevention, etc.). The state of the hinges at a given instance gives an idea of the overall state of the
building as well as the location of potential deficiencies.

Plastic hinge formation is primary data used in the vulnerability assessment. The number and occurrence
of plastic hinges indicates damage in the structure. Assigned plastic hinges reach a specific hinge
rotation limit and go through different damage states. Figure 2 shows the SAP2000 color legend
indicating the increasing damage severity of the hinges.

6
International Conference in Commemoration of 20th Anniversary of the 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake
Taipei, Taiwan, September 15-19, 2019

Figure 2. Hinge Severity

Figure 3 shows the hinge formation of the regular and a vertical setback irregular building, respectively.
For the irregular building, formation of hinges are more localized in an area compared to the more evenly
distributed hinge formation for the regular buildings. The number of hinges, when and where these
hinges occurred based on the performance stage are useful parameters in the vulnerability assessment.

Figure 3. Hinges in Regular and Irregular Setback Buildings

Vulnerability Index

The vulnerability index is a measure of the damage in a building via hinge formations from a pushover
type of analysis. It is defined as a weighted average combination (linear combination) of the performance
levels of the hinges at a given performance point. As the load increases, the hinge rotation point travels
through the hinge backbone and goes through the different performance points. These performance
ranges can be subdivided into B-IO, IO-LS, LS-CP, CP-C, D-E, and > E. The individual performance
range of each beam and column hinge is an output of the pushover analysis. A higher vulnerability index
indicates that the building is more vulnerable to the loads. A weighting factor is assigned for each
performance range as proposed by Lakshmanan (2006). Table 9 shows the proposed weighting factors.

Table 9. Vulnerability Index Weighting Factors

Serial Number Performance Range (j) Weightage Factor (xj)
1 <B 0
2 B-IO 0.125
3 IO-LS 0.375
4 LS-CP 0.625
5 CP-C 0.875
6 C-D, D-E, and > E 1.000

As columns are more critical when it comes to the overall safety of the building, an “importance factor”
of 1.5 is multiplied for columns. To measure the vulnerability as a simple framework for determining
the local vulnerability at a floor level, Eq.2 proposed by Laskmanan (2006) is applied at a floor level
instead to the whole building. The proposed equation is as follows,

. ∑ ∑
= (2)
∑ ∑

7
International Conference in Commemoration of 20th Anniversary of the 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake
Taipei, Taiwan, September 15-19, 2019

Here, Njc and Njh are the number of hinges in columns and beams respectively, for the jth performance
range. The summation sign is intended to cover the performance ranges, j = 1, 2…6. The notation i
denotes the floor frame considered. The denominator of the equation simply equates to the total number
of hinges for the given frame. A floor frame consists of the floor beams and the columns immediately
below the floor. The vulnerability index of the whole building is simply the sum of the vulnerability
indices of all floor frames.

The score modifier of each irregular building model comes down to the difference in distribution of
the local vulnerability index relative to the regular building considered. The local vulnerability index
of each frame of the building considered is determined using equation (3) and the distribution of the
local vulnerability relative to the entire building vulnerability is determined. The distribution of the
local vulnerability is determined using the equation,

= × 100 (3)

Wherein is the distribution of the local vulnerability index at frame i and is the local
vulnerability index at frame i. The increase in the vulnerability index distribution can simply be
computed as,

# $ %%&'( % )( * +' "% ,&

" = $ -&'( % )( * +' "% ,&
(4)
#

Wherein " is the vulnerability index factor that shows the increase in for frame i. The largest
" is then defined as the score modifier for the irregularity configuration.

VERTICAL IRREGULARITY PARAMETERS & MODIFIERS

The three types of vertical irregularities, namely (1) vertical geometric irregularity, (2) soft story
irregularity, and (3) mass irregularity were analyzed using pushover analysis. These irregularities are
selected due to being the easiest to determine in the case of a rapid visual assessment. Vertical
irregularity parameters are introduced for each type. Models of buildings utp five stories only with
varying vertical irregularity parameters were modeled and analyzed using static pushover analysis and
compared with the seismic performance of a regular structure (Dy, A and Oreta, A, 2015a, 2015b, 2016).
Based on the simulations and parametric studies, a score modifier based on the vertical irregularity
parameter is introduced using Eqns (2), (3) and (4). The vulnerability for buildings with vertical
irregularities can be modified simply multiplying to the original vulnerability index resulting to a higher
seismic risk index.

Vertical Geometric Irregularity or Vertical Setback Irregularity

There are numerous possible configurations of setbacks in a building. However, this study would only
be limited to one step setbacks since this is the most common case. The first parameter is the ratio of
two adjacent stories. As defined by the NSCP, setbacks with more than 130 percent (or a ratio of 1.3) of
an adjacent story is considered vertically irregular. This will be referred to as the horizontal setback ratio
(HR) of a building. Another parameter to vary is the height of the setback. This will be referred to as the
vertical setback ratio (VR). A five story building for instance, with a two stories setback will have a
vertical setback ratio of 1.67. An illustration can be seen in Figure 4.

8
International Conference in Commemoration of 20th Anniversary of the 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake
Taipei, Taiwan, September 15-19, 2019

Figure 4. Vertical Setback Irregularity

Table 10 presents the proposed score modifiers obtained using the methodology for determining the
vulnerability index for the vertical setback irregularity (Dy, A and Oreta, A., 2015a). The varying HR
and VR is divided into three ranges which may also be categorized as low, medium, and high risk. Do
note that other tables showing the vulnerability index distribution and factors of other setback
configurations are not shown due to content limitations.

Table 10. Vertical Setback Irregularity Modifiers (Dy, A and Oreta, A., 2015a)
Score Modifier
HR/VR 1.2 - 1.6 1.7 - 2.5 2.6 - 5.0
1.3 -2.0 1.10 1.10 1.10
2.1 - 2.5 1.10 1.30 1.30
2.6 - 4.0 1.20 1.50 1.60

If the building is an irregular setback building whose HR and VR values are 2.8 and 2.0 respectively, the
modifier is determined as 1.50. The seismic risk of the building is increased depending on the severity
of irregularity.

Stiffness Irregularity or Soft Story

There are numerous possible configurations of soft stories in a building. However, this study would only
be limited to soft stories located at the first story since this is the most common case. Soft stories are
determined when the stiffness of a story is less than 70 percent of an adjacent story. Since the study is
used for a rapid visual assessment, soft story indicators that can be easily assessed visually are utilized
to introduce the irregularity. Two parameters that can be easily inspected through visual means are
openings as well as considerably larger story heights. Since the effects of openings on the stiffness of a
story is difficult quantify, only the story height is considered. The lateral stiffness of each story is
assumed to be mainly due to columns that are rigid and have fixed ends. It also assumed that the modulus
of elastic, moment of inertia, as well as the number of columns for each story is kept constant. In this
study, the height of the first story is varied resulting to a varying stiffness which is reflected in the
stiffness formula (5) for a column:

/0
.= 1 (5)
The ratio of the cubed length of the first and second story would be determined as the soft story ratio
(SR) shown as Eqn (6):

" %3 4 %5 6& '7 8

2- = (6)
4& +* 4 %5 6& '7

9
International Conference in Commemoration of 20th Anniversary of the 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake
Taipei, Taiwan, September 15-19, 2019

Using the definition of a soft story where the stiffness of a story is less than 70 percent of an adjacent
story, a soft story will occur for a building with the first story with a minimum height of 3.3787
m and the columns of the upper floors at 3.0 m height. The soft story ratio for this condition is
given as Eqn (4).
8.89:9 8
2- = 8.;
= 1.4285 (7)

Table 11 shows the proposed score modifiers obtained using the methodology for determining the
vulnerability index for the soft story irregularities (Dy, A and Oreta, A., 2015b). The varying SR is
divided into three ranges which may also be categorized as low, medium, and high risk. The varying SR
is divided according to the largest VIF for the given irregular case.

Table 11. Soft story building score modifiers (Dy, A and Oreta, A., 2015b)
Score Modifer
1.4 - 2.3 2.4 - 6.0 6.1 - 8.0
SR
1.30 1.50 1.70

If a building is an irregular soft story building with SR of 2.8, the vulnerability score is multiplied by
1.50.

Weight or Mass Irregularity

The mass irregularity can be quantified through a basic mass ratio (MR). The mass ratio is basically the
multiplier factor of the two adjacent stories. The mass ratio can be simplified by using the selected use
or occupancy loadings provided in the NSCP. Alternatively, the mass ratio can be determined using
actual effective masses. It can be computed by using the simple equation (1):

A 33 $ 6& B &% " %

@- = (8)
A 33 $ '7 &% " %

Table 12 shows the proposed score modifiers obtained using the methodology for determining
the vulnerability index for the mass irregularities (Dy, A and Oreta, A., 2016). The varying MR
is divided into three ranges which may also be categorized as low, medium, and high risk. The
location of the mass is also considered in determining the score modifiers. The ‘bottom’
category indicates a mass that is located just on top of the first frame. The roof ‘category’
indicates a mass that is located on the roof and the ‘middle’ category indicates a mass that fits
neither of the earlier stated descriptions. Highlighted in gray are conservative estimates of the
indicated irregularity configuration. Mass irregularities may potentially be risky when the
increase in mass is not considered in the design of the building. Such cases may occur when a
change of use is done.

Table 12. Mass irregularity building score modifiers (Dy, A and Oreta, A., 2016)

Proposed Score Modifiers

MR/Loc Bottom Middle Roof
1.5 – 2.0 1.00 1.40 1.40
2.1 – 4.0 1.20 1.70 2.50
4.1 – 6.0 1.30 2.00 2.50

10
International Conference in Commemoration of 20th Anniversary of the 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake
Taipei, Taiwan, September 15-19, 2019

Given a mass irregular building whose MR value is 2.8 and located at the middle portion of the
building, the modifier is determined as 1.70 and this value will be multiplied to the current
vulnerability.

BRIEF CODE-BASED SEISMIC DIAGNOSTIC TOOL

The parameters are categorized and simplified according to code provisions. The values of the
different factors are all parameters aside from vertical irregularities are determined either from the
NSCP coefficients, or from previous studies. The brief code-based seismic diagnostic tool (BSDT) is
described by the seismic risk framework in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Seismic Risk Framework on Hazard, Vulnerability, and Asset

Figure 6 shows the final assessment form and classification for the value of the risk index is shown
under Table 13. Vertical irregularity types that are not considered or have a different configuration
outside the set limitations of the building models should be noted. Such cases include, but not limited
to, multiple stepped setbacks, soft stories on upper floors, and penthouses. Condition assessment of
the building only considers the largest modifier applicable. Figure 6 shows a sample assessment of a
1990 four story building with vertical setback irregularity located at seismic zone IV near a fault (7.5
km) with type A and resting on soil type E. The seismic risk index of the building is obtained by
multiplying the indices corresponding to hazard, vulnerability and asset resulting to 3.7404 which
corresponds to medium risk, 2nd priority for detailed inspection.

Table 13. Proposed risk classification

Risk Index
Low ≤ 3.5
Med 3.6 - 6.9
High 7.0 ≥

11
International Conference in Commemoration of 20th Anniversary of the 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake
Taipei, Taiwan, September 15-19, 2019

Address: Malate, Manila

Year Built: About 1990
No. of Stories: _4_______________________________________
_____________________
Evaluator: Dy_________________________________________ Date: ___________________________
Total Floor Area: ____________________________________________________________________________________
Building Name: Apartment Building A __________________________________________________________________
Use : Residential

Seismic Zone Z
Soil Profile Type, H1
Z = 0.2 Z = 0.4 Zone 4 &
HAZARD, H = H1 * H2

SA 0.16 0.32Nv SE
SB 0.20 0.40Nv
SC 0.32 0.56Nv 0.96
SD 0.40 0.64Nv
SE 0.64 0.96Nv
Seismic Source Type, H2 Closest Distance To Known Seismic Source, Nv Type A at
(Consider only on Zone IV) ≤ 5 km 10 km ≥ 15 km 7.5 km
A 1.6 1.2 1.0
B 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.40
C 1.0 1.0 1.0
Number of Plan None 1 2→ 1.0
Plan Irregularity, V1
Irregularities 1.00 1.50 2.10
Vertical Irregularity, V2
HR / VR 1.2 → 1.6 1.7 →2.5 2.6 → 5.0 1.10
Setback HR=1.4
1.3 → 2.0 1.10 1.10 1.10
Irregularity, VR=1.3
2.0 → 2.5 1.10 1.30 1.30
VULNERABILITY, V = V1 * V2G * V2S ** V2M* V3* V4

V2G
2.6 → 4.0 1.20 1.50 1.60
MR / Loc Bottom Middle Roof None
Mass
1.5 → 2.0 1.00 1.40 1.40 1.0
Irregularity, None
2.1 → 4.0 1.20 1.70 2.50
V2M
4.1 → 8.0 1.30 2.00 2.50
1.4 → 2.3 2.4 → 6.0 6.1 → 8.0 1.0
Soft Story, V2S SR None
1.30 1.50 1.70
Pre -1972 1972 → 1992 1992 → 2010 2.3
Code Factor, V3
3.0 2.3 1.0
Building Condition, V4 (Choose highest value)
Items Remarks Value
Deformation Uneven Settlement 1.30
Located at Reclaimed Area 1.10
Visible Deformation in Beams of Columns 1.10
Cracks on Walls or Leaks and Rebars Corrosion Observed 1.20
Columns Visible Inclined Cracks on Columns 1.10
Multiple Visible Cracks on Walls 1.10
Leaks But No Rebar Corrosion Observed 1.10
Fire Burned But Not Repaired 1.30
Burned But Repaired 1.20
Building Use Chemical Compound 1.20
Building Age More Than 30 Years 1.20
More Than 20 Years 1.10 1.10
Finishing Severe Deterioration on Walls 1.10
Severe Deterioration Inside 1.10
Occupancy Category Seismic Importance Factor, I or A
ASSET,

I. Essential Facilities 1.50 1.0

A

II. Hazardous Facilities 1.25

III. Other Structures 1.00

Seismic Risk Index = H*V*A 3.7404

Remarks: A four story building with vertical setback irregularity located at seismic zone IV near the West Valley
Fault (7.5 km) with type A earthquake and resting on soil type E. Medium Risk.

Figure 6. BSDT Assessment Form

12
International Conference in Commemoration of 20th Anniversary of the 1999 Chi-Chi Earthquake
Taipei, Taiwan, September 15-19, 2019

CONCLUSIONS

A code-based brief seismic diagnosis tool (BSDT) using the seismic parameters in the National
Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) as an alternative to existing RVS tools is presented. The
BSDT refines the assessment by introducing vertical irregularity parameters to account for the severity
of the irregularity and the corresponding increase in vulnerability. It should be emphasized that the tool
is merely a risk index based prioritization tool and does not quantitatively indicate if a building is safe
or not due to seismic ground shaking. Buildings under the high risk category must be prioritized for
more detailed seismic risk assessment.

REFERENCES

NSCP (2010). National Structural Code of the Philippines C10-1, Volume 1, Buildings, Towers, and Other Vertical
Structures. 6th Edition. Manila: Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines.
Dy, A and Oreta, A. (2015a).”Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Setback Buildings using Push-Over Analysis,”
Proc. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Conference (PCEE20150, Nov. 6-8, 2015, Sydney, Australia, ISBN
978-0-9807420-7-7
Dy, A and Oreta, A. (2015b). "Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Soft Story Irregular Buildings Using Pushover
Analysis." Proc. 5th Euro-Asia Civil Engineering Forum (EACEF5), September 15-18, 2015, Petra Christian
University in Surabaya, Indonesia, Proceeding published in Procedia Engineering (ISSN: 1877-7058)
Dy, A. and Oreta, A. (2016). “Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Mass Irregular RC Buildings using Pushover
Analysis,” Proc. A.CONCEPT2016, Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines, May 19-21, 2016,
Manila, Philippines
FEMA P-154 (2015). Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook, 3rd Edition,
January 2015, Applied Technology Council and FEMA
JBDPA (2001). Standard for Seismic Evaluation of Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings, 2001, The Japan
Building Disaster Prevention Association, Translated by Building Research Institute
Lakshmanan, N. (2006, March - June). Seismic Evaluation and Retrofitting of Buildings and Structures. ISET
Journal of Earthquake Technology, 43(1-2), 31-48.

13