AN ASSESSMENT ON THE SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF A SCHOOL

BUILDING OF SURIGAO CITY NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL

A Thesis
Presented to the Department of Civil Engineering
Cebu Institute of Technology – University
Cebu City, Philippines

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering

By

Juvy Britney D. Basalo

Arabelle P. Bonhardt
Dan Jerald M. Daan
Kent A. Gonzaga
Lyriamae S. Kionisala
Rolan Anthony D. Raza

MAY 2022
 ii

APPROVAL SHEET

This thesis entitled, “AN ASSESSMENT ON THE SEISMIC

PERFORMANCE OF A SCHOOL BUILDING OF SURIGAO CITY NATIONAL
HIGH SCHOOL”, prepared and submitted by Juvy Britney D. Basalo, Arabelle
P. Bonhardt, Dan Jerald M. Daan, Kent A. Gonzaga, Lyriamae S. Kionisala,
and Rolan Anthony D. Raza in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering is hereby recommended for
approval.

Engr. Ma. Carmen L. Polancos

Adviser
Date: ____________

Engr. Lee Ann R. Soyangco Engr. Franklin M. Salas

Panelist Panelist
Date: ______________ Date: _______________

This thesis is approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering.

Engr. Effe B. Laspiñas Engr. Suzette B. Pacaña

Thesis Coordinator Chair, Civil Engineering Department
Date: ______________
4/27/2022 Date: ______________
4/28/2022

Dr. Evangeline C. Evangelista

Dean, College of Engineering and Architecture
Date: ____________
5/12/2022
 iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The researchers acknowledge with sincerest appreciation and gratitude the

following people who supported and inspired them to complete this study:
To Engr. Ma. Carmen L. Polancos, main thesis adviser, for sharing her
valuable time, expertise, and support, for showing real commitment, and for giving
them direction to the fulfillment of this research.
To Dr. Nobuyoshi Yashima, second thesis adviser, for sharing his valuable
time, expertise, and support and for introducing the research topic.
To Dr. Arthur E. Jamera, Principal IV of Surigao City National High School,
for giving them the permission to visit and inspect their four-story school building.
To Engr. Marcelino M. Operario, District Engineer of the Surigao del Norte
2nd District Engineering Office, for allowing them to use the soil analysis and
complete plans of Surigao City National High School building.
To the members of the panel, Engr. Franklin M. Salas, Engr. Lee Ann R.
Soyangco for their brilliant comments and suggestions for the improvement of this
work.
To the researchers’ parents Victoriano A. Basalo Jr., Joesenia D. Basalo,
Randy S. Bonhardt, Mercidita P. Bonhardt, Danilo C. Daan, Delia M. Daan, Arnel
D. Gonzaga, Rachel A. Gonzaga, Ruben P. Kionisala, Linda S. Kionisala, Rolan
C. Raza, Relyn D. Raza, siblings, relatives, friends and extended loved ones who
have been an inspiration to them in the completion of this study.
All those who have been with them throughout this research; and
The Lord, God Almighty, for His unconditional love, especially for
surrounding herewith the right people at the right time, for the enlightenment and
wisdom given to them, and for all the blessings He showered upon them and their
family.

The Researchers
 iv

ABSTRACT

Earthquakes unprecedentedly happen anytime and anywhere. In most

seismic codes, school buildings are considered highly important structures due to
the number of occupants bringing about the possibility of a high death toll during
an earthquake. While conducting a series of earthquake drills are necessary,
evaluating the seismic performance of a school building is also important to ensure
the safety of the people who are using the academic facility during unprecedented
times to identify if they are safe and can withstand any magnitude of an
earthquake. The study assessed the seismic performance of a four-story school
building of Surigao City National High School if it is sufficient to resist another
strong earthquake in the future. It sought answers to the seismic performance of
the existing four-story high school building encountered by future earthquakes
using linear static analysis and non-linear dynamic analysis. The required data has
been gathered from a complete set plan of the school building and its soil analysis.
GRASP and STERA 3D software were used to simulate the seismic performance
of the school building, which will serve as a basis of recommendation if the school
building requires retrofitting or not.
Based on the findings of the linear static analysis and nonlinear dynamic
analysis, the school building is safe and does not need retrofitting techniques.
Considering an earthquake of magnitude and intensity scale greater than the
previous ones that hit the school building location, both analyses yielded results
that suggest seismic safety. Based on the result in the linear static analysis, the
maximum allowable inter-story drift angle in both directions is not greater than
1/40. In nonlinear dynamic analysis (time history analysis), the maximum inter-
story drift angle of both directions results in a value less than 1/100. However, the
first story is the most susceptible to more damages since it resulted in a value
closest to the limit. Moreover, this value could suggest that the first story might
potentially need retrofitting in the future if the value exceeds the limit.
The study showed that the school building is considered a safe environment
if utilized as an evacuation center when stronger earthquakes occur in the future.
 v

The researchers would recommend that the school building will be investigated
further by measuring the opening of the cracks to check to see if it has mild or
serious damages. They would also recommend reanalyzing the school building
considering a higher magnitude for linear static analysis and higher intensity scale
for nonlinear dynamic analysis using the STERA 3D software to check if the school
building can withstand even higher magnitude and higher intensity scale in the
future.
 vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TITLE PAGE i
APPROVAL SHEET ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii
ABSTRACT iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES ix
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Rationale 1
1.2 Conceptual Framework 3
1.3 Problem Statement 4
1.4 Significance of the Study 4
1.5 Scope and Limitation 5
1.6 Definition of Terms 5
CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 7
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Design 15
3.2 Research Environment 15
3.3 Research Procedure 16
CHAPTER 4 PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND 19
INTERPRETATION OF DATA
CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary of Findings 23
5.2 Conclusion 23
5.3 Recommendations 24
BIBLIOGRAPHY 25
APPENDIX A TRANSMITTAL LETTERS 27
APPENDIX B TIMETABLE OF ACTIVITIES (GANTT CHART) 29
 vii

APPENDIX C RESEARCH BUDGET 30

APPENDIX D REFERENCE TABLES 31
APPENDIX E SEISMIC ZONE MAP 33
APPENDIX F DISTRIBUTION OF ACTIVE FAULTS MAP 34
APPENDIX G NEAR SOURCE FACTOR 35
APPENDIX H COMPUTATION OF WEIGHTS 36
APPENDIX I LINEAR STATIC COMPUTATIONS 42
APPENDIX J GRASP DEFLECTIONS 44
APPENDIX K STERA 3D OUTPUTS 46
APPENDIX L LOCAL MEMBER INVESTIGATION 48
APPENDIX M LOCAL MEMBER INVESTIGATION SOLUTIONS 50
APPENDIX N DOCUMENTATIONS 51
APPENDIX O TURNITIN/SIMILARITY INDEX 54
APPENDIX P CURRICULUM VITAE 59
 viii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE Page
1 Inter Story Drift Angle of School Building along transverse 19
direction
2 Inter Story Drift Angle of School Building along longitudinal 19
direction
3 Inter Story Drift Angle of School Building along x-direction 21
4 Inter Story Drift Angle of School Building along y-direction 21
5 Research Budget 30
6 Occupancy Category 31
7 Seismic Importance Factors 32
8 Soil Profile Types 32
9 Soil Properties 32
10 Seismic Zone Factor 32
11 Seismic Source Types 32
12 Weight 1F (Dead Load) 36
13 Weight 2F and 3F (Dead Load) 37
14 Weight 4F (Dead Load) 38
15 Weight 5F (Dead Load) 40
16 Total Weights (Dead Load + Live Load) 41
17 Linear Static Parameters Computation 42
18 Inter-story Drift Angle Along Transverse Axis 43
19 Inter-story Drift Angle Along Longitudinal Axis 43
 ix

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE Page
1 Scheme Diagram of the Study 3
2 Satellite image of the School Campus of Surigao City 15
National High School
3 Image of the school buildings of Surigao City National 16
High School
4 Seismic Zone Map 33
5 Distribution of Active Faults Map 34
6 Near Source Factor 35
7 Deflection Along Transverse Axis 44
8 Deflection Along Longitudinal Axis 45
9 Seismic Performance Along X direction 46
10 Seismic Performance Along Y direction 46
11 Inter Story Drift X-direction 47
12 Inter Story Drift Y-direction 47
13 Column Investigation along Longitudinal 48
14 Column Investigation along Transverse 49
15 Surigao National High School Building 51
16 Measuring Actual Measurements of the Building 51
17 Sample Building Cracks 52
18 Sample Building Cracks 52
19 Together with Surigao National High School Principal 53
20 Figure 15. Consultation with Dr. Yashima and Engr. Polancos 53
21 Chapter 1 Turnitin 54
22 Chapter 2 Turnitin 55
23 Chapter 3 Turnitin 57
24 Chapter 4 Turnitin 58
25 Chapter 5 Turnitin 58
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Rationale
The Philippines is an archipelagic country located along the Pacific Ring of
Fire. Its geographic location makes it prone to earthquakes and other seismic
activities. According to the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology
(PHIVOLCS), the country is hit by 20 earthquakes a day at a normal average.
Although most of them are not intensely felt, some bring devastation to the people.
Regardless of whether it is destructive or not, these occurrences imply that
numerous active faults are present in the country and that mitigation and
countermeasures should be done as preparation for these inevitable phenomena.
Earthquakes unprecedentedly happen anytime and anywhere. These do
not only cause damages to different infrastructures but also take a huge toll on the
life of the people. One of the most susceptible places where there occupies a
number of people is school buildings. While conducting a series of earthquake
drills are necessary to equip the learners, teachers, administrators, and other
personnel regarding what to do during earthquakes, it is also equally important to
check the status of the existing buildings if they are safe and can withstand any
magnitude of an earthquake.
Surigao City National High School is located in San Juan, Surigao City
situated in the CARAGA Region which occupies the Northernmost part of Eastern
Mindanao Ridge or Mindanao Pacific Cordillera. The area is a region of high
seismic activity. Active faults near the school building can generate earthquakes
including a number of individual faults of the Philippine Fault Zone (PFZ). This area
experienced strong earthquakes in the past and is expected to do so in the future
(Rimando, 1994).
The most recent earthquake happened last June 2021. According to the
PHIVOLCS, it recorded 5.8 magnitude hitting 72-kilometer northeast off the coast
of Burgos Town in Surigao del Norte. There might be no damages reported in the
recent quake, but there were previous ones that tallied fatalities. In February 2017,
 2

a magnitude 6.7 earthquake struck Surigao del Norte due to the movement of the
Philippine Fault - Surigao segment. Surigao City, San Francisco, and the rest of
the municipalities of Surigao del Norte felt the ground shaking and the aftershocks
that followed thereafter, including the largest aftershock recorded with a magnitude
of 5.0. This earthquake caused liquefaction, landslides, and the collapse of
bridges, roads, ports, and buildings. It also left 8 people dead, and 202 injured.
Surigao City National High School is a public school that is no exception to
threats to the shaking of the ground. School buildings, old and new alike, are
vulnerable to seismic activities. Because of these reasons, this study aimed to
assess and evaluate the seismic performance of a four-story Senior High School
building in Surigao City National High School to know if it is still sufficient to resist
another earthquake in the future. Due to the active faults near the building, it was
necessary to check the status of the buildings after a series of strong earthquakes
in the past to ensure the safety of the students, school administrators, and
personnel.
The researchers gathered the data from the Department of Public Works
and Highways District Engineering Office, Surigao del Norte. The researchers
made use of the geotechnical report of the four-story, twenty-classroom school
building, and the standard design structural plans of school buildings available on
the DPWH website. To assess these data, they used GRASP and STERA 3D for
the linear static and time history analysis of the said building. The results of the
study were used as bases for the recommendation of retrofitting. The results will
benefit the parents, civil engineers, future researchers, future evacuees, and the
government. It will be used to ensure the safety of all the future occupants and
minimize the damages of the Surigao City National High School building when
another earthquake hits the area. Hence, this study was conducted.
 3

1.2 Conceptual Framework

INPUT
Data gathered from a complete set
of School Building Plan, and Soil
Analysis of the School

PROCESS
• Evaluate on GRASP using linear
static analysis
• Evaluate on STERA 3D software
using Time History Analysis
• Interpretation of data

OUTPUT
If the building is safe, it is adequate
to occupy. If unsafe, recommend
seismic retrofitting.

Figure 1. Scheme Diagram of the Study

 4

1.3 Statement of the Problem

This study aimed to evaluate and assess the seismic performance of a four-
story building in Surigao City National High School if it was sufficient to withstand
another earthquake in the future.
However, the study sought answers to the following sub-problems:
1. What was the seismic performance of the school building using linear
static analysis?
2. What was the seismic performance of the school building using
nonlinear dynamic analysis?
3. Based on the findings, should seismic retrofitting be recommended in
order to perform?

1.4 Significance of the Study

The fulfillment of this study significantly benefited the researchers and their
institution, building occupants, parents, civil engineers, future researchers, future
evacuees, and government as follows:
Building Occupants. The results of this study were beneficial to the
building occupants namely students, faculty, administration, and staff as it would
assure that their place is safe to be occupied.
Parents. The results of this investigation gave them assurance that their
children are staying in a safe place in any event when fiascos happen.
Administration. The findings of this study gave the administration the
certainty that the school building where many students occupy is safe during
earthquakes.
Cebu Institute of Technology - University. It would become part of the
fulfillment of the school’s purpose that their students would be more innovative in
designing and investigating buildings.
Civil Engineers. The result of this study provided them with new
information about the seismic performance of the school building, which can be
used as a basis of recommendation in future designs.
 5

Government. The result of the study assured them that the safety of their
people is guaranteed given the possible earthquake that will occur in the future.
Future Evacuees. The result of the study served as a basis that the
designed building would be a good recommendation as a safe future evacuation
center for future evacuees.
Researchers. The study made the researchers more confident in designing
buildings given the knowledge they would gain about seismic analysis. It served
as a stepping-stone in their pursuit of professional development.
Future Researchers. The output of this study served as a reference for
future researchers who are interested in conducting studies with comparable
themes.

1.5 Scope and Limitation

The study focused mainly on assessing the seismic performance of an
existing four-story school building, the old standard design of DPWH located in
Surigao City National High School, Barangay. San Juan, Surigao City, Surigao del
Norte, to analyze whether it can withstand a large earthquake. The structural plans
of the building and its soil analysis was based on the data provided by the
Department of Public Works and Highways- District Engineering Office, Surigao
del Norte. The type of analysis used in assessing the structure would be restricted
to linear statics and nonlinear dynamics. GRASP and STERA 3D software would
be utilized to conduct the simulations on linear statics and nonlinear dynamics for
further analyses. The study does not cover the seismic retrofitting of the building
given by the time, in which it is at best intended for future works.

1.6 Definition of Terms

The researchers defined the following terminologies:
Linear static analysis is a design approach in which the applied forces and
displacements, due to earthquakes, have a linear relationship and are applied to
the structure.
 6

Old standard design of a building refers to those buildings that comply

with the accustomed design of a building.
New standard design of a building refers to buildings where structural
components are being modernized and improved to resist stronger earthquakes.
Nonlinear dynamic analysis, also called time history analysis, is used to
assess a structure’s seismic performance from a representative earthquake under
dynamic loading.
Seismic performance is an execution of a structure design’s capacity to
sustain its serviceability and safety during and after an earthquake.
Seismic retrofitting is a method of reinforcing a structure that already
exists to make it more resistant to an earthquake.
 CHAPTER 2
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

This study focused primarily on the seismic performance of an existing four-

story high school building to identify its seismic resilience. School buildings are
considered highly important structures in most seismic codes today due to the
huge number of students and the possibility of a high death toll during an
earthquake (Kahrizi & Tahamouliroudsari, 2020). Educational and emergency
functions were two of the most important roles of a school facility in the event of a
natural catastrophe (Ilumin, 2020). These facilities did not only provide a safe
learning environment but also serve as emergency shelters during earthquakes.
Thus, determining the seismic performance of existing structures was critical.
According to Dr. Yashima (2019), seismic performance refers to a
structure’s ability to sustain its essential functions, such as safety and
serviceability. To achieve the seismic safety of a school building, a reliable
performance assessment was needed. The behavior of a building, as well as the
soil class on which it was built, affects its seismic performance (M. Dogro & G.
Arslan 2017). Evaluating the seismic performance of a school building was very
essential. According to Nair (2017), in seismic analysis of structures, the load-
carrying capacity, ductility, stiffness, damping, and mass are the main parameters
that must be checked. The design process consists of two significant steps. These
were linear analysis and time history analysis. Linear analysis was performed
considering the dimensions of the structural elements to ascertain the structure’s
functionality after low-magnitude earthquakes. The structural behavior was, then,
investigated using nonlinear methods. The non-linear dynamic analysis should be
carried out on buildings with or without symmetry.
The dynamic properties and responses of a building structure were
determined through a wide array of methods of linear analysis using linear elastic
material behavior (Lago et al., 2018). In this study, linear analysis was carried out
through different design approaches. One of the forced-based approaches to
 8

assess the seismic performance of a school building in Surigao City National High
School was linear static analysis.
Linear static analysis is an elastic design technique where a structure is
applied to equivalent static story forces. Different types of loadings can cause
deformation, and this can be transmitted to the other parts of the structure. In the
study of Satyanarayanan et al. about the progressive collapse behavior of a multi-
story building under varying temperatures, the linear properties of the frames were
specified in the static analysis software. Using linear static analysis,
displacements, strains, stresses, shear force, and axial force of a structure were
obtained. Similarly, the linear static analysis was used in this study to assess the
structures of a four-story building when subjected to loads due to an earthquake.
First, the total weight of the building was required in the analysis. The
parameters of the base shear computation were also determined to solve for Fx.
𝐶𝑉 𝐼𝑊
To solve for the base shear, these formulae were to be used: 𝑉 = , 𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
𝑅𝑇
2.5𝐶𝑎 𝐼
, and 𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.11𝐶𝑎 𝑊, where Ca was the seismic coefficient as provided in
𝑅

table 208-7, Cv was the seismic coefficient as provided in table 208-8, I was the
importance factor, R was the numerical coefficient representative of the inherent
overstrength and global ductility capacity of lateral force resisting systems, W was
the total seismic dead load, and T was the elastic fundamental period of vibration,
in seconds, of the structure in the direction under consideration.
When a structure was subjected to lateral loads, it performed horizontal
displacement or drift, which was monitored by inter-story limits to prevent the
structure from laterally disintegrating. Thus, GRASP software was used to examine
the behavior of the building depicted in this study to see how it responded to
earthquake loads. Once the lateral loads were determined, the story drift was
analyzed. The lateral force was applied to get the displacement of the building or
frames on every floor. The values to use for the succeeding computations were
the output from the biggest displacement values of inter-story drift analysis on each
level, where, for T<0.70 sec drift limit would be 0.025h, however, if T> 0.70 sec the
drift limit to use would be equal to 0.020h.
 9

Under section 103 classification of structures of the National Structural

Code of the Philippines (NSCP 2015) stipulated by the Association of Structural
Engineers of the Philippines, Inc. (ASEP) in 2015, constructions and many other
structures were categorized according to their intended use. The structure used in
this research fell under category I, also known as Essential Facilities, which was
deliberately determined as a public-school building.
Each structure was assigned to one of the several types of occupancy in
Table 6 for the purpose of design that was resistant to earthquakes. For each
category, Table 7 showed the important factors, I and Ip, as well as the structural
observation requirements.
Another criterion needed to assess a structure's base shear was the seismic
significance factor. The school building was situated at occupancy category 1,
which meant that its importance factor is 1.50. Moreover, soil type was also
another factor to be considered in this study as this affects the performance of the
structure. Based on adequately verified geotechnical data, every site was
allocated a soil profile type using the site classification approach provided in Table
8 and Table 9. Only two seismic zones exist in the Philippine archipelago. Except
for Busuanga, Zone 2 encompasses places of Palawan, and Tawi-Tawi, Sulu,
whereas Zone 4 comprises the remaining portion of the nation (ASEP, 2015).
A seismic zone factor, Z, was assigned to each structure. Surigao City was
the location of the structure used in this investigation. The site was in a seismic
zone with a factor of 4. Seismic source categories are defined in the table provided
by ASEP. The earthquake that hit Surigao City where the target building was
located has a magnitude of 6.7, lying on seismic source type B.
These data were used to evaluate the existing building’s seismic
performance using the linear static analysis, specifically in finding the total base
shear. The value of force Fx for every frame was solved once the base shear is
(𝑉−𝐹𝑡 )𝑊𝑥 𝐹𝑥
determined using the formula 𝐹𝑥 = . Using GRASP, the story drift of each
𝛴𝑊𝑖 𝐻𝑖

level was determined. Alashkar et al. defined inter-story drift as the lateral
displacement of one story relative to the story below. It shall be computed along
with maximum inelastic displacement, drift ratio, maximum inter-story drift ratio/drift
 10

angle, and compare the maximum inter-story drift ratio with allowable drift ratio.
The computed drift angle should be less than the allowable drift ratio. Else, there
is a need to redesign the building structure.
STERA 3D was utilized for time history analysis conducted in accordance
with the target building. Nonlinear dynamic analysis or time history analysis has be
undertaken in order to establish the utmost inter-story drift at longitudinal and
transverse direction for 2017 Surigao response ambit. By using STERA 3D, the
ductility (U) of a reinforced concrete building determines the damages to its
structural components, wherein ranging from 1 to 5 indicate that its components
are subjected to mild to moderate deterioration. However, if ductility (U) exceeds
five, the structural components are subjected to severe damage.
The STERA 3D is a three-dimensional computer software that is used to
analyze seismic performance of reinforced concrete, buildings made of steel, steel
reinforced concrete, and seismic isolation. Moreover, it has the ability to execute
nonlinear earthquake response analysis, lateral static pushover, and lateral static
cyclic and as well as linear modal analysis (Saito, 2015). It was mainly developed
by Dr. Taiki Saito from the school of Toyohashi University of Technology, Japan.
STERA 3D provides a visual interface for creating and analyzing building models,
also displaying the analysis findings quickly and effectively. Hence, the STERA 3D
was used to investigate the behavior of the building featured in this research to
examine how the building performs when earthquake loads are applied. This
analysis assessed whether a reinforced concrete school building is safe to use.
The ground movements data used were from the 2017 earthquake in Surigao del
Norte. According to the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology
(PHIVOLCS), the epicenter was around 16 kilometers located northwest of the city
of Surigao, with a short scale of focal depth, approximately 10 kilometers. The
greatest ground movement was reported by (PEIS), PHIVOLCS Earthquake
Intensity Scale VII, in Surigao City which means “Destructive”.
Two types of earthquake histories were recorded from the PEER Ground
Motion Database Application, which was utilized by STERA 3D software as a
dynamic structural response under loading. These include the El-Centro
 11

earthquake in California in 1940, and the Kobe earthquake in Kobe, Japan in 1995.
The El-Centro earthquake had a 6.4 SR magnitude, a depth of 9 kilometers from
the epicenter, and a period of 15 seconds. And the Kobe earthquake had an SR
magnitude of 6.9, a depth of 7.1 kilometers from the epicenter, and a period of 20
seconds.
According to the study of Afifuddin M. 's and et al (2016), two of the big
earthquake histories as mentioned above were used, the building was loaded by
these data. The story displacement, story drift, and base shear were all observed.
The seismic response of the objects of interest was assessed in this study, which
employed a hotel building as a model. The STERA 3D was used to assess the
structural behavior of the target building prior to retrofitting for the time history
evaluation. This study examined the behavior of a reinforced concrete building due
to several types of earthquake loads being applied, and the structure's
performance was evaluated. According to the findings, it was discovered that the
hotel building is safe after being subjected to four different types of earthquake
loads, wherein the present structure multi-story reinforced concrete building shows
excellent seismic resistance.
The study covers the global capacity of the building and local intervention
techniques are performed on a group of members with structural flaws, and a
combination of these approaches can be utilized to achieve the required behavior
for a seismically built structure. According to Salazar et al. (2019), local ductility
capacity is defined as the ratio of the highest allowable inelastic drift to the drift
when initial yielding occurs. Ductility capacity is generally calculated based on the
results of individual members' experiments. Other research recommends defining
global ductility in terms of relative lateral displacements since it should represent
the total structural inelastic deformation.
Many reinforced concrete structures built and constructed over the years
have been found to have major structural weaknesses, particularly in their beam-
column joints, as a result of earthquake damage. Inadequate or nonexistent joint
transverse reinforcement, characterize these defective joints. The local capacity
strategy recognizes the intrinsic capacity of the structures and, as a result, takes
 12

a more cost-effective approach to upgrading the local capacity of individual

structural components. It is crucial that the latter members maintain their ability to
support vertical loads even when subjected to deformations caused by seismic
activity.
According to the study of A. Hosseini and et al (n.d.), buildings have
collapsed because of brittle failure of sub-standard beam-column connections in
several earthquakes, then the primary goal of the research was to create and
analyze the seismic behavior of reinforced concrete beam-column joints. Stresses
were calculated using lateral loading phase's step increments. Shear strength
degradation in the joint region is responsible for the specimen's failure. Shear
failure occurs as a result of a combination of two failures, cracking due to strain or
tension cracks, and fracturing by compression at the joint area of the concrete.
From the study of (Mendis et al., n.d.), on reinforced concrete components,
the cyclic structural capability of reinforced concrete frames was assessed in
respect of inter-story drift and ultimate ductility. On those structures, nonlinear
analyses are performed to correlate the structural cross section's maximum
curvature ductility, maximum rotation ductility of member elements, global
displacement ductility, and inter-story drift capacity with the global displacement
ductility and inter-story drift capacity. Bending moment, rotation, global
displacement ductility, and inter-story drift have all been found to have a strong
relationship. To assess structural damage, the use of critical parameters such as
ductility and as well as the maximum inter-story drift is typical. According to Lu et
al. (n.d.) study, the global seismic capacity of a structural system is defined,
represents the structure's base shear limit, and entire seismic activity is defined as
the seismic demand of structures. The study for structural systems offers the
following global seismic capacity limit state function based on these
considerations: g (VS, FE) =VS – FE, FE = the total horizontal seismic activity of
the base structures, where VS = limit base shear of structures. Due to the weight
of the corresponding total gravity load incorporating the combined effects of live
loads, dead loads, and wind load when the total horizontal seismic action is
computed, horizontal seismic activity in total FE is comparable due to the overall
 13

load impact. A nonlinear reliability analysis method in nature is based on this

concept because the limit base shear VS, may be used to investigate actual
constitutive relationships of structural materials as well as nonlinear impacts in the
structural system.
In the study of Fakharifar et al. (n.d.), through adaptive inelastic dynamic
time history studies, the global ductility of structures and seismic performance of
retrofitted RC frames with fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP) joints are assessed
using the ratio of inter-story drift as well as the seismic behavior component for
four common FRP reinforcement methods between the column and the beam. An
intermediate-rise building's seismic behavior RC structure under the influence of
earthquakes is used to demonstrate the suggested technique. The simulated
findings show that the suggested retrofitting strategy may significantly increase RC
building seismic performance and global ductility.
Hence, this study recommended global seismic retrofitting after the
evaluation of the school building showed if it was unsafe. Life-line buildings
including those for emergency operations, and important buildings such as schools
and educational institutions, needed to be evaluated and retrofitted on a prime
concern. Providing appropriate lateral strength by solutions that were proven
effective in the previous earthquakes is the implied goal. During a major
earthquake, the retrofitted building should not collapse. (Chitte, 2020). According
to Chandrakar & Singh (2017), there are two major strategies of retrofitting. These
are called the local and global retrofit strategies. Local retrofitting emphasizes the
level of the element on a poor specific member and works to improve it to perform
better. This included adding steel, concrete and specific member composite to
increase its responsiveness in the case of a seismic event. Global retrofitting
focused on the structure level and retrofit to improve the total behavior of the whole
structure. The entire structure was retrofitted at once by attaching steel braces or
shear walls or applying base isolation. According to Chitte (2020), there are
different global retrofitting strategies. This included the addition of infill walls, shear
walls and braces, and base isolation. The addition of infill walls supports the
vertical load if the adjacent column fails however, it increases weight. The addition
 14

of shear walls significantly increased the building's lateral strength and stiffness
although this requires sufficient foundation. The addition of braces also
significantly increases the building's lateral strength and stiffness, but it is
complicated in connecting the braces to an existing frame. Another retrofitting
strategy according to Rosales (2017) is the selective weakening retrofit. It is a
counterintuitive technique for changing the structure’s inelastic mechanism while
recognizing the structure’s fundamental capacity. Rosales (2017) stated the next
strategy is enabling sliding connections, to allow more motion between seismically
independent structures. Finally, to brace vulnerable structures, seismic friction
dampers are added.
Raissi et al. (2017) presented a study using shotcreting of peripheral walls
of a school building in Iran. It is a typical retrofitting pattern (TRP). Typical
retrofitting patterns use specific approaches to raise the performance level of
buildings to the projected target level; however, minor inadequacies remained after
retrofitting with this strategy. From the study of Ferraioli et al. (2017), they used
dissipating steel braces. Their study showed a procedure to develop additional
energy dissipation devices for seismic retrofit using a displacement-based design
process. For seismic upgrading of the reinforced concrete frame building, both
buckling-restrained axial dampers and steel hysteretic dampers were investigated.
The results showed that retrofitting with dissipative steel braces increased energy
dissipation capacity even with low lateral displacement requirements. The findings
of the nonlinear time history analysis revealed that the displacement-based design
technique is effective in ensuring the safety of both the structure at the Life Safety
Limit State and the damped braces at the Collapse Prevention Limit State.
Nevertheless, it was worth noting that the third level's hysteretic steel dampers
remain elastic in the face of earthquake movement. As a result, the design
approach might be enhanced with parameter optimization, which could potentially
improve damper performance.
The aforementioned theories would give a vital foundation of this study
together with the other related studies.
 CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Design

This study utilized a descriptive method of research to assess the seismic
performance of an old design four-story school building made by the DPWH
located at Surigao City National High School in Surigao City. Quantitative
techniques were used in this study. Linear static analysis and nonlinear dynamic
analysis were conducted to collect suitable information for the purpose of acquiring
raw data for interpretation and analyses. Thus, the results were the basis to
conclude if it is still safe for future earthquakes and if it needs to be recommended
by seismic retrofitting.

3.2 Research Environment

This study was conducted within the vicinity of Surigao City National High
School, which is located at Barangay San Juan, Surigao City. The high school
building of the institution is located near the gate of the school campus. The
building is a four-story school reinforced concrete with a total floor area of around
seven hundred two square meters. Figure 2 and 2.1 showed the satellite image of
the school and the image of the building.

Figure 2. Satellite image of the School Campus of Surigao City National High School (Source: Google Earth)
 16

Figure 3. Image of the school buildings of Surigao City National High School (Source: Google Earth)

3.3 Research Procedure

This section presented the method of data gathering and the seismic
analysis methods to be used in the study. The researchers sent letters for
permission to various branches of the DPWH office to get complete plans and soil
analysis of a design four-story high school building.
Then, the researchers assessed the performance of the building using
linear static analysis using the code from NSCP 2015. Researchers first
determined the total weight of the building. Then the parameters for base shear
computation were determined: importance factor using I=1.5 for essential facilities;
seismic zone factor using Z=0.40 since it’s located in Mindanao; soil profile type
(Type E); seismic source type (Type A); Seismic coefficients Ca=0.50336 and
Cv=1.428 in which Ca is based on soil profile type and seismic zone factor and Cv
based on seismic source type, and numerical coefficient of global ductility capacity
using R = 5.5 for intermediate reinforced concrete moment frames. Once base
𝐶𝑣 𝐼𝑊 2.5𝐶𝑎 𝐼𝑊
shear is determined using the formulas V = , 𝑉𝑚𝑎𝑥 = , 𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.11𝐶𝑎 𝐼𝑊,
𝑅𝑇 𝑅
3
0.8𝑍𝑁𝑣 𝐼𝑊
𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑛 = for zone 4 and T = 𝑐𝑡 (ℎ𝑛 )4 where 𝑐𝑡 =0.0731 for concrete moment-
𝑅
 17

resisting frames, and the condition Vmin ≤ V ≤ Vmax, solve for the value of Fx =
(𝑉− 𝐹𝑡 )𝑊𝑥 ℎ𝑥 𝐹𝑥
. Next, the Fx of a single frame in which it is equal to was solved where
𝛴𝑊𝑖 ℎ𝑖 𝑛

n = number of frames. GRASP was used to determine the story drift of each level
𝐹𝑥
applying the values of at each floor and the sizes of the beams and columns.
𝑛

Then, inter-story drift was computed, Δe=𝛿𝑖 − 𝛿𝑗 using the maximum story drift at
each level based on the GRASP result, maximum inelastic displacement,
𝛥𝑀
ΔM=0.7(R)(Δe), maximum inter-story drift ratio/drift angle = . Next, maximum
ℎ𝑖

inter-story drift ratio was compared with allowable drift ratio based on the condition
from NSCP 2015 specs (Drift Limit): for T<0.70 sec: Drift limit =0.025h and for
T>0.70 sec: Drift limit =0.020h. If the computed drift angle is less than the
allowable then it’s okay, however, if it is greater than the allowable then it’s not
okay, redesign if not okay or apply retrofitting technique at that particular level.
The next type of analysis used was nonlinear dynamic analysis or time
history analysis. In this type of analysis, STERA 3D software was used to input
data and obtain the results thereafter. The computed weight in each level of the
building in linear static analysis’ results were used in this part, however this time
including the live load on each floor in which the area is multiplied by 1.92 kPa for
the classroom, 3.83 kPa for the corridor above the ground floor and 4.8 kPa for the
ground floor corridor and inputted the height of each floor. Based on the data of
the school building, indicate first how many frames of the building on its transverse
and longitudinal axis, and input its distances from column to column. Given the
data of the members (columns, beams, walls, and slabs) store the data needed in
the software like the sizes (mm), main reinforcement bar, deformed bars wherein
276 MPa with ASTM A615 grade 40 steel was used, shear reinforcement bar, and
the compressive strength (27.6 MPa) for later analysis. After finishing inputs all the
values, copying all the inputted data to all levels of the building is necessary.
In selecting earthquake data file, it must be almost equivalent to the
strongest earthquake happened in Surigao City which it has a magnitude of 6.7.
El-Centro 1940 has a magnitude of 6.9 and select NS since it has the biggest
acceleration. In computing the modification factor, divide the maximum velocity of
 18

Intensity scale 7 of Surigao City over the maximum velocity of El-Centro NS

earthquake, which is equivalent to 0.93. Then next, select El-Centro NS as the
earthquake data file with a value 0.93 as modification factor to be inputted in
STERA 3D application in x and y direction. Then, let the software do the calculation
to get the results. After that, based on the 3D building model, the building’s
vulnerability or its ductility can now be located according to color, yellow color
indicates yield plasticity or has a minimal damage while red indicates that the part
of that building is subjected to critical damage.
After the seismic response analysis, the important detailed results such as
the maximum relative story displacement, inter-story drift, inter-story drift ratio,
shear force, and response acceleration in each story of the structure can now be
shown and copied. If the computed maximum inter-story drift ratio or angle is less
than 1/100 then the members of column and beam are still strong.
A conclusion is made after performing the linear static analysis and
nonlinear dynamic analysis, whether it needs to be seismically retrofitted by a
particular global seismic retrofitting technique or is it still safe to be occupied for an
incoming strong future earthquake.
 CHAPTER 4
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the seismic performance of the school building of

Surigao City National High School using linear static analysis and non-linear
dynamics analysis based on NSCP 2015, the analysis and interpretation of the
gathered data.

Seismic Performance of the School Building using linear static analysis:

Structures are applied equivalent static story forces when considering the
linear static analysis. Using this elastic design technique, linear properties of
frames such as displacements, strains, stresses, shear force, and axial force of a
structure are obtained (Satyanarayanan et al). Table 1 shows the linear static
analysis of each story along the longitudinal direction.
Similarly, Table 2 depicts the linear static analysis of each story along the
transverse direction.
Table 1: Inter-story Drift Angle of School Building along transverse direction
Inter-Story
Story Height Maximum Inelastic Inter-story Drift Angle
Drift from
(mm) Displacement (mm) (mm)
Grasp (mm)
5 5.965 3200 22.9653 0.007176641 ok
4 8.664 3200 33.3564 0.010423875 ok
3 10.970 3200 42.2345 0.013198281 ok
2 13.491 3200 51.9404 0.016231359 ok
1 28.730 6100 110.6105 0.018132869 ok

Table 2: Inter-story Drift Angle of School Building along longitudinal direction.

Inter-Story
Height Maximum Inelastic Inter-story Drift Angle
Story Drift from
(mm) Displacement (mm) (mm)
Grasp (mm)
5 2.679 3200 10.31415 0.003223172 ok
4 5.315 3200 20.46275 0.006394609 ok
3 7.589 3200 29.21765 0.009130516 ok
2 10.158 3200 39.1083 0.012221344 ok
1 24.683 6100 95.02955 0.015578615 ok
 20

Both tables show the inter-story drift, height, maximum inelastic

displacement, and inter-story drift angle of each story along the longitudinal and
transverse direction using NSCP 2015. The inter-story drift results are gathered
from the GRASP software. Based on the tables, it shows acceptable values since
the inter-story drift angles are less than 0.025 millimeters. However, other factors
must be accounted as acceptable, or it does not need any retrofit. Maximum
Inelastic Displacement, ΔM, is also acceptable for both directions. The maximum
allowable inter-story drift angle must not be greater than allowable 1/40 based on
NSCP 2015. Since the largest inter-story drift angle is located in the first story
which has 0.018mm and 0.015mm for transverse and longitudinal direction. Data
shows that, while the building is safe considering all values of inter-story drift
angles, the building is most critical on its first level. This suggests that the first story
has the closest value to the inter-story drift limit and has the highest chance of
going beyond the limit in the future.

Results showed that there is no need to redesign or to apply retrofitting

techniques in all levels of the school building along the longitudinal axis. As shown
in the table, the computed drift angles are less than the allowable drift angle. Thus,
it can be considered a good design.

Seismic Performance of the School Building using nonlinear dynamic

analysis:
Nonlinear dynamic analysis is also known as time history analysis. For this
type of analysis, a representative earthquake time history for the structure under
consideration is required. Time history analysis is a step-by-step analysis of a
structure’s dynamic response to a specific loading that may vary over time. It is
used to assess a structure's seismic performance from a representative
earthquake under dynamic loading (Wilkinson and Hiley, 2006). With the use of
computer software STERA 3D, dynamic performance of the school building is
stimulated. Table 3 shows the time history analysis of each story along the x-
direction. While in Table 4 shows the time history analysis of each story along the
y-direction.
 21

Table 3: Inter-story Drift Angle of School Building along x-direction

Story Height Story Drift (cm) along Inter Story Drift Angle
Story
(cm) x-direction (cm) x-direction
5 320 0.0130 0.000041 Ok
4 320 0.0389 0.000122 Ok
3 320 0.0843 0.000263 Ok
2 320 1.6100 0.005031 Ok
1 610 5.7700 0.009459 Ok

Table 4: Inter-story Drift Angle of School Building along y-direction

Story Height Story Drift (cm) along Inter Story Drift Angle (cm)
Story
(cm) y-direction y-direction
5 320 0.0394 0.000123 Ok
4 320 0.0631 0.000197 Ok
3 320 1.0000 0.003125 Ok
2 320 1.6200 0.005063 Ok
1 610 5.7600 0.009443 Ok

Table 3 and table 4 shows the height, the inter-story drift, and inter-story
drift angle of each story along the x and y direction using NSCP 2015. The data
gathered are the results from the STERA 3D software. Based on the given results,
it shows acceptable values since the inter-story drift angles do not exceed to the
limit of 1/100 or 0.01 centimeter. However, other factors must also be considered
to be accounted as acceptable which would mean it does not need any retrofitting.
The maximum allowable inter-story drift angle must not be greater than 200cm or
(1/0.005) based on NSCP 2015. Since the biggest inter-story drift angle is located
in the first story which has 0.0094cm for both directions, therefore 1/0.0094 equals
106cm. The results are coherent to the linear static analysis data which also means
that the first story is the most susceptible to more damages since it resulted in a
value closest to the limit. Moreover, this value could suggest that the first story
might potentially need retrofitting in the future if the value exceeds the limit in the
future.
According to NSCP 2015, if the inter-story drift angle is greater than 0.005,
the concrete hollow blocks (CHB) walls will start to crack. Otherwise, if the inter-
story drift angle is greater than 0.01, the columns and beams start to crack. Based
 22

on the data gathered, it shows that the inter-story drift angle is more than 0.005
which means cracks occur in concrete hollow blocks walls. As the researchers
observed in the actual building of the school, a lot of cracks occur in the concrete
hollow blocks walls but not in the columns and beams since it has less than 0.01.
Based on the results, it shows that all values of the inter-story drift angle of
the school building are less than the allowable. Thus, it can be considered a good
design.
The maximum deformation capacity of the school building was determined
using a time history study in which gradual loading was used (Ilumin ,2020). In
STERA 3D, the color red denotes a ductility factor greater than 5 which, when
combined with the ductility index, might result in a greater displacement. This
indicates that the structure will experience severe deformation with a high risk of
collapse. In addition, the yellow color indicates minimal cracking. Appendix I shows
the seismic performances of the school building using the time history analysis.
The stimulation shows yellow color in both x and y directions of the school building
which indicates that it has minor damages.
With all the data presented, it shows that the Surigao City National High
School building can still resist a magnitude greater than six (6) with an importance
factor of 1.5 and modification factor of 5.5. From the GRASP software design
computation, sample design of a 600mm x 600mm column and 400mm x 550mm
beam is shown in Appendix H. It indicates that the school building column and
beam design of the building is safe. On the other hand, the STERA 3D software
design analyses are shown in Appendix I. These indicate that the school building's
columns and beams are still safe. However, the concrete hollow block walls
generate cracks. As a result, there is no need to redesign or apply retrofitting
techniques.
Additionally, the column of the structure was investigated to verify if it can
withstand the live loads, dead loads, and the earthquake loads. In the computation,
the largest value of moment from the GRASP results was used. The computations
are shown in Appendix J. The result suggest that the column is adequate which
means that it is safe.
 CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Summary of Findings

This study aimed to evaluate and assess the seismic performance of a
building of Surigao City National High School if it was sufficient to withstand
another earthquake in the future. The study uses a descriptive method of research
using the different data that will be gathered from the seismic performance of the
school building. Linear static analysis and nonlinear dynamic analysis were used
to analyze the seismic performance of the school building.
The following are the findings of the study;
1. Using the linear static analysis, the existing school building had a
significantly large inter-story drift angle at the first story of both
longitudinal and transverse.
2. Using the nonlinear dynamic analysis, the maximum inter-story drift of
the existing school building in x and y directions were both on the first
story. The largest inter-story drift angle of both directions showed a
lesser value than 1/100.
3. The most critical level of the building is on its first level for both analyses
since both have the closest value to reach the inter-story drift limit. The
values may be equal or go beyond in the future to which retrofitting may
be applied if this happens.
4. The STERA 3D model shows the ductility of the building, which showed
yellow color, indicating that the school building has minor damages.
5. Seismic retrofitting would not be recommended since all levels of both
analyses are safe.

5.2 Conclusions
Based on the findings of the linear static analysis and nonlinear dynamic
analysis, the school building is safe. It does not need retrofitting techniques.
Considering an earthquake of magnitude and intensity scale greater than the
 24

previous ones that hit the school building location, both analyses yielded results
that suggest seismic safety. Based on the result in the linear static analysis, the
maximum allowable inter-story drift angle in both directions is not greater than
1/40. In nonlinear dynamic analysis, the maximum inter-story drift angle of both
directions results in a value less than 1/100. Moreover, a local member
investigation depicts a result that suggest the columns of the building are adequate
and safe. Therefore, the school building is considered a safe environment if utilized
as an evacuation center should stronger earthquakes occur in the future.

5.3 Recommendations
Based on the findings and conclusions of the study, the following are
recommended:
For further studies, the following are recommended:
1. Investigate the school building by measuring the opening of the cracks
to check if the school building has mild or serious damage.
2. Reanalyze the school building considering higher magnitude for linear
static analysis and higher intensity scale for nonlinear dynamic analysis
using the STERA 3D software to check if the school building can
withstand even higher magnitude and higher intensity scale in the future.
 25

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books
ASEP (2015). National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP).
ISSN2094- 5477, 7th edition, Volume 1
Foz, Vicente B. (2005). The National Building Code of the Philippines and
Its Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations. Department Of
Public Works and Highways Manila Philippines.
Lago, Alberto. et al., (2018). Damping Technologies for Tall Buildings: Theory,
Design Guidance and Case Studies (1st ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann.
Rosales, J (2017). Earthquake Engineering (1st ed.). Delve Publishing LLC.

Published Thesis
Afifuddin, Mochammad (2020). The behavior of reinforced concrete structure due
to earthquake load using time history analysis.
Chandrakar, Jayshree et al. (June 2017). Study of Various Local and
Global Seismic Retrofitting Strategies - A Review.
Chitte, Chetan Jaiprakash (April 2020). Study of Seismic Retrofitting Techniques.
Fakharifar, Mostafa et al., (2014). Seismic Performance and Global Ductility
of Reinforced Concrete Frames with CFRP Laminates Retrofitted Joints.
Ferraioli, Massimiliano et al. (2017). Seismic Retrofit of a Reinforced Concrete
School Building Using Dissipative Steel Braces.
Gottala, Anirudh et al., (2016). Comparative Study of Static and Dynamic
Seismic Analysis of a Multistoried Building.
Hosseini A. et al., (n.d.). Analytical Investigation of Seismic Performance of
Exterior RC Beam-Column Joints Rehabilitated with New Scheme.
Jarder, Samantha Louise et.al., (2017). Infrastructure damage during the Feb
10, 2017 Surigao, Philippines’ earthquake.
Kahrizi, Mehdi et.al., (2020). Seismic Performance of School Building in 2017
Ezgeleh Earthquake, Iran.
 26

Lu, Da-Gang et al., (n.d). Global Seismic Reliability Analysis of Building Structures
Based on System-Level Limit States.
Mendis, Priyan. et al., (n.d.). Cyclic Structural Capacity Of R/C Frames
for Maximum Ductility and Inter-Story Drift.
Nair, Krishna G. et al., (2017). Seismic Analysis of Reinforced Concrete
Buildings – A Review.
Oreta, Andres Winston C. (2004). Understanding 2D Structural Analysis: Learning
Modules in the Modeling and Analysis of Framed Structures using GRASP.
Raissi M. et al., (January 2017). Seismic Retrofit of Iranian Masonry
School Buildings by Shotcrete.
Satyanarayanan, K.S. et al., (2019). Linear analysis of a three-dimensional multi-
storey steel-frame structure under varying temperatures.
Tanjung, Jafril et.al., (2019). Seismic Performance Evaluation of a Multistory
RC Building in Padang City.

Unpublished Thesis
Polancos, Ma. Carmen L. (March 2019). Comparative Study of
Strengthening Type Seismic Retrofitting Techniques of a Four Storey Cit-U
High School Building.
Yashima, Nobuyoshi. (July 2019). Earthquake Engineering. Anonymous. (2011).
PEER Ground Motion Database Web Application.

Internet Sources
Philippines: 10 February 2017 magnitude 6.7 Surigao del Norte earthquake
Philippines.https://reliefweb.int/report/philippines/philippines-10-february-
2017-magnitude-67-surigao-del-norte-earthquake. Retrieved on September
19, 2021
 27

APPENDIX A
TRANSMITTAL LETTERS
28
 2021 2022
AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL
ACTIVITIES
23-28 29-31 1-4 5-11 12-18 19-25 26-30 1-2 3-9 10-16 17-23 24-30 1-6 7-13 14-20 21-27 28-30 1-4 5-11 12-18 19-23 27-31 25-29 30-31 1-5 6-12 13-19 20-26 27-28 1-5 6-12 13-19 20-26 27-31 1-2 3-9 10-16 17-23 24-30
INITIAL PHASE
Listing of possible topics
Meeting with Group Members for Possible Topics
Presentation of Possible Topics by Dr. Yashima
Selecting of Final Topic and Title
Consultation with Thesis Adviser
CHAPTER 1
Rationale
Conceptual Framework
Problem Statement
Significance of the Study
Scope and Limitation
Definition of Terms
Consultation of Chapter 1
Approval of Chapter 1
Submission of Chapter 1
CHAPTER 2
Review of Related Literature
Theoretical Background
Consultation of Chapter 2
Approval of Chapter 2
Submission of Chapter 2
CHAPTER 3
Research Design
Research Environment
Research Respondents
Research Procedure
Gathering of Data
Consultation of Chapter 3
Approval of Chapter 3
Submission of Chapter 3
PROPOSAL
APPENDIX B

Presentation
REVISIONS
Chapters 1-3
CHAPTER 4
Linear Static Analysis
Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis
Analysis and Data Interpretation
Consultation of Chapter 4
Approval of Chapter 4
CHAPTER 5
Summary of Findings
Conclusion
Recommendation
TIMETABLE OF ACTIVITIES (GANTT CHART)

Consultation of Chapter 5
Approval of Chapter 5
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDICES
Reference Tables and Figures
Graphs
Computations Collation
Documentations
Turnitin Output
Curriculum Vitae
FINAL ORAL DEFENSE
Presentation
EDITING FOR SIGNATURES
29
 30

APPENDIX C
RESEARCH BUDGET

Table 5. Research Budget

EXPENDITURES AMOUNT (PHP)

Honorarium for Teachers ₱ 2000.00

Fair For the Actual Visit ₱ 1000.00

Meals During the Actual Visit ₱ 800.00

Bond papers ₱ 6.00

Letters Printing ₱ 20.00

Manuscript Printing ₱ 540

CD ₱ 150

TOTAL ₱ 4516.00
 31

APPENDIX D
REFERENCE TABLES

Table 6. Occupancy Category

OCCUPANCY CATEGORY OCCUPANCY OR FUNCTION OF STRUCTURE
• Occupancies having surgery and emergency treatment areas,
• Fire and Police Stations,
• Garages and shelters for emergency vehicles and emergency
aircraft,
• Structures and shelters in emergency preparedness centers,
• Aviation control towers.
• Structures and equipment in communication centers and other
facilities required for emergency response,
I Essential
Facilities • Facilities for standby power-generating equipment for
Category I structures.
• Tanks or other structures containing housing or supporting
water of other fire-suppression material or equipment required
for the protection of Category I, II, or III, IV and V structures
• Public school buildings.
• Hospitals,
• Designated evacuation centers and
• Power and communication transmission lines.
• Occupancies and structures housing or supporting toxic or
explosive chemicals or substances.
II Hazardous
• Non-building structures storing, supporting, or containing
Facilities
quantities of toxic or explosive substances.
• Buildings with an assembly room with an occupant capacity of
1,000 or more,
• Educational buildings such as museums, libraries, auditorium
with a capacity of 300 or more occupants,
• Buildings used for college or adult education with a capacity of
500 or more occupants,
• Institutional buildings with 50 or more incapacitated patients,
but not included in Category 1,
III Special
• Mental hospitals, sanitariums, jails, prisons, and other
Occupancy
buildings where personal liberties of inmates are similarly
Structures
restrained,
• Churches, Mosquesm and other Religion Facilities,
• All structures with an occupancy of 5,000 or more persons,
• Structures and equipment in power-generating stations, and
other public utility facilities not included in Category 1 or
Category II and required for continued operation.

• All structures housing occupancies or having functions not

IV Standard listed in Category I, II, or III and Category V.
Occupancy

V. Miscellaneous
• Private garages, carports, shed, sand, fences over 1.5m high.
Structures
 32

Table 7. Seismic Importance Factors

Seismic Importance Seismic Importance 2
Occupancy Category
Factor, I Factor, Ip
I. Essential Facilities 1.50 1.50
II. Hazardous Facilities 1.25 1.50
III. Special Occupancy Structures 1.00 1.00
IV. Standard Occupancy Structures 1.00 1.00
V. Miscellaneous structures 1.00 1.00

Table 8. Soil Profile Types

Soil Soil Profile Average Soil Properties for Top 30 m of Soil Profile
Profile name/Generic Shear Wave SPT, N Undrained Shear
type Description Velocity, Vs (m/s) (blows/300mm) Strength, SU (kPa)
SA Hard Rock >1500
SB Rock 760 to 1500
Very Dense soil
Sc 360 to 760 >50 > 100
and Soft Rock
SD Stiff Soil Profile 180 to 360 15 to 50 50 to 100
SE1 Soft Soil Profile <180 < 15 < 50
SF Soil Requiring Site-specific Evaluation

Table 9. Soil Properties

Soil consistency Undrained shear Strength, Su Ultimate skin friction
Very soft/soft 20 kPa 10 kPa/20 kPa
Medium stiff/stiff 40 kPa 20 kPa/40 kPa
Very stiff 80 kPa 60 kPa
Hard 160 kPa 100 kPa
Source: DPWH District Engineering Office, Surigao del Norte

Table 10. Seismic Zone Factor

ZONE 2 4
Z 0.20 0.40

Table 11. Seismic Source Types

Seismic Seismic Source Definition
Seismic Source Description
Source Type Maximum Moment Magnitude, M
Faults that are capable of producing
A large magnitude events and that have a 7.0 ≤ M ≤ 8.4
high rate of seismic activity
B All faults other than Types A and C 6.5 ≤ M < 7.0
Faults that are not capable of producing
large magnitude earthquakes and that
C M < 6.5
have a relatively low rate of seismic
activity
 33

APPENDIX E
SEISMIC ZONE MAP

Figure 4. Seismic Zone Map

 34

APPENDIX F
DISTRIBUTION OF ACTIVE FAULTS MAP

Figure 5. Distribution of Active Faults Map

 35

APPENDIX G
NEAR SOURCE FACTOR

Figure 6. Near Source Factor

 36

APPENDIX H
COMPUTATION OF WEIGHTS

Table 12. Weight 1F (Dead Load)

WEIGHT COMPUTATION FOR COLUMNS
Columns Volume Unit Weight Weight
n Width (m) Length (m) Height (m)
(below NGL) (mᵌ) (kN/mᵌ) (kN)
C1-1 12 0.45 0.45 3.85 0.78 23.54 220.23
C1-2 2 0.45 0.45 3.85 0.78 23.54 36.70
C2-1 13 0.60 0.60 3.85 1.39 23.54 424.14
C2-2 13 0.60 0.60 3.85 1.39 23.54 424.14
PC -1 10 0.15 0.40 3.85 0.23 23.54 54.38
1159.60
WEIGHT COMPUTATION FOR TIE BEAMS
Columns Volume Unit Weight
n b (m) Length (m) d (m) Weight (kN)
(below NGL) (mᵌ) (kN/mᵌ)
TB-1 13 0.40 7.00 0.50 1.40 27.60 502.32
TB-2 34 0.40 4.50 0.50 0.90 27.60 844.56
1346.88
WEIGHT COMPUTATION FOR WALLS
Vol. Net Vol./ Unit
W Vol. Weight
Walls n H (m) T (m) deducted Total Weight
(m) (mᵌ) /added (mᵌ) Vol. (mᵌ) (kN)
(kN/mᵌ)
Wall 1 (rear) 10 3.90 2.60 0.15 1.52 0.379 1.14 21.2 322.45
Wall 2
(front)
10 3.90 2.60 0.15 1.52 0.374 1.15 21.2 322.45
Wall 3
(sides)
6 6.40 2.60 0.15 2.50 N/A 2.50 21.2 317.49
Wall 4 veranda
Rectangle 1 14 0.8 0.975 0.15 0.12 N/A 0.12 21.2 34.7256
Rectangle 2 12 2.9 0.975 0.15 0.42 N/A 0.42 21.2 107.897
Trapezoid 10 1.1 0.975 0.15 0.16 N/A 0.16 21.2 34.1055
Wall 5 (cr, right)
side 1 6.4 2.6 0.15 2.50 N/A 2.50 21.2 61.692
front 1 3.9 2.6 0.15 1.52 0.180 1.34 21.2 34.344
back 1 3.9 2.6 0.15 1.52 N/A 1.52 21.2 36.252
Wall 6 (cr, left)
side 1 6.4 2.6 0.15 2.50 N/A 2.50 21.2 61.692
front 1 3.9 2.6 0.15 1.52 0.180 1.34 21.2 34.344
back 1 3.9 2.6 0.15 1.52 N/A 1.52 21.2 35.1072
1327.95
TOTAL WEIGHT (1F) = 3837.84
 37

Table 13. Weight 2F and 3F (Dead Load)

WEIGHT COMPUTATION FOR COLUMNS
Columns Volume Unit Weight
n Width (m) Length (m) Height (m) Weight (kN)
(2F to 3F) (mᵌ) (kN/mᵌ)
C1-1 12 0.45 0.45 3.20 0.65 23.54 183.05
C1-2 2 0.45 0.45 3.20 0.65 23.54 30.51
C2-1 13 0.60 0.60 3.20 1.15 23.54 352.54
C2-2 13 0.60 0.60 3.20 1.15 23.54 352.54
PC 10 0.15 0.40 3.20 0.19 23.54 45.20
963.82
WEIGHT COMPUTATION FOR SLABS
Volume Unit Weight
Slabs n Width (m) Length (m) Thickness (m) Weight (kN)
(mᵌ) (kN/mᵌ)
S-1 10 4.1 3.2 0.125 1.64 23.54 386.06
S-2 10 4.1 3.2 0.125 1.64 23.54 386.06
S-3 10 4.1 2.1 0.125 1.08 23.54 253.35
S-4 2 4.1 2.1 0.125 1.08 23.54 50.67
S-5 2 4.1 2.6 0.125 1.33 23.54 62.73
S-6 2 0.9 3.7 0.125 0.42 23.54 19.60
1158.46
WEIGHT COMPUTATION FOR GIRDERS AND BEAMS
Girder Net Vol./ Unit
B D Vol. Vol. deducted Weight
and n L (m) Total Vol. Weight
(m) (m) (mᵌ) /added (mᵌ) (kN)
Beams (mᵌ) (kN/mᵌ)
G-1 10 0.4 0.55 4.05 0.89 0.03 0.86 23.54 202.59
G-2 14 0.4 0.55 3.9 0.86 N/A 0.86 23.54 282.76
G-3 12 0.4 0.55 3.9 0.86 0.29 1.15 23.54 324.99
G-4 2 0.4 0.55 2 0.44 0.02 0.43 23.54 20.01
G-5 2 0.4 0.55 6.4 1.41 N/A 1.41 23.54 66.29
G-6 11 0.4 0.55 2 0.44 N/A 0.44 23.54 113.93
G-7 4 0.4 0.55 3.2 0.70 N/A 0.70 23.54 66.29
G-8 18 0.4 0.55 3.2 0.70 N/A 0.70 23.54 298.30
B-1 10 0.3 0.4 4.5 0.54 N/A 0.54 23.54 127.12
B-2 2 0.3 0.4 4.1 0.49 N/A 0.49 23.54 23.16
B-3 2 0.3 0.4 3.7 0.44 N/A 0.44 23.54 20.90
1546.35
Cantilever 10 3.9 0.12 0.6 0.2808 23.54 66.10032
Stairs 0.12 2.9 0.348 23.54 8.19192
Window 1 3.20 1.60 0.15 0.768
Window 2 1.45 1.60 0.15 0.348
Window 3 1.80 0.60 0.15 0.162
window 4 1.20 0.60 0.15 0.108
window 5 0.60 0.60 0.15 0.054
Door 1 0.90 2.10 0.15 0.284
Door 2 0.80 2.10 0.15 0.252
Railing (side) 1.00 0.88 0.15 0.131
 38

Table 13 continuation
WEIGHT COMPUTATION FOR WALLS
Vols. Net Vol./ Unit
W H Vol. Weight
Walls n T (m) subtract/ Total Vol. Weight
(m) (m) (mᵌ) (kN)
added (mᵌ) (kN/mᵌ)
Wall 1 (rear) 10 3.9 3.2 0.15 1.872 0.768 1.104 21.2 234.048
Wall 2 (front) 10 3.9 3.2 0.15 1.872 0.632 1.241 21.2 262.986
Wall 3 (sides) 6 6.4 3.2 0.15 3.072 N/A 3.072 21.2 390.758
Wall 4 veranda
Rectangle1 14 0.8 0.98 0.15 0.117 N/A 0.117 21.2 34.7256
Rectangle 2 12 2.9 0.98 0.15 0.424 N/A 0.42412 21.2 107.897
Trapezoid 10 1.1 0.98 0.15 0.161 N/A 0.16087 21.2 34.1055
Wall 5 (cr, right)
side 1 6.4 3.2 0.15 3.072 0.162 2.910 21.2 61.692
front 1 3.9 3.2 0.15 1.872 0.252 1.620 21.2 34.344
back 1 3.9 3.2 0.15 1.872 0.162 1.710 21.2 36.252
Wall 6 (cr, left)
side 1 6.4 3.2 0.15 3.072 0.162 2.910 21.2 61.692
front 1 3.9 3.2 0.15 1.872 0.252 1.620 21.2 34.344
back 1 3.9 3.2 0.15 1.872 0.216 1.656 21.2 35.1072
1327.952
TOTAL WEIGHT (WEIGHT 2 and 3) = 5070.88

Table 14. Weight 4F (Dead Load)

WEIGHT COMPUTATION FOR COLUMNS
Columns Height Volume Unit Weight
n Width (m) Length (m) Weight (kN)
(3F to 4F) (m) (mᵌ) (kN/mᵌ)
C1-1 12 0.45 0.45 3.225 0.65 23.54 184.48
C1-2 2 0.45 0.45 3.225 0.65 23.54 30.75
C2-1 13 0.60 0.60 3.225 1.16 23.54 355.29
C2-2 13 0.60 0.60 3.225 1.16 23.54 355.29
PC 10 0.15 0.40 3.225 0.19 23.54 45.55
971.35
WEIGHT COMPUTATION FOR SLABS
Unit
Thickness Volume
Slabs n Width (m) Length (m) Weight Weight (kN)
(m) (mᵌ)
(kN/mᵌ)
S-1 10 4.1 3.2 0.125 1.64 23.54 386.06
S-2 10 4.1 3.2 0.125 1.64 23.54 386.06
S-3 10 4.1 2.1 0.125 1.08 23.54 253.35
S-4 2 4.1 2.1 0.125 1.08 23.54 50.67
S-5 2 4.1 2.6 0.125 1.33 23.54 62.73
S-6 2 0.9 3.7 0.125 0.42 23.54 19.60
1158.46
 39

Table 14 continuation
WEIGHT COMPUTATION FOR GIRDERS AND BEAMS
Girder Volume Net Vol./ Unit
B D Vol. Weight
and n L (m) deducted Total Vol. Weight
(m) (m) (mᵌ) (kN)
Beams /added (mᵌ) (mᵌ) (kN/mᵌ)
G-1 10 0.4 0.55 4.05 0.89 0.03 0.86 23.54 202.59
G-2 14 0.4 0.55 3.9 0.86 N/A 0.86 23.54 282.76
G-3 12 0.4 0.55 3.9 0.86 0.29 1.15 23.54 324.99
G-4 2 0.4 0.55 2 0.44 0.02 0.43 23.54 20.01
G-5 2 0.4 0.55 6.4 1.41 N/A 1.41 23.54 66.29
G-6 11 0.4 0.55 2 0.44 N/A 0.44 23.54 113.93
G-7 4 0.4 0.55 3.2 0.70 N/A 0.70 23.54 66.29
G-8 18 0.4 0.55 3.2 0.70 N/A 0.70 23.54 298.30
B-1 10 0.3 0.4 4.5 0.54 N/A 0.54 23.54 127.12
B-2 2 0.3 0.4 4.1 0.49 N/A 0.49 23.54 23.16
B-3 2 0.3 0.4 3.7 0.44 N/A 0.44 23.54 20.90
1546.35
WEIGHT COMPUTATION FOR WALLS
Vols. Net Vol./ Unit
W Vol. Weight
Walls n H (m) T (m) subtract/ Total Vol. Weight
(m) (mᵌ) (kN)
added (mᵌ) (kN/mᵌ)
Wall 1 10 3.9 3.2 0.15 1.872 0.768 1.104 21.2 234.048
(rear)
Wall 2 10 3.9 3.2 0.15 1.872 0.632 1.241 21.2 262.986
(front)
Wall 3
(sides)
6 6.4 3.2 0.15 3.072 N/A 3.072 21.2 390.7584
Wall 4 veranda
Rectangle 1 14 0.8 0.98 0.15 0.117 N/A 0.117 21.2 34.7256
Rectangle 2 12 2.9 0.98 0.15 0.424 N/A 0.4241 21.2 107.8974
Trapezoid 10 1.1 0.98 0.15 0.161 N/A 0.1608 21.2 34.1055
Wall 5 (cr, right)
side 1 6.4 3.2 0.15 3.072 0.162 2.910 21.2 61.692
front 1 3.9 3.2 0.15 1.872 0.252 1.620 21.2 34.344
back 1 3.9 3.2 0.15 1.872 0.162 1.710 21.2 36.252
Wall 6 (cr, left)
side 1 6.4 3.2 0.15 3.072 0.162 2.910 21.2 61.692
front 1 3.9 3.2 0.15 1.872 0.252 1.620 21.2 34.344
back 1 3.9 3.2 0.15 1.872 0.216 1.656 21.2 35.1072
1327.952

Cantilever 10 3.9 0.12 0.6 0.2808 23.54 66.10032

Area Length Volume Unit Weight Weight

Stairs 0.12 1.45 0.174 23.54 4.09596
TOTAL WEIGHT (WEIGHT 3) = 5074.31
 40

Table 15. Weight 5F (Dead Load)

WEIGHT COMPUTATIONS FOR COLUMNS
Columns W (m) H (m) Total Volume Unit Weight Weight (kN)
Length(m) (mᵌ) (kN/ mᵌ)
Columns (C1) 0.45 0.45 22.75 4.606875 23.54 108.4458375
Column (C2) 0.6 0.6 42.25 15.21 23.54 358.0434
Column (PC1) 0.15 0.4 16.25 0.975 23.54 22.9515
Total 489.4407375
WEIGHT COMPUTATIONS FOR WALL
Vol. to be
Total Net Unit
T H Volume deducted/ Weight
Wall Length Vol. Weight
(m) (m) (mᵌ) added (kN)
(m) (mᵌ) (kN/mᵌ)
(mᵌ)
Wall (1) 0.15 1.075 151.32 24.401 8.30385 16.097 21.2 341.26
Parapet
0.1056 0.55 148.4 8.622 N/A N/A 21.2 182.79
Wall
Total 524.06
WEIGHT COMPUTATIONS FOR GIRDERS/BEAMS
Vol. to be Net Unit
Girders & W D Tol. L Vol. Weight
deducted/ Vol./Total Weight
Beams (m) (m) (m) (mᵌ) (kN)
added (mᵌ) Vol. (mᵌ) (kN/mᵌ)
G-1 0.4 0.55 45 9.9 0.3375 9.5625 23.54 225.1012
G-2 0.4 0.55 63 13.86 N/A N/A 23.54 326.2644
G-3 0.4 0.55 49.5 10.89 3.7125 14.6025 23.54 343.7429
G-4 0.4 0.55 5 10.89 0.0375 10.8525 23.54 255.4679
G-5 0.4 0.55 14 3.08 N/A N/A 23.54 72.5032
G-6 0.4 0.55 27.5 6.05 N/A N/A 23.54 142.417
G-7 0.4 0.55 28 6.16 N/A N/A 23.54 145.0064
G-8 0.4 0.55 126 27.72 N/A N/A 23.54 652.5288
B1 0.3 0.4 45 5.4 N/A N/A 23.54 127.116
B2 0.3 0.4 9 1.08 N/A N/A 23.54 25.4232
B3 0.3 0.4 8.1 0.972 N/A N/A 23.54 22.88088
Total = 2338.452
WEIGHT COMPUTATIONS FOR CANTILEVER SLAB
Width Total Length Unit Weight Weight
Slab Thickness(m) Vol. (mᵌ)
m) (m) (kN/mᵌ) (kN)
S1 0.12 0.6 39 2.808 23.54 66.10032
Partial Weight (kN) = 3418.051
PRELIMINARY COMPUTATIONS
Angle of Roof Truss 27.759
Length of Principal Rafter 9.8234
Half Plan Area 21.375
Half Slope Area 44.205
 41

Table 15 continuation
ROOF DEAD LOAD (From Top of Roof Beam to Apex Line of Roof)
DIMENSIONS
Spacing of Truss 4.5
Height of Truss 12.8
Rise 2.5
Span 9.5
No. of Purlins 10
Length of Shed 54
Dead Load for Roof Covering Material 150
Dead Load for Purlin 90
DEAD LOAD (One side of Truss)
Wt. of Roofing Material 6630.822913 No. of Trusses 12
Wt. of Purlin 1923.75 Total Roof Dead Load (in N) 247204.75
Self-weight of Roof Truss 1745.625 (In kN) 247.20475
Total 10300.19791
Load from concrete
1.3 49.5 0.1 21.2 136.422
1.6 4.5 0.1 21.2 15.264
2.5 4.75 0.1 21.2 25.175
176.861
Final Total Weight (kN) = 3842.117

Table 16. Total Weights (Dead Load + Live Load)

Live Load area Live load

Classroom 1.9200 378 725.76 1242.81
Corridor above
3.8300 135 517.05 1373.76
ground floor
First corridor 4.8000 135 648

Weight Dead Load Live Load Total weight

w1 3837.84 1373.76 5211.60 1F
w2 5070.88 1242.81 6313.69 2F
w3 5070.88 1242.81 6313.69 3F
w4 5074.31 1242.81 6317.12 4F
w5 3842.12 3842.12 5F
 42

APPENDIX I
LINEAR STATIC COMPUTATIONS

Table 17. Linear Static Parameters Computation

w1 3837.84 6.1 23410.824 w1h1
w2 5,070.88 9.3 47159.184 w2h2
w3 5070.88 12.5 63386 w3h3
w4 5074.31 15.7 79666.667 w4h4
w5 3842.12 18.9 72616.068 w5h5
22,896.03 286238.743

Seismic Source Type = A Magnitude > = 7.0

Zone = 4 Z = 0.4
Soil Profile = E
Importance Factor = 1.5
Na = 1.144
Nv = 1.488
Ca=0.44Na = 0.50336 0.50336
Cv = 0.96Nv = 1.42848 hn = 18.9
R or numerical coefficient of
5.5
global ductility capacity =
Ct = 0.0731
T = Ct(hn)^3/4 = 0.662618764 < 0.7 Ft = 0
Base Shear = V = CvIW/RT = 13461.67772
Vmin = 0.11CaIW 1901.616034
Vmin = 0.8ZNvIW/R = 2973.320085
Vmax= 2.5CaIW/R = 7857.917496

Use Vmax as V = 7857.917496

Fx 1F 642.6814259 642.6814259
Fx 2F 1294.628998
Fx 3F 1740.092739
Fx 4F 2187.034815
Fx 5F 1993.479517
Along transverse Axis
Along longitudinal Axis (3 Frames)
(13 Frames)
n= 13 n= 3
1F 49.43703276 1F 214.227142
2F 99.586846 2F 431.5429993
3F 133.8532876 3F 580.0309131
4F 168.2334473 4F 729.0116051
5F 153.3445783 5F 664.4931724
 43

Table 18. Inter-story Drift Angle Along Transverse Axis

Fx/n Story Story Drift
153.344578 5 67.82
168.233447 4 61.855
133.853288 3 53.191
99.586846 2 42.221
49.4370328 1 28.73 R= 5.5
Drift Limit= 0.025h
Drift
Story Δe hi ΔM Drift Angle
Limit
5 5.965 3200 22.9653 0.007176641 80 ok
4 8.664 3200 33.3564 0.010423875 80 ok
3 10.97 3200 42.2345 0.013198281 80 ok
2 13.491 3200 51.9404 0.016231359 80 ok
1 28.73 6100 110.611 0.018132869 152.5 ok
Correction:
1/40=0.025

Table 19. Inter-story Drift Angle Along Longitudinal Axis

Fx/n Story Story Drift
664.493172 5 50.424
729.011605 4 47.745
580.030913 3 42.43
431.542999 2 34.841
214.227142 1 24.683 R= 5.5
Drift Limit= 0.025h
Story Δe hi ΔM Drift Angle Drift Limit
5 2.679 3200 10.3142 0.003223172 80 ok
4 5.315 3200 20.4628 0.006394609 80 ok
3 7.589 3200 29.2177 0.009130516 80 ok
2 10.158 3200 39.1083 0.012221344 80 ok
1 24.683 6100 95.0296 0.015578615 152.5 ok
Correction:
1/40=0.025
 44

APPENDIX J
GRASP DEFLECTIONS

Figure 7. Deflection Along Transverse Axis

 45

Figure 8. Deflection Along Longitudinal Axis

 46

APPENDIX K
STERA 3D OUTPUTS

Figure 9. Seismic Performance Along X direction

Figure 10. Seismic Performance Along Y direction

 47

Figure 11. Inter Story Drift X-direction

Figure 12. Inter Story Drift Y-direction

 48

APPENDIX L
LOCAL MEMBER INVESTIGATION

Figure 13. Column Investigation along Longitudinal

 49

Figure 14. Column Investigation along Transverse

 50

APPENDIX M
LOCAL MEMBER INVESTIGATION SOLUTIONS
 51

APPENDIX N
DOCUMENTATIONS

Figure 15. Surigao National High School Building

Figure 16. Measuring Actual Measurements of the Building

 52

Figure 17. Sample Building Cracks

Figure 18. Sample Building Cracks

 53

Figure 19. Together with Surigao National High School Principal

Figure 20. Consultation with Dr. Yashima and Engr. Polancos

 54

APPENDIX O
TURNITIN/SIMILARITY INDEX

Figure 21. Chapter 1 Turnitin

55
 56

Figure 22. Chapter 2 Turnitin

 57

Figure 23. Chapter 3 Turnitin

 58

Figure 24. Chapter 4 Turnitin

Figure 25. Chapter 5 Turnitin


CURRICULUM VITAE
JUVY BRITNEY D. BASALO
Poblacion, Talisay City, Cebu
juvybritney@gmail.com
PERSONAL BACKGROUND
Home Address
Present Address
Date of Birth
Civil Status
Religion
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
Tertiary
Senior High School
Junior High School
Elementary
59
APPENDIX P
: Cabalan St., Poblacion, Talisay CIty, Cebu
: Cabalan St., Poblacion, Talisay CIty, Cebu
: August 23, 1999
: Single
: Roman Catholic
: Cebu Institute of Technology – University
N. Bacalso Avenue, Cebu City
(2018 – Present)
: Cebu Institute of Technology – University
N. Bacalso Avenue, Cebu City
(2016 - 2018)
: Talisay Malayan Academy
Lopez Jaena St., Poblacion, Talisay City
(2012 - 2016)
: Talisay City Central School
Jose Rizal St., Poblacion, Talisay City, Cebu
(2006 - 2012)
 60

ARABELLE P. BONHARDT
Carmenville Subd., Tunghaan, Minglanilla, Cebu
belle.bonhardt@gmail.com

PERSONAL BACKGROUND
Home Address : Crossing Naalad, City of Naga, Cebu
Present Address : Carmenville Subd., Tunghaan, Minglanilla
Date of Birth : December 03, 1999
Civil Status : Single
Religion : Roman Catholic

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

Tertiary : Cebu Institute of Technology – University

Senior High School
Junior High School
Elementary
N. Bacalso Avenue, Cebu City
(2018 – Present)
: St. Cecilia’s College – Cebu, Inc.
Highway Poblacion Ward II, Minglanilla, Cebu
(2016-2018)
: Naga National High School
West Poblacion, City of Naga, Cebu
(2012-2016)
: Naalad Elementary School
Naalad, City of Naga, Cebu
(2006-2012)

DAN JERALD M. DAAN
Cansojong, Talisay City, Cebu
danjerald.daan@cit.edu
PERSONAL BACKGROUND
Home Address
Present Address
Date of Birth
Civil Status
Religion
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
Tertiary
Senior High School
Junior High School
Elementary
61
: Cansojong, Talisay City, Cebu
: Cansojong, Talisay City, Cebu
: August 22, 1999
: Single
: Roman Catholic
: Cebu Institute of Technology – University
N. Bacalso Avenue, Cebu City
(2018 – Present)
: Cebu City National Science High School
Salvador St., Labangon, Cebu City
(2016-2018)
: Talisay City Science High School
Jose Rizal St., Poblacion, Talisay City, Cebu
(2012-2016)
: Talisay City Central School
Jose Rizal St., Poblacion, Talisay City, Cebu
(2006-2012)
 62

KENT A. GONZAGA
Lot 17 Blk 2 Ira Housing Subd., Baan Butuan City
kgonzaga38@gmail.com

PERSONAL BACKGROUND
Home Address : Ira housing Subd., Brgy. Baan, Butuan City
Present Address : Ira housing Subd., Brgy. Baan, Butuan City
Date of Birth : June 24, 1999
Civil Status : Single
Religion : Born-Again Christian

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

Tertiary : Cebu Institute of Technology – University

Senior High School
Junior High School
Elementary
N. Bacalso Avenue, Cebu City
(2018 – Present)
: Saint Joseph Institute of Technology –
University
Montilla Blvd, Butuan City, Agusan Del Norte
(2016-2018)
: Saint Joseph Institute of Technology -
University
Montilla Blvd, Butuan City, Agusan Del Norte
(2012-2016)
: Butuan Grace Christian School
Butuan City, Agusan Del Norte
(2006-2012)
 63

LYRIAMAE S. KIONISALA
Gemilina, Pilapilan, Yati, Liloan, Cebu
lyriasabugakionisala@gmail.com

PERSONAL BACKGROUND
Home Address : Pilapilan, Yati, Liloan, Cebu
Present Address : Pilapilan, Yati, Liloan, Cebu
Date of Birth : July 06, 1999
Civil Status : Single
Religion : Roman Catholic

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

Tertiary : Cebu Institute of Technology – University

Senior High School
Junior High School
Elementary
N. Bacalso Avenue, Cebu City
(2018 – Present)
: Mandaue City Comprehensive National High
School
Jose L.Briones, Mandaue City. Cebu
(2016-2018)
: Mandaue City Comprehensive National High
School
Jose L.Briones, Mandaue City, Cebu
(2012-2016)
: Bakilid Elementary School
Bakilid, Mandaue City, Cebu
(2006-2012)
 64

ROLAN ANTHONY D. RAZA

Brgy. 1 Pob., Dapa, Surigao del Norte
rolanraza42@gmail.com

PERSONAL BACKGROUND
Home Address : Brgy. 1 Pob., Dapa, Surigao del Norte
Present Address : Brgy. 1 Pob., Dapa, Surigao del Norte
Date of Birth : October 26, 1999
Civil Status : Single
Religion : Roman Catholic

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

Tertiary : Cebu Institute of Technology – University

Senior High School
Junior High School
Elementary
N. Bacalso Avenue, Cebu City
(2018 – Present)
: Siargao National Science High School
Brgy. 6 Pob., Dapa, Surigao del Norte
(2016 – 2018)
: Siargao National Science High School
Brgy. 6 Pob., Dapa, Surigao del Norte
(2012 – 2016)
: Dapa Central Elementary School
Brgy. 10 Pob., Dapa, Surigao del Norte
(2006 – 2012)