Manuscript

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Earthquake is a calamity that causes sudden shaking of the
ground due to the release of stress within the rocks along the faults
or by the volcanic activity. It is most common to occur in places
near the Pacific Ring of fire which is an area in the Pacific Ocean
with large number of volcanic activity present. (Ohnaka, 2013)
Earthquake may cause massive damage to structures that were
not properly designed to withstand certain magnitudes before and to
structures that is damaged over the long run of its lifeline. With
earthquake’s unpredictable occurrence, it possesses the greatest
threat to structures and is often the concern in the design of
buildings and bridges. Damages that would happen in the future can
be reduced if seismic assessment is done on a structure.
As the Philippines is an island country that is located between
two major tectonic plate which is the Eurasian and Pacific plates
and near the Pacific ring of fire, it makes the country as one of the
many countries in the world that is vulnerable to earthquake
(Philippine NDCC, 1990).
Based from the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and
Seismology or also called as PHIVOLCS, the country is

experiencing an average of five earthquakes per day between 1589
to 1990 that results liquefaction, landslides and tsunamis (ADB,
1994). The country experienced numerous major earthquakes that
has a magnitude of 7.3 up to 8.3 in the year 1944 to 1993 (Rantucci,
1994).
In the year 1990, the country recorded an earthquake that has
a magnitude of 7.8 near Dagupan City, Luzon, it had affected some
cities like Baguio and Cabanatuan and produced a 125 km-long
ground rupture from Dingalan, Aurora to Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija and
also result of strike-slip movement within the Philippine Fault
System, which killed over 1,500 people and caused damage of at
least 10 billion pesos (PHIVOLCS, 2001).
For an island country, bridges are naturally built for an
accessible transportation to a different land masses. Bridges, to be
less vulnerable once an earthquake strikes, require seismic design
which is continually upgrading for modern bridges. Many of
constructed bridges that do not attain the requirements of the new
level of seismic design are needed to be retrofitted. In addition,
bridges can only be retrofitted when it is socially, economically and
technically beneficial; those that fail to achieve these requirements
are supposed to be replaced with new bridges (Priestley, Seible and
Calvi, 1996). Being built in the late 1990’s The Plaridel bridge in
Pangasinan was chosen as the research focus of the study as it was
suspected to be vulnerable to damage during an earthquake.
Failure to study the effect of an earthquake to a structure may
cause not only property lost but also lives of many, due to this
matter Seismic assessment is done to prevent or at least reduce the
damage.
Seismic assessment started long ago during the Spain
colonization in the Philippines, observation of the effects to the
structure after an earthquake by naked eye and documentation of
each recorded effects has now evolved to different methods that
analyses the performance of a building using calculations and
software. With the present technology and knowledge, assessing a
structures response in an earthquake can be done with less
uncertainty. One of the most important elements in evaluating the
Seismic Assessment of a structure is the so-called fragility curve
(Cherng, 2001). The development of the seismic fragility curve
takes into account the vulnerability of a structure wherein which for
each damage state (slight, moderate, extensive and complete
damage); the percentage probability of exceeding a particular
damage is plotted with the ground motion intensity (expressed in
terms of peak ground acceleration or PGA) (Karim & Yamazaki,
2001). The research study will yield results of seismic assessment
of the Plaridel bridge in Carmen, Pangasinan using fragility curve,

that can be used by designers to establish if there is a need for
retrofitting of the bridge to comply with the required design of the
National Building Code of the Philippines.
1.2 General Objective
The researchers aim to develop seismic fragility curve that
will assess the Plaridel bridge performance under a large magnitude
of earthquake.
1.2.1 Specific Objectives:
 To determine the damage indices and ranks of Plaridel
bridge from pushover analysis and time history analysis
using the following parameters:
Displacement Ductility
Ultimate Ductility
Hysteretic Energy Ductility
 To determine sets of Fragility curves from the parameters of
objective 1 .
 To determine from the derived set of fragility curves if the
structure meets 0.4g peak ground acceleration design as
required by the National Structural Code of the Philippines .
1.3 Statement of the Problem
The Philippines is vulnerable to earthquake, a need for
assessment to structures for possible failure should be considered

wherein the focus of the research is the Plaridel bridge in Carmen,
Pangasinan of the Philippines.
 What are the different damage index and damage rank of
Plaridel Bridge f r o m p u s h o v e r a n a l y s i s a n d t i m e h i s t o r y
analysis using the following parameters?
Displacement Ductility
Ultimate Ductility
Hysteretic Energy Ductility
 What will be the resulting set of plotted fragility curves from
the computed parameters for this study ?
 Will the structure meet the 0.4g peak ground acceleration
design as required by the National Structural Code of the
Philippines upon analysis ?
1.4 Significance of the Study
Since the Philippines is vulnerable to earthquake, research in
vulnerability of the bridge’s structure to large magnitude of
earthquake is important.
 This study can benefit the national government in terms of
providing convenient passage such as brige being assessed and
ready for retrofitting against expected earthquake that may
happen.
 Assessing the structure will secure the safety of the
community accessing the bridge.
 Assessing the structure will benefit the Department of Public
Works and Highway (DPWH) as the study serves as reference
for the bridges condition against earthquake and for future
retrofitting plans.
 This study can also help students and/or researchers as a
reference for their related literature in case it involves
seismic assessments.
1.5 Scope and Limitations
The scope of the study is to assess the structural performance
of the Plaridel bridge when subjected to large magnitude of
earthquakes due to shear. Study is limited to the probability of the
damage state the structure will receive during an earthquake only,
any other effect of the earthquake to the structure is not within the
research.
SAP2000 will be the software to be used for modelling of the
structure and application of Nonlinear Static Analysis (Pushover
Analysis) and Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis (Hysteresis Analysis).
The research study adapted the study done by Requiso et al. in
2013 which was limited to study of piers only. Studying all the
elements of the bridge requires system analysis in which the study
done by Requiso et al. in 2013 would not be applicable.

Ground motion data to be used are limited to the following:
1.Tohoku-Kanto-FKS March 11, 2011 Magnitude 9.0.
2.Tohoku-Kanto-AIC March 11, 2011 Magnitude 9.0
3.Tohoku-Kanto-HYG March 11, 2011 Magnitude 9.0
4.Tohoku-SIT March 11, 2011 Magnitude 9.0
5.Bohol October 15, 2013 Magnitude 7.2
6.Mindoro Cainta, Rizal November 15, 1994 Magnitude7.1
7.Mindoro Station Quezon City November 15, 1994 Magnitude 7.1
8.Mindoro Station Marikina City November 15, 1994 Magnitude 7.1
9.Kobe Shin-Osaka January 16, 1995 Magnitude 6.9
10.Kobe Takarazuka January 16, 1995 Magnitude 6.9
11.Kobe Takatori January 16, 1995 Magnitude 6.9
12.Kobe Nishi-Akashi January 16, 1995 Magnitude 6.9
13.Kobe Kakogawa January 16, 1995 Magnitude 6.9
14.Kobe KJM January 16, 1995 Magnitude 6.9
15.Kobe HIK January 16, 1995 Magnitude 6.9

1.6 Conceptual Framework
The following research design are made use for investigation.

INPUT
Structural Plan of The
Ground Motion Data
Plaridel Bridge
PROCESS
Modeling of Plaridel Bridge Evaluation of Nonlinear Static
Philippines using SAP2000 A n a l&
y sN
i so n l i n e a r D y n a m i c
Analysis
OUTPUT
Seismic Fragility Curves
Figure 1.1 Conceptual Framework
The structural plans of the Plaridel bridge will be obtained
from the Department of Public Works and Highways. Ground motion
data were obtained from PHIVOLCS, PEER, K-NET and KIK-net.
Modelling of the structural plans will be done using the
software SAP2000. Collecting all the ground motion data, it was
used to simulate the structural model created in the software. In
SAP2000, Nonlinear Statics Analysis (Pushover Analysis and

Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis (Time-History Analysis) were applied
to obtain values to be used for the ductility factors and use these
factors for the probability of exceedance. Which is then plotted
with the Peak Ground Acceleration with the Probability of
exceedance as its function.
The anticipated output of this research paper are the seismic
fragility curves of the Plaridel bridge.

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
2.1 Ground Motion data for Time History Analysis
On October 15,2013, Philippines experienced one of the most
damaging earthquake that destroyed many structures such as
heritage and older churches. That latest recorded earthquake data
occurred at Bohol. In the last 40 years, 12 earthquakes that are
destructive has been recorded by The Philippine Institute of
Volcanology and Seismology, also known as PHIVOLCS. The most
damaging among the said earthquakes were the Central Luzon
Earthquake, happened on 1990, and the Mindanao Earthquake,
happened on 1976. Approximately 6,000 individuals were killed
during the calamity in Mindanao Earthquake and caused almost 400
million US dollars (present value) in damage while in Central Luzon
Earthquake, approximately 1,000 individuals were killed during the
incident and caused almost 400 million US dollars (present value)
in damage too (Mangosing, 2013).
Since 1959, earthquakes with a magnitude of 6.5 plus on the
Richter scale were listed by the U.S. Geological Survey, having a
total of 168 significant earthquakes in the Philippines equivalent to
every 2.5 years per event. A movement in the West Valley Fault can
severely damage almost 100,00 residential buildings and is

explained by the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and
Seismology, Dir. Renato Solidum. It is anticipated to generate an
earthquake with over a 7.2 magnitude.
Among the stated earthquakes happened in the Philippines,
the nation assumed that Metro Manila will be isolated by the
anticipated west valley fault quake, The Philippines prepares for the
said disaster. Though, it is said that no event ever happened along
the West Valley Fault is known by the locals (NDRRMC, 2010).
The product was improved by inputs from different
shareholder that comprised the Metro Manila Earthquake Impact
Reduction Study (MMEIRS) Technical Working Group. The project
of MMEIRS was implemented from the year 2002 to 2004 from the
combining efforts of the Metro Manila Development Authority
(MMDA), Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology
(PHIVOLCS) and the Japan International Cooperation Agency
(JICA).
Based on the statement made by MMEIRS, the Metro Manila
Council utilize a resolution, “declaring the commitment to make
Metro Manila seismically safe, and establishing the mutual aid
agreement among the local government units of Metro Manila in the
events of disasters.” The national government agencies such as the
National Disaster Risk Reduction Management Council (NDRRMC),
academic institutions and utility companies or professional

organizations are included by the shareholder. The project that had
been stated earlier, construct a final output for earthquake impact
reduction for Metro Manila. 18 phenomena hazard which is ground
shaking and liquefaction had been develop by the project. The scope
of the phenomena from the possible movement along the different
earthquake source zones surrounding or in the capital including the
Valley Fault System. The result from the three worst case
phenomena comes from the study that assesses for the projected loss
including possible breakdown to the facilities ( Alexander D., 1997).
Metro Manila is the economic and cultural center of the
Philippines which is composed of 4 municipalities and 13 cities by
its official boundaries. It is one of the most populated areas in
Southeast Asia with a population of almost 13 million at current
time. Locally, several earthquake sources are located around the
Metro Manila as it is located in Luzon. In order to handle a
potential disastrous earthquake in Manila, starting actions as soon
as possible and preparing an earthquake calamity reduction plan.
The magnitude that many research studies specify the active phases
of Valley Faults is around 7 or more (Census of Population, 2015).
2.2 Seismic Analysis
The citizen assumes that buildings or structures around the
region are safe. The people are relying on the proficiency of the
professionals who are liable on the design, construction and

maintenance of the structure that it will not collapse. Safety can be
obtained if the danger to person reduced to satisfactory values.
Moreover, risk is the anticipation of a certain danger to happen
(Schneider, 2006).
Determining the damage of an earthquake used various
methods, one of this is by prediction and the other one is by a
highly mathematical guess. It is very important to assess the
damage triggered by an earthquake to a definite range. Calculating
the likelihood of spotting such losses during earthquakes that will
occur someday in the future, or pre-event risk assessment, or all
through the instantaneous aftermath of an earthquake, or post-event
risk assessment, is a systematic approach of a lifeline seismic risk
assessment. Lifeline seismic risk is valuable for numerous
applications including the calculation, or estimation after an
earthquake, of amounts such as the monetary losses. Also, in the
procedure of management of lifeline seismic risk, it is often the
first step. The number of individuals that obtain injuries, the
casualties in a certain area, the possibility that lifeline networks for
power, transportation and even water, all of it may be disturbed
while predicting quantities such as the monetary losses related with
constructions and infrastructures maintained by a corporation or
assure by an insurance company (Jayaram, 2010).

Structural analysis methods can be divided into the following
five categories:
Equivalent static analysis defines a series of forces acting on
a building to represent the effect of earthquake ground motion,
typically defined by a seismic design response spectrum.Response
spectrum analysis permits the multiple modes of response of a
building to be taken into account (in the frequency domain)
(Nouredine Bourahla, 2014).
In Linear dynamic analysis the response of the structure to
ground motion is calculated in the time domain, and all phase
information is therefore maintained. Only linear properties are
assumed. The analytical method can use modal decomposition as a
means of reducing the degrees of freedom in the analysis
(Debiprasad Ghosh, 2015).
Nonlinear static analysis, this approach is also known as
"pushover" analysis. A pattern of forces is applied to a structural
model that includes non-linear properties (such as steel yield), and
the total force is plotted against a reference displacement to define
a capacity curve. This can then be combined with a demand curve
(typically in the form of an acceleration-displacement response
spectrum (ADRS)). This essentially reduces the problem to a single
degree of freedom (SDOF) system (Requiso et al., 2013).

Nonlinear dynamic analysis utilizes the combination of ground
motion records with a detailed structural model, therefore is capable
of producing results with relatively low uncertainty. In nonlinear
dynamic analyses, the detailed structural model subjected to a
ground-motion record produces estimates of component
deformations for each degree of freedom in the model and the modal
responses are combined using schemes such as the square-root-sum-
of-squares (Requiso et al., 2013).
One of the methods to develop a seismic fragility curve is by
using nonlinear static analysis and nonlinear dynamic analysis.
Seismic Fragility curve shows the probability of damage state a
structure would receive during an earthquake. The assessment will
be important to aid in decision making for the design of retrofitting
of a structure (Requiso, 2013).
Seismic fragility curves are often used to represent a
structures vulnerability to certain seismic hazard. However, despite
the efforts to make the simulations as accurate as possible, fragility
curves from the data collected still cannot represent the actual
behaviour of the as-built structure. Seismic vulnerability of
structures are greatly affected by certain factors such as age,
deterioration factors, presumably creep and shrinkage of concrete,
and prestress losses including relaxation of tendons (Feng, Torbol &
Gomez, 2013).
In a study made by Feng, Torbol & Gomez (2013), monitoring
devices that will be used to record accelerations over a period of
time were placed in three bridges namely JRO, FRO, and WSO
Bridges. On a long term basis, gathered data were used to create
fragility curves for the bridges. In the search of a particular trend
however, the researchers didn’t find any.
2.3 Nonlinear Static Analysis
Nonlinear static analysis or Pushover analysis is an analysis
that roughly determines the strength and drift capability of a
structure when subjected ground motions (Estella, Gamit, Liolio, &
Reyes, 2015) . The process of the analysis is to apply a force that
will represent earthquakes behavior pattern and subject it to the
structure. The pattern of the applied force will be monotonically
increasing. This process will then yield different data of the
performance of the structure and provide an adequate information of
the ground motion’s effect to the structural components. (Govind,
Shetty, & Hegde, n.d.). Nonlinear static analysis shows the
relationship between the displacement of the structure against the
forces applied to it. The analysis can be done in two ways, first is
the force controlled pushover analysis where the structure is pushed
until it reaches a certain force and second is the displacement
controlled pushover analysis where the structure is pushed until it

reaches a specified displacement (Estella, Gamit, Liolio, & Reyes,
2015).
2.4 Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis
The nonlinear dynamic analysis utilizes a more precise
assessment thus providing more reliable data with few uncertainty
of the structural performance during an earthquake by using ground
motion records together with a detailed structural model. In this
analysis the detailed structural model subjected to a ground-motion
record produces estimates of component deformations for each
degree of freedom in the model and the modal responses are
combined using schemes such as the square-root-sum-of-squares
( Wi l s o n & C l o u g h , 1 9 9 9 ) . T h e t i m e h i s t o r y a n a l y s i s i s t h e m o s t
rational method for earthquake due to its it capability to account for
all sources of n o n l i n e a r i t y. This analysis is a step-by-step
integration analysis performed in the time domain. Although this
method relies on intensive computation, it is the preferred method
for investigating the response of structures subjected to seismic
excitation (Kim & Thai, 2010). When considering for the complete
performance assessment of a structure, the development of the
hysteresis model is a necessity since the said model is capable of
representing all the important modes of deterioration of a structure
(Ibarra, Medina, & K r a w i n k l e r, 2005). Hysteresis models are
classified into three types, the bilinear model, Pinching model and
Peak-oriented model. For the bilinear model, this model is based on
the standard bilinear hysteretic rules with kinematic strain
hardening. These basic rules are preserved once post-capping and
residual strength branches are included (Applied technology
council, 1996). For the peak-oriented model, this model keeps the
basic hysteretic rules proposed by Clough and Johnston (1966) and
later modified by Mahin and Bertero (1976) to include strength
c a p p i n g a n d r e s i d u a l s t r e n g t h . L a s t l y, t h e p i n c h i n g m o d e l i s s i m i l a r
to the peak-oriented model but this time the reloading consists of
two parts; which are the maximum permanent deformation and the
maximum load experienced in the direction of loading (Ibarra,
M e d i n a , & K r a w i n k l e r, 2 0 0 5 ) .
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Design
The researchers aim to construct a seismic fragility curve of
the Plaridel bridge using Nonlinear Static Analysis and Nonlinear
Dynamic Analysis.
The researchers went to the Department of Public Works and
Highways to obtain the structural plans of the Plaridel bridge.
Using the SAP2000 software, the structure was modelled and
subjected to ground motions. Thereafter, the structure was analysed
using pushover analysis and time history analysis. Analysis
produced parameter values that was use for the construction of
seismic fragility curves.
This research referred to the method for constructing fragility
curve and for the nonlinear static analysis by (Requiso, 2013) and
to the method for the nonlinear dynamic analysis by Karim &
Yamazaki (2001).
3.2 Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework of the study shown in Figure 3.1
shows the step by step process the researcher followed. With the
structural plans of the structure, assessment was done using the
method of nonlinear static and nonlinear dynamic analysis of
SAP2000 to construct seismic fragility curves.
GROUND MOTION DATA STRUCURAL MODEL
NONLINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS
(TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS)
(PUSHOVER ANALYSIS)
PARAMETERS FOR
DUCTILITY FACTOR
DAMAGE INDEX
DAMAGE RANK
(HAZUS, 2003)
PROBABILITY OF
OCCURRENCE
PROBABILITY OF
EXEEDANCE
3.2.1 Modelling of the structure using SAP2000
The Plaridel bridge was symmetrically designed from the
length of pier to pier to the reinforcement design of the pier itself,
due to its symmetrically designed elements the researchers focused
on a pier that is assumed to be more susceptible to failure when
subjected to earthquake loads. Pier 9 which has one of the most
exposed length has been chosen and was modelled in SAP2000.
To be able to create a model of the Pier 9, the column and the
coping beam must be defined in SAP2000 shown in Figure 3.2 and
Figure 3.3 respectively. The researchers used section designer to
design the column and coping beam.
Figure 3.1 Theoretical Framework

Figure 3.2 Column pier defined
Figure 3.3 Coping beam defined
After defining the properties of the pier, the researchers
assigned the properties based on the specified length of the plan in
a modelled frame as shown in Figure 3.4, This model was used for
the Pushover analysis and Time history analysis.

Figure 3.4 Assigned frame properties
Figure 3.5 shows the assignment of loadings to the coping
beam of the model which are the concrete slabs, girders, diaprahms
and live loads above it. The dead load and live load calculations are
shown in appendix A.
Figure 3.5 Assigned dead and live load
After creating the model together with the loads, the
researcher have performed the simulation for both nonlinear static
and nonlinear dynamic analyses.
3.2.2 Nonlinear Static Analysis

A step by step procedure in conducting the pushover analysis
in SAP2000 software was used by the researcher based from the
procedure of study of Requiso in 2013.
 The researchers created and defined the model using
SAP2000 shown in Figure 3.6.
Figure 3.6 Model of pier 9 in Sap2000
 The researchers then defined the properties for the
pushover hinges. These pushover hinges are plastic hinges
formed when a section reaches its moment capacity which
the SAP2000 will show the yield and max discplacement.
Figure 3.7 shows the defined hinge and Figure 3.8 shows
the assigned hinges.

Figure 3.7 Defined hinges
Figure 3.8 Assigned hinges
 After defining and assigning the hinges, the researchers
defined the load cases for the pushover analysis shown in
Figure 3.9 and Figure 3.10. The following were examples
from pushover analysis at x direction.

Figure 3.9 Defined dead load case
Figure 3.10 Defined pushover X load case
 The researchers ran the simulation according to pushover
analysis after they defined all the load cases of the model
as shown Figure 3.11. The SAP2000 generated the
pushover curve as shown in Figure 3.12, then the
researcher exported the table coming from SAP2000 to
Microsoft Excel to get the exact value of yield
displacement and max displacement as shown in Table 3.1.
This values will be used to compute for the ductility

factors together with the results of the time history
analysis.
Figure 3.11 Load cases set to ran
Figure 3.12 Pushover curve at x direction
Table 3.1 Data of pushover curve at x direction

3.2.3 Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis
The next procedure was the time history analysis using the
following step by step procedure of Karim and Yamasaki
(2001).
 The researchers defined the time history functions shown
in Figure 3.13. The researchers input the ground motion
data that were acquired in terms of 0.2g to 2.0g. The total
number of ground motion data used was 15 for x direction
and 15 for y direction.
Figure 3.13 Time history function 0.2g Bohol at x direction

 After importing all the ground motion data to SAP2000,
the researchers defined the load cases to be used for the
nonlinear dynamic analysis or the time history analysis.
This was done for both x and y direction. Figure 3.14
shows defined load case for 0.2g excitation of Bohol
ground motion data at x direction.
Figure 3.14 Defined load case for Time history analysis
 Using the previous model from the pushover analysis but
removing all the pushover load cases, the researcher ran
the simulation by subjecting the model to dead load, live
load, and different ground motion data individually. Figure
3.15 shows 1 of 30 ground motion data used for the
analysis.
Figure 3.15 Bohol time history load cases at x direction
 The SAP2000 then generated the hysteresis model of the
structure shown in Figure 3.16 which was exported to
AutoCAD 2014 for the computation of its area and
determination of maximum displacement shown in Figure
3.17.
Figure 3.16 Hysteresis model of 0.2g Bohol at x direction

Figure 3.17 Hysteresis model exported to AutoCAD
3.2.4 Ductility Factors
After getting the values needed from both nonlinear static and
nonlinear dynamic analysis, the ductility factors have been obtained
by using equations 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3. To come up with seismic
fragility curves, these ductility factors are needed (Karim &
Yamazaki, 2001).
δ max ( dynamic )
μd = (3.1)
δy
δ max ( static )
μu = ( 3.2 )
δy
Eh
μh = (3.3)
Ee
Where:
μu = ultimate Ductility
μd = displacement Ductility
μh = hysteretic energy ductility

δ max ( static )= d i s p l a c e m e n t a t m a x i m u m r e a c t i o n a t t h e p u s h o v e r c u r v e
(static)
δ max ( dynamic )= maximum displacement at the hysteresis model
(dynamic)
δ y= y i e l d d i s p l a c e m e n t f r o m t h e p u s h - o v e r c u r v e ( s t a t i c )
Eh = h y s t e r e t i c e n e r g y , i . e . , a r e a u n d e r t h e h y s t e r e s i s m o d e l
Ee = y i e l d e n e r g y , i . e . , a r e a u n d e r t h e p u s h - o v e r c u r v e ( s t a t i c ) b u t
until yield point only.
An example of computed Ductility factors from Bohol
earthquake is shown in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 Ductility Factors for Bohol earthquake at x direction
3.2.5 Damage Index Calculation
Damage indices was then computed using equation 3.4 after
ductility factor was obtained. This damage index were used to
determine the damage rank.

μd+ β μh
I D= (3.4 )
μu
Where β is the cyclic loading factor taken as 0.15 for bridges.
3.2.6 Damage Rank by Park & Ang
By using Table 3.1, the damage rank (DR) for each damage
i n d e x ( I D) h a v e b e e n i d e n t i f i e d ( R e q u i s o , 2 0 1 3 ) .
Table 3.3 Damage index (DI) and damage rank (DR) relationship
Source: (Park & Ang, 2003)
Damage index ( Damage

I D) Definition
rank (DR)
0.00 < ID ≤ 0.14 D No damage
0.14 < ID ≤ 0.40 C Slight damage
0.40 < ID ≤ 0.60 B Moderate damage
0.60 < ID ≤ 1.00 A Extensive damage
1.00 ≤ ID As Complete damage
Figure 3.4 Damage Rank classified in Bohol earthquake

3.2.6 Damage Ratio
Damage ratio was computed by dividing the number of records
to the number of damage rank. The damage ratio was plotted with
the ln (PGA) on a lognormal probability paper to obtain the mean
and standard deviation for the Probability of Exceedance.
3.2.7 Probability of Exceedance
After getting the mean and standard deviation, the probability
of exceedance (PR) has been computed using equation 3.5. Where Φ
is the standard normal distribution, X is the peak ground
acceleration, λ is the mean and ξ is the standard deviation.
P R= ( ln ( Xξ )−λ ) ( 3.5)
The Following equations (3.1-3.4) were adapted from Karim and
Yamazaki (2001).
3.2.8 Fragility Analysis
Then by plotting the acquired probability of exceedance vs the
peak ground acceleration (PGA normalized to different excitation),
the seismic fragility curve can be obtained (Karim & Yamazaki,
2001).
Chapter 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Results from the Pushover analysis from x and y direction are
shown Figure 4.1, Figure 4.2, Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 respectively.
Figure 4.1 Pushover curve x-direction
Figure 4.2 Pushover curve y-direction

Table 4.1 Data of pushover curve at x direction
Table 4.2 Data of pushover curve at y direction
The yield displacement was determined as the first point in
which the slope of the pushover curve changes and the max
displacement was determined as the point in which the slope of the
pushover curve goes downward. Yield displacement is the
displacement in which the pier turned into plastic state. Max
displacement is the displacement at which maximum shear force was
applied.
The result only shows that y direction is the stronger axis than
that of x direction, as it can withstand a shear force of 8934.519KN
at 0.148325m displacement while x direction can only withstand
shear force of 5653.095KN at 0.156212m displacement.
Figure 4.3 to Figure 4.12 shows the hysteresis models at 0.2g
to 2.0g of Bohol earthquake at x direction.
Figure 4.3 0.2g Hysteresis model Figure 4.4 0.4g Hysteresis model
The hysteresis
Figure 4.11 1.8g Hysteresis model Figure 4.12 2g Hysteresis model

model shows the movement of the Pier at joint 3 in terms of
displacement. The graphs show how the displacement of the joint
increases as the peak ground
acceleration increase from 0.2g
to 2.0g that also increased each
areas of the hysteresis model
when computed. Comparing all
the results of determining damage ranks from Appendix D, the areas
of the hysteresis model affects the damage rank significantly, as the

areas of the hysteresis model increase the damage ranking also
increases.
Table 4.3 and Table 4.4 shows the number tally of each
occurences of earthquake data in x and y direction respectively.
Table 4.3 All damage ratio at x direction
Table 4.4 All damage ratio at y direction
Based from the count of damage ranking at x and y direction,
Damage rank As or the complete damage rank, has the most number
count but occurred mostly at higher peak ground acceleration which
shows how vulnerable the pier is on stronger magnitudes of
earthquake.
Figure 4.13 and Figure 4.14 shows the relationship of PGA
and percentage of damage. The result showed that as the PGA

increase from 0.2g to 2.0g the percentage of higher damage state
also increases.
The result in time history analysis also proves the result in
the push over curves how y direction is the strong axis as the
probability of damage state at y direction is lower as the peak
ground acceleration increases with y direction still having a
probability to receive extensive damage at 1.4g while x direction
shows complete damage state only at that range.
Figure 4.13 Probability of Occurrence at x direction

Figure 4.14 Probability of occurance at y direction
1 SEISMIC FRAGILITY CURVES IN X DIRECTION

0.9
0.8
0.7
PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION IN G

C B A As
Figure 4.15 Seismic Fragility curves in x direction

SEISMIC FRAGILITY CURVES IN Y DIRECTION
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION IN G
C B A As
Figure 4.16 Seismic Fragility curves in y direction
Figure 4.15 and Figure 4.16 are the sets of fragility curves
due to shear failure of the Plaridel bridge’s pier. From the obtained
fragility curves, it can be observed that as the peak ground
acceleration increases the damage rank also increases. It also shows
how the performance of the bridge’s pier at each peak ground
acceleration varies, it requires high peak ground acceleration for
the bridge to show high probability of damage states. At the design
requirement of 0.4g PGA of the NSCP, the bridge has 53.02%
probability of exceeding Slight damage rank at x direction and
52.07% of probability of exceeding Slight damage rank at y

direction which are the highest probability of exceedance among the
damage states at that point showing how the bridge meets the
minimum requirement design.
It can also be observed that from earthquakes like tohoku
with magnitude 9.0 coming from Japan the bridge has a high
probability of exceeding Complete damage state implying that the
bridge would collapse in magnitudes equal to or higher than of the
said earthquake.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION
The general objective of this study was to construct fragility
curves that will assess the Plaridel bridge’s performance against
large magnitude of earthquake. The researchers have met the
objective of the study and have made conclusions for this study.
 Base from the ductility factors the determined damage
indeces were ranging from 0.00847 to 14.8542 which
classified the damage ranking of the Plaridel bridge as
6.33%, 15.66%, 7%, 9% and 62% of D (no damage), C
(slightly damage), B (moderate damage), A (extensive
damage) and As (complete damage) respectively. The As or
the complete damage state has the highest count among all
the probability of damage state but based from the results,
this damage state mostly occurs at higher peak ground
acceleration which are less likely to occur in the country.
It only shows how vulnerable the pier is as of today to
magnitudes of earthquake starting from 1.4g PGA and
higher, this may be due to the bridge being built more than
20 years ago or its design years ago was not adequate for
recent large magnitudes of earthquake.

 The sets of fragility curves due to shear failure shows that
the bridge piers are still safe from earthquakes that could
occur in the Philippines since it still requires higher
magnitudes of earthquake to cause significant damage to it
and these results gives us evidence to its structural safety.
 The bridge meets the minimum required design of the
National Structural Code of the Philippines of 0.4g peak
ground acceleration as it showed 53.02% probability of
exceeding Slight damage state at x direction and 52.07%
probability of exceeding slight damage state at y direction
which are the highest probability of exceedance implying
the bridge still have the strength to withstand that peak
ground acceleration from totally collapsing.

CHAPTER V1
RECOMMENDATIONS
After assessing the Plaridel bridge using fragility curves, the
researchers recommends the following:
a. Application of other modes of failure in order to add
comparison to other fragility curves in order to determine
which would be most applicable when conducting an
assessment
b. Usage of the most recent ground motion data locally
available at study’s current time period in order to produce
more reliable results.
c. Application of other methods of seismic assessment on a
structure as to compare the results with the fragility
curves.
d. Focus on other structural elements of the Plaridel bridge as
a focus of their study for to further do the total assessment
of the bridge.
e. Application of retrofitting schemes to the bridge that would
increase its strength against large magnitudes of earthquake
as the Philippines is in danger of being hit by the “Big
One”, it would prevent loss of lives and investments and

the cost of having to build a new bridge that to retrofit an
existing would be lesser.
f. Avoid accessing the bridge during or after an earthquake
having 1.4g peak ground acceleration or higher occurred.

References
Akkar, S. (2014). Basic Earthquake Engineering: From Seismology to
Analysis and Design. Springer.
Bangash, M. (2008). Shock, Impact and Explosion. Springer Berlin
Heidelberg.
Bangash, M. (2011). Earthquake Resistant Buildings. Springer
Science & Business Media.
Bastow, I., Wookey, J., & Helffrich, G. (2013). The Seismic Analysis
Code: A Primer and User's Guide.
Baylon, M. B. (2015). Reliability analysis of bridge pier using interval
uncertainty analysis. a graduate thesis. EARTHQUAKE
ENGINEERING.
Castaldo, P. (2013). Integrated Seismic Design of Structure and
Control Systems. Springer Science & Business Media.
Cerveny, V. (2005). Seismic Ray Theory.
Datta, T. K. (2010). Seismic Analysis of Structures. Wiley.
Dolšek, M. (2011). Protection of Built Environment Against
Earthquakes. Springer Science & Business Media.
Elert, G. (2010). The Physics Hypertext Book.
Elnashai, A., & Sarno, L. D. (2008). Fundamentals of Earthquake
Engineering. Wiley.
Erdik, M., & Toksoz, N. (2010). Strong Ground Motion Seismology
Estella, V. A., Gamit, J. D., Liolio, R. L., & Reyes, J. V. (2015). Seismic
Assessment of Lambingan Bridge.
Hayes, K. (2014). Seismic Assessment and Remediation. Koros Press
Limited.
Karim, K. R., & Yamazaki, F. (2001). Effect of earthquake ground
motions on fragility curves of highway bridge piers based on
numerical simulation. EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND
STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS .
Lavan, O., & Stefano, M. D. (2014). Seismic Behaviour and Design of
Irregular and Complex Civil Structures. Springer Science &
Business Media.
Mangosing, F. (2013). Death toll from Bohol quake jumps to 8.5.
Bohol: Philippine Daily Inquirer.
NDRRMC. (2010).
Nemati, K. M. (2005). Temporary Structures: Formworks for
Concrete. Tokyo.
Ohnaka, M. (2013). The Physics of Rock Failure and Earthquakes.
Onajite, E. (2013). Seismic Data Analysis Techniques in Hydrocarbon
Exploration.
PHIVOLCS. (2001). The July 16 Luzon Earthquake: A Technical

Monograph.
Psycharis, I. (2015). Seismic Assessment, Behavior and Retrofit of

Heritage Buildings and Monuments. Springer International
Publishing.
Requiso, D. (2013). Seismic Fragility of Transportation Lifeline Piers in
the Philippines, under Shear Failure, Relationship between the
damage index (DI) and the damage rank (DR).
Earthquake Engineering , 20, 38.
Richards, P., & Aki, K. (2002). Quantitative Seismology .
Schneider, J. (2006). Introduction to Safety and Reliability of Structures.
Takewaki, I., Moustafa, A., & Fujita, K. (2012). Improving the
Earthquake Resilience of Buildings. Springer Science & Business
Media.
Taranath, B. (2004). Wind and Earthquake Resistant Buildings:
Structural Analysis and Design. CRC Press.
Yilmaz, A. A., & Wasti, S. T. (2012). Analysis and Design of Bridges.
Springer Science and Business Media.
Alcaraz, R. P., Cuadra, C. J., & Damian, R. S. (2015). Seismic

assessment of Navotas fish port complex.
Caloocan: Undergraduate Thesis; University of the East - Caloocan.
Algura, D. O., Decal, A., Quilang, J. R., & Romero, E. J. (2015). Seismic
Assessment of Tullahan Bridge
(Malabon-Valenzuela). Caloocan: Undergraduate Thesis; University of

the East - Caloocan.
Ang, A. H., & Tang, W. H. (2007). Probability Concepts in Engineering:

Emphasis on Applications to Civil and Environmental Engineering
Volume 1 (2nd ed.). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Baylon, M. B. (2015). Seismic assessment of transportation lifeline in
Metro Manila. 2nd CAMANAVA
Studies Conference (pp. 1-7). Caloocan: University of the East -

Caloocan.
Canlas, L., Mallanao, R. N., San Diego, A., & Santiago, M. A. (2015).
Seismic assessment of Bangkulasi bridge piers. Caloocan:
Undergraduate Thesis; University of the East - Caloocan.
Choi, E., DesRoches, R., & Nielson, B. (2004). Seismic fragility of

typical bridges in moderate seismic zones. Engineering Structures,
187-199.
Chopra, A. K. (2012). Dynamic of Structures (Theory and Applicationsto

Earthquake Engineering).
United States of America: Pearson Education, Inc.
Cruz, F. G., Gueco, F. E., Matammu, D. L., & Maglanoc, B. S. (2015).

Seismic assessment of TullahanUgong
Bridge piers due to shear failure using fragility curves (Caloocan-

Valenzuela)
Caloocan: Undergraduate Thesis; University of the East - Caloocan.
Del Carmen, M. O., Kakilala, M., Santos, K., & Vicedo, N. (2015).
Seismic assessment of Light Rail
Transit Line 1 South Extension. Caloocan: Undergraduate Thesis;

University of the East -Caloocan.
Gomez, H., Torbol, M., & Feng, M. (2013). Fragility analysis of highway
bridges based on long-term monitoring data. Computer-Aided
Civil and Infrastructure Engineering.
HAZUS-MH. (2013, July 26). Retrieved September 04, 2015, from A

Federal Emergency Management
Agency Website: http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-

1716-25045-6422/hazus_mr4_earthquake_tech_manual.pdf
APPENDIX A
COMPUTATION OF DEAD LOAD AND LIVE LOAD
Due to the Plaridel Bridge’s symmetrically designed elements,
the researchers considered the dead load as half of each span above
the Pier 9. The researcher’s used AutoCAD to model the slab,
railings, girders and diaphragm shown in Figure A.1 and used the
AutoCAD’s command massprop to compute for the volume which is
t h e n m u l t i p l i e d b y 2 4 K N / m3 t o c o m p u t e f o r t h e d e a d l o a d .
Figure A.1 Model of span at top of pier 9
Figure A.2 Computation of equivalent load

9972.961kN
Uniformly Distributed Dead Load=
11.5 m
Uniformly Distributed Dead Load=¿ 8 6 7 . 2 1 4 k N / m
Plaridel Bridge’s live load was based from AASHTO HS20-44
that specified a trailer truck as designated load shown in Figure
A.3.
Figure A.3 AASHTO HS20-44 trailer
The units was converted by the researchers into International
System Units (SI).
8 kips = 35.59 kN
32 kips = 142.34 kN
14 ft = 4.27m
30 ft = 9.14 m
Since each span of the bridge was symmetrical, any pier
within the bridge’s span can be considered to produce the maximum
shear force when live load is applied. Pier 9, having one of the most
exposed height of pier, was considered to be the critical pier.
The researchers used Autodesk Force Effect to compute for
the maximum shear force produced by the pier upon loading based
from AASHTO HS-44. The number of trailer with 1m space was
computed to be (50m) / (4.27m + 9.14m + 1m) = 6.9 rounded off to
7.
7 trailers was placed between Pier 8, Pier 9 and Pier 10 and
produced a maximum shear force of 1214.175KN at Pier 9 as shown
in Figure A.3, Figure A.4 and Figure A.5.

Figure A.3 Autodesk Force effect result
Figure A.4 Autodesk Force effect result

Table A.5 Autodesk Force effect data tabulation
The live load for Pier 9 was computed using the formula based
from AASHTO HS-44:
Total Live Load,LL = Pier Reaction x no.of lanes x impact factor
Where:
AASHTO Impact factor= 50/(L+125)≤0.3
L is in feet, 100 m = 328 ft
AASHTO Impact factor = 50/(164+125)
AASHTO Impact factor = 0.1104 or 11.04%
Total Live Load,LL = (1214.175)(2)(1+0.1104)

Total Live Load, LL = 2696.44kN
Total Uniform Live Load =2696.44kN/11.5m
Total Uniform Live Load = 234.473kN/m
APPENDIX B
(PUSHOVER ANALYSIS RESULTS)

Figure B.1 Pushover curve x-direction
Figure B.2 Pushover curve y-direction

Figure B.3 Tabulated data of pushover curve at x direction
Figure B.4 Tabulated data of pushover curve at y direction
APPENDIX C
(HYSTERESIS MODEL)
X – direction
Bohol
Figure C.1 Figure C.2

Figure C.5
Figure C.10
Kobe-HIK
Figure C.15
Figure C.20
Kobe-Kakogawa
Figure C.25
Figure C.30
Kobe-KJM
Figure C.35
Figure C. 38 Figure C.39
Figure C.40
Kobe-Nishi Akashi
Figure C.45
Figure C.50
Kobe-Shin Osaka
Figure C.55
Figure C.60
Kobe-Takazaru
Figure C.65
Figure C.70
Kobe-Takatori
Figure C.75
Figure C.80
Mindoro-MRK
Figure C.85
Figure C.90
Mindoro-PHV
Figure C.95
Figure C.100
Mindoro-SKB
Figure C.105
Figure C.110
Tohoku-AIC
Figure C.115
Figure C.120
Tohoku-FKS
Figure C.125
Figure C.130
Tohoku-HYG
Figure C.135
Figure C.140
Tohoku-SIT
Figure C.145
Figure C.150
Bohol
Figure C.155
Figure C.160
Kobe-HIK
Figure C.165
Figure C.170
Kobe-Kakogawa
Figure C.175
Figure C.180
Kobe-KJM
Figure C.185
Figure C.190
Kobe-Nishi-Akashi
Figure C.195
Figure C.200
Kobe Shin-Osaka
Figure C.201
Figure C.202
Figure C.204
Figure C.203
Figure C.205
Figure C.206
Figure C.207
Figure C.210
Kobe-Takarazu
Figure C.215
Figure C.220
Kobe-Takatori
Figure C.225
Figure C.230
Mindoro-MRK
Figure C.235
Figure C.240
Mindoro-PHV
Figure C.245
Figure C.250
Mindoro-SKB
Figure C.255
Figure C.260
Tohoku-AIC
Figure C.265
Figure C.270
Tohoku-FKS
Figure C.275
Figure C.280
Tohoku-HYG
Figure C.285
Figure C.290
Tohoku-SIT
Figure C.295
Figure C.300
APPENDIX D
(HYSTERESIS RESULT, DUCTILITY FACOTORS, DAMAGE
INDEX, DAMAGE RANK)
ALONG X DIRECTION
Figure D.1 Bohol
Figure D.2 Kobe-HIK
Figure D.3 Kobe-Kakogawa

Figure D.5 Nishi-Akashi
Figure D.6 Kobe-Shin Osaka

Figure D.7 Kobe-Takazaru
Figure D.8 Kobe-Takatori
Figure D.9 Min-MRK

Figure D.10 Min-PHV
Figure D.11 Min-SKB
Figure D.12 Tohoku-AIC

Figure D.14 Tohoku-HYG
Figure D.15 Tohoku-SIT

ALONG Y DIRECTION
Figure D.16 Bohol
Figure D.17 Tohoku-AIC
Figure D.18 Tohoku-FKS

Figure D.19 Tohoku-HYG
Figure D.20 Tohoku-SIT
Figure D.21 Min-MRK

Figure D.22 Min-PHV
Figure D.23 Min-SKB
Figure D.24 Kobe-HIK

Figure D.25 Kobe-KJM
Figure D.26 Kobe-Nishi Akashi
Figure D.27 Kobe-Kakogawa

Figure D.28 Kobe-Takatori
Figure D.29 Kobe-Takazaru
Figure D.30 Kobe-Shhin Osaka

APPENDIX E
(DAMAGE OCCURENCES, DAMAGE RATIO)
ALONG X DIRECTION
Figure E.1 Bohol Earthquake
Figure E.2 Kobe Earthquake
Figure E.3 Mindoro Earthquake

Figure E.4 Tohoku Earthquake
Figure E.5 All Earthquake

ALONG Y DIRECTION
Figure E.6 Bohol Earthquake
Figure E.7 Kobe Earthquake
Figure E.8 Mindoro Earthquake

Figure E.9 Tohoku Earthquake
Figure E.10 All Earthquake

APPENDIX F
(PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE COMPUTATION)
ALONG X DIRECTION
Figure F.1
Figure F.2
Figure F.3
ALONG Y DIRECTION
Figure F.4
Figure F.5
Figure F.6
APPENDIX G
(Certificate and Reciept)

Manuscript

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Manuscript

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER I

1.1 Background of the Study

Earthquake is a calamity that causes sudden shaking of the

or by the volcanic activity. It is most common to occur in places

with large number of volcanic activity present. (Ohnaka, 2013)

Earthquake may cause massive damage to structures that were

not properly designed to withstand certain magnitudes before and to

earthquake’s unpredictable occurrence, it possesses the greatest

threat to structures and is often the concern in the design of

be reduced if seismic assessment is done on a structure.

As the Philippines is an island country that is located between

many countries in the world that is vulnerable to earthquake

(Philippine NDCC, 1990).

Based from the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and

Seismology or also called as PHIVOLCS, the country is

to 1990 that results liquefaction, landslides and tsunamis (ADB,

1994). The country experienced numerous major earthquakes that

has a magnitude of 7.3 up to 8.3 in the year 1944 to 1993 (Rantucci,

In the year 1990, the country recorded an earthquake that has

a magnitude of 7.8 near Dagupan City, Luzon, it had affected some

cities like Baguio and Cabanatuan and produced a 125 km-long

ground rupture from Dingalan, Aurora to Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija and

also result of strike-slip movement within the Philippine Fault

System, which killed over 1,500 people and caused damage of at

least 10 billion pesos (PHIVOLCS, 2001).

For an island country, bridges are naturally built for an

accessible transportation to a different land masses. Bridges, to be

less vulnerable once an earthquake strikes, require seismic design

which is continually upgrading for modern bridges. Many of

constructed bridges that do not attain the requirements of the new

level of seismic design are needed to be retrofitted. In addition,

bridges can only be retrofitted when it is socially, economically and

technically beneficial; those that fail to achieve these requirements

are supposed to be replaced with new bridges (Priestley, Seible and

suspected to be vulnerable to damage during an earthquake.

Failure to study the effect of an earthquake to a structure may

matter Seismic assessment is done to prevent or at least reduce the

Seismic assessment started long ago during the Spain

colonization in the Philippines, observation of the effects to the

structure after an earthquake by naked eye and documentation of

each recorded effects has now evolved to different methods that

analyses the performance of a building using calculations and

software. With the present technology and knowledge, assessing a

structures response in an earthquake can be done with less

uncertainty. One of the most important elements in evaluating the

Seismic Assessment of a structure is the so-called fragility curve

(Cherng, 2001). The development of the seismic fragility curve

takes into account the vulnerability of a structure wherein which for

each damage state (slight, moderate, extensive and complete

damage); the percentage probability of exceeding a particular

damage is plotted with the ground motion intensity (expressed in

terms of peak ground acceleration or PGA) (Karim & Yamazaki,

2001). The research study will yield results of seismic assessment

of the Plaridel bridge in Carmen, Pangasinan using fragility curve,

retrofitting of the bridge to comply with the required design of the

National Building Code of the Philippines.

1.2 General Objective

The researchers aim to develop seismic fragility curve that

will assess the Plaridel bridge performance under a large magnitude

1.2.1 Specific Objectives:

 To determine the damage indices and ranks of Plaridel

bridge from pushover analysis and time history analysis

using the following parameters:

Hysteretic Energy Ductility