Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Adamson University Buildings As Built using Fragility Curves

Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Adamson University Buildings As Built using Fragility Curves

Baylon, Michael B

Contact

Baylon

Contact

Michael B.

Contact

α Manuel L. Quezon University

Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Adamson University Buildings As Built using Fragility Curves

Article Fingerprint

ReserarchID

ORK62

Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Adamson University Buildings As Built using Fragility Curves Banner

AI TAKEAWAY

Connecting with the Eternal Ground

Abstract

Adamson University buildings’ age ranges from 10 years to 86 years. The structures’ age can be one of the factors of their vulnerability to seismic hazard. Possibility of having different damages after the event of seismic activities can be measured through structural modeling and subjecting the latter to earthquake simulation. In the field of structural reliability, fragility analysis can be used in the assessment of structures. This type of analysis can be carried out by taking the structural performance using nonlinear analyses: Pushover Analysis and Time History Analysis. Five (5) buildings in Adamson University were analyzed and modeled in a structural analysis software based from the developed as-built plans with rebound hammer test results for the compressive strength of concrete. These structural models were subjected through a total of 22 ground motion data (from both Philippine and Japan), with each ground motion data normalized from 0.1g to 1.0g of peak ground acceleration (PGA). The result of fragility analysis has some limitations such as the use of as-built plan of each building assessed. The lowest probability of exceedance of 9% at a PGA of 0.4g as per National Structural Code of the Philippines specification is based from the fragility curve of FRC Building under a “Complete Damage” or damage rank of “As”.

References

56 Cites in Article

Reference Format

A Cinitha,P Umesha,Nagesh Iyer (2014). An overview of corrosion and experimental studies on corroded mild steel compression members.
Afp (2017). Strong 6.2 magnitude earthquake rocks Philippines.
A Ang,W Tang (2007). Probability Concepts in Engineering: Emphasis on Applications to Civil and Environmental Engineering.
K Ang,R Valentin,A Naval,J Manabat (2018). Seismic vulnerability assessment of Father Regis Clet (FRC) in Adamson University based from As-Built Plan.
B Arago,C Calipusan,J Ornido,M Vitug (2018). Seismic vulnerability assessment of Meralco Building in Adamson University based on As-Built Plan.
D Arandia,N Rosete,J Santos,C Sarmiento (2018). Seismic vulnerability assessment of Saint Vincent Building in Adamson University based from developed As-Built Plans.
M Baylon (2015). Seismic assessment of transportation lifeline in Metro Manila.
M Baylon (2017). Developing seismic fragility curves in assessing bridge pier.
M Baylon (2017). Seismic assessment of LRT Line 1 Monumento to 5th Avenue carriageway pier using fragility curve.
Renjun Orain,Mark Cezar,Merlin Marfa,Ian Tiao,Pepito Guerrero,Milagros Ortega,Fanny Almeniana (2012). Optimizing Customer Decision-Making with Enhanced Product Evaluation Using Aspect-Based Sentiment Analysis and Naïve Bayes Algorithm.
Michael Baylon,Lessandro Garciano,Takeshi Koike (2012). Assessing the performance of a transportation lifeline in the Philippines, the Light Rail Transit (LRT) System, under a large magnitude earthquake.
Huseyin Bilgin (2013). Fragility-based assessment of public buildings in Turkey.
J Brooks-Bartlett (2018). Unknown Title.
C Charlottesville (2014). Guideline for AS-Built Plans.
Eunsoo Choi,Reginald Desroches,Bryant Nielson (2004). Seismic fragility of typical bridges in moderate seismic zones.
& Chopra,Goel (2001). Evaluation of Nonlinear Static Analysis for Special Moment Resisting.
& Chopra,Goel (2012). Nonlinear to Static Analysis to Assess Seismic Performance and Vulnerability of Code-Conforming RC BUILDING.
A Chopra (2012). Existing air sparging model and literature review for the development of an air sparging optimization decision tool.
A Cinitha,P Umesh,N Iyer (2012). Nonlinear to Static Analysis to Assess Seismic Performance and Vulnerability of Code-Conforming.
G Deirlein,A Reinhorn,M Wilford (2010). NEHRP Seismic Technical Brief.
G Deodatis,M Tantala (2002). Development of seismic fragility curves for tall buildings.
Amr Elnashai,Luigi Di Sarno (2008). Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering.
J Evers (2015). Ring of Fire.
F Hosseinpour,A Abdelnaby (2017). Fragility curves for RC frames under multiple earthquakes.
L Garciano,T Koike (2006). Managing the risks of a wind farm in typhoon-prone areas.
Jayadipta Ghosh,Jamie Padgett (2010). Aging Considerations in the Development of Time-Dependent Seismic Fragility Curves.
Gregory Deierlein,Andrei Reinhorn,Carl Willford (2010). Assessing and Retrofitting.
Hazus (2003). Multi-hazard Loss Estimation Methodology.
Hazus (2013). Quantitative Relationship Between Pieris brassicae Population and Damage in Cauliflower.
Hazus-Mh (2013). Retrieved from A Federal Emergency Management Agency: HAZUS-MH.
Mh (2013). Hazus Loss Estimation Software Earthquake Model revised Utah database updated through 2013-Prepared for the Utah Division of Emergency Management.
Luis Ibarra,Ricardo Medina,Helmut Krawinkler (2005). Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration.
R Ignacio,M Santos,P Ulibas,E Fenix (2018). Seismic vulnerability assessment of Cardinal Santos Building in Adamson University based on Developed As-Built Plan.
(2013). Republic of the Philippines Department of Public Works, Transportation and Communications BUREAU OF POSTS Manila.
C Kafali,M Grigoriu (2004). ASCE specialty conference on probabilistic mechanics and structural & geotechnical reliability.
Kazi Karim,Fumio Yamazaki (2001). Effect of earthquake ground motions on fragility curves of highway bridge piers based on numerical simulation.
Helmut Krawinkler,G Seneviratna (1998). Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation.
B Nielson (2005). Analytical fragility curves for highway bridgesi in moderate seismic zones.
A Nowak,K Collins (2013). Reliability of structures.
Young‐ji Park,Alfredo Ang (1985). Mechanistic Seismic Damage Model for Reinforced Concrete.
Deo Llamas,Jeffrey Perez,Crystel Legaspi,Jonard Acid,John Naing,Kathleen Papiona (2001). Stress releases and seismic gaps: Earthquake sequences strike Eastern Mindanao, Philippines.
Deo Llamas,Jeffrey Perez,Crystel Legaspi,Jonard Acid,John Naing,Kathleen Papiona (2006). Stress releases and seismic gaps: Earthquake sequences strike Eastern Mindanao, Philippines.
Mary Fatima D. Lompot,Rodel C. Pomentil (2018). USING SOCIAL MEDIA AS A MARKETING TOOL FOR TRAVELLERS.
A Quereshi,J Raju (2013). Lima, Peru: Inca earthquake-resistant construction and a bogus American earthquake prediction.
Karthik Ramanathan,Jamie Padgett,Reginald Desroches (2012). Temporal evolution of seismic fragility curves for concrete box-girder bridges in California.
Requiso (2013). Research Design.
D Requiso (2013). Seismic Fragility of Transportation Lifeline Piers in the Philippines, under Shear Failure, Relationship between the damage index (DI) and the damage rank (DR).
Jason Ongpeng,Cheryl Roxas,Iona Rubinos,Andrew Escleto,Sherie Tan,Erica Bolivar,Martin Kalaw,Michael Promentilla (2013). Reinforced alkali-activated concrete with induced corrosion.
D Requiso,A Balili,L Garciano,(n.D Development of Seismic Fragility Curves of a Transport Lifeline Pier in the Philippines for Flexure.
Roison Narvaez,Marilane Ferrer,Ralph Peco,Neil Sangilan,Ronalyn Topacio (2013). Uses of Telehealth in Elderly Patients during COVID-19 Pandemic: An Integrative Review.
Masanobu Shinozuka,M Feng,Jongheon Lee,Toshihiko Naganuma (2003). Statistical Analysis of Fragility Curves.
Siti Nur,Aqilah Saruddina,F (2015). Fragility curves for low-and mid-rise buildings in Malaysia.
J Sorensen (2004). Notes in Structural Reliability Theory and Risk Analysis.
S Stefanidou,A Kappos (2013). OPTIMUM SELECTION OF RETROFIT MEASURES FOR R/C BRIDGES USING FRAGILITY CURVES.
N Ufuk Hancilara (2014). Earthquake vulnerability of school buildings: Probabilistic structural fragility analyses.
D Yap (2012). Metro Manila Water Security Study.

Download References

Funding

No external funding was declared for this work.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

No ethics committee approval was required for this article type.

Data Availability

Not applicable for this article.

How to Cite This Article

Baylon, Michael B. 2018. \u201cSeismic Vulnerability Assessment of Adamson University Buildings As Built using Fragility Curves\u201d. Global Journal of Research in Engineering - E: Civil & Structural GJRE-E Volume 18 (GJRE Volume 18 Issue E1): .

More Citation Formats

Select Citation Style:

Download Citation

Download Article

GJRE Volume 18 Issue E1
Pg. 29- 49

Explore Journals Explore Volume Read This Issue

Journal Specifications

Crossref Journal DOI 10.17406/gjre

Print ISSN 0975-5861

e-ISSN 2249-4596

Keywords

Not Found

Classification

GJRE-E Classification: FOR Code: 290899

Submission ReceivedDecember 14, 2017
Peer Review Double Blind
Handling Editor
Accepted January 1, 2018
Published January 15, 2018

Version of record

v1.2

Issue date

July 4, 2018

Language

Experiance in AR

Explore published articles in an immersive Augmented Reality environment. Our platform converts research papers into interactive 3D books, allowing readers to view and interact with content using AR and VR compatible devices.

View in VR

Read in 3D

Your published article is automatically converted into a realistic 3D book. Flip through pages and read research papers in a more engaging and interactive format.

View in 3D

Article Matrices

Total Score: 102

Country: Philippines

Subject: Global Journal of Research in Engineering - E: Civil & Structural

Authors: Baylon, Michael B. (PhD/Dr. count: 0)

View Count (all-time): 221

Total Views (Real + Logic): 3091

Total Downloads (simulated): 1495

Publish Date: 2018 07, Wed

Monthly Totals (Real + Logic):

Month 1: 31 views
Month 2: 54 views
Month 3: 55 views
Month 4: 35 views
Month 5: 36 views
Month 6: 47 views
Month 7: 32 views
Month 8: 39 views
Month 9: 36 views
Month 10: 36 views
Month 11: 35 views
Month 12: 31 views
Month 13: 39 views
Month 14: 36 views
Month 15: 43 views
Month 16: 23 views
Month 17: 15 views
Month 18: 31 views
Month 19: 18 views
Month 20: 30 views
Month 21: 31 views
Month 22: 21 views
Month 23: 22 views
Month 24: 24 views
Month 25: 40 views
Month 26: 25 views
Month 27: 45 views
Month 28: 22 views
Month 29: 35 views
Month 30: 28 views
Month 31: 25 views
Month 32: 34 views
Month 33: 47 views
Month 34: 37 views
Month 35: 23 views
Month 36: 27 views
Month 37: 30 views
Month 38: 15 views
Month 39: 25 views
Month 40: 47 views
Month 41: 39 views
Month 42: 46 views
Month 43: 41 views
Month 44: 24 views
Month 45: 28 views
Month 46: 16 views
Month 47: 25 views
Month 48: 19 views
Month 49: 23 views
Month 50: 33 views
Month 51: 38 views
Month 52: 32 views
Month 53: 40 views
Month 54: 13 views
Month 55: 32 views
Month 56: 23 views
Month 57: 31 views
Month 58: 24 views
Month 59: 40 views
Month 60: 36 views
Month 61: 22 views
Month 62: 16 views
Month 63: 34 views
Month 64: 42 views
Month 65: 22 views
Month 66: 24 views
Month 67: 27 views
Month 68: 22 views
Month 69: 29 views
Month 70: 31 views
Month 71: 45 views
Month 72: 28 views
Month 73: 22 views
Month 74: 30 views
Month 75: 29 views
Month 76: 31 views
Month 77: 32 views
Month 78: 36 views
Month 79: 19 views
Month 80: 18 views
Month 81: 29 views
Month 82: 22 views
Month 83: 44 views
Month 84: 20 views
Month 85: 46 views
Month 86: 18 views
Month 87: 38 views
Month 88: 16 views
Month 89: 37 views
Month 90: 22 views
Month 91: 18 views
Month 92: 37 views
Month 93: 44 views
Month 94: 41 views

Total Views: 3091

Total Downloads: 1495

2026 Trends

Published Article

Our website is actively being updated, and changes may occur frequently. Please clear your browser cache if needed. For feedback or error reporting, please email [email protected]