You are on page 1of 9



Jose A. Sy1, Naveed Anwar2, Thaung Htut Aung3

President/CEO, Sy^2 + Associates, Inc., Philippines
Executive Director, AIT Consulting, Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand
Projects Coordinator, AIT Consulting, Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand

Abstract: This paper presents the seismic evaluation, and proposed retrofit for the Ninoy Aquino International Airport
Terminal 1, Manila, Philippines, completed in 1981. Further, this tackles the structural performance evaluation criteria, finite
element modelling of the building, and the overall performance of the building based on the analysis results. Moreover, seismic
evaluation and retrofit design against Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE), ASCE, FEMA and ACI documents were
generally used as guidelines. The building was primarily checked to satisfy Collapse Prevention performance level against 2475-

Key words : Performance-Based Design, Buckling Restrained Braces, Maximum Gradual Evaluation

INTRODUCTION 1.2 Acceptance Criteria for Collapse Prevention Performance

Level (at 2475-year Return Period Earthquake)
Sy^2 + Associates, Inc., in partnership with AIT Consulting at
Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Thailand, carried out the
Seismic Evaluation of NAIA Terminal 1 Building, located in Acceptance Criteria:
Manila, Philippines, with the main objective to evaluate the
Capacity: Capacity is calculated using the strength reduction
structural performance of the building so as to ensure the
factors set to 1.0.
protection of life and minimize the interruption of essential
services in post-earthquake events. If the structural system Drift: Story drift is limited to 3%.
does not meet the predefined performance objectives used in Table 1-1: Performance Acceptance Criteria at
the evaluation, the seismic retrofit design will be carried out to Collapse Prevention Level
enhance the structural performance, increasing the protection Classifi- Expected Acceptance
Element Action Type
of life and minimizing the disruption of its usage. It cation Behavior Limit
specifically and exclusively focuses and limits itself to the Flexure Hinge rotation
technical aspects and does not attempt to comment upon any hinge Ductile Nonlinear ASCE41-06
partys contractual, legal or commercial responsibilities or rotation limit
liabilities. D/C for
Beam Shear Brittle Linear strength
Axial- Hinge rotation
Performance Evaluation Flexural Ductile Nonlinear ASCE41-06
interaction limit
Seismic Performance evaluation ensures that during a defined Columns
earthquake, no damage beyond the acceptable limits occurs in D/C for
Shear Brittle Linear strength
any part of the structure. More specifically, seismic capacity
performance is assessed by designating the maximum
Tensile strain in
allowable damage state (performance level) for an identified rebar rotation
seismic hazard. Shear
Axial- 0.05
Flexural Ductile Nonlinear Compressive
Below are the structural performance levels that were interaction strain in
included: concrete
rotation 0.004
Immediate Occupancy (IO), Life Safety (LS), and Collapse D/C for
Prevention (CP). Couplin Shear Brittle Linear strength
g Beam capacity
al rebar) Shear hinge 0.03
Ductile Nonlinear
rotation radian

1.3. Material Properties 1.4.2 Earthquake Load
The following are the material properties used to check the
Since there is no site-specific seismic hazard assessment for
performance of the building.
NAIA Terminal 1 building, the site-specific response spectra
for the nearest location (NAIA Terminal 3 building) is used.
1.3.1 Concrete Properties
The material strengths of concrete used in the analysis with
respect to the members are as follows: The uniform hazard spectrum for 2475-year return period (2%
of probability of exceedance in 50 years, Maximum
Table 1-2: Compressive Strength of Concrete (fc)
Considered Earthquake level) is used to check the
Member Actual Strength (Psi)
Foundation Uniform hazard spectrum for 2475-year return period is
Isolated footings 3000 estimated by multiplying 475-year return period (10% of
exceedance in 50 years, Design Basis Earthquake level)
Columns and Girders response spectra with the factor of 1.5. The comparison of all
All Level 4000 response spectra with UBC 97 response spectra are shown in
Shear Wall and Slabs
All Level 3000

1.3.2 Reinforcing Steel Properties

The material strength of reinforcing steel used in the analysis
is as follows:

Table 1-3: Yield Strength of Reinforcing Steel (fy)

Actual Strength
Bar Diameter (mm)
12 mm and larger bars 60000
10 mm and smaller bars 40000
1.4 Loading Criteria
Figure 1-1: Comparison of Response Spectrum
1.4.1 Gravity Loading
Superimposed dead load and live load used in the 1.5 Load Combination
evaluation are as below.
1.5.1 Earthquake Load (2475-year Rturn Period)
Main Building The following load combination is used for each of the ground
Superimposed Dead Load motions.
All levels 45 psf Table 1-4: Load Combination
Live Load
Identifier Load Combinations
Deplaning-Observation Deck 100 psf
Roof Deck 20 psf Load Combination 1.0D + 0.25 L 1.0 E
Wing Building
Where: D=dead load; L=unreduced live load; E=earthquake load
Superimposed Dead Load
Three dimensional finite element models of the building with
Live Load
appropriate finite elements, incorporating the nonlinear behavior
Deplaning-Observation Deck 100 psf are created in SAP 2000. The models are comprised of frame and
Roof Deck 20 psf shell elements to represent structural components.

To include the cracking effects of the flexure and 2.1 Elastic Components
shear for seismic rehabilitation of concrete structural
components of existing building, effective stiffness of the 2.1.1 Modeling of RC Beams, Columns
members are considered in the models. The stiffness All ordinary RC Beam and column members are modeled
modification members respective to the member are shown as the frame elements.
2.1.2 Modeling of RC Slabs
Table 2-1: Reduced Moment of Inertia and Shear Rigidity The RC slabs are modeled as the shell elements.

Member Flexural Rigidity Shear Rigidity

2.1.3 Modeling of Shear Walls
All shear walls are modeled as nonlinear layered shell
Beams 0.5 Ig 0.4 Aw elements.
Columns 0.7 Ig 0.4 Aw 2.1.4BModelingBofBFoundationBSystem
The foundation system is modeled by applying the area
Walls 0.8 Ig 0.4 Aw springs at the level of isolated footings in order to
represent the sub-grade modulus of the soil.
Flat Slabs 0.25 Ig 0.4 Aw
2.2 Inelastic Components
2.2.1 Girders
To model the post-yielding behavior of girders, plastic
(Y) hinges are applied in the frame elements wherever as
appropriate in the finite element model.


Figure 2-1: Deplaning Level Layout Plan

Figure 2-2: Finite Element Model of modified

Main Building

Table 6-7: Modeling Parameters and Numerical

Acceptance Criteria for Nonlinear
ProceduresReinforced Concrete Beams
Figure 3-4: ASCE 41-06, Supplement No. 1 (Table 6-7)

Figure 2-3: Finite Element Model of modified

Wing Building

2.2.2 Shear Walls
The entire cross section of shear wall is discretized into
individual layers; concrete and vertical reinforcements etc.
These layers are located by a pecific distance from the
reference surface and with the specified thickness. The
material properties of each layer are specified by the
properties of concrete and steel. Each layer is assigned as
shell, membrane or plate element depending upon the
requirement. The hysteretic response of the wall section is
simulated by assigning the hysteretic behavior in the
property of concrete and steel materials explicitly.


Figure 2-5: Material Component in Nonlinear Layered


Shear Wall Element

2.2.3 Buckling Restrained Brace (BRB)

BRB is modeled using Multi-linear Plastic Link element.

The property of the BRB is calculated from the stress-
strain relationship of the BRB material (steel). The
following figure presents the example of the properties of
Figure 2-4: Nonlinear Layered Shell
the link element.
Table 2-2: Layer Definition Data for Nonlinear Layered
Shear Wall Element
No. Material
Dista Ma
of Component
nce teri
Thi Int Behaviour
Layer from
ck- Layer eg- Mate- al
Nam Refer
nes Type rati rial S
e ence S2
s on An 1 S12
Surfa 2
Poi gle 1
. Mem- Concre
d1 t1 1 0 L N L
Mem brane te
. d2 t2 Plate 2 0 L L L
Bar d3 t3 1 Rebar 90 N - L
brane Figure 2-6: Multi-linear Plastic Link Element Properties
Bar d4 t4 1 Rebar 90 N - L
L = Linear N = Nonlinear - = Inactive
Note: Since material angle of rebar is 90, S11 becomes
the axial stress in rebar.

3. ANALYSIS RESULTS 3.1.3 Wing Building

3.1 Modal Analysis Table 3-2: Natural Period of Wing Building in (sec)

3.1.2 Main Building ORIGINAL MODIFIED

Table 3-1 Natural Period of Main Building in (sec)
Nat Modal
Natura Modal participating
ORIGINAL MODIFIED ural participating mass
Mode l mass ratio
Peri ratio
Modal Modal Period
od X(%) X(%) Y (%)
Natural participating Natural participating
Mode mass ratio mass ratio
Period Period 1 1.64 0.46% 20.48% 1.16 5.27% 53.78%
X(%) X(%) Y (%) 2 1.32 72.94% 0.06% 1.11 59.39% 8.11%
1 1.35 79% 0% 1.14 73% 0% 3 1.17 1.41% 32.43% 1.07 9.24% 3.20%
2 1.08 0% 77% 1.02 0% 84% 4 0.97 0.10% 23.65% 0.85 0.01% 9.50%
3 0.86 1% 0% 0.94 10% 0% 5 0.75 0.01% 0.01% 0.75 0.02% 0.01%
4 0.75 1% 0% 0.75 0% 0% 6 0.75 0.03% 0.02% 0.75 0.04% 0.02%
5 0.69 0% 1% 0.74 0% 1% 7 0.68 0.02% 0.14% 0.70 0.12% 0.00%
6 0.61 1% 0% 0.67 1% 0% 8 0.68 0.04% 0.04% 0.68 0.00% 0.01%
7 0.48 5% 0% 0.50 1% 0% 9 0.68 0.00% 0.47% 0.68 0.03% 0.22%
8 0.43 0% 13% 0.44 0% 3% 10 0.67 0.05% 0.51% 0.66 0.03% 0.00%
9 0.42 4% 0% 0.43 3% 0% 11 0.66 0.03% 0.04% 0.64 0.00% 0.28%
10 0.25 3% 1% 0.29 0% 8% 12 0.63 0.01% 0.03% 0.63 0.02% 0.01%
11 0.25 1% 5% 0.27 6% 0% 13 0.58 0.00% 0.07% 0.62 0.00% 0.00%
12 0.23 2% 0% 0.26 1% 0% 14 0.58 0.01% 0.09% 0.58 0.00% 0.10%
Sum 100% 100% 97% 97% 15 0.55 0.02% 0.00% 0.56 0.00% 0.14%
16 0.52 0.00% 0.02% 0.54 0.03% 0.01%
It is found that 79% and 73% of total mass is participating in 17 0.50 0.05% 0.08% 0.53 0.05% 0.01%
the first mode of X-direction for original and modified
18 0.48 0.13% 0.00% 0.48 0.01% 0.00%
building respectively (Mode 1) while 77% and 84.00% of total
mass is participating in the first mode of Y-direction (Mode 2) 19 0.45 0.06% 0.77% 0.47 0.23% 0.00%
for original and modified building respectively. From the 20 0.43 2.31% 0.02% 0.43 0.16% 0.26%
table, it can be seen that the total mass participation 21 0.41 0.16% 0.00% 0.41 3.15% 0.12%
contributed from first 12 modes are more than 95.00% in both
22 0.40 1.22% 0.41% 0.41 0.01% 0.08%
X and Y direction for both original and modified building.
23 0.39 2.10% 0.59% 0.38 2.59% 1.04%
The first three mode shapes are presented in the following
figure. 24 0.35 0.04% 0.49% 0.35 0.77% 0.00%
25 0.34 0.43% 2.31% 0.34 0.44% 4.80%
26 0.32 0.45% 0.13% 0.31 0.01% 1.97%

27 0.28 0.00% 2.52% 0.28 0.01% 0.23%

28 0.24 0.04% 0.54% 0.25 0.23% 1.20%
29 0.22 0.84% 0.01% 0.24 0.38% 0.44%
T1= 1.35 s T2= 1.08 s T3= 0.86 s
30 0.19 0.02% 6.12% 0.18 0.00% 2.70%
31 0.18 0.03% 5.97% 0.18 0.01% 7.67%

32 0.17 14.67% 0.00% 0.16 14.85% 0.00%

33 0.14 0.01% 1.75% 0.14 0.00% 1.90%
34 0.11 0.35% 0.15% 0.12 0.00% 2.07%
T1= 1.14 s T2= 1.02 s T3= 0.94 s
35 0.11 1.82% 0.02% 0.10 2.67% 0.00%

Figure 3-1: Mode Shapes of Main Building Sum 100% 100% 100% 100%

It is found that 20.48% and 53.78% of total mass is
participating in the first mode of Y-direction (Mode 1) for
original and modified building respectively while 72.94% and
59.39% of total mass is participating in the first mode of X-
direction (Mode 2) for original and modified building
respectively. From the table, it can be seen that the total mass
participation contributed from first 35 modes are 100.00% in
both X and Y direction.

3.2 Base Shear

Inelastic base shears from both original and modified building
are compared in this section. The base shear is calculated at
above apron level using Modal Pushover Analysis at 2475- Figure 3-4: Story Shear Distribution of Wing Building in
year return period earthquake. The comparison of base shear X-direction (Modified System)
from response spectrum and time history analyses is shown
below. 3.3 Story Displacement and Story Drift

The maximum story displacements and story drifts for modal

pushover analysis are plotted in the following figures. In each
building, the displacement is checked in two different
locations in order to find the maximum displacement of the
building. It is found that the story drifts at each level are
within the acceptable limit which is 0.03 for 2475-year return
period earthquake after adding the BRBs in the structure.

Figure 3-2: Comparison of Story Shear in X-Direction



Figure 3-5: Maximum Story Displacement

(D02) in Y-Direction of Main Building

Figure 3-3: Comparison of Story Shear in Y-Direction

Figure 3-6: Maximum Story Displacement (DF1) Figure 3-7: Maximum Story Displacement
in X-Direction of Wing Building DF1) in Y-Direction of Wing Building

Figure 3-8: Maximum Story Displacement (DF2) Figure 3-9: Maximum Story Drift (DF2) in
in X-Direction of Wing Building Y-Direction of Wing Building

Figure 3-10: Maximum Story Drift (DF01) in X- Figure 3-11: Maximum Story Drift (DF01) in
Direction of Main Building Y-Direction of Main Building

Figure 3-12: Maximum Story Drift (DF02) in Figure 3-13: Maximum Story Drift (DF02) in Y-Direction of
X-Direction of Main Building Main Building

Figure 3-14: Maximum Story Drift (DF1) in X- Figure 3-15: Maximum Story Drift (DF1) in Y-Direction
Direction of Wing Building of Wing Building

Figure 3-16: Maximum Story Drift (DF2) in X- Figure 3-17: Maximum Story Drift (DF2) in Y-Direction of
Direction of Wing Building Wing Building


The seismic evaluation has been carried out through the use of Jose A. Sy , President / CEO of Sy^2 + Associates, Inc. which
state-of-the-art analyses tools and procedures with special is the leading structural consultancy firm for tall buildings in
emphasis on the effects due to earthquakes. The performance the Philippines, graduated Cum Laude from the University of
of the building is evaluated for 2475-year return period Santo Tomas with a degree of B.S. Civil Engineering, and
earthquake. Since there is no site-specific seismic hazard ranked 11th in CE Board Exam in 1979. His more than 30
assessment for NAIA Terminal 1 building, the site-specific years of structural design experience which includes a wide
response spectra for the nearest location (NAIA Terminal 3 variety of projects such as high-rise structures, commercial
building) is used. Uniform hazard spectrum for 475-year buildings, condominiums, hotels, banks and industrial plant
return period earthquake (DBE level) is multiplied by a factor facilities makes him a cut above the rest. He is responsible for
of 1.5 to estimate the 2475-year spectrum (MCE level). various structural innovations such as top-down construction
of permanent retaining wall with soldier piles and tie-back
Finite element models of main and wing buildings are created anchors, the first full-blown top-down construction of
with various levels of complexity to investigate the response substructure in downtown Manila, performance-based seismic
and behavior of the building. Modal pushover analysis is design using push-over analysis for a seismic upgrade of an
conducted to evaluate the nonlinear response of the building. existing building and performance-based design of a 54-
Global response of the building as well as the deformation storey building using Buckling Resistant Bracings as
capacity and the strength of primary structural elements are outriggers.
checked against the demand forces under 2475-year return
period earthquake. Global structural stiffnening as well as Dr. Naveed Anwar, Executive Director/ CEO of the Asian
local strengthening scheme is applied to enhance the structural Institute of Technology, Thailand has over twenty five years
system. Buckling restrained braces and restraining walls are of extensive experience in the conception, planning, analysis,
added at appropriate locations to stiffen the structure. The design, detailing and evaluation of multistory buildings,
main purpose of the BRB system is to control the seismic bridges, water retaining structures, industrial buildings and
responses through the energy dissipation due to axial tension special structures and has worked on over 500 different
and compression yielding of the brace. FRP retrofit technique projects. He is a holder of Doctor of Engineering, Structural
is used for the local strengthening of the members. Engineering and M.Eng. Structural Engineering from the
Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand. He
finished B. Sc. Civil Engineering from the University
Engineering & Technology, Lahore, Pakistan.

Engr. Thaung Htut Aung , Technical Project Coordinator of

Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand, finished his M.
Eng.,Structural Engineering from the Asian Institute of
Technology, Thailand and graduated from the Yangon
Technological University , Yangon, Myanmar with a degree in
B.E. Civil Engineering. His field of expertise includes analysis
and design of tall buildings, structural design review,
structural evaluation and remedial measure, earthquake
engineering and performance-based design and evaluation of
buildings in the Philippines .