3rd AUN/SEED-Net Regional Conference on Natural Disaster (RCND2015)

25 - 26 September 2015, De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines

A RAPID VISUAL SCREENING TOOL FOR SEISMIC

EVALUATION OF WATER AND WASTEWATER
STRUCTURES IN THE PHILIPPINES
RODOLFO P. MENDOZA JR1, 2, HARVEY A. MALOLOS1, YOLANDA C. LUCAS1
1
Program Management Division, Maynilad Water Services, Inc (MWSI)
Quezon City, Philippines.
harvey.malolos@mayniladwater.com.ph, yolanda.lucas@mayniladwater.com.ph
2
De La Salle University, Taft Avenue, Manila, Philippines
rodolfo.mendoza@dlsu.edu.ph

Keywords: Seismic, Rapid Visual Screening, Hazards, Water and Wastewater Structures, Buildings,
Collapsed.

The hazards associated with the proximity of valley fault system to water and wastewater
buildings in Metro Manila result to an increase concern in the seismic performance of these
lifeline utility systems. Past earthquakes show that failures of these systems can lead to
widespread water outages which could result to unacceptable social and economic impacts to
both the customers and utility owners. Building inventory of water and wastewater companies
include administration offices, storage, treatment plants, water reservoirs, lift stations, and
pumping stations. Detailed seismic evaluation of all these existing facilities may not be
economically feasible due to the high cost induced by such assessment. A tiered-based
approach of assessment is necessary to prioritize and screen buildings that are more at-risk.
This strategy enables a cost-effective selection of structures for detailed seismic assessment so
that retrofitting or strengthening measures may be implemented. This paper presents the
development of a visual and quick pre-earthquake evaluation tool designed to assess water and
wastewater buildings within the west metropolitan concession area. The tool is similar to
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 154 but provides emphasis on essential
buildings like buildings of water utility systems and considers the local ground motion
characteristics in Metro Manila. In addition, parameters like durability and member
deterioration are also considered, as well as distance to seismic source effects. This study
provides recommendations to account these factors in the development of rapid visual screening
tool for water and wastewater buildings.
The development of the basic score is performed by adopting empirical equations for calculating
building’s response and development of fragility curves. The development of capacity,
response, fragility and collapse rates follows the Office of Statewide Health Planning and
Development (OSHPD) procedures while modifying certain factors based on local conditions
(e.g. MCE ground motions, seismic design coefficient, Cs and elastic period calculation).
Initially, 2475 spectral acceleration values are derived from the proposed methodology of
Lubkowski and Aluisi (2010) which converts 475 PGA values to 2475 year values.
The PGA values are converted to spectral values as follows:

Ss/PGA = 0.3386 PGA+2.1696 (1)

S1/PGA = 0.5776 PGA+0.5967 (2)

In general, the development of basic score and score modifiers was performed using the
determination of peak response which include the development of capacity curve derived
empirically using modified Cs from NSCP 2001 and spectral acceleration using equation (1) and
(2) with site amplification, empirical development of fragility curves, and determination of
probability of complete damage and probability of collapse.

The basic score was determined by calculating the average basic score for one story, two story
and three story building. Score modifiers were calculated in a similar manner but using
parameters for OSHPD Sub-Baseline or Ultra Baseline Performance to account for building
deficiency. Calculation of score modifiers for crack and deterioration is based on Ultra Baseline
Performance parameters. Near-source effect is calculated using modified values of Cs from
National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) 2001 using seismic parameters for <5km.
Score modifier for essential classification is based on Sub-Baseline Performance parameters.
Below are the results of this study in comparison to FEMA 154 numbers.

Building Type MWSI C1 FEMA C1 MWSI C2 FEMA C2 MWSI S1 FEMA S1

Basic Score 1.2 1.5 2.2 2.0 1.8 2.1
Vertical Irregularity -0.8 -0.9 -1.2 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0
Plan Irregularity -0.5 -0.6 -1.0 -0.8 -0.7 -0.8
Near-Source -0.3 - -0.7 - -0.4 -
Cracks/Deterioration -0.6 - -1.2 - -0.9 -
Essential Occupancy -0.2 - -0.5 - -0.3 -
Pre-Code -0.2 -0.4 -1.2 -0.7 -0.5 -0.6
Post-Benchmark 1.9 1.9 3.4 2.1 1.3 1.4
Soil Type A or B 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.4
Soil Type E -0.3 0.0 -0.8 0.0 -0.5 -0.2

Table 1 Comparison of MWSI and FEMA RVS Scores

Future development of the study includes the update of ground motions and soil amplification
factors adopted in this study with site specific values determined from a probabilistic seismic
hazard assessment.

References

1. Applied Technology Council, FEMA 154 Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic
Hazards, 3rd ed. (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2015).
2. Lubkowski and Aluisi, Deriving Ss and S1 Parameters from PGA Maps, (15th WCEE, 2010)
3. California Building Standard Commission, 2007 Administrative Code, California Code of
Regulations, Title 24, Part 1, Chapter 6 OSHPD 1st ed. (International Code Council 2007).