Seismic Hazard Assessment of an Engineering Building in a University

Evangeline  L. Constantino,; Ciellito  V. Maligalig,; Uzziel Abib  P. Gabiola,

Seismic Hazard Assessment of an Engineering Building in a University

Uzziel Abib P. Gabiola | Ciellito V. Maligalig | Evangeline L. Constantino

Abstract:

This study presents a comprehensive seismic vulnerability assessment of the Commerce-Engineering Technical (CET) Building located at Manuel S. Enverga University Foundation, Lucena City, Quezon Province. Constructed in the 1970s, the building has sustained continued use beyond its expected lifespan, prompting the need to evaluate its current structural integrity under seismic conditions. The research employed a research and development (R&D) design encompassing three phases: basic research to gather historical seismic data and site characteristics, applied research through seismic hazard analyses using ASCE 41-13 Tier 1 evaluation, deterministic seismic hazard assessment (DSHA), and probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA), and experimental development using both destructive and non-destructive testing of structural materials. Data from concrete coring and rebound hammer tests were correlated through linear, exponential, and logarithmic regression models, where the exponential model demonstrated the best predictive accuracy. Results from the Tier 1 evaluation revealed that while the CET Building satisfies shear and axial strength requirements, it fails the drift criteria, indicating susceptibility to deformation under seismic loading. The selected site exhibits high seismicity, with a Short Period Spectral Response Acceleration of 1.3g and Long Period Spectral Response Acceleration of 0.5g, suggesting significant seismic risk. A vulnerability map was generated to highlight critical areas requiring further structural reinforcement and a detailed Tier 2 analysis to ensure occupant safety.

References:

“Durability.” [Online]. Available: https://www.cement.org/learn/concrete-technology/durability (accessed Oct. 19, 2021).
Z. Wang, “Seismic hazard assessment: Issues and alternatives,” Pure Appl. Geophys., vol. 168, no. 1–2, pp. 11–25, Jan. 2011, doi: 10.1007/s00024-010-0148-3.
P. Bird, “An updated digital model of plate boundaries: Updated model of plate boundaries,” Geochem. Geophys. Geosystems, vol. 4, no. 3, Mar. 2003, doi: 10.1029/2001GC000252.
D. Huang, J.-P. Wang, L. Brant, and S.-C. Chang, “Deterministic seismic hazard analysis considering non-controlling seismic sources and time factors,” in Scalable Uncertainty Management, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012, pp. 550–557.
R. Romeo and A. Prestininzi, “Probabilistic versus deterministic seismic hazard analysis: An integrated approach for siting problems,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 20, no. 1–4, pp. 75–84, Oct. 2000, doi: 10.1016/S0267-7261(00)00039-7.
S. A. El-Betar, “Seismic vulnerability evaluation of existing R.C. buildings,” HBRC J., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 189–197, Aug. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.hbrcj.2016.09.002.
“Definitions of research and development: An annotated compilation of official sources,” p. 26.