1. SEISMIC ASSESMENT of SAN JUAN DE DIOS HOSPITAL using FRAGILITY CURVES
ENGR. MICHAEL B. BAYLON
HERMAN D. CARANTO, ARJOHN P. ESPINO ,JOSEPH BRYAN NILO
CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
ADAMSON UNIVERSITY

2. INTRODUCTION
Hospitals play an important role in the health care system of the country
Having been built in the 1950’s, the structure is expected to be susceptible to large magnitude earthquakes
an unpredictable movement of the West Valley Fault System will cause substantial damage throughout Metro Manila

3. Seismic Fragility Analysis
analysis of the probability that a structural system violates at least a limit state when subjected to a seismic event of specified intensity
best way to accomplish vulnerability assessments of structures for judging the seismic requirements

4. Seismic Fragility Curves
output of seismic fragility analysis
plots the percentage probability of exceeding a particular damage state vs. ground motion intensity (GMI)

5. Objectives of the Study

6. Main Objective Specific Objectives
To develop sets of fragility curves for various damage states for a specific building.
Specific Objectives
1.To provide a seismic assessment of the San Juan de Dios Hospital against large- magnitude earthquakes
2.To provide a static and dynamic analysis of the building against earthquake loads using Pushover Analysis and Time History Analysis
3.To justify the structural design of the structure using the obtained fragility curves

7. Conceptual Framework

8. Conceptual Framework Input Process Output Ground Motion Data
Structural Plan of San Juan de Dios Hospital
Process
Model of structure using SAP2000
Pushover Analysis and Time History Analysis using Sap 2000
Output
Damage Rank and Damage Index
Seismic Fragility Curves
Evaluation of the obtained fragility curves

9. Scope and Limitations of the Study
Use of two analyses Non-linear Static Analysis (Push- over Analysis) and the Non-linear Dynamic Analysis (Time History Analysis)
using the SAP2000 structural engineering software
shear as the mode of failure
Karim & Yamazaki (2004), Shinozuka (2000), Requiso, Balili, & Garciano (2013), Baylon (2017).

10. Scope and Limitations of the Study
ground motion data from four recorded earthquakes will be used for the analysis
(1) Mindoro Station-Philippines 1995, Magnitude 7.1
(2) Kobe-Japan 1995, Magnitude 6.9
(3) Tohoku-Kanto-Japan 2011, Magnitude 9.0
(4) Bohol-Philippines 2013, Magnitude 7.2

15. Methodology

16. Research Design

17. Structural Model Ground Motion Data
Mode of Failure
SHEAR
Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis
(Time History Analysis)
Nonlinear Static Analysis
(Pushover Analysis)
Parameters
For
Damage Index
Damage
Indices
Seismic Fragility
Curves

19. DAMAGE INDEX DUCTILITY FACTORS PARAMETERS NUMBER OF OCCURENCEDI
DAMAGE
INDEX
DUCTILITY
FACTORS
PARAMETERS
NUMBER OF
OCCURENCE
PROBABILITY OF
EXCEEDANCE
SEISMIC
FRAGILITY
CURVE
DAMAGE
RANK

20. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

21. Three-Dimensional Model of San Juan de Dios Hospital

23. Pushover Analysis

24. PUSHOVER CURVES
Y- Direction

25. PUSHOVER CURVES
Y- Direction

26. PUSHOVER CURVES
X- Direction

27. PUSHOVER CURVES
X- Direction

28. Discussion of Results
Y- direction is able to withstand a maximum shear force of kN with m displacement
X- direction which can tolerate 4356 kN with m displacement
weak axis is y, strong axis is x

29. Time History Analysis

30. HYSTERETIC CURVES
0.2g Bohol X
0.2g Bohol Y

31. HYSTERETIC CURVES
0.4g Bohol X
0.4g Bohol Y

32. HYSTERETIC CURVES
0.6g Bohol X
0.6g Bohol Y

33. HYSTERETIC CURVES
0.8g Bohol X
0.8g Bohol Y

34. HYSTERETIC CURVES
1.0g Bohol X
1.0g Bohol Y

35. HYSTERETIC CURVES
1.2g Bohol X
1.2g Bohol Y

36. HYSTERETIC CURVES
1.4g Bohol X
1.4g Bohol Y

37. HYSTERETIC CURVES
1.6g Bohol X
1.6g Bohol Y

38. HYSTERETIC CURVES
1.8g Bohol X
1.8g Bohol Y

39. HYSTERETIC CURVES
2.0g Bohol X
2.0g Bohol Y

40. Elapsed Time to Complete a Analysis

41. Area Computation of Hysteretic Energy

42. Excel Spreadsheet for Computing the Parameters

43. Fragility Curve X Determinant PGA Slight Damage Moderate Extensive
Complete Damage
BOHOL 2013
0.22g
(Magnitude 7.2)
14%
10% 4% 2%
KOBE 1995
0.82g
(Magnitude 6.9)
69%
66%
53%
40%

44. Fragility Curve Y Determinant PGA Slight Damage Moderate Damage
Extensive
Complete
BOHOL 2013
0.22g
(Magnitude 7.2)
25% 8% 3% 2%
KOBE 1995
0.82g
(Magnitude 6.9)
75%
62%
46%
38%

45. Probability of Exceedance Vs. PGA
as the peak ground acceleration increases, the probability of exceedance for every damage states also increases as for this structure

46. Summary of Results for X-Direction
Determinant PGA
Slight
Damage
Moderate
Extensive
Complete Damage
MINDORO 1999
0.15g
(Magnitude 5.0) 5% 3% 1% 0%
BOHOL 2013
0.22g
(Magnitude 7.2)
14%
10% 4% 2%
DESIGN PGA-2010 NSCP
0.4g
37%
32%
18%
KOBE 1995
0.82g
(Magnitude 6.9)
69%
66%
53%
40%
TOHOKU-KANTO 2011
2.99g
(Magnitude 9.0)
100%

47. Summary of Results for Y-Direction
Determinant PGA
Slight
Damage
Moderate Damage
Extensive
Complete
MINDORO 1999
0.15g
(Magnitude 5.0)
10% 3% 0%
BOHOL 2013
0.22g
(Magnitude 7.2)
25% 8% 2%
DESIGN PGA-2010 NSCP
0.4g
49%
27%
13%
KOBE 1995
0.82g
(Magnitude 6.9)
75%
62%
46%
38%
TOHOKU-KANTO 2011
2.99g
(Magnitude 9.0)
100%

48. Summary of Results for Design 0.4g PGA
the structure is prone to slight damage at 37% for the x-direction and 49% for the y-direction while moderate damage falls at 32% for the x-direction and 27% for the y-direction.
Extensive damage and complete damage index have about 10% probability

49. Conclusion
The structure does not meets the 0.4g peak ground acceleration minimum requirement of the NSCP Building Code
a structure with a 30 or more years of lifespan is NOT SAFE when subjected to a seismic event of 10% probability of exceedance of collapse of total damage. The structure being more than 50 years old is vulnerable to large magnitude earthquakes

50. Conclusion

51. Conclusion

52. Recommendation
use of another software such as ETABS for modeling of the structure and performing nonlinear static and dynamic analysis
use drift as mode of failure as an addition
use period of ground motion as abscissa in plotting the fragilty curves instead of the intensity
use of other methods for computation of fragility curves such as Monte Carlo Simulation and Response Surface Method

53. Acknowledgment Dr. Lessandro Estelito O. Garciano Dr. Andres Winston C
Acknowledgment Dr. Lessandro Estelito O. Garciano Dr. Andres Winston C. Oreta research/thesis adviser research mentors from De La Salle University – Manila

54. Thank you for listening!