B. M.

Pacheco
President, Vibrametrics Inc. Professorial Lecturer, University of the Philippines

Survey of Engineering Capabilities

EqTAP Metro Manila Case Study Workshop March 4, 2004

For the EqTAP Section 1 study, we started with a hard engineering perspective for a

Survey of Building Capacities

We ended up with a soft engineering perspective for a

Survey of Engineering Capabilities

Come to think of it

We are starting to assess the capacities of our existing structures to meet the demands of future earthquake events

but

 are we assessing and updating our capabilities as professional engineers to maintain the adequate capacities of our existing structures ?

At the start, our objective was to estimate the seismic capacities of our existing building sub-types through a survey of individual judgment by 20 senior professional structural engineers now, we engineers realize how variable is our level of confidence on the existing building sub-types, and how much we need to update, enhance, and align our own capabilities in assessing our existing structures. Following is our story

Episode 1 Fiscal Year 2002

Survey of Experts Judgment on Seismic Capacity of Selected Building Sub-Types in Metro Manila Using the Delphi Survey Technique

Sample Building Types Considered in the Research Survey

High Strength

High Ductility

Objective: Approximate typical seismic capacity curve for each sub-type of RC and CHB building in Metro Manila

Six parameters to approximate two points in each curve:

More than 20 professional civil-structural engineers, mostly fellows and senior members of the ASEP Local practicing engineers with experience in building design and review of (Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines), construction who accepted the invitation by Vibrametrics Local practicing engineers with experience in building design and review of construction Those with higher degree of knowledge on the seismic behavior of buildings, which may have been attained through individual education, experience, or research

Panel of Experts

A structured process of collecting and distilling knowledge from a group of experts. It involves one or Local practicing engineers with experience in building design and review of more rounds of soliciting individual judgment.
construction

Basic characteristics: Anonymity of the experts during the rounds Statistical analysis of expert responses Controlled feedback to the experts The tendencies that are avoided: domination by a single expert "follow the leader" tendencies in a group reluctance to abandon previously stated opinions

Features of Delphi Technique

Local practicing engineers with experience in building design and review of construction

To avoid unintentional misrepresentation of expertise, the respondents were allowed to: choose the building sub-types that they were comfortable to judge self-rate their knowledge of, and experience with, each building sub-type (factor E) and the certainty of each individual answer (factor C).

The E and C factors were to be combined as an EC weight factor in the statistical analysis of survey answers (by Vibrametrics as facilitator).

Experience & Certainty

Local practicing The engineers EC weight with experience factorin put building more design weight and review to of construction

answers of experts with higher combination of experience/knowledge level and certainty level:

Experience & Certainty (EC) Factor

Round-One results for newer mid-rise RC moment-frame building sub-type (Example)

Round-Two results for newer mid-rise RC moment-frame building sub-type (Example)

Narrower scatter

In Round Two of the survey, the experts individual judgments led to a narrower scatter of the estimates of the parameters. The experts were generally more certain in their estimates for 3 parameters relating to strength: Te, CD, and the fundamental mode shape. They were generally less certain in their estimates for the other 3 parameters relating to ductility. Many experts agreed that the typical capacity curves could be improved by detailed case studies of example buildings, and statistical studies of actual reported damage in past earthquakes.

Performance of the Experts

Episode 2 Fiscal Year 2003

Stakeholders Workshop on Knowing the Seismic Capacity of Our Existing Buildings in Metro Manila

September 8, 2003 9 am 5 pm 42nd Floor, Discovery Suites, Pasig 75+ participants

Professional Structural Engineers Government Engineers and Architects Researchers, Scientists, Planners

A view from the 42nd Floor of Discovery Suites in Pasig

t Valley Fault Approximate trace of Wes

Morning Presentations included: Building Damage Assessment Due to a Scenario Earthquake in MM Results of Survey of Experts Judgment on Seismic Capacity Afternoon Resolutions came from 3 groups: A Building Inventory group B Ground Motion group C Building Response group Following are some of the resolutions

To develop a program of action & response according to damage scenario assessment in Local practicing engineers with experience in building design and review of constructionspecific Local Government Unit(s) To involve Local Government Units in validating the existing building population distribution by subtype, including dilapidated 15-year old buildings

To explain clearly to the community the essential findings of the scientific and technical studies, and improve the acceptability among property owners

Resolutions sponsored by Group A - Building Inventory

To practice peer-review for complex or critical structures, including review by qualified geologists & geotechnical engineers To provide mandatory earthquake engineering syllabus in schools

To instrument multi-story buildings with earthquake strong-motion recorders

Resolutions sponsored by Group B Ground Motion

To understand standard fragility curves that may apply to specific local areas

To share post-design data among practitioners

To encourage public disclosure of post-design summary information on design capacities

Resolutions sponsored by Group C - Building Response

To strengthen self-regulation within the structural engineering profession, through ASEP

To consider the realistic effects of non-structural in-filled walls on the structural stiffness To study special building features like post-tensioning, flat slabs, hybrid systems, and also non-engineered buildings and non-building structures ...

Resolutions sponsored by Group C - Building Response

There is indeed a need to assess our buildings, bridges and other structures for the required capacities against the demands of future earthquakes

There is likewise a need to assess and retrofit our capabilities as professional engineers.