Multi-Hazard Risk and Asset Value Assessment of Heritage

Buildings
(Case Study in Iloilo City, Philippines)

Journal: IABSE Nara 2015

Manuscript ID: Nara-0042-2015.R1

Theme: Historical structures

Date Submitted by the Author: 29-Nov-2014

Complete List of Authors: Yu, Kirk Kennedy; De La Salle University, Civil Engineering
Oreta, Andres Winston; De La Salle University, Civil Engineering

Material and Equipment: Masonry, Concrete

Type of Structure: Buildings

Other Aspects: Assessment / Repair, Urban Planning

Page 1 of 10

1
2
3
4
Multi-Hazard Risk and Asset Value Assessment of Heritage Buildings
5 (Case Study in Iloilo City, Philippines)
6
7
8 Kirk Kennedy YU Andres Winston ORETA
9 M.S. Civil Engineering Professor
10 De La Salle University De La Salle University
11 Manila, Philippines Manila, Philippines
12 kirk_yu@dlsu.edu.ph andres.oreta@dlsu.edu.ph
13
Kirk Kennedy Yu, born 1993, Andres Oreta, born in 1961,
14 received his civil engineering graduated D.Eng. and M.Eng at
15 degree from De La Salle Nagoya University, Japan and B.S.
16 University, April 2015. His thesis Civil Engineering at University of the
17 focused on the development of a Philippines. He is also a member of
level one, risk assessment tool for Association of Structural Engineers
18 heritage buildings. of the Philippines and Philippine
19 Institute of Civil Engineers.
20 Summary
21
22 Heritage buildings belong to the most vulnerable class of structures because of the material
23 degradation and the lack of structural design present. With the increasing frequency and magnitude
24 of disasters, the need to preserve heritage buildings is further underlined. The developed risk
25 assessment method innovated the inclusion of the heritage building asset value as a component of
26 the risk index. The risk assessment method considered the risks due to extreme wind, fire and
27 earthquake. Using a rapid visual screening method, this preliminary assessment allows for the
28 prioritization of several heritage buildings for deeper investigations and retrofitting procedures on
29 the basis of the level of risk and its asset value. In support to the initiatives of the Iloilo City
30 government, the developed method was tested to about 30 heritage buildings in the said city. The
31
study was able to create a shortlist of prioritized heritage buildings for preservation.
32 Keywords: heritage buildings, rapid visual screening, prioritized preservation, risk assessment
33
34 1. Introduction
35
36 1.1 Risk assessment for heritage buildings
37
38 Heritage buildings are key to our identity as a peoplethese structures carry stories of cultural
39 heritage that tell people who we are. These buildings breathe stories, which we inherit, build on and
40 impart. It is our privilege and responsibility to preserve these heritage buildings so that the younger
41
generation can inherit a rich culture. However, the upkeep and preservation of heritage buildings is
made difficult because of the vulnerability of these structures. During the design and construction of
42
these buildings, specific structural design codes for extreme loads have not been implemented yet
43
[1]. This translates to the lack of proper structural reinforcement against various hazards resulting to
44 vulnerable conditions. On the other hand, time deterioration of the building material (such as
45 concrete scouring and rebar corrosion) causes the load bearing capacity of the structure to decrease
46 [2]. Heritage buildings actually live beyond their design age and put to the test their physical
47 condition. To this end, it becomes apparent that risk assessment is crucial towards risk reduction.
48
49 Nevertheless, there is an observed lack of integration of risk assessment methods in cultural
50 heritage preservation [3]. This can be observed in the rapid screening procedures developed by the
51 Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Research Council of Canada and the
52 Architectural Institute of Japan [4]. Most of the existing rapid screening procedures are not fitted
53 for heritage buildings, as they do not account for the material deterioration and the cultural heritage
54 value of the building. To bridge this gap, the developed risk assessment tool accounts for both
55
aforementioned aspects. Using a qualitative, semi-quantitative approach, heritage buildings can be
56
objectively ranked for preservation prioritization based on cultural heritage value and the level of
risk present. The multi-risk assessment method is a level 1 screening procedure and has been pilot
57
tested in the city of Iloilo, considering risks to fire, earthquake and extreme wind conditions. The
58
59
60
 Page 2 of 10

1
2
3 assessment uses a conventional technique, where a risk index is acquired without knowing the
4 equivalent damage [1].
5 1.2 Defining risk for heritage buildings
6
7 Risk is a concept revolving around the probable loss of an important asset due to a harmful event
8 [5]. Heritage buildings are priceless assets that are irrecoverable. From this definition, risk becomes
9 a play between hazard as the harmful event, vulnerability as the capacity of the asset to withstand
10 the harmful event and the importance of the asset itself [6]. These three form the basic risk equation
11 (equations 1 and 2) used to derive a risk index for each heritage building for risks to extreme wind
12
and seismic conditions. Further, the vulnerability score is modified through aggravating factors, M,
such as material deterioration and suppresion systems. The aggravating factors increase the level of
13
risk by a maximum of 90-percent.
14
15 Risk = Hazard Vu ln erability Asset (1)
16 V ' = V (1+ M ) (2)
17
18 For risk to fire, a different risk index model is used. A mitigation parameter is added to account for
19
suppression systems found in the building for fire risk, as seen in equation 3.
20 Hazard Vu ln erability Asset
21
Risk = (3)
Mitigation
22 For each risk component above, key critical parameters are listed in order to define each index.
23 Using a rubric, the relevant parameters are rated 3, 2 or 1 corresponding to high, medium or low
24 levels of risk. The weighted sum of the relevant parameters equates to the particular index in study;
25 then, through equation 1 or 3, the main risk index can be calculated.
26
27
28
2. Asset value assessment for heritage buildings
29
2.1 Methodology
30
31 Heritage buildings are irrecoverable assets with priceless value, emanating from a shared cultural
32 value. In 1972 World Heritage Convention, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
33 Organization (UNESCO) defined these buildings as having an outstanding value from the point of
34 view of history, art or science. From these definitions, heritage buildings are classified in five key
35 values, clustered in two different categories (table 1).
36
37 Table 1: Key values defining a heritage building For each of these values, several
38 descriptive statements have been prepared
39 to gauge the importance of the heritage
40 building. The rating for each heritage
41 building are taken through a Focus Group
42 Discussion (FGD), consisting of different
43
stakeholders, such as architects, civil
44
engineers, historians and the like. The participants of the FGD are asked to rate each heritage
building using the descriptive statements over a scale of agree, neutral or disagreenumerically
45
corresponding to scores of 3, 2 or 1. The descriptive statements can be seen in table 2.
46
47 Table 2: Descriptive statements for each heritage building value
48 Architectural Value
49 1. The aesthetic theme of the building is visually pleasing and is not an eye-sore to look at.
50 2. The architectural style is eye-catching and unique. The design stands out among its contemporaries.
51 3. The architectural style is able to capture the prevailing style during its era or period of construction.
52 4. The arhictectural style beautifully mixes with the general theme of the cityscapemaking it more historical.
53 5. The appearance of the building is relevant with the areas culture.
54 6. The buildings design is seamless with the old and new developments (e.g. new and old buidlings). The design
55 does not disrupt with new developments or structures.
56 Historical Value
57 1. The buildings age is: [ 85 years and above (3) 76 to 85 years (2) 50 to 75 years (1) ]
58 2. The buildings past is relevant as I am able to identify with the culture and history the building represents.
59
60
Page 3 of 10

1
2
3 3. I believe that the history this building embodies has [ National (3) Regional (2) Local (1) ] impact.
4 4. The buildings history strongly ties in with the areas cultural heritage.
5 5. The building is a symbol of the areas historic past.
6 6. The building relays an important message about the areas history, which is worth telling and preserving.
Commercial-Tourism Value
7
1. This building is a must-see for tourists. I encourage local and international tourists to visit the building.
8
2. This building generates foot-traffic for both local and foreign tourists.
9 3. The building contributes to the overall tourism welfare of the city.
10 Economic-Commercial Value
11 1. The commercial establishment(s) in this building helps stimulate the citys economic welfare in a sustainable
12 manner. It provides both long term and short-term economic benefits.
13 2. The building is often visited for its goods and services.
14 Adaptive Reuse Value
15 1. The current use of the building speaks a lot about the everyday culture of the city today. The use is able to adapt
16 with the citys needs without sacrificing the culture it represents.
17 2. The current use of the building contributes to the cultural image of the city. The usage speaks and educates
18 locals and foreigners about the areas historic past.
19
20 In order to calculate the main asset value
21 index, the responses for each type of
22 value are averaged. The mean of the
23 responses is the score for the corresponding
24 type of value. Through a weighted sum, the
25 scores of the architectural and historical
26 values are combined to acquire the cultural
27 heritage cluster index (CHI) and the scores
28 of the commercial, tourism and adaptive
29 Fig. 1: Asset value index logic tree reuse values are combined to attain the
30
economic-tourism cluster index (ECI). The
31
logic tree to ascertain the asset value index is seen in figure 1. Equation four below is used to
calculate the asset value index, where the corresponding weights for each cluster score are
32
established through an Analytic Hierarchy Process. Each type of value under the same cluster has
33 equal weights.
34
35 A = (w1 CHI) + (w2 ETI) (4)
36
37 2.2 Sample asset value assessment
38 Using the described procedure above, a simplified asset value
39 assessment is shown for building 03-001. This building, shown
40 in figure 2, is a residential structure owned by a prominent
41 family in Iloilo, with historical roots in the citys development.
42 The structure ranked as the most valuable building with an asset
43 value index of 2.750 out of 3.000, out of 30 heritage buildings.
44
45
For the sample assessment, only one descriptive statement per
type of value is shown (table 3) with a total of 8 FGD
46
respondents. In table 3, the summary of responses is shown,
47
Fig. 2: Building 03-001 together with the actual value indices on the left-most column.
48
49
50 Table 3: Summary of FGD responses for building 03-001
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
 Page 4 of 10

1
2
3 The value indices are simply the average of all responses for all descriptive statements under it. The
4 asset value index is calculated as:
5 3 + 2.813 2.75 + 2.063 + 2.5
6 A = [0.667 (CHI = )]+ [0.333 (ETI = )] = 2.750 .
2 3
7 The corresponding weights w1 for the cultural heritage cluster (0.667) and w2 for the economic
8 tourism cluster (0.333) are results of an AHP survey given to the FGD respondents.
9
10 3. Hazard and vulnerability assessment for heritage buildings
11
12 3.1 Key parameters for multi hazard rapid screening inspection
13
14 Considering the hazards of fire, seismic and extreme conditions, key parameters quantifying the
15 level of risk for each component of risk are listed in table 4. The three hazards are considered
16 mutually exclusive, e.g. not interacting or simultaneous events. Each key parameter is given a score
17 of 3, 2 or 1 based on a rubric. The full rubric may be requested to the author. Weights for each key
18 parameter are also taken through an AHP survey among experts.
19
20 Table 4: Summary of key parameters for each hazard Firstly, the parameters for hazard aim to
21
relatively measure the strength of the
22
hazard, in case one occurs. Fire hazard
parameters encapsulate possible sources of
23
ignition in the structure. In particular, these
24
are hot work processes, such as cooking,
25 smoking, welding and the like. Extreme
26 wind parameters are described through
27 geographic characteristics in the site (wind
28 zone and exposure). Finally, seismic
29 hazard parameters pertain to the possible
30 magnitude of ground shaking the site may
31 experience during seismic events.
32
33 Secondly, vulnerability parameters
34 relatively measure weak points or
35 critical stress concentrations in the
36
structure. These points are important as
37
structural failure may first occur at these
areas. Vulnerability parameters for fire are
38
sources of fuel the fire can consume once
39 ignited. For extreme wind conditions, the focus is on the roof configuration and exterior building
40 conditions: material, openings and shape. Lastly, seismic vulnerability parameters are concerned
41 with the structural framing conditions. These are structural irregularities, material ductility,
42 provision for seismic gaps and the like.
43
44 Thirdly, mitigation or modifier parameters are applied to the vulnerability score as aggravating
45 factors. These are the defence mechanisms that contain and desist the fire activity in the structure.
46 The first part of the mechanism is the ease of access fire fighters can reach the building through
47 proximity, traffic conditions, road width, building sides accessible and the like. The second part of
48 the mechanism is the active and passive suppression systems such as automatic sprinklers, fire
49 extinguishers, standpipes, fire detection systems and hose boxes. Vulnerability score for seismic and
50 extreme wind risks are further modified through by considering structural cracks, rebar corrosion,
51
force load path continuity, overhangs or extensions and the like.
52
3.2 Sample extreme wind hazard-vulnerability assessment
53
54 Building 01-010 has a hazard index of 2.000 out of 3.000 and a vulnerability index of 2.336 out of
55 3.000, and a modifier of 0.833translating to a normalized risk index of 0.625 out of 1.000. The
56 building ranked second most risky out of 29 heritage buildings. Unique to this building are the large
57 window openings and open vicinity, as seen in figure 3.
58
59
60
Page 5 of 10

1
2
3
4 Table 5: Hazard condition assessment for
5 building 01-010
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 Fig. 3: Building 01-010
19
20
21 3.2.1 Hazard Conditions
22 The building is situated under Zone II of the Philippine Wind Zone map. Soil characteristics have
23 been assumed as Type D, or still soil profile. The building has four sides, and enclosed on two sides
24 only. A portion of the buildings wing is additionally exposed to wind pressures as the other wing
25 has been burned down and the lot left open. Using the listed weights in table 5, the extreme wind
26 hazard score is calculated as 2.000. The weights are a result of an AHP survey conducted among 40
27 expert respondents.
28
29 3.2.2 Vulnerability Conditions
30
31 Table 6: Vulnerability condition assessment for building 01-010.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53 _______________________________________________________________________________
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
 Page 6 of 10

1
2
3 The roofing system employs a gable-type roof (2 slopes) made of GI sheets. Wind pressure
4 distribution is less for roofs with more slopes (e.g. hip roofs) [7, 8]. The roof slopes between 30 and
5 45-degrees from the horizontal. This slope is considered the optimal range because wind pressure
6 distribution is lesser under this slope configuration. Steeper roof slopes provide more positive
7 pressure, whereas flat roofs provide more negative pressure [9].
8 The building has two floors, elevated 8-meters from the ground elevation. Portions of the buildings
9 openings are partially open as some storeowners use it for ventilation. Windows are made of glass
10 material. An ordinary framing system is also conservatively taken due to lack of further information.
11 The plan is L-shape with re-entrant corners, making it irregular. Mezzanine floors are also observed.
12 The commercial stores use these as storage for the good they sell. These additional floors may cause
13 mass irregularities to exist in the structure. The first floor is higher than the second floor by 2-
14 meters, resulting to a possible soft story. These conditions ultimately return a vulnerability index of
15 2.336, with the utilized weights as shown on table 6.
16
17 3.2.3 Modifier conditions
18
19 Table 7: Modifier condition assessment for The structure has a 1.75-meter extension for the
20 building 01-010 arcaded pathway. The parapet height is
21 approximately 1-meter over the long plan
22 dimension of 44.80-meters. This results to a ratio of
23 0.0223. Wind tunnel experiments show that a
24 parapet height to long plan dimension ratio between
25 0.01 and 0.02, provides higher stress in the parapets
26
[10]. Load discontinuities have been observed,
27
where columns do not extend continuously. This
scenario may create stress concentrations in the
28
structure. More so, diagonal (shear) cracks have
29
also been observed in beams.
30
31 Altogether, these conditions alter the original
32 vulnerability score of 2.336, by 0.833. The new
33 vulnerability index is therefore 4.282.
34
35
36
37
38 4. Results and Conclusion
39
40 4.1 Pilot Study in Iloilo City
41
The City of Iloilo is located in the Visayas group of Islands, central Philippines. Iloilo city is
42
43
considered as one of the oldest cities in the country. During early Spanish occupation, the city was
44 central to the seat of power of the Spanish rule in the country. Due to this, the city contains a
45 collection of historic sites, monuments and buildings. In the Central Business District (CBD) of the
46 city, majority of the houses were built during the American occupation. These houses belonged to
47 the prominent Filipino class and Chinese traders [11] during the said era. Today, the houses have
48 not only become cultural heritage sites for the Iloilo people, but also useful economic and tourist
49 hubs, which is integrated with the present culture of the city.
50
51 Realizing the importance of preserving these heritage structures, the city government has actively
52 pursued the advocacy of promoting the citys culture. Through a city resolution, the CBD has been
53 identified as a cultural heritage hubcalling for the preservation and protection of the more than 30
54 identified heritage buildings. It has also instituted a heritage council to oversee the preservation and
55 promotion efforts of the city. The advocacy has since gained the support of the private sector
56 including both the academe and the business sector.
57
58
59
60
Page 7 of 10

1
2
3 In support of these efforts, the developed methodology was pilot tested in the CBD area. Through
4 this, the heritage buildings were ranked for deeper investigation and preservation based on the
5 heritage building value and hazard-vulnerability assessment. The relative level of risk for each
6 heritage building is based on the calculated risk index (through equation 1), normalized over a scale
7 of 0.000 to 1.000. High risk category are for risk indices falling in the range of 1.000 to 0.667,
8
medium risk category are for risk indices falling in the range of 0.666 to 0.334 and low risk
9
10 category has indices in the range of 0.333 to 0.000.
11 For each of the risk categories, courses of action have also been recommended based on critical key
12 parameters. Heritage buildings with identified critical parameters were flagged. Courses of action
13 include installation of hurricane straps, repair of deteriorated materials, installation of fire
14
15
suppression systems, structural condition analysis for different load bearing capacities and the like.
16 Shown in figure 4, are the top-, middle- and least-ranking heritage buildings per asset value,
17 extreme wind risk, seismic risk and fire risk. The normalized risk index ranking already includes the
18 heritage building asset value.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43 Fig. 4: Heritage building preservation prioritization ranking
44
45 4.2 Benefits and Conclusion
46
47 In the pilot study made in the City of Iloilo, convincing indications for the need: (1) to integrate
48 disaster risk reduction into the preservation of cultural heritage and vice versa, (2) to provide an
49 efficient technique in the preservation efforts and (3) to execute regular economic technical
50 inspections of the buildings are highlighted. The inspections have shown the lack of an
51 institutionalized clear-cut system of prescribing the order of preservation, based on structural
52
aspects against multi-risks and the cultural aspects of a heritage building. It was observed that some
53
54 heritage structures, although aesthetically preserved, have a rather deteriorating structure
55 potentially structurally risky. To this regard, the proposed methodology is able to provide an
56 efficient and objective prioritization and preservation management tool that integrates both the
57 cultural heritage and the structural aspects against various risks of fire, extreme wind and
58
59
60
 Page 8 of 10

1
2
3 earthquake. The rapid screening technique allows for cost-saving regular inspections, which can be
4 easily conducted. The developed methodology is also easy to learn.
5
6 In light of the increasing magnitudes of disasters and degrading vulnerable states of the heritage
7 buildings, the urgent need to systematize risk mitigation in this particular cluster of infrastructures
8 has to be addressed. In this case, it is not only the lives of the people that may be permanently lost
9 but also built heritage that cannot be replaced. The proposed methodology for heritage buildings
10 can be universally adapted to different clusters of heritage building for a cost-saving, efficient and
11 objective prioritization for risk mitigation of heritage structures. In the end, both life and cultural
12 heritage are saved.
13
14 5. References
15
16 [1] VICENTE, R., MENDES DA SILVA, J., & VARUM, H., Seismic Vulnerability
17 Assessment of Buildings in the Old City Centre of Coimbra, 250th Anniversary of the 1755
18 Lisbon Earthquake, Lisbon, 2005.
19
20 [2] CURTIS, T, Culture Heritage and Disaster Risk Reduction: Developing a Culture of
21 Resilience, International Conference on Cultural Heritage and Disaster Risk Reduction,
22 Bangkok: SEAMEO-SPAFA, 2013.
23
24 [3] BERTO, L., SAETTA, A., & SIMIONI, P.,Structural risk assessment of corroding RC
25 structures under seismic excitation, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 30, 2012, pp
26 803-813.
27
[4] YU, K. K., & ORETA, A. W., Seismic Risk Assessment of Heritage Buildings in Iloilo
28
29
City, Philippines, 5th Asia Conference on Earthquake Engineering, National Centre for
30 Research on Earthquake Engineering, Taipei, 2014.
31 [5] LEE, E., & JONES, D., Landslide Risk Assessment, T. Telford, London, 2004.
32
33 [6] UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME, Disaster Risk Assessment, October
34 2013, Retrieved April 8, 2013 from http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/crisis%
35 20prevention/disaster/2Disaster%20Risk%20 Reduction%20-%20Risk%20Assessment.pdf
36
37 [7] AGARWAL, A., Cyclone Resistant Building Architecture, United Nations Developement
38 Programme, Disaster Risk Management Programme, UNDP, 2007.
39 [8] HAQ, B., Battling the Storm: Study on Cyclone Resistant Housing, German Red Cross,
40
Dhaka, 2007.
41
42 [9] SINNAMON, I. T., & VAN'T LOO, G, Cyclone Resistant Rural Primary School
43 Construction, UNESCO, Regional Office for Education in Asia, Bangkok.
44
45 [10] STATHOPOULOS, T., MARATHE, R., & WU, H., Mean Wind Pressures on flat roof
46 corners affected by parapets: field and wind tunnel studies, Engineering Structures, Vol. 21,
47 629-638, 1999.
48
49 [11] YU, K. K., ORETA, A. W., IBABAO, R., & HECHANOVA, N., Supporting Local
50 Initiatives in Preserving Heritage Buildings in Iloilo City (Philippines) through Risk
51 Assessment, International Conference on Cultural Heritage and Disaster Risk Reduction,
52 SEAMEO-SPAFA, Bangkok, 2013.
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 9 of 10

1
2
3
4
Multi-Hazard Risk and Asset Value Assessment of Heritage Buildings
5 (Case Study in Iloilo City, Philippines)
6
7
8 Kirk Kennedy YU Andres Winston ORETA
9 M.S. Civil Engineering Professor
10 De La Salle University De La Salle University
11 Manila, Philippines Manila, Philippines
12 kirk_yu@dlsu.edu.ph andres.oreta@dlsu.edu.ph
13
Kirk Kennedy Yu, born 1993, Andres Oreta, born in 1961,
14 received his civil engineering graduated D.Eng. and M.Eng at
15 degree from De La Salle Nagoya University, Japan and B.S.
16 University, April 2015. His thesis Civil Engineering at University of the
17 focused on the development of a Philippines. He is also a member of
level one, risk assessment tool for Association of Structural Engineers
18 heritage buildings. of the Philippines and Philippine
19 Institute of Civil Engineers.
20 Summary
21
22 Heritage buildings belong to the most vulnerable class of structures because of the material degradation and
23 the lack of structural design present. With the increasing frequency and magnitude of disasters, the need to
24 preserve heritage buildings is further underlined. The risk assessment method considered various risks and
25 the inclusion of the heritage building asset value. The pilot study in Iloilo was able to create a shortlist of
26 prioritized heritage buildings for preservation.
27 Keywords: heritage buildings, rapid visual screening, prioritized preservation, risk assessment
28
29 1. Introduction
30
31 1.1 Risk assessment for heritage buildings
32
Heritage buildings are key to our identity as a people. However, the upkeep and preservation of heritage
33
buildings is made difficult because of the vulnerability of these structures due to non-application of structural
34 design codes [1] and material deterioration [2]. In addition to this, most of the existing rapid screening
35 procedures do not account for the material deterioration and the cultural heritage value of the building. In
36 response, the developed risk assessment tool accounts for both aforementioned aspects.
37
38 1.2 Defining risk for heritage buildings
39 Risk is a play between hazard as the harmful event, vulnerability as the capacity of the asset to withstand the
40 harmful event and the importance of the asset itself [3]. These three form the basic risk equation used to
41 derive a risk index for each heritage building. An aggravating factor, M, is added to modify the vulnerability
42 score.
43
44 Risk = Hazard Vu ln erability Asset (1)
45 V ' = V (1+ M ) (2)
46
47 2. Asset value assessment for heritage
48 buildings
49
50 Heritage buildings are irrecoverable assets with
51 priceless value, emanating from a shared cultural
52 value of history, art or science. From these definitions,
53 heritage buildings are classified in five key values,
54 clustered in two different categories (figure 1).
55 Equation 3 is used to calculate the asset value index.
Fig. 1: Asset value index logic tree
56
57 A = (w1 CHI) + (w2 ETI) (3)
58
59
60
 Page 10 of 10

1
2
3 3. Hazard and vulnerability assessment for heritage buildings
4
Considering the hazards of fire, seismic and extreme conditions, key parameters quantifying the level of risk
5 for each component of risk are listed in table 1.
6
7
Table 1: Summary of key parameters for each hazard The three hazards are considered mutually
exclusive. Each key parameter is given a score
8 of 3, 2 or 1 based on a rubric. Weights for each
9 key parameter are also taken through an AHP
10 survey among experts.
11
12 4. Results and Conclusion
13
14 4.1 Pilot Study in Iloilo City
15
16 The City of Iloilo is located in the Visayas
17 group of Islands, central Philippines. Iloilo city
18 is considered as one of the oldest cities in the
19 country. Realizing the importance of
20 preserving these heritage structures, the city
21 government has actively pursued the advocacy
22 of promoting the citys culture.
23 In support of these efforts, the developed
24 methodology was pilot tested in the CBD area.
25 Through this, the heritage buildings were
26 ranked for deeper investigation and preservation based on the heritage building value and hazard-
27 vulnerability assessment (figure 2, below).
28
29 4.2 Conclusion
30 The pilot study made in the City of
31 Iloilo has shown the lack of an
32 institutionalized clear-cut system of
33
prescribing the order of
34
preservation, based on structural
35
aspects against multi-risks and the
36
cultural aspects of a heritage
37
building. To this regard, the
38
proposed methodology is able to
39
40
provide an efficient and objective
41 prioritization and preservation
42 management tool that integrates
43 both the cultural heritage and the
44 structural aspects against various
45 risks. In the end, both life and
46 cultural heritage are saved.
47
48 Fig. 2: Heritage building preservation prioritization ranking.
49
50 5. References
51
52 [1] VICENTE, R., MENDES DA SILVA, J., & VARUM, H., Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Buildings in
53 the Old City Centre of Coimbra, 250th Anniversary of the 1755 Lisbon Earthquake, Lisbon, 2005.
54 [2] BERTO, L., SAETTA, A., & SIMIONI, P.,Structural risk assessment of corroding RC structures under
55 seismic excitation, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 30, 2012, pp 803-813.
56 [3] UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME, Disaster Risk Assessment, October 2013, Retrieved
57 April 8, 2013 from http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/crisis%
58 20prevention/disaster/2Disaster%20Risk%20 Reduction%20-%20Risk%20Assessment.pdf
59
60