Philippine Journal of Science

147 (2): 301-316, June 2018

ISSN 0031 - 7683
Date Received: 11 Aug 2017

A GIS-Based Earthquake Damage Prediction in

Different Earthquake Models: A Case Study at the
University of the Philippines Los Baños, Philippines

Ibnu Rusydy1,3,*, Decibel V. Faustino-Eslava2, Umar Muksin3,5, Richelle Gallardo-Zafra4,

Jedidiah Joel C. Aguirre4, Nathaniel C. Bantayan6, Lubna Alam7, and Shruthi Dakey8

1Department
of Geological Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
Syiah Kuala University, Banda Aceh, Indonesia
2School of Environmental Science and Management,

University of the Philippines, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines

3Tsunami and Disaster Mitigation Research Center, Syiah Kuala University, Banda Aceh, Indonesia
4Department of Civil Engineering, University of Philippines Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines
5Department of Physics, Faculty of Sciences, Syiah Kuala University, Banda Aceh, Indonesia
6College of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of the Philippines, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines
7LESTARI, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Selangor, Malaysia
8Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Maharashtra, India

The University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB) is located in an earthquake-prone region
and there are numerous earthquake sources that can possibly cause an earthquake at any
magnitude anytime. A study of the earthquake damage prediction in several earthquake
magnitude and time scenarios in GIS model analysis has been conducted for the UPLB’s
campus. This study aims to produce several scenarios of the earthquake models and an intensity
map for UPLB’s campus; to determine the damage ratio of the buildings and its distribution
in different earthquake scenarios; and to estimate the casualty in the UPLB’s community; as
well as to validate the earthquake model with historical earthquakes in the Philippines. Data
preparation included the earthquake scenario model using shallow crustal shaking attenuation
to produce an intensity map on the bedrock and the surface after site coefficient correction. The
earthquake model in different scenarios is generated from the West Valley Fault (with Segment
IV as the assumed locus). The damage ratio in different types of buildings was calculated using
fragility curves of buildings of the Philippines. Population data of each building in different
occupancy times, damage ratios, and injury ratios is used to compute the number of the injured
due to an earthquake. The results reveal that UPLB’s building are subject to intensity range of
MMI (Modified Mercalli Intensity) 6.7-8.1 due to 6.1-7.7 Mw earthquake coming from different
sources along the West Valley Fault. The worst event of an earthquake is 7.7 Mw from Segment
IV, which can cause 32-51% damage to buildings and injure 12-24.6% of a building population
in a daytime (2 PM) event and injure 8-158 students in a dormitory at 2 AM (nighttime). The
validation process shows that the mean square error between the calculated intensity and the
actual intensity in the Philippines is 0.35.

Key words: damage prediction, earthquake, earthquake loss scenario, GIS, UPLB

*Corresponding author: ibnu@unsyiah.ac.id

301
Philippine Journal of Science
Vol. 147 No. 2, June 2018
INTRODUCTION
The safety of a university is the most pressing need for
students, lecturers, and university members. Universities
have several types of buildings with different purposes
(academic, services, administrative, and dormitory), some
of which become more vulnerable compared to other
buildings when an earthquake occurs. The Philippines
experiences many destructive earthquakes in various parts
of the country. One of the most remembered earthquakes
is the 1990 Central Luzon earthquake with magnitude
of Ms = 7.8 (Kojima et al. 1992; Wieczorek et al. 1992).
Therefore, studying earthquake damage prediction in
several scenarios becomes necessary to decrease the
vulnerability and increase the capacity of the community
in the future.
To study building damage prediction in several earthquake
scenarios based on Geographic Information System
(GIS) analysis, it is necessary to estimate the earthquake
intensity in several scenarios of magnitudes and the
source of the earthquake from the fault close to the study
area. This earthquake intensity or ground shaking is the
primary factor that causes building damage compared
to liquefaction, landslide, and seismic bearing capacity
(Cinicioglu et al. 2007). The second process is to evaluate
the damage ratio based on the seismic performance in
Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) of each building and
the fragility curve in a different type of structures, which
is proposed by Tingatinga and co-authors (2013). The third
step in this study is to calculate the damage distribution
and the number of damaged buildings from the damage
ratio and buildings inventory data at the University of the
Philippines Los Baños (UPLB).
Earthquake damage prediction using the systematic
GIS method was proposed by Miura and co-authors
(2008), Hashemi and Alesheikh (2011), and Karimzadeh
and co-authors (2014). The method involved several
geological data such as geological map, groundwater,
sedimentological map, alluvial thickness, microtremor
dataset, and earthquake catalog. For an earthquake
scenario, deterministic seismic hazard analysis (DSHA)
uses the ArcGIS toolset. Karimzadeh and co-authors
(2014) argue that the DSHA method is accurate where the
tectonic setting is reasonably active and well located. To
estimate the building damage ratio, Karimzadeh and co-
authors (2014) used the fragility curve in a different type
of buildings as a function of MMI and they estimated the
casualty ratio from historical earthquakes in the study area.
In the Philippines, numerous studies on earthquake
engineering, including damage prediction, simulation,
and site response, were carried out by several researchers.
Torregosa and co-authors (2001) conducted a strong
ground motion simulation technique based on seismic
302
Rusydy et al.: GIS-Based Earthquake
Damage Prediction at UPLB
hazard assessment that incorporates both historical
earthquakes and active faults in the Philippines. The study
successfully produced a peak ground acceleration (PGA)
map of the Philippines in the expected event of 475-year
recurrence (10% in 50 years) and occasional events of
100-year recurrence (39% in 50 years). The PGA map
is a macrozonation map based on the acceleration in the
bedrock; to build a microzonation map, one needs to
determine the surface ground shaking. For Metro Manila,
Miura and co-authors (2008) conducted earthquake
damage estimation due to an earthquake scenario and
estimated the seismic performance of a building based on
an expert judgment. The damage ratio of the structure is
calculated from the fragility curve that varies with each
building, and the distributions of the destroyed buildings
are calculated by considering the damage ratios and the
building inventory.
In this study, the ArcGIS software was used to transform
all parameters into actionable information. All parameters
– such as geological map, amplification map based on
standard penetrating test (SPT) data, several earthquake
scenarios’ map in MMI, the fault map, and the type of
building maps – are converted to shape files. All the maps
were classified and used to calculate the damage ratio of
UPLB’s buildings, damage distribution, and loss analysis.
Tectonics and Seismicity of the Study Area
The Philippines is located in one of the most seismically
active regions of Asia. Several significant and destructive
earthquakes have occurred almost in every part of the
country. The earthquake of 1990 in Central Luzon with
magnitude of Ms 7.8 was the greatest earthquake for
the people of the Philippines. The Philippines has many
earthquake sources, such as the Philippine Trench, built
by subduction of the western edge of the Philippine Sea
Plate below the Eurasian Plate; this trench is the primary
source of earthquakes and causes the Philippines to be
classified as an earthquake-prone country (Kojima et
al. 1992; Wieczorek et al. 1992; Torregosa et al. 2001).
The trench extends from the south of Mindanao Island to
Luzon Island in the north for a distance of about 1,400
km and is seismically active (Galgana et al. 2007). The
other sources of earthquakes are the Philippine Fault Zone
(PFZ), Manila Trench, and West Valley Fault System
(WVFS), which roughly parallel the Philippine Trench.
The PFZ formed due to oblique convergence between
the Philippine Sea Plate and the Eurasian Plate (Rowlett
& Kelleher 1976; Besana & Ando 2005; Rimando &
Knuepfer 2006). The PFZ is an active sinistral fault that
extends from Mindanao to Luzon Island in a distance
over 1,600 km long (Rimando & Knuepfer 2006). From
the southeastern part of Luzon, the PFZ traverses into
the Ragay Gulf zone and continues southeastward to the
Philippine Journal of Science Rusydy et al.: GIS-Based Earthquake
Vol. 147 No. 2, June 2018 Damage Prediction at UPLB

eastern part of Burias Island; approximately 10 major

historical earthquakes occurred along this area (Rowlett
& Kelleher 1976). Besana and Ando (2005) noted that
the PFZ in Quezon transects to the west seaward of Ticao
Island and then enters the southeastern Masbate Island;
continuation of the PFZ is found on the island of Leyte
along the same trend. The Luzon earthquake (1990) was
the most destructive earthquake that occurred in the PFZ.
The Manila Trench is an active subduction zone caused
by the penetration of the South China Sea plate beneath
the northern Philippine Sea Plate. The 1,200-km-long
Manila trench is associated with the east-dipping Benioff
zone beneath Luzon (Hayes & Lewis 1985; Nguyen et al.
2014). In order to conduct tsunami modeling, Nguyen and
co-workers (2014) introduced several models of seismic
sources located along the Manila trench. Based on the
model, an earthquake with magnitude of Mw 9.3 could
occur along the Manila trench that could also cause high
ground shaking.
However, the most devastating seismic source for the
study area originates from the VFS. The VFS is the closest
earthquake source to the study area at the distance in
between 20-40 km. According to Rimando and Knuepfer
(2006), VFS is a dextral (right lateral) strike-slip fault with
a length of 130 km extending from the south of Canlubang
to the Dingalan Bay in the north striking north-northeast
Figure 1. The Valley Fault System (VFS) and its segments are
(NNE). There are other sources of the earthquake (e.g.,
directly north of the UPLB campus (black rectangle). The
East Zambales fault) that can cause significant damage to VFS fault map is modified from Rimando and Knuepfer
the site but fault going to model its effects in future study. (2006), while the digital elevation model dataset is from
NASA 2007.
Rimando and Knuepfer (2006) divided the VFS into two
major fault systems: East Valley Fault System (EVFS) and
WVFS. The WVFS is divided into four minor segments: The earthquake estimation of each segment is shown in
Rodriguez-Taguig (segment I), Sucat-Binan (segment II), Figure 1.
Binan-Sto. Domingo (segment III), and Pittland-Sungay
(segment IV). The EVFS is divided into six segments: Several earthquake magnitude scenarios were considered
Umiray (segment V), San Mateo-Rodriguez (segment with the termini of West Valley Fault and East Valley
VI), Antipolo (segment VII), Angono (segment VIII), Fault (segments IV and X) as sources to produce a
Binangonan (segment IX), and Talim Island (segment X) ground shaking model. The ground shaking or intensity
(Figure 1). Pittland-Sungay segment (IV) of WVFS and is profoundly influenced by local geological characteristic
Talim Island segment of EVFS are the closest faults in the or site coefficient. Different site coefficients will produce
distance of about 20-30 km to this study area, and both different site responses to the earthquake, and this is based
segments were recognized as active faults by Rimando on soil properties/geotechnical conditions underlying
and Knuepfer (2006). buildings (Akin et al. 2011; Mohamed et al. 2013;
Fabbrocino et al. 2015; Rusydy et al. 2017).
Nelson and co-authors (2000) predicted that the possible
magnitude of the earthquake that will be produced in this
fault system is approximately 6.8-7.1 Mw. Otherwise,
Rimando and Knuepfer (2006) calculated the estimation METHODOLOGY
magnitude in this fault system based on empirical
relationships among surface displacement, rupture length, GIS-based earthquake damage prediction is a method to
and magnitude within a range of 6.1-7.5 Mw (empirical develop damage estimation including infrastructure and
relationship based on length) and in the range of 7.4-7.7 human in different earthquake scenarios. In this study,
Mw (empirical relationship based on displacement). the earthquake model in several scenarios is scrutinized

303
Philippine Journal of Science
Vol. 147 No. 2, June 2018
very well and refers to the previous neotectonic and
paleoseismic studies of Nelson and co-authors (2000) and
Rimando and Knuepfer (2006). The ground shaking or
intensity scenario is developed using new global shaking
attenuation for shallow and near earthquake equation,
which was proposed by Allen and co-authors (2012).
Figure 2. The flowchart of earthquake damage prediction in several
earthquake scenarios.
Damage estimation of several types of buildings is
calculated based on the fragility curve for different
buildings. In the present, the Philippines has developed a
fragility curve in a different type of buildings as a function
of the intensity of the earthquakes in MMI; these fragility
curves were developed by Tingatinga and co-authors
(2013). The steps of this study are shown in Figure 2 and
the details of the methodology of this study – including
data preparation, earthquake scenario, building damage
assessment analysis, and casualty estimation – will be
explained in detail in this section.
Data Preparation
GIS analysis for earthquake damage prediction needs
several shape file data to be input into the GIS software.
The tectonic map of Philippines obtained from Bautista
and Oike (2000) and the detail of Valley Fault System
gathered from Rimando and Knuepfer (2006) are digitized
using ArcGIS software and overlaid with Shuttle Radar
Topography Mission (SRTM) map from NASA 2007, as
shown in Figure 1. The location of active fault segments
and magnitude estimates are key parameters in developing
the earthquake sources scenarios to be used in the
modeling (see section 3.2).
Earthquake Scenario
Seismology has been well developed, especially in the
study of shaking attenuation in earthquake scenarios and
models. Shaking attenuation is an empirical approach
to determine ground motion in PGA and intensity of
the earthquake in MMI. Intensity values derived from
this approach are useful tools for the rapid and efficient
communication of information on earthquake hazards and
risks to the public and media (Allen et al. 2012). Dowrick
304
Rusydy et al.: GIS-Based Earthquake
Damage Prediction at UPLB
and Rhoades (2005) developed an empirical model of
shaking attenuation in intensity for New Zealand. Atkinson
and Wald (2007) created an online survey that was used
by USGS to determine intensity data. Different tectonic
settings have different shaking attenuations. The choice
of the type of shaking attenuation applied in the study
depends on the similarity of tectonic settings, geological
characteristics, and the source of the earthquake.
In this study, the researchers used the shaking
attenuation that was developed by Allen and co-
authors (2012) to produce earthquake intensity maps
from different magnitude-source scenarios (see Figure
3). This attenuation model estimates intensities due
to an earthquake with hypo central depths of less than
approximately 20 km and magnitudes of 5-7.9 Mw. It
is therefore applicable to many earthquake generating
geologic structure in the Philippines. Called the
Intensity Prediction Equations (IPEs; Allen et al. 2012),
the attenuation model was developed using 13,077
earthquakes around the world since 1973. Of these
earthquakes, 1,613 are from Asian countries and include
historical earthquakes that occurred in the Philippines.
Equation (1) is used to estimate the intensity of the
earthquake at a distance from the rupture zone. Equation
2 was proposed by Cinicioglu and co-authors (2007) and
is used to compute the site amplification effect.
(1)
(2)
In the above equations, I stands for intensity in MMI,
M stands for magnitude of the earthquake in Mw, Rrup
stands for the distance to the rupture zone in km, c is a
coefficient number (c0 = 3.950, c1 = 0.913, c2 = −1.107,
and c3 = 0.813), S is the site correction, and F is the site
amplification (Fv for a long period, Fa for a short period)
representing the amplification capacity of the local soil.
Using equation (1), the researchers were able to generate
the intensity map model of several earthquake scenarios
in different rupture zones and magnitude estimation
(Figure 3). Rusydy and co-authors (2017) used equation
(1) to produce the intensity model in the Philippines.
For the purpose of this study, the researchers assume the
segments closest to the site, segments IV and X, as the
loci of earthquakes along the West Valley fault and the
East Valley Fault, respectively. Three scenarios involve
segment IV of the West Valley fault as the assumed locus
of earthquakes with magnitudes 7.7 Mw (Scenario 1),
7.2 Mw (Scenario 2), and 6.1 Mw (Scenario 3). Segment
X (Talim Island) fault is chosen as the source of the
Philippine Journal of Science Rusydy et al.: GIS-Based Earthquake
Vol. 147 No. 2, June 2018 Damage Prediction at UPLB

Figure 3. Intensity map (MMI) from several earthquake scenarios without any site correction: (a) intensity map of a 7.7 Mw magnitude
earthquake from WMVF with Segment IV as the rupture zone, (b) 7.2 Mw magnitude earthquake from WMVF with Segment
IV as the rupture zone, (c) 6.1 Mw magnitude earthquake from WMVF with Segment IV as the rupture zone, and (d) 6.5 Mw
magnitude earthquake from EMVF with Segment X as the rupture zone. Digital elevation model dataset is from NASA 2007.

earthquake for Scenario IV with a magnitude of 6.5 Mw.
The magnitude estimates are based on segment lengths
and single-event scarp displacements determined by
Rimando and Knuepfer (2006) (Figure 1). Segments IV
and X are geometric segments and are not necessarily
equivalent to rupture segments. In other words, the whole
of WMVF and the EMVF are the more likely sources of
earthquakes. Rimando and Knuepfer (2006) clearly state
the distinction between these types of segment. This study
merely assumes that earthquakes shall occur along the
segments that are closest to the site. Making the segments
of the WVF and EVF that are closest to the site (Segment
IV and X) as earthquake loci minimizes underestimation
of intensity estimates.
Site Coefficient Analysis
The intensity of earthquake produced from the earthquake
scenario model is intensity in the bedrock without any
consideration of the site coefficient or site amplification. The
Site coefficient, site characteristic, and shear modulus (Gmax)
of the soil can be accurately determined from the shear wave
velocity (Vs). However, that parameter can also be estimated
from SPT, cone penetrating test, dilatometer test (DMT), and
pressuremeter test (PMT) (Akin et al. 2011). Because the Vs
data is not available in UPLB’s campus, this study used the
N-SPT and directly performed classification based on soil
classification in ASCE/SEI 7-10 (2010). The amplification
factor or the site coefficient (Fa for short periods and Fv for
1-second periods) represents the amplification capability of

305
Philippine Journal of Science Rusydy et al.: GIS-Based Earthquake
Vol. 147 No. 2, June 2018 Damage Prediction at UPLB

the local soils with regard to uniform ground condition. The segments are assumed to be shallow crustal earthquakes
values of Fa and Fv are from ASCE/SEI 7-10 (Minimum and therefore, will have tremendous impact in terms
Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures) (2010) of casualties and damage to buildings (Allen et al.
while the PGA values (from 0.2 to 0.4) are from the PGA 2012). The resistance of buildings to ground shaking,
maps of Torregosa and co-authors (2001) and Aguirre (2013). which varies from one area to another (and from one
Table 1 shows the N-SPT data and amplification values for country to another), will affect the damage, injury,
UPLB Campus’ soil. For this study, SE is considered for two and mortality ratios (Rusydy et al. 2017). To estimate
reasons: first, the obtained borehole logs do not represent the damage ratio different type of building in
the soil in the site since the depth of the boreholes does not the Philippines, Tingatinga and co-authors (2013)
reach 30 m; second, the results will yield more conservative developed vulnerability curve or fragility curve based on
results. However, the researchers used the N-SPT data as the ground shaking in MMI. They developed the fragility
the assuming that the UPLB campus consists of pyroclastic curve using an analytic method (using nonlinear static
deposit and assume almost homogeny. pushover), empirical method (post-earthquake visual
surveys and damage report), heuristic method (based
on expert opinion and judgment), and hybrid approach
Earthquake Damage Prediction Analysis
for the types of buildings of the Philippines. The type
The UPLB is located at a distance of 16-24 km from
of building in the research of Tingatinga and co-authors
Segment X of EVFS and Segment IV of WVFS (Figure
(2013) was typically similar to that proposed by FEMA
4), respectively. The earthquakes from these fault
(2010). The fragility curve will show the damage
ratio of the structures on a scale of 0 to 1 against the
Table 1. Site coefficient (F v and F a) for five different soil ground shaking (Tingatinga et al. 2013). In this study,
classifications based on ASCE/SEI 7-10 (2010) for PGA the researchers used the fragility curve designed by
map 0.4 g.
Tingatinga and co-authors (2013) in different types of
Site Class SA SB SC SD SE buildings in UPLB’s campus, because this fragility curve
N-SPT NA NA >50 15 to 50 <15 is developed for the buildings in the Philippines and is
Fa 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.72 more comprehensive (Figure 5).
Fv 0.80 1.00 1.40 1.60 2.40

Figure 4. (a) The type of building in UPLB’s campus and the location of the N-SPT borehole. (b) The N-SPT data in UPLB’s campus from
Campus Planning and Development Office (CPDO) in Cantos (2015). Digital elevation model dataset is from National Mapping
and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA) of the Philippines.

306
Philippine Journal of Science
Vol. 147 No. 2, June 2018
Figure 5. Fragility curve of four types of buildings in the study area as a function of intensity in MMI (Tingatinga
et al. 2013).
An inventory and classification of UPLB buildings were
conducted by Valino (2014) and Arellano (2016). They
listed 67 buildings in UPLB’s lower campus and classified
them into two types: (1) low-rise concrete moment frame
(C1-L) and (2) medium-rise concrete moment frame (C1-
M). The researchers updated the inventory building data
from 67 to 145 buildings from Valino (2014) and Arellano
(2016). This study found 145 buildings in UPLB’s lower
campus and all those buildings were divided into three
categories: (1) low-rise concrete moment frame (C1-L),
(2) medium-rise concrete moment frame (C1-M), and
(3) low-rise light wood frame (W1-L). The distribution
of the buildings in UPLB’s lower campus is shown in
Figure 4(a). To determine the damage ratio in a different
type of building, the fragility curve in Figure 5 will be
used, which depends on the intensity response of each
building in UPLB.
The damage ratio of each building will yield a different
casualty number because of the people trapped in the
collapsed or heavily damaged buildings (Hashemi &
Alesheikh 2011). The primary factor of casualty of an
earthquake is building collapse, taking into account
about 75% casualty (Coburn & Spence 2002). The
estimation of building casualty from one earthquake to
another is difficult. For one, the documented casualty
data is inadequate. In most cases, available data show a
wide range in the number of casualties. There are many
Rusydy et al.: GIS-Based Earthquake
Damage Prediction at UPLB
equations used to calculate the casualty ratio; in this study,
the researchers used the equation (3) proposed by Hashemi
and Alesheikh (2011).
Injured = Occupancy ratio x population x damage ratio x injury ratio. (3)
In nighttime, the occupancy ratio is assumed as 1 for
dormitories because all students are in the dormitory at
this time and is considered as 0 for academic, services,
and administrative buildings. The researchers have census
data of the student population in the dormitories, but for
academics, services, and administrative buildings, they
were unable to access the data. The computation of the
maximum occupant capacity method that was proposed
by the NBCP (2004) can be used in consideration of peak
population condition, but this computation method had
uncertainties. To avoid these, it was assumed that the
population in all offices in the building as 100% and the
casualty or injury estimate result will be in percent (%).
Currently, there are a few studies on the relationship
between the type of building and the number of mortalities
and injuries in the Philippines. However, there is an online
report published by the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) (1990). The report examined
the casualty in several cities after the Luzon earthquake
in 1990, which was gathered by the Philippines Field
Epidemiology Training Program (FETP). In Baguio city,
the report noted that 28 buildings, 132 residences, 3 hotels,
and 2 schools collapsed due to Luzon earthquake. FETP
307
Philippine Journal of Science Rusydy et al.: GIS-Based Earthquake
Vol. 147 No. 2, June 2018 Damage Prediction at UPLB

Table 2. The population of the students in a dormitory in UPLB. The RESULTS

data was gathered from the Programmatic Environmental
Performance Report and Management Plan (PEPRMP
Earthquake Scenario for UPLB’s Lower Campus
2014) and Rusydy et al. (2017).
Earthquake damage in UPLB campus were predicted
No. Dormitories Population Source of Data
under four different earthquake scenarios and at
1. Men's Residence Hall 646 PEPRMP 2014 two assumed periods of earthquake occurrence. The
Women's Residence earthquake scenarios shown in Figure 3 did not consider
2. 444 PEPRMP 2014 site coefficient. Using Equation (2), the researchers
Hall
calculated the site coefficient for use as equation (1) input
Veterinary Medicine
3. 376 Rusydy et al. (2017) to determine the surface intensity. According to ASCE/SEI
Residence Hall 7-10 (2010), PGA is 0.4 and soil type will produce a site
coefficient of 1.72. The calculated values for equations
4. New Dormitory 294 Rusydy et al. (2017) (1) and (2) are shown in Table 4.

5. ACCI 90 PEPRMP 2014 Scenarios I-III assume earthquake centered along the
SEARCA Residence southernmost segment of WVF (Segment IV), while
6. 90 Rusydy et al. (2017) scenario IV assumed an earthquake event centered along the
Hotel
southernmost segment of EVF (Segment X). Scenario I is
the worst-scenario for UPLB, with a magnitude of 7.7 Mw
7. ATI-NTC 126 Rusydy et al. (2017)
event producing an intensity about 8.1. Though scenarios
8. International House 124 PEPRMP 2014
II and IV different earthquake magnitude is assumed, these
generate similar intensity (i.e., 7.7 and 7.6 MMI) because
of the shorter distance between segment IV and UPLB
campus. The weakest intensity (6.7 MMI) happens in
estimated the injury rate in Baguio City to be 703/100,000
scenario III, which assumes a magnitude of only 6.1 Mw.
or 0.7% of the population and estimated the mortality rate
as 252/100,000 or 0.252%. The FETP also collected the In this study, the site coefficient or amplification factor
casualty data in Cabanatuan, Dagupan, and La Union, but of 1.72 is considered similar in the entire building.
the injury and mortality rates were less than in Baguio city. This consideration due to all the N-STP data shown the
A worst-case scenario for injury and mortality ratios in similarity value and geologically, UPLB campus consist
different types or buildings was developed by Hashemi of pyroclastic deposit and assume almost homogeny. GIS
and Alesheikh (2011) in Tehran, Iran, which is more is used in superimposing the intensity map model (figure
vulnerable to damage. Although the injury ratio is very 3) over the site coefficient map.
high, it will be adjusted by the value of damage ratio and
value of occupancy ratio. This injury ratio will be applied
Damage Estimation and Distribution of UPLB
to calculate the casualty ratio in this study as shown in
Buildings
Table 3, and this ratio will be the worst-case scenario of
GIS analysis revealed that a magnitude of 7.7 Mw in
building damage and the number of injuries.
Scenario I will result in a building damage ratio in the
range of 0.32-0.51 ratio or equal to 32-51% at UPLB’s
Table 3. A worst-case scenario of injury ratio for different types of lower campus. Damage value of 51% influences low-rise
buildings proposed by Hashemi and Alesheikh (2011). concrete moment frame (C1-L) buildings, 47% to low-
No. Type of Building Injury Ratio rise light wood frame (W1-L) buildings, and 32% to
1. RC Building > 4 stories (C1-M) 0
medium-rise concrete moment frame (C1-M) buildings.
2. RC Building < 4 stories (C1-L) 0.2 In Scenario II, an earthquake with a magnitude of 7.2 Mw
3. Timber Frame Building (W1-L) 0.4 will cause building damage in the range of 20-41%, with
C1-M, C1-L, and W1-L experiencing 21%, 39%, and 41%

Table 4. Earthquake scenarios and ground shaking response in the bedrock and surface for UPLB’s campus.
Earthquake Scenario Magnitude (M) Distance (Rrup) Intensity at Bedrock S Intensity at Surface
I 7.7 Mw 24 Km 7.3 0.82 8.1
II 7.2 Mw 24 Km 6.9 0.82 7.7
III 6.1 Mw 24 Km 5.9 0.82 6.7
IV 6.5 Mw 16 Km 6.8 0.82 7.6

308
Philippine Journal of Science Rusydy et al.: GIS-Based Earthquake
Vol. 147 No. 2, June 2018 Damage Prediction at UPLB

of damage. In Scenario III, 6.1 Mw earthquake will cause
4-27% damage to UPLB’s buildings. C1-M, C1-L, and
W1-L will incur 4%, 16%, and 27% of damage respectively.
The damage ratios for the building in scenario IV (18-39%)
are almost similar to those in Scenario II. A Scenario IV
earthquake will cause 18% damage to C1-M buildings,
36% damage to C1-L buildings, and 39% damage to W1-L
buildings. The distribution of the damage to buildings in
several earthquake scenarios is shown in Figure 6.
Human Injury Estimation at UPLB’s Campus
In loss assessment analysis, all parameters (population,
damage ratio, and intensity) are determined precisely.
Without any detailed knowledge of how building respond
to ground shaking at different periods, these methods
could potentially add more uncertainty in loss estimate
(Allen et al. 2012). The injury estimation for the four
earthquake scenarios will be done for two different times
of the day (2 PM and 2 AM). FEMA (2010) suggested
using three different times (2 PM, 5 PM, and 2 AM),
but this study lumped 2 PM and 5 PM together, as the
university will still have activities until 5 PM.

Figure 6. Distribution of damage ratio of UPLB’s buildings in several earthquake scenarios: (a) Scenario I, (b) Scenario II, (c) Scenario
III, and (d) Scenario IV. Digital elevation model dataset is from the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority
(NAMRIA) of the Philippines.

309
Philippine Journal of Science Rusydy et al.: GIS-Based Earthquake
Vol. 147 No. 2, June 2018 Damage Prediction at UPLB

Injury Prediction in Daytime (2 PM)
Daytime at 2 PM is a busy time during the day, and at this
specific time, many students are in their classes and the
administrative personnel are in their offices. GIS analysis
using an attribute table is applied to calculate the number
of injuries using formula (3) in this time scenario. The
result shown in Figure 7 concludes that if the students
and staff have no quick response and adequate access
to an evacuation zone, this condition will injure 9.8% of
the students or officers in C1-L buildings, 0% in C1-M
buildings, and 18.8% in W1-L buildings in Scenario I
earthquake.
In Scenario II, 7.8% are predicted to be injured in C1-L
buildings, 0% in C1-M buildings, and 16.4% in W1-L
buildings. Scenario III will cause less injury; in this
scenario, only 3.2% will be injured in C1-L buildings,
0% in C1-M buildings, and 10.8% in W1-L buildings. In
Scenario IV, the intensity of the earthquake is predicted
to be 7.6 and this will injure 7.2% in C1-L buildings, 0%
in C1-M buildings, and 15.6% in W1-L buildings. This
is a relatively high percentage of injury as the students
and the personnel of UPLB have no adequate capacity
to evacuate the buildings. To minimize vulnerability,
the authorities of UPLB have to increase the capacity

Figure 7. Percentage of injury in each building; an earthquake occurs at 2 PM in several scenarios: (a) Scenario I, (b) Scenario II, (c)
Scenario III, and (d) Scenario IV. Digital elevation model dataset is from the National Mapping and Resource Information
Authority (NAMRIA) of the Philippines.

310
Philippine Journal of Science Rusydy et al.: GIS-Based Earthquake
Vol. 147 No. 2, June 2018 Damage Prediction at UPLB

of the community (students and staff) by building and
developing mitigation programs such as development of
evacuation plans, conducting of earthquake drills, and
strengthening of building.
Loss Assessment in Nighttime (2 AM)
In a nighttime event of an earthquake event, all students
are assumed to be in the dormitories of UPLB and the
offices are empty. For this scenario, this study was able to
compute the number of injuries from the population data
shown in Table 2. The nighttime occupancy ratio is 1 for
all residences, 0.6 for the University Police headquarters,
and 0.75 for the UPLB hospital. For the University Police
headquarters and the UPLB hospital, population was
estimated using the maximum occupant capacity method
that was proposed by the NBCP (2004). The number of
injuries in the UPLB community for a nighttime event is
shown in Figure 8.
There are eight residences that accommodate students and
guests in UPLB’s campus. In all earthquake scenarios, the
Men’s Residence Hall is highly vulnerable. It is estimated
that 66 students will be injured in Scenario I, 50 students
in Scenario II, 21 students in Scenario III, and 47 students
in Scenario IV. The SEARCA Residence Hotel, which

Figure 8. The number of injuries in each building; an earthquake occurs at 2 AM in several scenarios: (a) Scenario I, (b) Scenario II,
(c) Scenario III, and (d) Scenario IV. Digital elevation model dataset is from the National Mapping and Resource Information
Authority (NAMRIA) of the Philippines.

311
Philippine Journal of Science
Vol. 147 No. 2, June 2018
accommodates 90 guests, and the New Dormitory are the
safer places to stay. In the UPLB hospital, the maximum
number of medical patients, doctors, staff, and relatives
of patients is predicted to be 100 people, and at nighttime,
this population is expected to decrease. The predicted
number of injured people is five in scenario I, four in
scenario II, two in scenario III, and four in scenario IV.
Earthquake Model Validation from Historical
Earthquakes
The accuracy of the earthquake model is the main factor
for earthquake damage prediction and it should be
validated with historical earthquakes in the region. The
earthquake model is very sensitive to the earthquake
magnitude and the shaking attenuation equation and it
has to be validated. The Philippines hosts numerous large-
magnitude shallow crustal earthquakes. The IPEs equation
proposed by Allen and co-authors (2012) was used in this
study in developing earthquake scenarios. Because of
this condition, one has to validate these IPEs by shallow
Figure 9. Rupture zone of 1990 Luzon earthquake and Intensity map produced using IPEs. The rupture zone is after Punongbayan and
co-authors (2001). Digital elevation model dataset is from NASA 2007.
312
Rusydy et al.: GIS-Based Earthquake
Damage Prediction at UPLB
crustal historical earthquakes in the Philippines. The most
memorable and destructive shallow crustal earthquake is
1990 Luzon earthquake (Figure 9).
The Luzon earthquake occurred on 16 Jul 1990 in the
central part of Luzon Island, Philippines. This earthquake
had a magnitude (Ms) of 7.8 and occurred along a shallow
crustal active fault. This earthquake had a left-lateral
strike-slip source mechanism. The ground rupture had a
length of 120 km. At least 1,283 people were killed due
to the collapse of multistory buildings (Wieczorek et al.
1992; Punongbayan et al. (2001). According to Kojima
and co-authors (1992) and Ohmachi and Nakamura
(1992), the major cause of the damage was associated with
ground shaking, liquefaction, and poor building quality.
Kojima and co-authors (1992) recorded that different cities
respond with different intensities of the ground shaking
and this depends on the site coefficient and distance to the
rupture zone. Kojima and co-authors (1992) investigated
the Rossi-Forel intensity scale and noted that Baguio city
Philippine Journal of Science Rusydy et al.: GIS-Based Earthquake
Vol. 147 No. 2, June 2018 Damage Prediction at UPLB

experienced VIII-IX intensity, Agoo and Dagupan city
experienced VIII intensity, and Cabanatuan and Tarlac
experienced VI-VIII intensity.
According to Ohmachi and Nakamura (1992), Baguio City
has an amplification factor (Fv) in the range of 3-7, with
an average of 5. This amplification factor is derived from
microtremor measurement around Baguio City. In Dagupan
City, Ohmachi and Nakamura (1992) found the amplification
to be in the range of 1-4, with an average of 3. In Agoo
City, they measured 18 points of microtremor and from
the measurement, they found that the amplification factor
in Agoo city was in the range of 2-8, with an average of 4.
Table 5 shows the comparison between the calculated
MMI using IPEs and the intensities obtained by Kojima
and co-authors (1992). The intensities obtained by Kojima
and co-authors (1992) are given in terms of the Rossi-
Forel intensity scale and are converted as MMI intensity
units. The Rossi-Forel intensity scale is the first seismic
intensity scale and is still used in the Philippines. This
scale ranges from I (microseismic shock) to X (shock of
extreme intensity), while the MMI intensity scale is from
I (not felt) to XII (total destruction). Intensity IX of the
Rossi-Forel scale will cause partial or total destruction
of some buildings, fissures in the ground, landslides, and
rock falls. It is equal to intensity X of MMI where some
well-built wooden buildings and most masonry and frame
structures with foundations were destroyed. On the other
hand, intensity VI of the Rossi-Forel scale is similar to
VI MMI. It is characterized by ringing of bells, stopping
of clocks, visible agitation of shrubs and trees, moving of
some heavy furniture, a few instances of fallen plaster, and
slight damage to very old or poorly built structures. The
mean square error between the calculated intensity and
the actual intensity using IPEs in the Philippines is 0.35.
In term of damage, the 16 Jul 1990 Luzon Earthquake
caused many damaged building along the city close to the
earthquake source. The damage ratio yield in this study
refers to the fragility curve developed by Tingatinga and
co-authors (2013). The researchers validated their model
intensity and the damage ratio model with the actual data
of Luzon earthquake. The damage building information of
1990 Luzon earthquake has been archived well. Booth and
co-authors (1991) has reported the visual damage of building
(photos) each effected zone. These photos used to classify
the structural damage of building. The visual classification
of structural damage refers to Okada and Takai (2000). The
result of damage ratio validation is shown in Table 6.
Table 6 shows some similarity between this study’s
damage model and actual damage model. The actual
damage model presented in range due to the variation of
damage in a particular city. Most of the cities experience
heavy damage (0.4-0.6) to major damage (0.6-1.0) and
only in Dagupan City the building experienced moderate
(0.2-0.4) to heavy damage (0.4-0.6).

Table 5. The earthquake intensity comparison between IPEs calculation and actual intensity in the Rossi-Forel scale.
Actual Intensity at Surface
Intensity at Intensity at (Kojima et al. 1992)
Distance to
City Bedrock Amplif. (Fv) S Surface
Rupture (Rrup) Rossi-Forel
(IPEs) In MMI (IPEs) MMI
scale
Baguio 39 Km 6.9 7 2.9 9.8 8-9 8-11
Cabanatuan 25 Km 7.4 1.5 0.6 8.0 6-8 6-9
Dagupan 62 Km 6.5 4 2.1 8.6 8 8-9
Agoo 58 Km 6.5 4 2.1 8.6 8 8-9

Table 6. The damage comparison between this study’s damage model and actual damage from the 16 Jul 1990 Luzon Earthquake.
Actual Intensity Damage Validation
Intensity at at Surface
Our damage Model Actual damage
City Surface MMI
In MMI (IPEs) (Kojima et al.
C1-L C1-M W1-L C1-L C1-M W1-L
1992)
Baguio 9.8 8–11 0.65 0.67 0.7 0.4-0.6 0.4-1.0 0.4-0.6
Cabanatuan 8.0 6–9 0.40 0.42 0.45 0.4-0.8 0.4-0.8 -
Dagupan 8.6 8–9 0.49 0.51 0.54 0.2-0.6 0.4-0.6 -
Agoo 8.6 8–9 0.49 0.51 0.54 0.4-0.6 0.4-0.6 -

313
Philippine Journal of Science
Vol. 147 No. 2, June 2018
CONCLUSION
Overall, this study successfully built several earthquake
scenarios and determined the worst scenario that could
affect UPLB’s community during daytime and nighttime
of an earthquake event. An earthquake shaking model
in MMI was developed using global applicable macro
seismic IPEs, which were designed by Allen and co-
authors (2012). Even though it is a global shaking
attenuation, this equation was built for a shallow crustal
earthquake or inland earthquake. In this study, the
earthquake model produced from the VFS is a shallow
crustal source of earthquakes. This shaking attenuation
shows the differences of the ground shaking in the bedrock
in UPLB’s campus from 5.9 to 7.3 MMI and 6.7 to 8.1
MMI on the surface. In this study the UPLB campus
buildings were classified into three types: C1-L, C1-
M, and W1-L. Different types of building and ground
shaking will result in different damage ratios. In the
worst scenario (Scenario I), 126 of C1-L buildings have
51% of damage. To avoid this condition, the authorities
of UPLB have to conduct retrofitting of buildings.
Validation from historical earthquakes, the IPEs which
developed by Allen and co-authors (2012) applicable to
be implemented in the Philippines. The IPEs also capable
to determine the shallow crustal earthquake model and the
mean square error is 0.35.
In the future, a number of studies can be done to improve
the earthquake damage prediction in UPLB and in the
entire Philippines. The ground shaking response by a
building depends on the site coefficient of soil beneath
the building. The site coefficient plays a crucial role in
the ground shaking intensity and has to be determined
carefully. Thus, to improve the results of this study,
studies of the site coefficient from shear wave velocity
and microtremor data are suggested.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are so much grateful to the research assistant
(RA) of UPLB, for the technical support during staying
at the UPLB. This study would not have been possible
without the supporting funding from START International
Inc., in Pan-Asia Risk Reduction (PARR) Fellowship
Program 2016-2017.
REFERENCES
AGUIRRE JJC. 2013. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Analysis of Laguna, Philippines. [Unpublished
Undergraduate Thesis]. Department Of Civil
314
Rusydy et al.: GIS-Based Earthquake
Damage Prediction at UPLB
Engineering, College Of Engineering And Agro-
Industrial Technology, Laguna: University Of The
Philippines – Los Baños. 105p.
AKIN MK, STEVEN LK, TAMER T. 2011. Empirical
correlations of shear wave velocity (Vs) and penetration
resistance (SPT-N) for different soils in an earthquake-
prone area (Erbaa-Turkey). Engineering Geology
119(1-2): 1-17.
ALLEN TI, WALD DJ, WORDEN CB. 2012. Intensity
attenuation for active crustal regions. J Seismol 16(3):
409-433.
ARELLANO CRP. 2016. Earthquake Loss Estimation
For Buildings Of UPLB. [Unpublished Undergraduate
Thesis], Department Of Civil Engineering, College Of
Engineering And Agro-Industrial Technology, Laguna:
University Of The Philippines – Los Baños. 21p.
ASCE/SEI 7-10. 2010. Minimum Design Loads for
Buildings and Other Structures. Virginia: American
Society of Civil Engineers.
ATKINSON GM, WALD DJ. 2007. "Did You Feel
It?" intensity data: a surprisingly good measure of
earthquake ground motion. Seism Res Lett 78(3):
362-368.
BAUTISTA MLP, OIKE K. 2000. Estimation of the
magnitudes and epicenters of Philippine historical
earthquakes. Tectonophysics 317(1-2): 137-169.
BESANA GM, ANDO M. 2005. The Central Philippine
Fault Zone: Location of Great Earthquakes, Slow
Events and Creep Activity. Earth Planets Space 57(10):
987-994.
BOOTH ED, CHANDLER AM, WONG PKC, COBURN
AW. 1991. The Luzon, Philippines Earthquake Of 16
July 1990, A Field Report EEFIT. London: Earthquake
Engineering Field Investigation Team Institution of
Structural Engineer. 15p.
CANTOS NHC. 2015. Seismic Risk Assessment
Of Uplb Buildings. [Unpublished Undergraduate
Thesis], Department Of Civil Engineering, College Of
Engineering And Agro-Industrial Technology, Laguna:
University Of The Philippines – Los Baños. 50p.
[CDC] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
1990. International notes earthquake disaster - Luzon,
Philippines. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/
mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001734.htm on 31 Aug
2016.
CINICIOGLU SF, BOZBEY I, OZTOPRAK S,
KELESOGLU MK. 2007. An integrated earthquake
damage assessment methodology and its application for
two districts in Istanbul, Turkey. Engineering Geology
Philippine Journal of Science
Vol. 147 No. 2, June 2018
94(3-4): 145-165.
COBURN A, SPENCE R. 2002. Earthquake Protection.
2nd Edition. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
DOWRICK DJ, RHOADES DA. 2005. Revised models
for attenuation of Modified Mercalli Intensity in
New Zealand earthquakes. New Zealand Sociaty of
Earthquake Engineering 38(4): 185-214.
FABBROCINO S, LANZANO G, FORTE G, MAGISTRIS
FS, FABBROCINO G. 2015. SPT blow count vs. shear
wave velocity relationship in the structurally complex
formations of the Molise Region (Italy). Engineering
Geology 187: 84-97.
[FEMA] Federal Emergency Management Agency.
2010. Multi-hazard Loss estimation Methodology,
Earthquake Model (HAZUS-MH). User Manual,
Washington, D.C: Department of Homeland Security
Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate.
9-40p
GALGANA G, HAMBURGER M, MCCAFFREY R,
CORPUZ E, CHEN Q. 2007. Analysis of Crustal
Deformation in Luzon, Philippines using Geodetic
Observations and Earthquake Focal Mechanisms.
Tectonophysics 432(1-4): 63-87.
HASHEMI M, ALESHEIKH AA. 2011. A GIS-based
Earthquake Damage Assessment and Settlement
Methodology. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering 31(11): 1607-17.
HAYES DE, LEWIS SD. 1985. Structure and Tectonics
of The Manila Trench System, Western Luzon,
Philippines. Energy 10(3-4): 263-279.
KARIMZADEH S, MIYAJIMA M, HASSANZADEH
R, AMIRASLANZADEH R, KAMEL B. 2014. A
GIS-based Seismic Hazard, Building Vulnerability and
Human Loss Assessment for The Earthquake Scenario
in Tabriz. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering
66: 263-280.
KOJIMA H, TOKIMATSU K, ABE A. 1992. Liquefaction-
Induced Damage, and Geological and Geophyscal
Condition During the 1990 Luzon Earthquake.
Rotterdam: Earthquake Engineering, Tenth World
Conference. p. 135-140 http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/
wcee/article/10_vol1_135.pdf on 9 March 2017 (date
of retrieval).
MIURA H, MIDORIKAWA S, FUJIMOTO K, PACHECO
BM, YAMANAKA H. 2008. Earthquake damage
estimation in Metro Manila, Philippines based on
seismic performance of buildings evaluated by local
experts’ judgments. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering 28(10-11): 764-777.
Rusydy et al.: GIS-Based Earthquake
Damage Prediction at UPLB
MOHAMED AME, HAFIEZ AHE, TAHA MA. 2013.
Estimating the near-surface site response to mitigate
earthquake disasters at the October 6th city, Egypt,
using HVSR and seismic techniques. NRIAG Journal
of Astronomy and Geophysics 2(1): 146-165.
[NBCP] National Building Code of the Philippines. 2004.
National Building Code of the Philippines. Manila:
Department of Public Work and Highway.
NELSON AR, PERSONIUS SF, RIMANDO RE,
PUNONGBAYAN RS, TUNGOL N, MIRABUENO
H, RASDAS A. 2000. Multiple large earthquakes in
the past 1500 years on a fault in metropolitan Manila,
the Philippines. Bulletin of the Seismological Society
of America 90(1): 73-85.
NGUYEN PH, BUI QC, VU PH, PHAM TT. 2014.
Scenario-based Tsunami Hazard Assessment for The
Coast of Vietnam from The Manila Trench Source.
Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 236: 95-
108.
OHMACHI T, NAKAMURA Y. 1992. Local Site Effect
Detected by Microtremol Measurements on The
Damage due to The 1990 Philippine Earthquake.
Rotterdam: 10th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering. p. 997-1002. Retrieved from www.iitk.
ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/10_vol2_997.pdf on 15 Mar
2017.
OKADA S, TAKAI N. 2000. Classifications Of
Structural Types And Damage Patterns Of Buildings
For Earthquake Field Investigation. Auckland: 12th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
0705. Retrieved from www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/
article/0705.pdf on 13 Oct 2017.
PUNONGBAYAN RS, RIMANDO RE, DALIGDIG
JA, BESANA GM, DAAG AS, NAKATA T,
TSUTSUMI H. 2001. The 16 July 1990 Luzon
Earthquake Ground Rupture. Manila: The July
16 Luzon Earthquake (A Technical Monograph).
Retrieved from http://202.90.128.67/html/update_
SOEPD/1990LuzonEQ_Monograph/pp001/pp001.
html on 15 Mar 2017.
[PEPRMP] Programmatic Environmental Performance
Report and Management Plan. 2014. Programmatic
Environmental Performance Report and Management
Plan. Los Banos: University of The Philippines, Los
Banos.
RIMANDO RE, KNUEPFER PLK. 2006. Neotectonics
of the Marikina Valley Fault System (MVFS) and
Tectonic Framework of Structures in Northern and
Central Luzon, Philippines. Tectonophysics 415 (1-
4): 17-38.
315
Philippine Journal of Science Rusydy et al.: GIS-Based Earthquake
Vol. 147 No. 2, June 2018 Damage Prediction at UPLB

ROWLETT H, KELLEHER JA. 1976. Evolving seismic

and tectonic patterns along the Western margin of the
Philippine Sea Plate. J. Geophys. Res. 81: 3518-24.
RUSYDY I, FAUSTINO-ESLAVA D V, MUKSIN
U, GALLARDO-ZAFRA R, AGUIRRE J J C,
BANTAYAN N C, ALAM L, DAKEY S. 2017.
Building vulnerability and human loss assessment
in different earthquake intensity and time: a case
study of the University of the Philippines, Los Baños
(UPLB) Campus. IOP Conf. Series. Banda Aceh:
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science.
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/56/1/012006.
RUSYDY I, JAMALUDDIN K, FATIMAH E,
SYAFRIZAL S, ANDIKA F, FURUMOTO Y. 2017.
Estimation of Site Amplifications from Shear-
Wave Velocity at Pyroclastic Deposits and Basins
in Aceh Tengah and Bener Meriah District, Aceh
Province, Indonesia. International Journal of Disaster
Management 1(1): 46-54.
TINGATINGA EAJ, PACHECO BM, HERNANDEZ JJY,
IGNACIO UP, GERMAR FJ, LONGALONG REU,
MATA WL, PASCUA MCL, SUIZA RM, TAN LRE.
2013. Development Of Heuristic Seismic Vulnerability
Curves Of Key Building Types In The Philippines.
10CUEE CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS. Tokyo:
Tokyo Institute of Technology.
TORREGOSA RF, SUGITO M, NOBUOTO N. 2001.
Strong Motion Simulation for the Philippines Based
on Seismic Hazard Assessment. Journal of Natural
Disaster Science 23(1): 35-51.
VALINO MQM. 2014. Rapid Visual Seismic Vulnerability
Assessment of University of the Philippines Los Baños
Lower Campus School and Administration Buildings
of Selected Colleges. [Unpublished Undergraduate
Thesis]. Department Of Civil Engineering, College of
Engineering and Agro-Industrial Technology, Laguna:
University of the Philippines, Los Baños. 46p.
WIECZOREK GF, NEWHALL CG, WENNERBERG LG.
1992. Faulting, Structural Damage, Liquefaction, And
Landslides From The Luzon, Philippines Earthquake
Of July 16, 1990: Slide Set And Bibliography. Menlo
Park: USGS. Retrieved from https://pubs.usgs.gov/
of/1992/0367a/report.pdf on 9 Mar 2017.

316