This article presents an integrated framework for portfolio seismic risk assessment. The framework includes a systematic approach to the collection and categorization of exposed assets, and a robust method that combines vulnerabilities of different levels of resolution, including detailed vulnerabilities based on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) P-58 and REDi analyses, to produce efficient portfolio-level assessment. The vulnerability information encodes risk information that directly addresses the decision-support needs of stakeholders, including the benefits of seismic retrofit. The proposed framework is applied to a spatially distributed infrastructure portfolio composed of over 1000 public school buildings across Makati and Quezon City, in the Metro Manila region in Philippines, to demonstrate the value of portfolio-level seismic risk mitigation strategies. This study illustrates that the proposed regional seismic risk assessment approach can provide more reliable regional risk assessments in a computationally efficient manner and is able to quantify different risk contributors and identify cost-drivers that can be targeted for performance-based risk management of large portfolios.
AllenTRyuHBautistaBCBautistaMNaragICIanWSevilla Melosantos Ma.LPPapionaKLBonitaJD (2014) Enhancing risk analysis capacities for flood, tropical cyclone severe wind and earthquake for the greater metro Manila area. Component 5: Earthquake Risk Analysis (GMMA-RAP).Almufti I and Willford M (2013) REDi rating system—Resilience-based earthquake design initiative for the next generation of buildings. Arup.
2.
AlmuftiIMotamedRGrantDNWillfordM (2015) Incorporation of velocity pulses in design ground motions for response history analysis using a probabilistic framework. Earthquake Spectra31(3): 1647–1666.
3.
ARCADIS (2019) Construction Cost Handbook Philippines 2019. Arcadis Philippines Inc.
4.
ARUP (2017) University of British Columbia Seismic Resilience Study - Seismic Risk Assessment and Recommended Resilience Strategy(Issue 2). San Francisco, USA: ARUP Canada Inc.
5.
ASCE (2010) ASCE-7: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE): Structural Engineering Institute (SEI).
6.
ASCE (2017) ASCE-41 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
7.
ASEP (2016) National Structural Code of the Philippines – 2015. Quezon City, Philippines: Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines (ASEP).
8.
ATC (2017) NIST Guidelines for Nonlinear Structural Analysis for Design of Buildings. Part IIb - Reinforced Concrete Moment Frames. Redwood City, CA: Applied Echnology Council.
9.
BautistaMLPBautistaBNaragIC, et al. (2014) Enhancing Risk Analysis Capacities for Flood, Tropical Cyclone Severe Wind and Earthquake for Greater Metro Manila Area - Summary Report., Republic of the Philippines and the Commonwealth of Australia.
10.
BEH (2020) World Risk Report. Bundnis Etwicklung Hilft, Germany.
11.
CardoneDGesualdiGPerroneG (2019) Cost-benefit analysis of alternative retrofit strategies for RC frame buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering23(2): 208–240.
12.
ChiozziAMirandaE (2017) Fragility functions for masonry infill walls with in-plane loading. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics46: 2831–2850.
13.
CSI (2011) User guide—PERFORM—3D—Nonlinear Analysis and Performance Assessment for 3D Structures. Berkeley, CA: Computers & Structures, Inc. (CSI).
14.
Del GaudioCDe RisiMTRicci Paolo VerderameGM (2019) Empirical drift-fragility functions and loss estimation for infills in reinforced concrete frames under seismic loading. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering17: 1285–1330.
15.
DPWH (2017) Cost Estimation Manual for Low Ris Buildings. Department of Public Works and Highways, Manila, Philippines.
FEMA (2015) FEMA P-154 Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook. Washington, DC: Applied Technology Council (ATC) for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
18.
FEMA (2018) FEMA P-58 SE: Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings. Washington, DC: Applied Technology Council (ATC) for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
19.
GilaniASJMiyamotoHK (2017) Seismic risk reduction program for school and hospital buildings in metro Manila, Philippines. In: 16th world conference on earthquake engineering (16WCEE). Santiago, Chile: The Chilean Association of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering.
20.
GrantDN (2012) Preservation of velocity pulses in response spectral matching. In: Proceedings of the 15th world conference on earthquake engineering. Lisboa, Portugal.
21.
GuoJJeswaniKChristopoulosC (2018) An integrated methodology for urban seismic resilience planning—Case study for schools in Manila. In: 16th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Thessaloniki, Greece.
22.
HamburgerRORojahnCHeintzJAMahoneyMG (2012) FEMA P58: Next-Generation Building Seismic Performance Assessment Methodology. Proceedings of the 15th world conference in earthquake engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.
23.
HongHPGodaK (2007) Orientation-dependent ground-motion measure for seismic-hazard assessment. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America97(5): 1525–1538.
24.
IFRC (2021) Philippines: Mindanao earthquake final report. MDRPH036, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
25.
JeswaniK (2021) The seismic resilience of critical spatially distributed building portfolios: A case study of public school buildings in Makati and Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines. MSc Thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
26.
JeswaniKGuoJChristopoulosC (2020) Urban seismic resilience planning of public school infrastructure in 2 metro manila cities. In: Proceedings of the 17th world conference on earthquake engineering (17WCEE). Sendai, Japan.
27.
Kinetica Risk (2019) S-RAMP user manual v1.0 - User guide, maintenance and risk analysis. Kinetica Risk:Toronto, Canada.
28.
LamegoPLourençoPBSousaMLMarquesR (2017) Seismic vulnerability and risk analysis of the old building stock at urban scale: Application to a neighborhood in Lisbon. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering15: 2901–2937.
29.
LothCBakerJW (2013) A spatial cross-correlation model of spectral accelerations at multiple periods. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics42(3): 397–417.
30.
LuXMcKennaFChengQXuZZengXMahinSA (2020) An open-source framework for regional earthquake loss estimation using city-scale nonlinear time history analysis. Earthquake Spectra36(2): 806–831.
31.
NDRRMC (2013) SitRep No. 35 re Effects of Magnitude 7.2 Sagbayan, Bohol Earthquake. National Disaster Risk Reduction and Managmenet Center, Quezon City, Philippines.
32.
NEHRP (2011) NIST Selecting and Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions for Performing Response-History Analyses. Redwood City, CA: NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture.
33.
O’ReillyGJPerroneDFoxMMonteiroRFiliatraultA (2018) Seismic assessment and loss estimation of existing school buildings in Italy. Engineering Structures168: 142–162.
34.
OCHA (2019) Flash Update No. 2 Philippines: Tulunan, North Cotabato Earthquakes. Tulunan, Philippines: United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
35.
OlsenAHPorterKA (2011) What we know about demand surge: Brief summary. Natural Hazards Review12(2): 62–71.
36.
OttonelliDCattariSLagomarsinoS (2017) Loss assessment of unreinforced masonry buildings. In: 16th Word Conference on earthquake Engineering. Santiago, Chile.
37.
PeñarubiaHCJohnsonKLStyronRHBacolcolTCSevillaWIGPerezJSBonitaJDNaragICSolidumRUPaganiMMAllenTI (2020) Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis model for the Philippines. Earthquake Spectra36(1_suppl): 44–68.
38.
PHILGEPS (2020) OpenData. Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System.
39.
PHILVOLCS/GEM (2018) Hazard Model for the Philippines. Global Earthquake Foundation.
40.
PorterKA (2003) An overview of PEER’s performance-based earthquake engineering methodology. In: Ninth international conference on applications of statistics and probability in civil engineering (ICASP9). San Francisco, CA.
ShahiSKBakerJW (2014) An efficient algorithm to identify strong-velocity pulses in multicomponent ground motions. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America104(5): 2456–2466.
43.
SilvaACastroJMMonteiroR (2020) A rational approach to the conversion of FEMA P-58 seismic repair costs to Europe. Earthquake Spectra36(3): 1607–1618.
44.
TingatingaEAPachecoBHernandezJrIgnacioUGermarFLongalongREMataWPascuaMCSuizaRTanLR (2013) Development of Heuristic Seismic Vulnerability Curves of Key Buildings Types in the Philippines. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Urban Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan.
45.
Turner & Townsend (2019) International Construction Market Survey, Leeds, UK.
46.
USRC (2015) USRC Building Rating System for Earthquake Hazards—Implementation Guide. U.S. Resiliency Council.
47.
VenturaCEFinnWDLBebamzadehAPinaFTaylorGW (2012) Seismic retrofit of school buildings in British Columbia, Canada. In: 15thworld conference on earthquake engineering. Lisboa, Portugal.
48.
World Bank (2020) The Philippines: Transferring the Cost of Severe Natural Disasters to Capital Markets. The World Bank.
49.
YoshikawaHGodaK (2014) Financial seismic risk analysis of building portfolio. Natural Hazards15(2): 112–120.
50.
ZengXLuXYangTYXuZ (2016) Application of the FEMA-P58 methodology for regional earthquake loss prediction. Natural Hazards83(1): 177–192.
