A DATABASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR RAPID VISUAL

SCREENING AND TWO-DIMENSIONAL SEISMIC

VULNERABILITY CLASSIFICATION OF PUBLIC SCHOOL
BUILDINGS
Richerene Y. Caparos1, Xenia B. Fajardo2, Harlene Marie M. Ilagan3, Joemar N.
Revelo4,and Andres Winston C. Oreta5
1

De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines, richerene3@yahoo.com

De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines, nonie_xf@yahoo.com
3
De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines, ilagan.harlene@yahoo.com
4
De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines, joemarrevelo@yahoo.com
5
Civil Engineering Department, De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines, andres.oreta@dlsu.edu.ph
2

ABSTRACT
Prolonging the life of important structures such as public school buildings due to earthquake
hazards requires regular inspection, maintenance and possible retrofitting. Detailed inspection and
retrofitting, however, is costly considering the limited budget. Public school buildings that need detailed
inspection and possible retrofitting must be prioritized using a brief seismic diagnosis.
The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) regularly inspects public school
buildings and refers the survey results to the Department of Education for further action. The DPWH
adopts the Rapid Visual Screening (RVS) procedure of FEMA154/ATC21, a methodology based on a
sidewalk survey of a building, where a building is inspected from the exterior in order to quickly
determine if the building is probably adequate for the earthquake forces it is likely to experience, or
whether there may be reasonable doubts as to the buildings seismic performance. The RVS yields a
Basic Structural Hazard Score which may be used to identify, inventory, and rank buildings that are
potentially seismically hazardous. Buildings that will be subjected to a more detailed inspection are
usually determined based on cut-off value of the RVS score. To further refine the use of RVS specially in
prioritizing public school buildings for a more detailed inspection and possible retrofitting, a twodimensional approach is proposed wherein a dual criteria is used to classify buildings based on the RVS
score and second criterion such as non-structural defects, assets importance, population or seismic
hazards. The inspection survey results on school buildings obtained from the Department of Public Works
in Manila were stored in a database to implement the 2D-seismic vulnerability classification and ranking.
Based on the preference of a decision maker, the second criterion can be selected and a classification and
ranking of the school buildings for a given area (district or city) will be automatically displayed with a
GIS map. Through this approach, decision makers can be guided in prioritizing buildings and identifying
buildings that require immediate attention for detailed investigation and possible retrofitting.

INTRODUCTION
Having been located within the Pacific Ring of Fire, the Philippines is prone to several
earthquake occurrences. In fact, there are several active fault lines in the Philippines such as the Marikina
Valley Fault, Western Philippine Fault, Eastern Philippine Fault, Southern of Mindanao Fault, and
Central Philippine Fault. Also, the country is surrounded with trenches Manila trench, Philippine trench,
Negros Trench, Sulu Trench, and Cotabato Trench (NSCP, 2010). As of 2008, the Philippine Institute of
Volcanology and Seismology (PHILVOCS) listed 12 destructive earthquakes in the country. The
recorded earthquakes had magnitudes ranging from 5.1 to 7.9.
Due to the frequency of earthquakes in the country, essential facilities are of great importance as
most are used for emergency operations during natural disasters. Public School Buildings are classified as
one of the essential facilities (Table 103-1 Occupancy Category, NSCP 2010). In the country, public
school buildings are often used as evacuation centres during calamities.
The DPWH conducts the seismic screening of public school buildings in the Philippines.
Conducting a detailed evaluation for each public school buildings would take a lot of time and money. So,
the DPWH conducts an initial screening known as the Rapid Visual Screening (RVS), a procedure from
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 154) that determines which building must be

R. Caparos, X. Fajardo, H.M. Ilagan, J. Revelo, A.W. Oreta

prioritized for detailed evaluation. Hence, it improves the disaster risk reduction management of the said
structures.
Using the RVS scores in prioritizing buildings may not be effective in screening buildings for
detailed inspection since it is only limited to the configuration of the building. Also, there are possible
instances wherein two or more buildings may have the same RVS score. Due to budget constraints,
detailed evaluation cannot be carried out to all public school buildings. One method in prioritizing
buildings is the Two-Dimensional Analysis which considers another seismic vulnerability parameter as
the second criterion aside from the RVS score. The second criterion could be used to differentiate
buildings with the same RVS score wherein the building with a more critical score in the second criterion
will be prioritized first. Moreover, the addition of such allows decision makers to prioritize the school
buildings based on the desired seismic vulnerability parameter. Furthermore, the analysis generates a
score for each building which allows a more precise ranking.
.
The primary objective of this research is to enhance the structural health monitoring of public
school buildings in the Philippines. Specifically, the research has the following objectives: (1) To develop
a DBMS with GIS for the seismic vulnerability classification and prioritization of public school buildings
that can be easily accessed and updated; (2) To include other seismic vulnerability parameters (NonStructural Hazards, Asset of the School Building, Population of Users of the School Building, and
Seismic Hazard) together with the existing RVS score to analyse and assess the condition of the buildings
using two-dimensional analysis; (3) To provide query tools and graphical outputs that will be useful for
decision makers to determine which buildings must be prioritized for detailed evaluation using twodimensional and multidimensional analysis.

FRAMEWORK
The rapid visual screening (RVS) which is a procedure of Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA 154) is a simple method which has been adopted in the US, Canada, and now one of the
tools adopted by the Department of Public Works and Highways in assessing building defects and
determines if a building is required to undergo a detailed inspection. The said method uses a scoring
system that identify the primary structural lateral loading resisting system, and seismic performance
expected the building to perform. RVS is not intended for structures other than buildings.
Two-dimensional seismic vulnerability classification is important in Seismic screening of
buildings to determine which buildings are greatly at risk. The major criterion (x-axis) would be the RVS
Score of a building. FEMA 154 suggests 2.0 as the cut-off, classifying whether the building has a seismic
adequacy or none. The second criterion (y-axis) for the two-dimensional seismic vulnerability
classification can be any of the seismic vulnerability parameters of the building (Cammayo, 2009).

METHODOLOGY
Seismic Vulnerability Parameters
Non-Structural Hazards (NS)
The researchers gathered data, which served as the initial contents of the database, from the
DPWH. Name and location of the buildings, date of the last inspection, date of construction, number of
floors, building type, FEMA 154 ratings, findings in structural and non-structural hazards, and
recommendations are the available data that can be accessed in the DPWH.
The DPWH data for non-structural hazards was utilized. A checklist was developed by the
researchers. A total of ten non-structural hazards are considered: (1) broken/missing window glass; (2)
bent/corroded steel window grills; (3) dilapidated ceilings; (4) uncovered electrical panel boads; (5) no
emergency exits; (6) construction along corridors/stairways; (7) possible falling hazards; (8) concrete
chipping on corridors/stairs; (9) installed water tank; (10) decayed wood/anay infested plywood.The
presence of a single non-structural hazard would yield a score of one.
The cut-off score for the checklist was set to 3.0. Any score equal and greater than the said value
would indicate that the building has poor non-structural condition. This method of scoring was based on
the study of Cammayo (2007). However, in Cammayos study, 7 NS were considered and 2.0 was set as

R. Caparos, X. Fajardo, H.M. Ilagan, J. Revelo, A.W. Oreta

the cut-off score. The researchers made 3.0 a cut-off score, instead of 2.0, since a total of 10 NS are being
considered.
Asset of a School Building (BA)
Buildings in a school may have different functions. To determine which of these buildings must
be prioritized, it is necessary to provide asset values which give the importance of buildings. The higher
the asset value, the higher the importance of a building is. The asset value of each building will be its
score. The cut off score is set to 5 which means that a score of five or greater are of high priority. The
scoring and cut-off was based from FEMA 428.
Population of Users of the School Building (P)
The population data of schools for school year 2012-2013 were gathered from the Department of
Education. The data includes the number of students enrolled and the number of classrooms for the entire
school. The Population is denoted by the average number of enrolees per classroom
According to National Statistical Coordination Board, a classroom-student ratio of 50 must be
maintained in the country. The number of students is based on the assumption that whole day classes are
being conducted. Thus, a cut-off score of 50 was considered. Buildings with population of higher than the
said value would be regarded as high priority.
Seismic Hazard Score (SH)
The seismic hazard score was determined by measuring the approximate distance of the nearest
fault line to the school being considered. The cut off score was set to 5km away from the fault line. This
means that buildings that are 0-5 km away from the fault line are of high priority. A map of active fault
line was collected from the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology, and incorporated to the
GIS in order to approximate the distance.

Two-Dimensional Analysis
Having the data gathered involving the RVS score and other vulnerability parameters, the
researchers subjected the said data to a two-dimensional analysis. Four two-dimensional analyses were
carried out since there are four other seismic vulnerability parameters being considered. A quantitative
approach was used in this analysis wherein the RVS score was plotted in the X-axis. Since an RVS score
of 2 and below means that the building would require further detailed evaluation, the origin at the X-axis
was set at 2. Building located to the left of the origin would mean that it is highly recommended for
detailed evaluation.
The y-axis served as the axis wherein the desired seismic vulnerability parameter (second
criteria) is plotted.

Fig. 1: Two-Dimensional Classification According to Priority

Upon the plotting of data, the buildings that fall to quadrant 1 are those that are satisfactory in
both RVS and second criterion. As for those in quadrant 2, these buildings passed the RVS but failed in
the second criterion. In quadrant 3, the buildings had a failing score in the RVS but have satisfied the
second criterion. Buildings in quadrant four are those that failed to meet both criteria. Thus, the buildings
are group based on the quadrants with quadrants 1 and 4 being the very low and high priority group,
respectively.

R. Caparos, X. Fajardo, H.M. Ilagan, J. Revelo, A.W. Oreta

The Two-Dimensional Analysis score is computed by using the Pythagorean distance formula to
obtain the hypotenuse distance of two points as shown in equation 1. The derivation of the said formula is
presented in figure 2.
(eq. 1)

Fig. 2: Derivation of 2D Analysis Formula

Where,

The average factors from survey, Fn, were obtained by surveying 25 civil engineers from
DPWH. The respondents were to rate each seismic vulnerability from 1 to 10 with 10 being the highest.

Multidimensional Analysis
The multidimensional analysis formula, as shown in equation 2, is the formula used in obtaining the
overall score of the school building wherein all of the 5 vulnerability parameters are being considered.

(eq. 2)

TWO DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS RESULTS

Using 2D Analysis with the four seismic vulnerability parameters, pie charts were used as to
represent the results of the analyses, showing the percentage of buildings falling to each quadrant.
(Figures 3-6).

Fig. 3: 2D Analysis (NS vs. RVS)

Fig. 5: 2D Analysis (BA vs. RVS)

Fig. 4: 2D Analysis (P vs. RVS)

Fig. 6: 2D Analysis (SH vs. RVS)

SOFTWARE
The Database Management System is developed with the aid of Microsoft Visual Studio 2010
for the program and Microsoft Access for the database. It stores information and analyses data to assess
the seismic vulnerability of a structure. Thus, it aids decision makers in the prioritization of school
buildings to be subjected for detailed inspection.
The Program is dynamic, data can be changed including information of buildings. The user can
register and add more area such as a city or a region. Values of cut-off scores and factors for each
parameter can be freely changed to suit the users interest in prioritizing. The main graphical user
interface of the software is shown in Figure 7.

Fig. 7: Main Graphical User Interface

R. Caparos, X. Fajardo, H.M. Ilagan, J. Revelo, A.W. Oreta

Highlighted Features
Search Box
The Search Box allows the user to filter the data to be shown by region, city, and district in the
GIS window and in the Summary Table. The search box also enables the user to choose the desired
seismic vulnerability parameters to be considered in the 2-Dimensional analysis.
GIS Window
The GIS Window displays the school buildings as pins in the virtual map. It incorporates Google
Maps API so features such as zoom, span, and change of map type (satellite, or roadmap) enables the user
to navigate with ease. The Pins that represents each school building varies in color depending on the
condition of the school - green means safe, red means the building is in high risk.
Summary Table
The Summary Table shows and summarizes the scores of all the school buildings. The columns
in the table show the scores in RVS (FEMA Rating), Non-Structural, Building Assets, Population of
Users of the Building, Seismic Hazard, 2-D analysis score of the chosen parameters in the search box, and
the over-all score of each building. The user may also sort the entries in an ascending or descending
manner upon clicking the header of the column to be sorted. (Figure 8).

Fig. 8: Summary Table

Information Box
The Information Box displays information of a specific building that is selected by the user in
the summary table or in the GIS window. Information such as Building ID, Building Name, School,
Latitude, Longitude, Year Built, Population, Asset, Gallery link of the photo, RVS score, Number of
floors, Vertical Irregularity, Plan Irregularity, Building Type and Soil Type can be seen. It also features
an Automatically Generated Report which summarizes a school building that includes remarks and
comments in a text form that can be easily printed.
2D Classification Summary
The 2D Classification summary window displays a pie chart, which shows the total count of
school buildings categorized by quadrants. The pie chart serves as a brief overview of the status of all the
buildings (Figure 9).

Fig. 9: 2D Classification Summary

Program Function

Fig. 9: Program Function Flowchart

Figure 9 basically shows the function of the program. First, the program allows user to isolate
the schools based on desired location to be considered. Then, the buildings on that specific location will
be subjected to two featured methods of prioritization Two Dimensional Classification and the Multiple
Parameter Analysis. The program outputs 3 scores for each building: (1) it identifies the Quadrant it
belongs by 2D Classification; (2) computes for a score considering two parameters by 2D analysis; (3)
computes for a score considering multiple parameters by multidimensional analysis. The user has the
freedom of choice of which method of analysis to use for prioritizing.

CONCLUSION
The DBMS of DPWH-Inspected Public School Buildings is a tool for seismic vulnerability
classification and prioritization for decision makers. The software can be easily accessed and updated due
to its simple GUI. It has the capability to assess and analyze the condition of the public schools that
should be given top priority based on the different seismic vulnerability parameters RVS score, nonstructural hazards, building assets, population, and seismic hazard.
In assessing the buildings, the two-dimensional analysis of the given seismic vulnerability
parameters can help the DPWH in the decision making to determine which public school building should
be prioritize with the desired specific vulnerability parameters. Moreover, the multidimensional analysis
is also incorporated in the software wherein an over-all score ranks the buildings based on all the
parameters given. The said scoring is useful to further filter the ranking of the buildings which makes a
much more efficient allocation of budget.

R. Caparos, X. Fajardo, H.M. Ilagan, J. Revelo, A.W. Oreta

REFERENCES
Bautista, M. T., Dizon, A. R. L., &Panaloza, J. M. N. (2000). A program for the inspection and
assessment of conditions of existing rc buildings. Unpublished manuscript, De La Salle University,
Manila, Philippines.
Bhatia, S. (2009).Tool for Vulnerability Assessment of a School Building.Vulnerability Assessment of
School Building V1.
Cammayo, O.M., (2007). Seismic Screening and Condition Evaluation of Public School Buildings in
Quezon City. Manila: De La Salle University.
Chua, C. P., Cruz, K. C., & Delos Reyes, F. B. (2007).Rapid visual screening of buildings (dlsu, csb and
vicinity). Unpublished manuscript, Civil Engineering Department, De La Salle Universsity, Manila,
Manila, Philipppines.
Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.(2012). NCEF - Safe Schools. National Clearinghouse for
Educational Facilities. Retrieved June 25, 2012, from http://www.ncef.org/safeschools/index.cfm
FEMA 428, (2003). Primer to design safe school projects in case to terrorist attacks. Retrieved from
website: www.fema.gov
Gerbesioti, A., Delis, V., Yannis, T., &Anagnostopoulos, S. (2001).Developing decision support tools for
confronting seismic hazards.
Hoffer, J. A., Prescott, M. B., &Topi, H. (2009).Modern database management. New Jersey: Pearson
Prentice Hall
National Statistical Coordination Board, (2009). Statistical indicators on philippine development.
Retrieved from website: http://www.nscb.gov.ph/stats/statdev/2009/Education/Chapter_Education.asp
The National Building Code of the Philippines ; and, Its revised implementing rules and regulations
approved by the Department of Public Works and Highways on October 29, 2004 and took effect on
April 30, 2005 after official publication.. Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines: Vicente B. Foz
Publisher-Editor :, 2005. Print.
Oreta, A. W. C., Cammayo, O. M. J., Baluyot, K. S., Ramos, A. J. C., & Suarez, M. C. N. (2012, March).
Rapid visual screening and two-dimensional seismic vulnerability classification of important
buildings. Paper presented at 9th international conference on urban earthquake engineering / 4th asia
conference on earthquake engineering, Tokyo, Japan.
Saitta, S. Data Mining Research, (2007). standardization vs. normalization. Retrieved from website:
http://www.dataminingblog.com/standardization-vs-normalization/
Savvaidis, P., Hatzigogos, T., Tziavos, T., Kiratzi, A., Roumelioto, Z., Savvaidis, A.,
Sotiriadis,
A.
(2004).Data base development and evaluation of earthquake
damage reports under the
seisimpact-thes system. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece, 36, 2004.
Porter, K. A. (2010). Rapid observation of vulnerability and estimation of risk (rover): End-to-end
seismic risk management software.
Velasquez, J., Oreta, A. W., Tanhueco, R. M., & Salvador, F. (2010, December). The one million safe
schools and hospitals campaign: Promoting disaster awareness, preparedness and risk reduction. Paper
presented at 3rd asia conference on earthquake engineering (acee), Bangkok, Thailand.

BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF PRESENTERS

Richerene Y. Caparos and Joemar N. Revelo are currently taking up Bachelor of Science in Civil
Engineering with specialization in Structural Engineering in De La Salle University Manila. These
students are solid supporters of The One Million Safe Schools and Hospitals Campaign of UNISDR.
Andres Winston C. Oreta, D. Eng. is a professor in civil engineering at De La Salle University
Manila. He is one of the key persons who initiated The One Million Safe Schools and Hospitals
Campaign of UNISDR. He is a member of the Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers (PICE) and the
Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines (ASEP).