BACKGROUND

! At 07:53.54 on October 15, 2013 a magnitude 7.2 earthquake struck the island of Bohol in the Visayas region of the Philippines. The epicenter of the quake was 20km south of the town of Inabanga and approximately 30 km from the western coastline, the subject of this report. After this initial shock over 3000 aftershocks were felt and are still in progress at the time of writing this report, (15 days later).

The 7.2 earthquake may have been caused by a previously undiscovered fault line transecting Bohol running ENEWSW parallel to the islands northwest coast. This was apparent in the pattern of epicenters of the subsequent aftershocks. This new fault line has been named North Bohol Fault

SUBJECTS OF INVESTIGATION
At the request of Simon Baily-Gibson a British Embassy Warden, a visual evaluation of 6 properties occupied by British nationals was carried out on October 30, 2013. these being 1.! 2.! 3.! 4.! 5.! 6.! German guy Sandingan Location 9 50 57.32N, 123 47 14.91E John and Christy Green Sandingan Swiss guy with the egg collection Sandinghan Brit guy on the beach chalets Panganan Location 9 53 30.25N, 123 50 45.53E Simon and Flor Gibson Calape Location 9 53 36.39N, 123 52 58.49E Colin Barnes - Sagbayan Location 9 54 48.99N, 124 50 37.47E

PHOTOGRAPHS PROPERTY #1 SLIDE 1

PHOTOGRAPHS PROPERTY #1 SLIDE 2

PHOTOGRAPHS PROPERTY #1 SLIDE 3

SUMMARY FINDINGS PROPERTY #1

The property is a reinforced concrete beam and column frame with cast insitu floors it has suffered catastrophic failure of the main load bearing elements. The second and third bays of the structure have rotated about the second line of columns and collapsed the first and second floor and roof. The building is damaged beyond any economic repair. It is unsafe to occupy in any location and should be secured to prevent any access.

PHOTOGRAPHS PROPERTY #2 SLIDE 1

PHOTOGRAPHS PROPERTY #2 SLIDE 2

PHOTOGRAPHS PROPERTY #2 SLIDE 3

SUMMARY FINDINGS PROPERTY #2

!! The property is a reinforced concrete beam and column frame with cast insitu floors. !! This property has suffered cosmetic damage only. The main loadbearing elements, beams and columns show no sign of permanent distress. Block-work walls have cracked (as to be expected) but these cracks are not of structural concern. !! Repairs are necessary only for cosmetic reasons. A new rendering coat will be sufficient. ! The floor has settled resulting in a significant crack across the foyer and into the kitchen. This has propagated into the non structural block walls. The floor slab has not suffered a vertical displacement. !! The floor crack should be grouted and the tiles replaced. The walls re- rendered

PHOTOGRAPHS PROPERTY #3 SLIDE 1

PHOTOGRAPHS PROPERTY #3 SLIDE 2

PHOTOGRAPHS PROPERTY #3 SLIDE 3

PHOTOGRAPHS PROPERTY #3 SLIDE 4

PHOTOGRAPHS PROPERTY #3 SLIDE 5

PHOTOGRAPHS PROPERTY #3 SLIDE 6

SUMMARY FINDINGS PROPERTY #3

!! The property is a reinforced concrete beam and column frame with cast insitu floors !! This property has suffered cosmetic damage only. The main loadbearing elements, beams and columns show no sign of permanent distress. Blockwork walls have cracked (as to be expected) but these cracks are not of structural concern. !! Repairs are necessary only for cosmetic reasons. A new rendering coat will be sufficient. ! Of concern is the failure of the beam shown in slides 1,2 and 3. This beam has failed at approximately mid span. This is likely a result of a compression buckling failure due to lateral loading. This element has very literal lateral stiffness and its primary function is to support the faade blockwork wall. ! It is recommended that the wall be demolished (both floors) for safety reasons. ! A replacement beam needs to be reinstalled to maintain the stability of the corner column. This beam should be sized to carry both the vertical load of the blockwork wall above and laterally to act as a strut between the corner and interior columns. The gravity size of the beam can be mitigated by replacing the blockwork wall with a stud wall with marine ply as the exterior skin. ! Non load bearing block walls should be replaced where there has been out of plane displacements as depicted in slide 5

SUMMARY FINDINGS PROPERTY #3

!! The floor has settled resulting in a significant crack across the raised dining area and into the kitchen. This has propagated into the non structural block walls. This is likely to be result of fill compaction by the seismic event. The floor slab has suffered a vertical displacement. !! The floor slab should be re-leveled crack grouted and the tiles replaced. The walls can be re- rendered provided there has been no out of plane movement. Where out of plane movement is in excess of 25mm then the wall should be replaced.

SUMMARY FINDINGS PROPERTY #4

!! The main loadbearing elements are solid block walls. Slab on compacted fill !! This property has suffered cosmetic damage only !! Some block-work walls have cracked (as to be expected) but these cracks are not of structural concern. !! Repairs are necessary but only for cosmetic reasons. A new rendering coat will be sufficient. .

PHOTOGRAPHS PROPERTY #5 SLIDE 1

PHOTOGRAPHS PROPERTY #5 SLIDE 2

PHOTOGRAPHS PROPERTY #5 SLIDE 3

PHOTOGRAPHS PROPERTY #5 SLIDE 4

PHOTOGRAPHS PROPERTY #5 SLIDE 5

PHOTOGRAPHS PROPERTY #5 SLIDE 6

SUMMARY FINDINGS PROPERTY #5

!! This property has suffered cosmetic damage only. The main loadbearing elements, columns and beams are intact. There are some significant cracks in non loadbearing block walls. The majority of these can be repaired by a simple rerendering. !! Of note are a number of potential life safety issues that should be addressed immediately !! Block walls. The block walls on the gable ends of the building at first floor level are unrestrained and unstable. Refer to slide 2 which also applies to the opposite wall. This block work should be removed down to the line of the horizontal crack (the original structure prior to renovation). Temporary weather protection in the form of marine play can be used. A wall plate (timber) should be installed at the gable ends to ensure any future infill to the gables can be restrained. !! Slides 3,4,5 and 6 are different views of concrete cold joints. The earthquake has merely exposed these. It is recommended that these joints be broken back to sound concrete and repaired. Method statement to follow. This is not an urgent or life safety repair. !! Walls on new balcony (unfortunately no photographs) The back of house terraces have unstable parapet walls on each side. These should be removed down to the level of the gutter behind. A permanent parapet should be reinstalled in due course, preferable steel framed. !! Some block walls have cracked (as to be expected) but these cracks are not of structural concern. Repairs are necessary only for cosmetic reasons. A new rendering coat will be sufficient. .

PHOTOGRAPHS PROPERTY #6 SLIDE 1

PHOTOGRAPHS PROPERTY #6 SLIDE 2

PHOTOGRAPHS PROPERTY #6 SLIDE 3

PHOTOGRAPHS PROPERTY #6 SLIDE 4

PHOTOGRAPHS PROPERTY #6 SLIDE 5

SUMMARY FINDINGS PROPERTY #6

! This building, on first appearance, exhibits no distress. Walls are plumb, no cracks on non load bearing elements no distress of the structural frame. On close inspection it transpires that the entire building has sheared from its supports and been transposed approximately 300 mm on the diagonal. Column bars are still socketed into the severed columns. The stub column still attached to the footings appears not to have moved, the upper section of column rests approximately 450mm on the diagonal away from its original position. The rebars are still attached to both sections but indicate approximately 200 to 400 mm of column shortening. Slide 1 and 2. Slide 3 shows a drainage pipe on the 1st floor that was originally flush with the floor surface. This pipe now projects 450 mm above the floor surface. It is postulated that the entire building ! has suffered a rigid body translation'. Quite literally the superstructure of the building has moved as a single rigid body shearing the columns and crushing the concrete. The square root of the horizontal translation being equivalent to the observed vertical displacement In structural terms the superstructure of the building is a very ridged, braced, monolith and massive structure. The foundations are said to be 2 to 3 meters below ground floor slab level. It would not be unusual for the footings to have been designed only to carry the vertical load of the building. To that end they are probably reinforced concrete columns sitting on isolate pad footings.

! ! !

SUMMARY FINDINGS PROPERTY #6

PROPOSAL 1 TRIAL PIT 1. Excavate a trial pit adjacent to one of the edge columns (not a corner column) 2. Expose the lower level stub column down to the pad foundation 3. Observe and record findings 4. Observe and record status of the ground bearing slab and the integrity of the formation beneath the slab PROPOSAL 2 DESK STUDY 1. Review structural drawings, particularly the detailing of the ground slab and the connections of the slab (and beams if applicable) to the columns 2. Based on observed conditions of the ground slab formation (from above), estimate the stiffness of the formation and the raft 3. Make recommendations !or modifications to the ground slab for this to act as a 'raft slab

SUMMARY FINDINGS PROPERTY #6

Observations ! ! ! The building is still standing! The building has been detached from its 'design' supports The building appears unperturbed?

Proposition ! The ground slab is acting as a raft slab. It appears to be doing ! so without distress. Were it to be distressed then the ground floor would be exhibiting 'heaving' under this load. It is not.

Course of action ! Re analysis the building as being supported on a raft slab. Make modifications to the current ground slab ( if necessary) !to accommodate this

Anticipated prognosis ! Minor local modifications to the existing ground floor slab required. These can be accommodated within the existing building envelope

AUTHOR
Raymond Crane BEng, CEng, MIStructE, MICE, PE October 31, 2013