Citation:
Suaib, S., T. Azuhata, Y. Ishiyama (2021), Seismic performance evaluation for healthfacilities (clinic) in Malaysia, Synopsis of IISEE-GRIPS Master’s Thesis.

SEISMIC PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FORHEALTH FACILITIES (CLINIC) IN MALAYSIA
Syuhaida Suaib1,2

Supervisor:Tatsuya AZUHATA3, Yuji ISHIYAMA4
ABSTRACT

Malaysian Government focuses on earthquake disaster management after the Ranau Earthquake (6Mw)
occurred on 5 June 2015. This study performed a seismic evaluation for clinic type 3 and clinic type 7
regarding the Standard for Seismic Evaluation of Existing Reinforced Concrete Building, 2001 by theJapan Building Disaster Prevention Association (JBDPA). The study also developed Malaysia index
for seismic evaluation, executing column section analysis to get suitable column size and main bar
specifications and searching for suitable shear wall location on each floor for guidelines development
to achieve a sustainable project in the future.
Keywords: Ranau Earthquake, seismic evaluation, sustainable projects
1. INTRODUCTION
The Malaysian Government has concerned about the impact from natural disasters. They establishedthe Natural Disaster Management and Relief Committee (NDMRC) in 1972. On 11 May 1997, Policyand Mechanism on National Disaster and Relief Management were developed and revised on 30 March
2012. National Disaster Management Agency (NADMA) was established on 1 October 2015 after theRanau Earthquake (magnitude 6Mw according to USGS) that occurred on 5 June 2015. Public Works
Department of Malaysia (PWD of Malaysia) responsible as a technical agency under the Malaysian
Government to implement infrastructure development, maintenance operations for governmentbuildings, gives technical advice and also is one of NADMA's strategic partners. Because of that in
Earthquake Disaster Management Cycle, PWD of Malaysia must focus on Performance-Based
Earthquake Engineering (PBEE) that contains design, evaluation, construction, monitoring the function
and maintenance of engineered facilities especially for important buildings such as health facilities
because the building needs to remain functional during disasters. In this study, seismic evaluation wasdone according to the second procedure of the Standard for Seismic Evaluation of Existing Reinforced
Concrete Building, 2001 by the Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association (JBDPA). This study
also developed Malaysia index and analyzing column sections to get suitable column size and main bar
specification to achieve 3% drift angle for flexural column (command practice in Japan). Besides thestudy identified the appropriate location for shear wall to increase the Is value for guideline development.
2. DATAIn Malaysia, clinics are divided into several types (clinic type 2 to clinic type 7) according to the resident
population in the area, type of service, and patient/day rate. However, only clinic type 7 includes bothhealth facility and staff residence because it mostly in rural areas and limited construction areas. This
1

Public Works Department of Malaysia, Civil Engineer.
IISEE-GRIPS Master’s course student.
3International Institute of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, Building Research Institute.
4
Professor Emeritus, Hokkaido University.
2

1

study focuses clinic type 3 (Figure 1) and clinic type 7 (Figure 2) that designed use Eurocode 2 (useconcrete strength 30N/mm2 and reinforcement strength 500N/mm2) but Eurocode 8 (seismic code) is
not applied. Therefore, it is essential to know the seismic performance for existing design and building
behavior (existing building for pre-earthquake) by using appropriate seismic evaluation method.

Figure 1. Architectural concepts clinic type 3

Figure 2. Architectural concepts clinic type 7

3. METHODOLOGYThis study implemented seismic evaluation with reference to the Standard for Seismic Evaluation ofExisting Reinforced Concrete Building, 2001 by the Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association(JBDPA). In the Japanese method, the seismic capacity of exiting low-rise reinforced concrete (RC)buildings are evaluated using a structural seismic index (a serial score) calculated according to thebuilding's ultimate horizontal strength and ductility. Seismic Demand, Iso (Eq. (1)) and Seismic Indexof Structure, Is (Eq. (2)) are figured where Is ≥ Iso to make sure the building is in good condition.
(1) Is = Eo . SD. T(2)
Iso = Es . Z . G . U
Where;
Where;
Es = basic seismic demand index of structure
Eo = Basic seismic index of structure(recommended 0.8 (first level procedure)
Eo = ØCF
and 0.6 (second and third level procedure))
F= Ductility index
Z = Zone index
C= Strength index
G = Ground index
Ø= Story index
U = Usage index
SD = Irregularity index
T= Time index
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Basic seismic demand index, Es
Suitable basic seismic demand index, Es
for Malaysia needs to be obtained because
85%
this value represents earthquake damages
caused by a previous major earthquake.
Referring to Maeda etc.,2012, for publicschool buildings (used as shelter) Is value≥ 0.7 and for important buildings value Is≥ 0.75. Because these Is values, one ofwhich is shown in Figure 3, are for theJapanese case, the zone index, Z, in Eq.
(1) is 1.0. Furthermore, assuming theUsage index, U, and Ground index, G, are1.25 and 1.0, respectively, we candetermine Es value as 0.6 by Eq. (1).

0.75
Source: Maeda Masaki etc 2012

Figure 3: Appropriate values Is for Malaysia
Study by R.Roslee etc. 2018 (Malaysia researcher), when the Physical Vulnerability (Vp) is 0.55, it iscategorized as a moderate vulnerability. When Vp value is compared with R value in Table 1, it is2

moderate damage (60% ≤ R < 80%). Because clinics are essential facilities, only minor damage isallowed. Referring to Figure 3, we can conclude that value Es 0.6 is suitable for minor damage (80% ≤R < 95%).
Table 1. Relation between residual seismic capacity and physical vulnerability
Residual Seismic Capacity Ratio, R
Physical Vulnerability, VpClassCategory
R Value
Category
Vp ValueIslight damage
R ≥ 95%
Very low vulnerability< 0.2
IIminor damage
80% ≤ R < 95%
Low vulnerability
0.21 – 0.40
IIImoderate damage
60% ≤ R < 80%
Moderate vulnerability
0.41– 0.60
IVsevere damage
R < 60%High vulnerability
0.61 – 0.80
Vcollapse
R≈0Very high vulnerability> 0.81
Source: Maeda Masaki etc. 2012 and R.Roslee etc. 2018

4.2. Zone Index, Z
The Zone index, Z, are identified using the correlation between the Japanese Method (using Seismicdemand index, Iso) and the Eurocode 8 (using base shear force, Fb).
2.5
(1)
Seismic demand index, Iso = Es . Z . G . U(5)𝐹
𝛾𝑎.
𝑆.
𝑚𝜆𝑏1𝑔𝑟(3)
Base shear force, Fb = Sd(T1)mλ𝑞
Eq. (5) will multiplyand w = mg. So,
Consider that the Iso value (Eq. (1)) corresponds
to the shear force and weight ratio.
𝐹𝑏 𝛾𝑎 . 𝑆. 2.5 𝜆 1(6)𝑔𝑟𝐹𝑏𝑞𝑔(4)𝐼𝑠𝑜𝑤𝑤
Rearrange Eq. (6)Where;𝜆(7)𝐹𝑏
2.5𝑎𝑔𝑟 . 𝑆. 𝛾m = Mass of building𝑞𝑔𝑤
λ = Correction factor
Sd(T1) = Design spectrum
So, relationship Seismic demand index, Iso and.
Eurocode 8 as in Eq. (4)𝑆 𝑑 𝑇1
𝑎𝑔. 𝑆.
𝜆(8)ag = Design ground acceleration on
𝐼𝑠𝑜
2.5𝑎𝑔𝑟 . 𝑆. 𝛾
𝑞𝑔type A ground𝜆ag = γagr(9)2.5𝑎𝑔𝑟 . 𝑆. 𝛾
𝐸𝑠 . 𝑍 . 𝐺 . 𝑈𝑞𝑔
γ = Importance factor
From Eq. (9) we know,agR = Peak ground acceleration on type𝜆A ground(10)
𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑐 𝑠𝑒𝑖𝑠𝑚𝑖𝑐 𝑑𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥, 𝐸𝑠𝑞𝑔
S = Soil factor(11)
𝑍𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥, 𝑍 2.5𝑎𝑔𝑟
q = Behavior factor
So Eq. (3);(12)
𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥, 𝐺 𝑆(13)𝑈𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥, 𝑈 𝛾
The Malaysia code presents the PGA for the return period of 475 in hazard map. Thus Eq. (11) thevalue for Zone index, Z, for Peninsular Malaysia and Sarawak is 0.23 (9%PGA maximum PGA) andSabah is 0.4 (16%PGA maximum PGA).
4.3. Irregularity Index, SD, Time index, T, Ground Index, G, and Usage Index, UIrregularity index, SD, and time index, T were calculated using the Japanese Method. SD value for clinic
type 3 is 0.86, and for clinic type 7 is 0.79. T value for both clinic is 1. Ground index, G and Usageindex, U adopted from Malaysia Annex. All soil types (model A in Malaysia Annex) are considered inthis study. Because building is category as important building, so U value is 1.5.

3

4.4. Judgement of Seismic Safety by Comparing Is with Iso
Seismic Demand Index, Iso, is calculated for each ground index, G because this design will be used inevery state in Malaysia. The result for seismic value index of structure, Is values presented in Table 2
are compared with value seismic demand Index, Iso in Figure 4 and Figure 5. From the seismicevaluation, clinic type 3 is not in good condition from story three and below, but clinic type 7 is goodcondition in every level.

Story54321Table 2. Seismic Index of Structure, IS for Clinic type 3 and clinic type 7
Clinic type 3
Clinic type 7
Transverse
Longitudinal
Transverse
Longitudinal
1.71
1.78
0.80
15.42
0.53
0.55
2.25
2.93
0.27
0.27
1.37
1.65
0.22
0.24
0.87
0.66
0.21
0.20
0.97
0.72

(a)

(b)
Figure 4. Clinic type 3

(c)

(a)

(b)
Figure 5. Clinic type 7(c)44.5. Develop Earthquake Guideline (Design & Construction)
For Clinic type 3, the study is extended to get higher Is when service/room/area repeated at every level(for lift core, staircase, AHU room & toilet). 4 layouts are used: 1. Shear wall at lift and staircase,

2.Share walls at lift and toilet, 3.Shear wall at lift and AHU room and 4.Shear wall at lift,
staircase, toilet and AHU room. The results are shown in Figure 6. From these results, applicationof more number shear wall leads to better earthquake resistance of the building.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)
Figure 6. Tranverse and longitudinal direction(f)

4.6. Column Section Analysis
The study is extended to get suitable size for column and main bar (Table 3). The maximum column
load was used to get the flexural column's drift angle of 3% (practice implemented by Japan). This study
use analysis according to the Specification for Highway Bridges Part V Seismic Design by Japan Road
Association (JRA). For the result, recommended minimum column size is 400x400.

5

Clinic

Column Size

Type 3 500 x 500 (8H25)
400 x 400 (4H25)
300 x 300 (4H25)
Type 7 300 x 300 (4H25)

Table 3. The result from column section analysis
Original
Recommended
Maximum
Limit Drift
Limit Drift
Size and Main BarColum load (kN)
AngleAngle
4,046.700.058
NANA
3,100.7
0.028
500 x 500 (8H25)
0.055
771.200.013
400 x 400 (6H25)
0.045
1,768.90
0.0069400 x 400 (6H25)
0.045
CONCLUSIONSThe conclusion for this study is that seismic evaluation (the Japanese Method) can be used to know thebehavior of the buildings in Malaysia by applying Malaysian Index. The practice implemented by PWDof Malaysia that uses reinforcement strength 500N/mm2 and concrete strength 30N/mm2 positively
impacts the strength of the building against earthquake disasters. Building weight must be less, byreducing weight for the water tank for example, to ensure inertia force decreases when earthquakes
occur. For high buildings (especially in the seismic region), the shear wall must not be focused only on
the lift area. To construct earthquake resistant buildings with sufficient shear walls without disturbing
building function, collaboration between all disciplines (civil, mechanical, electrical, architects, andmedical planners) is essential to ensure it is achievable. Shear walls are recommended to be longer than
5 meters to increase the strength index. The minimum column size of 400x400 is recommended to makethe buildings analyzed in this study more ductile
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was conducted as the individual study of the training course “Seismology, Earthquake
Engineering and Tsunami Disaster Mitigation” by IISEE/BRI, JICA, and GRIPS. My deep gratitude
goes first to Dr. Tatsuya Azhuta (advisor & supervisor) and Prof. Dr. Yuji Ishiyama (supervisor) for
their patience, teachings, and guidance during all this process. Their support has made this project
possible. I express my thanks to my family for always trusting me, no matter how far I go. To Allah,
for everything Allah has to give me.
REFERENCES
Eurocode 8, Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance – Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actionsand Rules for Buildings, 2005
Japan Association for Building Disaster Prevention [JBDPA]. (2001). Standard for Seismic Evaluationof Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings (2001 Japanese version and 2004 English version). Japan
Building Disaster Prevention Association,X
Maeda.M, Al-washali.H.A, Takahashi.K, Suzuki.K, 2012, Damage to Reinforced Concrete School
Building in Miyagi After The 2011 Great East Japan Earthquke, Proceedings of the InternationalSymposium on Engineering Lesson Learned From The 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, 1-12X
Roslee.R, Termizi.A.K, Indan, E. Tongkul.F, 2018, Earthquake Vulnerability Assessment (EVAs): AStudy of Physical Vulnerability Assessment I Ranau Area, Sabah, Malaysia,ASM S. J,11,66-71
World Health Organization, 2006, Health Facility Seismic Vulnerability Evaluation, 3-126