Resilient communities through safer schools

D’Ayala, Dina; Galasso, Carmine; Nassirpour, Arash; Adhikari, Rohit Kumar; Liu, Yamin; Fernández, Rafaél Caballero; Lo, Dexter; Garciano, Lessandro Estelito O.; Oreta, Andres Winston C.

doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101446

Cited by 47 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Classification of school buildings needs to be addressed through a dedicated taxonomy system, because of their special features that increase their seismic vulnerability (Rodgers 2012). The Global Library of School Infrastructure (GLOSI), is such a system dedicated to school building stock that is developed as part of Global Program for Safer Schools (Adhikari et al 2018;World Bank 2019;D'Ayala et al 2020). This system follows the GEM typology classification approach of assigning alphanumeric strings pertaining to a set of attributes that are relevant to school building typologies.…”

Section: Classification Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Classification and seismic fragility assessment of confined masonry school buildings

Vatteri

D’Ayala

2021

Bull Earthquake Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

School buildings being a critical social infrastructure, assessment of their seismic behaviour is of utmost importance in ensuring safe schooling facilities in locations of high seismicity. This study presents two important aspects in analysing any existing building stock for seismic behaviour: the development of an appropriate taxonomy system and an appropriate analytical method to conduct fragility assessment. A detailed desk study of existing schools’ databases and tailored field investigation in Guwahati, Assam, situated in India’s highest seismic zone, reveal that the majority of school buildings can be categorised within the confined masonry (CM) typology. This study discusses first, the addition to the World Bank promoted Global Library of School Infrastructure taxonomy of the specific category relating to CM as to include the buildings under study, which are non-engineered CM buildings with flexible roofs. Identifying the density of confinement and quality of connections as critical parameters for the seismic response of these buildings, varying seismic design levels are defined in relation to these indicators. Secondly, the paper presents an approach for carrying out nonlinear static pushover analysis of these buildings with flexible diaphragms and elaborates on the criteria adopted for determining the performance drift limits in buildings with varying levels of seismic design. Numerical analysis for the capacity assessment of selected index buildings is carried out using a commercial software that enables nonlinear extreme loading analysis. Different failure mechanisms as a function of the level of confinement are identified and the performance range for three damage states for three index buildings is obtained by using the N2 method. The study shows the influence of both choices of performance indicators and intensity measure on the resulting fragility functions. Given the consistency of the educational building stock in Guwahati, the results can be used for investment on retrofit decision making at regional level.

show abstract

Section: Classification Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Classification and seismic fragility assessment of confined masonry school buildings

Vatteri

D’Ayala

2021

Bull Earthquake Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The case study structures selected for this study represent seismically deficient RC school buildings typical of developing countries in Southeast Asia. In fact, this building typology is defined based on large data collection exercises (D’Ayala et al, 2020; Gentile et al, 2019a) involving rapid visual surveys for over 200 school buildings to collect administrative, geometric, and mechanical data. The resulting archetype building represents approximately 80% of the surveyed schools.…”

Section: Illustrative Applicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The two detailing categories, respectively, comply with the Uniform Building Code (UBC; International Conference of Buildings Officials (ICBO), 1997) and ASCE 7-10 (American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2010). In fact, building codes in developing countries are often an adaptation of the UBC and/or the US codes (Gentile et al, 2019a; D’Ayala et al, 2020). To consider the possibility of the lack of code enforcement in an approximate way, some of the provisions in such codes are not applied in the simulated design (e.g.…”

Section: Illustrative Applicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The proposed framework for optimal retrofit selection (shown in Figure 1) is demonstrated for a seismically deficient RC school archetype building (step 0), with construction details typical of developing countries in Southeast Asia, for which real field-data are available (Gentile et al, 2019a; D’Ayala et al, 2020). Seismic response analysis of the as-built structure (step 1) is carried out through SLaMA combined with the CSM.…”

Section: Introduction and Motivationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Simplified seismic loss assessment for optimal structural retrofit of RC buildings

Gentile

Galasso

2020

Earthquake Spectra

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study deals with selecting optimal seismic retrofit solutions for reinforced concrete (RC) buildings. To this aim, multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) is implemented explicitly considering earthquake-induced economic loss as a decision criterion. Fragility (i.e. likelihood of damage levels vs intensity measure ( IM) levels) and vulnerability (i.e. likelihood of loss levels vs IM levels) relationships are derived by using three increasingly refined analysis methods: Simple Lateral Mechanism Analysis; numerical pushover; time-history analysis. A seismically deficient RC school index building, with construction details typical of developing countries, is used for illustrative purposes. Concrete jacketing, addition of concrete walls, and addition of steel braces are the considered retrofit alternatives. Intensity-based expected loss and expected annual loss are adopted in the MCDM, among other criteria, independently derived with the three analysis methods. It is shown that, given the adopted loss-analysis methodology, the ranking of the retrofit alternatives is insensitive to both analysis methods and loss metrics, even when the weight for the seismic loss criterion is high. These findings suggest that simplified methods can be effectively employed in the conceptual/preliminary design of retrofit alternatives.

show abstract

“…To address the resilience of schools to multi-hazards, a team of researchers from the United Kingdom and the Philippines, initiated the PRISMH (Philippine Resilience of Schools to Multi-Hazard) Project, in which the CCS pillar on Safe Learning Facilities is reported [23]. Another component of the PRISMH Project initiated by the Philippine team to address pillar 2 of the CCS on school disaster management is "Strengthening ORDER in Schools (SOS)" and accompanying toolkits.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multi-Hazard Early Warning System (MHEWS) Assessment Methodology for Schools

Jarder¹,

Macabare²,

Oleivar³

et al. 2021

Int. J. Adv. Sci. Eng. Inf. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Schools play an important role in any community because children spend most of their time in schools for their education. Unfortunately, schools are exposed to natural hazards such as earthquakes, typhoons, and floods like other structures. However, implementing an effective Early Warning System (EWS) can help school administrators, occupants, and communities prepare against these hazards. EWS is an essential component of a disaster risk reduction management (DRRM) plan. Its purpose is to generate and disseminate timely and meaningful information of possible extreme events to administrators and eventually to the students. However, it is difficult to ascertain the quality of a school's EWS to address any upcoming hazards. With this, the authors designed a workshop with toolkits to guide school administrators in evaluating their organizational structure within the context of DRR. The toolkits assessed the soft and hard measures of the school, particularly its DRRM and EWS. A method was developed to measure the EWS in schools based on the toolkits. A radar scoring system was used to measure the school's key elements: Risk Knowledge, Monitoring and Warning Services, Dissemination and Communication, Response Capabilities. Indices for each element and EWS as a whole were obtained. Modes of warning and communication were ranked. In Lipa City's case, the results showed that the schools have an average of 74.050 EWS index, meaning the EWS is of good quality but can still be improved. This method can be applied to other schools to assess their EWS.

show abstract

Resilient communities through safer schools

Cited by 47 publications

References 24 publications

Classification and seismic fragility assessment of confined masonry school buildings

Classification and seismic fragility assessment of confined masonry school buildings

Simplified seismic loss assessment for optimal structural retrofit of RC buildings

Multi-Hazard Early Warning System (MHEWS) Assessment Methodology for Schools

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About