Proceeding the 6th Civil Engineering Conference in Asia Region: Embracing the Future through

Sustainability
ISBN 978-602-8605-08-3

A COMPUTER-AIDED SEISMIC HAZARD RISK MANAGEMENT

TOOL TO PROMOTE SAFE SCHOOL COMMUNITIES
Kenneth S. Brizuela1 and Andres Winston C. Oreta2
1

De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines, E-mail: brizuela_kenneth@yahoo.com

2
Civil Engineering Department, De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines,
E-mail: andres.oreta@dlsu.edu.ph

ABSTRACT
The Philippines is a country prone to and at risk from natural disasters like earthquakes because it is
situated within the Pacific Ring of Fire. Disasters pose significant risk to the lives of the people, causing
injuries and even death in its event, especially in essential structures such as schools which may collapse
due to seismic hazards. Risk assessment is the first step in making schools safer against seismic hazards
like ground shaking, liquefaction, tsunami and landslide. The Department of Public Works and Highways
(DPWH) and Department of Education (DepEd), responsible for such assessments, could not possibly
monitor and assess all school buildings because of time and budget constraint. Furthermore, the risk
assessment tools by the DPWH are also limited to screeners with a good background of engineering.
A computer-aided earthquake risk management tool that would allow school administrators to participate
in the decision making process by assessing seismic risks of their own school buildings is thus proposed.
The seismic risk tool includes a checklist that assesses qualitatively the school buildings assets, seismic
hazards and vulnerabilities to the various hazards. In the framework, a seismic risk index is utilized which
is defined as the product of these three factors. Depending on the index, the school building may be at low
risk, medium risk or high risk to a specific seismic hazard. Through the computed indices, the school
buildings in a specific compound are ranked and prioritized for further detailed inspections and possible
repair or retrofitting. Mitigation procedures are recommended based on the identified vulnerabilities to
reduce the risk. This paper presents the conceptual framework of the research and the elements of the
computer program.

INTRODUCTION
According to the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies World Disasters
Report in 2006, 175 million children are vulnerable to natural disasters every year. The Philippines is
a country prone to and at risk from natural disasters such as earthquakes, which could induce other
hazards as well such as landslides, soil liquefaction and tsunamis, because it is situated within the Pacific
Ring of Fire, an area where 80% of the worlds earthquakes occur. In fact, 22.3 percent of the total area of
the country is exposed to natural hazards; and 36.4 percent of the population is vulnerable to these
hazards (Tsai and Chen, 2010).
A number of students in schools from rural, sub-urban and urban areas are vulnerable to accidents and
disasters due to an absolute lack of extensive safety measures (Arya, Padmanabhan, and Karanth, n.d.;
UNISDR, 2009). Worldwide, 875 million children go to schools which are situated in high seismic areas
and hundreds of millions more encounter flood, landslide, extreme wind and fire hazards regularly (INEE
and GFDR, 2009). In fact, the May 2008 Sichuan Earthquake affected more than 7,000 school classrooms
which caused the death of nearly 10,000 students; while the January 2010 earthquake in Haiti has killed
38,000 students and 1,300 teachers and education personnel (Bastidas, 2011).
Thus, the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) launched the Global
Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction, a biennial forum. From the proceedings and deliberations of the
forum in June 2009, the panel proposed and planned to assess the level of safety of disaster-prone schools
by 2011 and develop concrete action plans by the year 2015 to promote safe schools. UNISDR (2010, p.
25) defined safe schools as those infrastructures that are structurally sound and facilities that do not harm
the students, teachers and staff, especially during disasters. Moreover, a safe school has minimal
disruption during disasters and thus continues to provide a healthy learning environment to the youth
(UNISDR, 2010, p. 25).
From the 2010-2011 World Disaster Risk Reduction Campaign on "Building Resilient Cities - My city is
getting ready!, the One Million Safe Schools and Hospitals Campaign was conceptualized and launched,

K. Brizuela, A.W. Oreta

advocating the safety of schools and hospitals from disasters through pledges. The safe schools campaign
was initiated because school children are among the most vulnerable groups in society. Moreover,
learning opportunities are disrupted because of increasing risks from natural disasters due to climate
change (Velasquez et al, 2010). The campaign aims to reduce risks from natural disasters, assure
continuity of functions of schools and more importantly, to protect the lives of the people. According to
the campaign for safe schools as of March 16, 2013, the Philippines has the most number of pledges
(64,460) followed by Myanmar (41,001), Thailand (32,159), Indonesia (14,974), Malaysia (11,179), and
many other countries (One Million Safe Schools and Hospitals Website).
According to the 2009 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, countries such as
Australia, Indonesia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Lao Peoples Democratic Republic, Nepal, New
Zealand, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea, and Syria already established systematic policy or
institutional commitment. However still, only 7% of the 75 surveyed countries have had significant
advances in instilling a culture of safety and resilience in schools. The Review of Progress in the Hyogo
Framework for Action showed the lack of capacity among educators and trainers, absence of guidelines in
integrating risk reduction, and difficulties in addressing the needs of the poor and rural areas (Bastidas,
2011).
The educators and trainers are essential in the advocacy to promote safe schools. Thus, UNISDR
launched a global campaign during the previous years, 2006-2007, entitled Disaster Risk Reduction
Begins at Schools, giving emphasis to the role of the school administration in risk reduction. Moreover,
the International Finance Corporation (IFC) emphasized that the disaster management committee must be
comprised of major stakeholders such as the school administration (IFC, 2010; Ortiz, 2011). The first step
to risk management is the conduct of risk assessments, involving the primary stakeholders in the risk
management team (DepEd, 2008). Risk assessment is especially important and recommended in nations
which are disaster-prone and disaster-affected (UNISDR, 2009). Identifying hazards and vulnerabilities in
the assessment would then lead to risk reduction and retrofit/mitigation procedures for safe schools.
However, the risk assessment procedure employed in the country are only limited for engineers and
technical personnel. Employing the framework in the risk management series FEMA 428, the risk
assessment tool could be adopted for school administrators. Risk Assessment could also be improved by
integrating the buildings asset, hazard and vulnerability in the assessment. A simple assessment of school
buildings would guide decision makers, the government and the school administration, prioritize which
building is most vulnerable against natural hazards. Furthermore, developing a computer-aided risk
management tool would allow the most important stakeholders, the school staffs and officials, to
participate in the decision making process in maintaining a safe school community.
The risk assessment is primarily focused on earthquake hazards: ground shaking, landslide, soil
liquefaction and tsunami. The program is designed for the convenience of the end-users, the school
administrators. The program allows the evaluator to assess the seismic risk of school buildings within
their school compound and then later on, rank and prioritize those which need further detailed evaluations
and retrofitting measures. Mitigation procedures could be applied by reducing their identified
vulnerabilities.

FRAMEWORK
FEMA 428 is a risk management series which employs a basic risk assessment tool against terrorist
attacks (FEMA, 2003). The Risk Assessment is Semi-Quantitative in nature since it utilizes scores or
weights for the factors, but still depends on qualitative observations. It is divided into three main
divisions: the asset value assessment, the threat or hazard assessment, and the vulnerability assessment.
The risk is defined as the product of these three factors (Equation 1). The basic formula below for risk is
utilized.
Risk = Asset x Hazard x Vulnerability

Equation 1

The asset value, or the school buildings value, is dependent on the population in the structure, its
functions and processes, and its importance rating. On the other hand, a hazard is a potentially damaging
phenomenon that may cause injury or loss of life, and damage to properties (FEMA, 2003).
In this case, the hazards are the seismic risks: ground shaking, landslide, soil liquefaction and tsunami
which were quantified based on its strength and degree of possible damage. Lastly, vulnerability is the
degree of susceptibility of the structure, that is, structural vulnerability. It depends on the factors that may
increase the extent of a hazard to the structure.

TS13-33

K. Brizuela, A.W. Oreta

Relevant factors that define the asset value, hazard rating and vulnerability assessment are identified and
enumerated. Each factor is classified as low risk, medium risk or high risk depending on the structures
value and design, and the hazard rating. To obtain an aggregate value for asset, hazard and risk, the
relevant factors are assigned weights (wj). Weighting of the factors with respect to the asset value, hazard
rating and vulnerability assessment is done using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). A survey of experts
will be conducted to obtain the relative weights for each factor. A simple formula for the asset, hazard
and vulnerability combining the relevant factors with appropriate weights is shown in Equations 2a, 2b
and 2c.
Ai = waj x AFj

Equation 2a

Hi = whj x HFj

Equation 2b

Vi = wvj x VFj
Equation 2c
Where:
Ai = Asset value for hazard i, AFj = Asset value factor j, waj= weight for asset value factor j
Hi = Hazard rating for hazard i, HFj = Hazard factor j, whj = weight for hazard factor j
Vi = Vulnerability for hazard i, VFj = Vulnerability factor j, wvj= weight for vulnerability factor j
Summing up the scores, the asset value, hazard rating and vulnerability assessment are each given
a particular value. The risk rating is then defined by the equation:
Ri = A i x H i x V i

Equation 3

Where: Ri = Risk Index for Hazard i

Ai = Asset Value for Hazard i
Hi = Hazard Rating for Hazard i
Vi = Vulnerability Assessment for Hazard i
The product of the three factors would result to the equivalent seismic risk from ground shaking,
landslide, soil liquefaction and tsunami (Figure 1). The risk index per seismic hazard is then classified
based on a range of values as low risk, medium risk and high risk.
Hazard and vulnerability were rated as low, medium or high risk based on different risk assessment tools.
Structural vulnerabilities were identified based on the research by the Department of Health (DOH) on
Safe Hospitals because similarly, schools are critical facilities (DOH-HEMS, 2009). The National
Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) also served as a guide for providing minimum standards to
maintain safety and structural integrity of a building (NSCP, 2010). FEMA P-424, a risk management
series, also addressed hazards and vulnerabilities of schools against earthquakes, floods and high winds.
The rapid visual screening procedure presented in FEMA 154 was also utilized to include significant
factors in the earthquake assessment procedure.

Fig. 1: Seismic risk assessment framework

TS13-34

K. Brizuela, A.W. Oreta

METHODOLOGY
To develop the checklist assessment form, significant factors for determining the asset value, hazard
rating and vulnerability assessment are identified. A sample guideline for assessing the asset value,
hazard rating and vulnerability assessment against ground shaking hazard for a school building is
presented in the study. A similar process is also accomplished for other seismic hazards such as landslide,
soil liquefaction and tsunami. The design of the program is developed using Microsoft Visual Basic with
the aid of Microsoft Access for the database.

Asset Value
The asset value is the score or rating associated to the school building depending on its function and
importance referred to as the asset value factors (AFj) in Equation 2a. Guidelines on determining the asset
value against ground shaking are presented below:
a.

b.

c.

School Population (FEMA, 2002) Consequences to people

Low = Below 100 people;
Medium = 101 to 1000 people; and
High = Over 1000 people.
Consequences to Functions and Processes (FEMA, 2003)
Low = The extent of hazard on the assets would have minor consequences, such as slight
impact on core functions and processes for a short period of time;
Medium = The extent of hazard on the assets would have moderate to serious consequences,
such as injuries or impairment of core functions and processes; and
High = The extent of hazard on the assets would have grave consequences, such as loss of
life, sever injuries, major loss of core functions and processes for an extended period of
time.
Critical Components/Information Systems (FEMA, 2003)
Low = The building houses the outdoor and indoor sports facilities, vocational equipment,
custodial functions and the library;
Medium = The building houses the food service, temporary classrooms, administrative
functions, security equipment, library, science laboratories, school/student records and
utility systems; and
High = The building houses the IT/Communication systems, clinic, classrooms, faculty and
staff rooms, designated evacuation shelter.

Hazard Rating
The Hazard Rating of the school building depends on the probability of the event of a hazard and the
damage it may cause on the structure. Guidelines on rating the ground shaking hazard depends on the
hazard factors (HFj) such as:
a.

b.

c.

Fault Location (DOH-HEMS, 2009)

Low = Over 10 km-15 km to the fault line;
Medium = Over 5 km-10 km to the fault line; and
High = 5 km and nearer to the fault line.
Hazard Maps
Low = The school building is in a low risk area;
Medium = The school building is located in a medium risk area; and
High = The school building is situated in a high risk area.
Soil Foundation (NSCP, 2010; INEE & GFDRR, 2009; FEMA, 2007)
Low = Hard Rock; Rock (SA & SB);
Medium = Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock; Stiff Soil Profile (S C & SD); and
High = Soft Soil Profile (SE & SF).

Vulnerability Assessment
The vulnerability assessment is the susceptibility of the school buildings assets against specific hazards.
The guide to assessing the score of the vulnerability against ground shaking depends on vulnerability
factors (VFj) such as:

TS13-35

K. Brizuela, A.W. Oreta

a.

b.

c.

d.

Construction Date (FEMA, 2002) Based on the National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP)
Low = 1992 and beyond (Post-benchmark);
Medium = Between 1972 and 1992; and
High = Before 1972 (Pre-Code).
Plan Irregularity (PAHO, 2008)
Low = Shapes are regular, structure has uniform plan, and there are no elements that would
cause torsion;
Medium = Shapes are irregular but structure is uniform; and
High = Shapes are irregular and structure is not uniform.
Vertical Irregularity (PAHO, 2008)
Low = Stories of similar height (they differ by less than 5%); there are no discontinuous or
irregular elements;
Medium = Stories have similar heights (they differ by less than 20% but more than 5%) and
there are few discontinuous or irregular elements; and
High = Height of storeys differs by more than 20% and there are significant discontinuous
or irregular elements.
Building Proximity (PAHO, 2008)
Low = Separation is more than 1.5% of the height of the shorter of two adjacent buildings;
Medium = Separation is between 0.5% and 1.5% of the height of the shorter of two adjacent
buildings; and
High = Separation is less than 0.5% of the height of the shorter of two adjacent buildings.

Other vulnerability factors for ground shaking and other seismic hazards are included depending on
whether these factors are critical and easy to assess visually and with minimal calculation.

PROGRAM DESIGN
The seismic risk assessment form is developed into a program with the aid of Microsoft Visual Basic and
Microsoft Access for the database. The user adds the school buildings found in their compound; and the
program assesses the seismic risks of these school buildings. The program stores the building information
and risk indices of the structures.
The user could also modify and delete information about the buildings in the database (Figure 2). When
the user adds a school building, a new form appears which is to be filled out with the school building
parameters such as the name of the building, location, zip code, year built, building type, population and
number of floors and risk assessment parameters such as the asset value, hazard rating and vulnerability
assessment (Figure 3).

Fig. 2: School building database

Fig. 3: School building risk assessment form

The user then completes the asset value, hazard rating and vulnerability assessment forms (Figures 4a, 4b
and 4c). The program would then calculate the equivalent scores for the three factors.

TS13-36

K. Brizuela, A.W. Oreta

Fig. 4: (a) Asset Value, (b) Hazard Rating and (c) Vulnerability Assessment Form
Once the forms are accomplished, the risk calculator would then compute the risk from any seismic
hazard: ground shaking, landslide, soil liquefaction and tsunami (Figure 5). Schools can be qualified as
low risk, medium risk and high risk. Buildings in the high risk are given the highest priority for further
detailed inspection. The list of schools under the high risk must be submitted to DPWH or DepEd
building officials for detailed inspection. For the same risk group, the buildings are ranked according to
their risk scores, the one with the highest score having the first priority in the group. Mitigation or retrofit
procedures are then based according to the vulnerabilities found in the school buildings.

Fig. 5: Risk assessment form (risk calculator and ranking)

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Risk Assessment is a critical factor in risk management, because it is where hazards and vulnerabilities
are identified. Once the risk is determined, risk reduction and mitigation/retrofit procedures follow.
The simplified tool for seismic risk assessment allows school administrators and officials to participate in
the decision making process. Without the aid of engineers or technical personnel, they could be guided in
identifying the most vulnerable school buildings in their compound and point the vulnerabilities of their
structures. The program also allows storing of a database which would help government entities such as
the Department of Education (DepEd) to monitor the status of schools in the Philippines. Once identified,
further detailed evaluations are suggested to be conducted by the Department of Public Works and
Highways (DPWH). In such manner, buildings are initially screened and important information about the
buildings is stored.

REFERENCES
Bastidas, P. (2011). School Safety Baseline Study. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations International
Strategy for Disaster Reduction.
Davey, R.A. and Shepard, R. B. (1995). Earthquake Risk Assessment Study: Study Area 1 Wellington
City. Wellington, New Zealand: Works Consultancy Services Limited.

TS13-37

K. Brizuela, A.W. Oreta

Department of Education. (2008). Disaster Risk Reduction Resource Manual. Philippines: Department of
Education.
Department of Health Health Emergency Management Staff. (2009). Safe Hospitals in Emergencies and
Disasters: Philippine Indicators. Republic of the Philippines: Department of Health.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2002). Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential
Seismic Hazards. Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency Publications.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2003). Risk Management Series Primer to Design Safe School
Projects in Case of Terrorist Attacks. Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Publications.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2009). Risk Management Series: Handbook for Rapid Visual
Screening of Buildings to Evaluate Terrorism Attacks. Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency
Management Agency Publications.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2010). Risk Management Series for Improving School Safety
in Earthquakes, Floods, and High Winds. Washington, D.C.: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Publications.
Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies & Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and
Recovery. (2009). Guidance Notes on Safer School Construction: Global Facility for Disaster Reduction
and Recovery. Washington, D.C.: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development The World
Bank.
International Finance Corporation. (2010). Disaster and Emergency Preparedness: Guidance for Schools.
Washington, D.C.: Health and Education Department.
One Million Safe Schools and Hospitals Website. http://safe-schools-hospitals.net, UNISDR
Ortiz, H. (2011). Educational Facilities Vulnerability/Hazard Assessment Checklist. Texas, USA:
American Clearinghouse on Educational Facilities.
Pan American Health Organization. (2008). Hospital Safety Index: Guide for Evaluators. Washington,
D.C.: PAHO Publications.
United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. (2009). Safety Audit: First Step Towards
Making Schools Safer. Retrieved July 14, 2012 from http://preventionweb.net/go/10988
United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. (2010). Advocacy Guide. Retrieved July
18, 2012 from http://www.unisdr.org/files/15656_1msshadvguideprefinal0318101.pdf
Velasquez, J., Oreta, A.W., Tanhueco, R.M., and Salvador F. (2010). The One Million Safe Schools and
Hospitals Campaign: Promoting Disaster Awareness, Preparedness and Risk Reduction. Manila: De La
Salle University.

TS13-38