Garry de la Pomerai Theme 2 Key Note presentation

Theme 2 – Technical Aspects of Seismically Safer Schools

This theme will focus on sharing, understanding and using of engineering designs/structural solutions for safer seismic
resistant constructions schools, including school sites, especially in the mountain terrains. Issues related to design and
construction codes and guidelines, options for designs, and appropriate construction materials for school construction in
varying terrain, as well as physical planning elements of hazard mitigation for critical infrastructure, will be brought
forward. Issue of insufficient and inefficient use of materials and building technologies will also be included. Models
and good practices for safe school construction, prioritization of school retrofitting, cost-effective retrofit techniques,
etc. will be part of this theme

[boxed text to be displayed on power-point slides] [Remainder is the text of the key note speech]

The very first priority for school building safety is for every new school to be a safe school. This is
inexpensive when implemented consciously and diligently during design and construction of each new school.

Uniform building codes provide a higher standard for the performance of school buildings than for normal
buildings. An international rule of thumb is that school buildings be normally designed to be 1.5 x the strength
of regular buildings. Engineered buildings can be designed for higher standards of performance – such as
being able to be immediately occupied after a severe earthquake to be used for shelter or emergency
operations. Whether new schools are built by local communities, through projects or programs of government
agencies, and/or with support from external donors, there is a need for clear and comprehensible building
guidelines provided with support from relevant government authorities. This usually requires cooperation
between ministries of education and a public works or construction standards authority.

The broader policy context for disaster-resistant construction involves:

• standard building codes relative to hazard conditions
• a transparent process for planning, design, regulation and enforcement decisions
• qualification requirements for professionals engaged in engineering and design and construction of school
facilities
• independent assessment of design, construction and maintenance of school facilities
• technical support for all phases, and skill training for builders where needed.
• active public stand against corruption, and liability for all contractors. This may include a “zero tolerance”
policy, well-publicized campaign, and severe penalties for infraction.
• independent ombudsman program for investigation of citizen concerns.
• public awareness and consumer/community involvement in monitoring

• Physical Statistics:
o In 2005 over 8,000 out of 9,000 schools were either destroyed or damaged beyond repair
by the earthquake.
o Over 80% of schools in Pakistan remain unprotected from similar risks.

1
 A PARTIAL LIST OF PHYSICAL IMPACTS OF DISASTERS
ON SCHOOLS, SCHOOL-CHILDREN & TEACHERS
(deaths in schools shown in bold)
2007 Bangladesh Cyclone destroyed 496 school buildings and damaged 2,110 more
2006 Philippines Super Typhoon Durian caused $20m USD damage to schools including 90-
100% of school buildings in three cities and 50-60% of school buildings in two
other cities.
2006 Leyte Island, more than 200 children died in a mudslide
Philippines
2006 Uganda 13 children died in a school dormitory fire where children were using
candles for lighting.
2005 Northern Pakistan 17,000 students died at school, and 50,000 were seriously injured, many
disabled. 10,000 school buildings destroyed. 300,000 children affected. In
some districts 80% of schools were destroyed.
2005 Gulf States, USA 56 schools were destroyed and 1,162 were damaged. 700 schools were closed
and 372,000 children displaced. 73,000 college students displaced. $2.8billion
was spent to educate displaced students for a year.
2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami – destroyed 750 schools in Indonesia and damaged 2,135 more.
150,000 students without schools. 51 schools destroyed in Sri Lanka, 44
Maldives, 30 Thailand.
2000 Cambodia Severe floods directly affected between 500,000 and 1m students in 1,000 –
2,000 schools in 8 provinces.
2005 Bam, Iran 67 of 131 schools collapsed, the remaining were heavily damaged. 32,843
students were affected.
2004 Bangladesh 1,259 school buildings were lost to floods and 24,236 were damaged.
2004 Tamilnadu, India 93 children died in a fire due to explosion of a cooking gas cylinder
2003 Bingol, Turkey 84 children and teachers die in collapsed school building in a moderate
earthquake. 4 schools collapsed. 90% of schools were impacted and
education disrupted.
2003 Xinjiang, China 900 classrooms in dozens of schools collapsed in earthquake 27 minutes before
thousands of children returned to their classrooms. Middle school collapsed
killing at least 20 students.
2003 Dominican Republic 18,000 students lost their classrooms.
2003 Boumerdes, Algeria 103 schools destroyed, 753 severely damaged. Cost of rehabilitation $79
million.
2002 Ab Garm 16,500 students education disrupted when 8 schools collapsed and 137 were
damaged.
2002 Molise, Italy 26 children and 1 teacher died in a school earthquake collapse
2001 Cariaco, Venezuela 2 schools collapsed in an earthquake. 46 students died
2001 El Salvadaor 85 schools were damaged beyond repair. Replacement and repair cost
$114m. 22 preschoolers and their teacher were killed in an aftershock a
month later.
2001 Arequipa, Peru 98 school buildings seriously damaged by earthquake
2001 Taiwan A three-story school collapsed in the middle of the night.
2001 Bhuj, India 971 students and 31 teachers killed by earthquake, though most children
were outside for Republic Day celebrations. 1,884 collapsed and 5,950
classrooms were destroyed including 78% of public secondary schools.
11,761 school buildings suffered major damaged with 36,584 classrooms
unusable.
1999 Pereira, Colombia 74% of schools om 2 cities damaged (22 in one city alone were destroyed).
Children were outside for lunch.
1999 Chi Chi, Taiwan 51 schools collapsed and 786 were damaged. Cost of school reconstruction and
repair was $1.3billion
1999 Kocaeli, Turkey 43 schools were damaged beyond repair and hundreds more damaged. School
was suspended for hundreds of thousands of children for 4 months.
1998 Bangladesh Flooding destroyed 1,718 school buildings and 12,000 were damaged.
1998 East Nepal, 1,200 schools destroyed or heavily damaged
1997 Ardakul, Iran Primary school collapse killed 110 students (earthquake)
1997 Cariaco, Venezuela 2 schools collapsed in earthquake, killing 46 students
1993 Maharashtra, India 48% of the 8,311 killed were under the age of 14. Many schools were destroyed

2
 by earthquake
1992 Erzincan, Turkey a 6 story medical school collapsed in moderate earthquake, burying 62 students
1989 El Asnam, Algeria 70-85 schools collapsed or severely damaged in earthquake
1988 Udayapur, Nepal 6,000 schools destroyed in earthquake.
1988 Yunan, China 1,300 schools destroyed in earthquake
1988 Spitak, Armenia 2/3 of the 55,000 earthquake deaths were school children killed in their
schools. 400 children died in 1 school alone. 32,000 children were evacuated
1985 Mexico City, Mexico Several schools collapsed in the early morning before school started.
1964 Anchorage, Alaska Half of the city’s schools were severely damaged by an earthquake during
school hours, but on the Good Friday holiday
1963 Skopje, Macedonia 44 schools (57% of urban stock) damaged by earthquake, affecting 50,000
children.
1952 Sapporo, Japan 400 schools collapsed in the earthquake

What causes structural vulnerability?

o Multiple hazards and reoccurring individual hazard events upon a community
o Poor building design and development planning with substandard construction methods and use of
substandard materials
o Deterioration of buildings due to poor maintenance or accumulative minor structural traumas
o Lack of training for the builders and inspectors along with poor technical communication and liaison

When it comes to school safety, there are several basic assessment questions to be asked:
o Is the site itself safe, or can bit be made safe?
o Are the school buildings themselves safe, or can they be made safe? What is the construction type? Is the
building designed to withstand the expected hazards (eg. elevated for flood, resistant to shaking by
earthquake or wind, roof to hold or deflect snow, insulated from cold and heat)? Do the construction
materials and the construction quality ensure the integrity of the building? Are temperature, air circulation
and noise-control accounted for?
o How safe are the building’s contents and non-structural building elements: Do the doors open outwards
for safe evacuation? Does each room have two ways in and out? Is the roof fastened securely to the
building? Is large and heavy furniture fastened to the structure to prevent falling or sliding in wind or
earthquake? Are utility pipes and wires flexible and secure with accessible cut off points?

ASSESSING SCHOOL SEISMIC SAFETY

Global examples
o Kathmandu, Nepal: The 1988 6.6 M earthquake in Udayapur destroyed 6000 schools.
Throughout Nepal.Today more than 6 million children and 140,00 teachers are at risk. (Alam, K.,
2007) Possible scenario of earthquake impact on school in Kathmandu Valley: In a “no-
intervention scenario” the expected loss is more than 29,000 school children dead or injured, and
more than 77% school buildings lost (est USD $7 million.) With intervention 24,000 lives can be
saved and the buildings protected. (Bothara, J. et. al. 2007)
o Bogotá, Colombia: In 2000 the Directorate of Prevention and Attention of Emergencies in
Bogotå, Colombia commissioned a study that identified that 434 of 710 schools were vulnerable
to earthquake damage, 3 were in flood areas and 20 prone to being affected by landslides In 2004
the 201 most critical were prioritized and structural reinforcement incorporated into 2004-2008
the Development Plan of the city (Coco, 2007).
o Republic of Uzbekistan: An assessment of 1,000 school buildings revealed that 51% were
require demolition and replacement with earthquake resistant buildings. 26% of the buildings
require capital repair and reinforcement 27% are life-safe and required no intervention.
(Khakimov, S. et. al. 2007)

o School physical safety is not continuously assured, by design and construction alone. Once a school
building is in use, it falls to staff, students and communities to accept responsibility for ongoing and
preventative maintenance and to regularly monitor safety conditions. A chain of command, adequate
budget, and training are all important in facilitating this. (For example, users may be unaware that the
single most damaging element causing degradation of buildings is moisture and therefore that keeping the

3
 building in good repair and preventing moisture accumulation is a significant priority). Users may also be
unaware that the most common hazard in schools is fire.
The most common hazard in schools is fire
o Fire prevention measures include: elimination and prevention of fire hazards; maintenance of
electrical equipment; standard fire prevention through awareness; smoke detectors, sprinkler
systems,
o Important measures to mitigating fire risk are: doors of classrooms and buildings open outwards for
safe evacuation; exit doors are clearly marked (above and below); exit route maps are posted on
each corridor and in each classroom ; fire suppression equipment is available on each corridor ; fire
suppression equipment is maintained regularly (eg. annual testing) ; staff and older students receive
fire suppression training (use of fire extinguishers, blanket, bucket, sand, hose); schools conduct
regular fire drills
Structural Technical considerations
o Transferable design between regions and communities must take into account material availability and the
logistics of acquiring the materials to site and they must be appropriate to the environment and to the
expected multiple hazards, not just to the predominant hazard.
o Good structural designs alone are insufficient without adequate quality control. This poses one of the
biggest challenges for all communities. We would all like a solution to this Global problem.
o Periodic visual inspections by busy and possibly inadequately trained inspectors are not sufficient. There
has to be a working team of quality control to include the builder, site foreman, project manager, project
engineer, project architect and all in conjunction with building control officer. All of them must want to
comply with the set codes and necessary construction standards to ensure survivability for the children and
teachers.
o Ignorance, time constraints, inadequate training, substandard materials and corruption are the common
enemies of building codes throughout the world. As an accumulative effect they spell disaster and death.
o We must all want to alter our culture and approach to these problems. Without the ‘will’ there is no
solution.
o Some suggestions might include external inspecting project managers, independent of all others provided
by international agencies, but this has to be in cooperation with the local governance.
Codes to include:of training / proof of competence for the responsible site workers to ensure their awareness
o Certification
o for
thatreinforced buildings
pointsthe Rheology of fresh concrete within foundations andtoofcomply
pillars with
and roof slabs
there are key requiring expertise understanding during installation acceptable
Including
codes: Admixtures, Cement replacement, Accelerators/ Retarders, Plasticizers Durability and
degradation, Corrosion of embedded steel, Column buckling and Fracture mechanics, plus the correct
installation of reinforcing within concrete including confinement by stirrups and ties; beam column
joints; structural diaphragms, foundation and grade beams;
o Isolation pads and platforms, Bracing, and Joint mechanics within steel framed designs;
o Then bracing and joint ties and embedded timber floor lacing within Vernacular buildings.

See http://www.traditional-is-modern.net/KASHMIR.html

o Seismic bands at plinth lintel and roof level plus vertical reinforcement plus confining meshed plaster
on walls within adobe constructions
o Non destructive testing, including simple slump tests of concrete, ensuring acceptable material
properties;
o such as for concrete minimum compressive cylinder strength at 28days for high seismic zones
equals 3000psi and maximum compressive strength for light weight concrete equaling 5000psi;
o for steel ASTM A615, grades 40 and 60 reinforcement, permitted if the actual yield strength
based on mill tests doe not exceed more than 124 Mpa (18000psi) and the ration of the actual
tensile strength to the actual yield strength is not less than 1.25 and the value within transverse
reinforcement including spiral reinforcement shall not exceed 420 MPa (60,000 psi)

o Cover to steel reinforcement guidelines include:

o ¾” in normal conditions
o 1 ½” for exposed weather conditions
o 2” for exposed to soil conditions
4
Minimum compressive strengths of; Brick to be 1250psi; blocks at 1700psi; and mortar at 350psi
 Global References to Codes

• A Caribbean States Model Code was prepared by:

Prof. Ezio Faccioli

Politecnico di Milano Italy
&
Prof. Gian Michele Calvi
Università di Pavia Italy
With the assistance of:
Prof. Jorge Gutiérrez & Prof. Guillermo Santana
Universidad de Costa Rica

Dr. Myron W. Chin & Prof. Winston Suite

The University of the West Indies Trinidad and Tobago
Prof. Dr. Carlos Llanes Burón
Instituto Superior Politecnico “José Antonio Echeverría” Cuba
Earthquake Hazard Centre Newsletter, Vol. 10 No. 3, January 2007 E
includes
Produced for the Association of Caribbean States © 2003 5-7 Sweet Briar Road, St. Clair, P.O. Box
Virtual Site Visit No. 7. Reinforced concrete masonry podium structure,
660
Wellington, New Zealand.
Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, West Indies Tel: (868) 622 9575
+
http://www.acs-aec.org -- mail@acs-aec.org
Summary of “Building Codes for
(www.acs-aec.org/Documents/Disasters/Projects/ACS_ND_001/SeismCod.pdf)
Earthen Buildings in Seismic Areas
+
Summary of “Seismic Safety
Strategies in Gujurat, India,” by A. R.
+
Sheth and V. Thiruppugazh, Proceedings of
the 8th U. S. National Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, April 18 - 22, 2006,
San Francisco, California, USA.
(www.victoria.ac.nz/architecture/research/ehc/ehc-newletters/2007/2007_January.pdf)
+
SEISMIC RESISTANT REINFORCED
CONCRETE STRUCTURES-DESIGN
PRINCIPLES
Paper by UGUR ERSOY
Published by
Seismology Civil Engineering. A Journal of Islamic Academy of Sciences 1:1, 20-
26, 1988
(www.medicaljournal-ias.org/1_1/Ersoy.pdf)
+
What are5building codes
Published by FEMA
(www.cusec.org/Library/cusec/Phamplet/buildingcodes.pdf)
Lateral thinking
o Schools are a community asset and as such require that their development, maintenance and expansion be
carried out to an acceptable standard to reduce their vulnerabilities and increase their resilience to
earthquakes and other hazards.
o Engineers and Architects including those who own, operate, maintain and repair schools should be
constantly thinking outside of their ‘comfort zone’ to address the DRR challenges within Schools
including:
o addressing multiple hazard vulnerability;
o to design the School as an post disaster community assembly safe building;
o to design to include future school expansion or alteration without threat to integral existing
strength;
o to design as a transparent ‘example’ of construction codes and safe practices for future hazard
resilient buildings within the community;
o Community Engineers, Architects and Project/ Construction Managers should prioritise the need for
greater site liaison between each other and with local building control along with improved global
networking in order to develop researched safe practices of resilient design and implementation, not
necessarily embraced by codes, being discussed in Theme 1, especially for retrofitting;
o External Engineers, Architects and Project/ Construction Managers need to ensure a good understanding
of a community’s physical challenges to vulnerability reduction in addition to areas discussed in Theme 3:
o Care must be given to review foundations proposals, especially within mountainous regions.
Determining if the land is liable to slippage or vulnerable to landslides during seismic activity,
winters snows or heavy rains and if possibly affected by flash flood subsidence or snow
avalanches.
o Reviewing location of a school within the surrounding geology and geographic features;
considering relocation maybe the only safe alternative

RELOCATION – Moving the footprint

Global Examples

• Philippines, Sta. Paz Sur; In the barangays (villages) of San Francisco

municipality, when school-children learned in 2006 that their high school was located in a landslide
risk area they debated whether and how to relocate the school. The headmaster opened the decision
to a community-wide referendum. The students were in favor of relocation, though parents were
concerned about the extra travel time and loss of lunch business for local shops. Student
organizations in the high school developed an education campaign and their proposal won the vote
by 101 to 49. Students and parents constructed a temporary tent school with support from
International. The new permanent school will incorporate
6 earthquake mitigation measures and
preparation for use as an emergency shelter (Action Aid, 2007).
On site challenges
o Reviewing a the schools location in respect of surrounding buildings, industry and future development
o Understanding construction challenges including the quality of available materials and a limited skilled
workforce; investigating the opportunity of personnel training prior to construction or retrofitting
o The need to review the qualifications and training of building Inspectors and ensuring their supervision
o The need to implement and enforce design construction codes and safe practices;
o To promote maintenance schedules, scheduled building inspections identifying building deterioration
including consideration of the accumulative affects of periodic minor quake and environment damages;
o To raise awareness of the affects of architectural facia/venacular development, potentially threatening the
integral engineering design strength;

Successful structural DRR developments

Global examples

o Uttar Pradesh, India: There are 23.5 million children attending school in this moderate to severe
seismic risk zone. 21,00 new school buildings (30 per day) have been completed in the past two
years. In 2006-7 the Elementary Education Department proposed to integrate earthquake resistant
design into all new school buildings. To prepare for this, one design of primary school buildings,
two upper primary and three additional classroom designs were prepared with detailed construction
manuals. The disaster resistant measures added 8% to the construction costs. To cope with massive
scale of the project a cascading approach prepared 4 master trainers for each of 70 districts. These
individuals in turn conducted trainings for 1,100 fellow Junior Engineers and Education Officers.
10,000 masons were also trained. This program means that every new school will be a safe school.
Within a relatively short period, most children will be attending safe schools. However, the pre-
existing stock of 125,000 school buildings remains unsafe and in need of retrofit (Bhattia, 2007).

o Nepal, Kathmandu: A vulnerability assessment of 1,100 buildings in 643 public schools revealed
that an alarming 60% of buildings are highly vulnerable even under normal conditions. A rolling
demonstration project is underway that undertakes retrofit of a school while simultaneously
training local builders in techniques of disaster-resistant construction and training teachers, students
and parents the basics of risk mitigation and preparedness. “Protection of Educational Buildings
against Earthquakes: A Manual for Designers and Builders” documents the rich experiences gained
during implementation. Extensive public participation through a district level advisory committee,
school management committee and school earthquake safety committee and student club, created a
replicable model. This
o now requires resourcing to implement comprehensively (UNISDR, UNESCO, 2007).

o 7
Peru: One particular structural weakness, “short columns” are a common design fault that
compromise the safety of many school buildings. A retrofit solution was developed to partially
mitigate this potentially devastating structural defect. (UNISDR, UNESCO, 2007).
 School Retrofit and Replacement
o Tackling the strengthening or replacement of existing buildings to resist recurring hazards requires
a careful and scientific strategy for prioritization, both to target efforts for maximum effectiveness, and
to manage costs.
o For most authorities, detailed assessment of a large number of buildings is not practical. A
prioritization scheme, using a filtering method needed to identify the highest risk buildings for retrofit
or replacement.
o A general model for prioritization is based on the vulnerability of the buildings, the existing
hazards, and building occupancy; using a transparent and technically based schema, beginning with a
paper review of existing school building stock, selecting those for sidewalk survey, using sidewalk
assessment of existing buildings (using, for example the ATC 21 survey or modification of this) to
select high priority buildings for detailed assessment, using detailed assessment of these buildings to
identify those for priority retrofit (Grant et. al, 2007)

School retrofit demonstration models

Global examples

o India, Shimla: Structural assessment of school buildings was carried out using a
filtering method: The first step was low-cost mass scale Rapid Visual Assessment Survey of school
buildings for potential seismic hazards. Based on these surveys a smaller number were selected for
Simplified Vulnerability Recent
Assessment based commitments
proactive on limited engineering
to Schoolanalysis,
retrofitand the highest risk
identified for Detailed Vulnerability Analysis. Following
Global examples this retrofitting designs were drawn up for
20 schools
Turkey, and implementation
Istanbul: Following the of 1999
retrofit carriedearthquake,
Kocaeli out in 8 schools.
schoolsProgram includes
60km away development
in Istanbul were of
guidelines for retrofit and training of local masons and engineers, and delivery of skill-training.
assessed; 820 of 1,651 schools had sustained damage. Thirteen were immediately, identified for
“Non-structural mitigation plans” have also been carried out in 20 schools. An awareness campaign
replacement. When retrofit proved too costly 22 more were added to this list. 59 schools were
is designed to reach all 750 schools in the region including nearly 100,000 students, 7,500 teachers
strengthened, and 59 repaired. (Wisner, et. al. 2004).
and local builders, engineers and officials. (SEEDS, 2006).
Uzbekistan: Eleven Design Institutes participated in building codes revision for school building
construction. Typical designs were created for new schools with different capacities. A database of
typical construction and technical decisions for anti-seismic reinforcement were developed. UNCRD
provided financial and technical support for demonstration projects on reinforced concrete frame,
masonry and frame panel buildings. The incremental cost of seismic reinforcement was shown to be
between 3-14% depending on intensity zone, type of construction, number of floors, capacity and
ground conditions. (Khakimov et. al. 2007).
Colombia, Bogotá: 47% of school infrastructure benefitting 300,000 students is being improved or
replaced in Bogotá with $162.7m USD for structural reinforcement of 172 schools and “non-
structural” risk reduction in 326 schools (Coca, 2007).
Central America: The Organization of American States began its commitment to school safety in
1992. A coordinated regional action plan has been developed to benefit Costa Rica, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama has created a mechanism to combine the contributions
of development assistance donors with contributions from local organizations to develop strategies,
and capacity to carry out retrofitting of educational facilities. School infrastructure experts from each
country are being trained 8
Canada, British Colombia: Responding to advocacy efforts of the local “Families for School
Seismic Safety”, in 2004 the provincial government committed $1.5 billion Canadian to ensure that
Community ownership is the Communities first step to structural Disaster Risk Reduction
o Commencing by raising fundamental awareness questions within hazard vulnerable
Communities
aimed at ensuring continuity of service of the school infrastructure through the development and
inclusion of DRR within education as discussed in Theme 4
o Is there a hazard vulnerability history within your community or region?
o Do you know which schools are vulnerable, and to what, why and how did they get that
way?
o Who is responsible and accountable and who will pay?
o Have you investigated the costs of retrofitting the school?
o Are your local builders trained correctly?
o Do you have building codes, permits and /or licences to work to?
o Do you have readily available trained inspectors and supervisors?
o Are all necessary recommended materials available to your community?
o Do you have a successful example of retrofitting within your region?
o Do you understand Non-structural mitigation within your school buildings?
o Do you have the support of the community and local government Administration?

And have you considered your community resource mobilization?

• By taking ownership through the parents and teachers and community themselves as stakeholders
as discussed in Theme 6, requiring no administrative input nor financial commitment, by starting
with the basic non-structural internal and external mitigation considering specifically designed
DRR fixtures and fittings and reviewing safe positioning and fixings and their effect upon
structural design functionality

PHYSICAL PROTECTION Community check list

Our building has been located appropriately, designed and built according to current building
codes/safety standards for disaster safety, and inspected by a qualified structural engineer.
If our school required repair or retrofit, this has been completed without minimal disruption of
students's education.
We practice preventative maintenance on our buildings, protecting them from damp and other
damage, and repairing damage when it occurs.
Earthquake, windstorm: We have fastened tall and heavy furniture, secured computers, televisions
and other electronic equipment, hazardous materials, supplies, propane gas tanks, water tanks,
lighting fixtures, roof elements, railings and parapets, heating and cooling devices, storage tanks
and other items that could kill, injure, or impair educational continuity.
Earthquake, windstorm: We have put latches on cabinets, and hung pictures securely on closed
hooks to protect ourselves from things that could injure us, or would be expensive to replace.
Flood, storm, tornado: We know about early warning systems and have plans to respond to these
to move people and assets to safety.
We have smoke detectors, fire alarms, automatic sprinkler systems, fire hoses, fire extinguishers,
and automatic emergency lighting, and maintain these. Our building exit routes are marked.
9
 We have limited, isolated, and secured any hazardous materials to prevent spill or release.
We have off-site back up of critical information. (including student emergency contacts and
release permissions.)
School transportation is inspected for safety, drivers and students are trained in respective safety
skills. Seat belts, helmets and other transportation safety measures are advocated and promoted.

• Finally in addition to coded design principles, a Community must not forget to address DRR
through the enhancement of escape routes , reviewing existing, creating new, including
establishing safer assembly areas and potential internal safe havens, all in conjunction with Theme
5 addressing drills and preparedness training.

NON-STRUCTURAL RISK REDUCTION

Practical Examples
(Fastening building contents and building non-structural elements to avoid deaths, injuries
and material losses in earthquakes and other hazards.)
• tall and heavy furnishings, bookshelves, cabinets and similar items that may
topple and fall, must not block exits, and should be moved to a place where it will not hit
anyone, or be fastened to the building so that it moves with it.
• water tanks, heating, ventilating and air cooling units should be secured to the
building to prevent toppling
• hazardous materials in labs should be limited, isolated, eliminated or separated
and stabilized.
• computers and other equipment should be secured to stable flat surface and

NON-STRUCTURAL RISK REDUCTION

Global Examples
• USA, California: The 1994 Northridge earthquake happened at night when no
children were in school, but the damage caused by fallen cabinets, bookcases, equipment,
lighting fixtures and broken glass made it clear that during a school day, children, teachers and
staff would have been injured and killed by falling, sliding and colliding objects. The Los
Angeles Unified School District amongst others, embarked on a project of non-structural
mitigation of school classrooms, fastening furnishings to prevent both injuries and to preserve
school assets. This effort continues today and is the responsibility of each school and school
maintenance personnel.
• India, Delhi: NGO partners SEEDS and GeoHazards International, working
with the Government of Delhi, have demonstrated non-structural risk reduction in a public
school. The school welfare committee comprised of faculty, staff and local community
members learned to identify the non-structural building elements and building contents that
could fall, slide or collide during a likely Delhi earthquake, as well as fire and evacuation
hazards. They were exposed to simple low-costs techniques for reducing these risks (moving
some items, fastening others) and came up with innovative solutions of their own. The logic of
regular fire and earthquake drills became readily apparent to these new stakeholders. A
handbook for schools on Non-Structural Risk Reduction provides a new resource for
generalizing these lessons (UNISDR, UNESCO 2007).
To assist your communities COGSS “Coalition for Global School Safety” internationally fosters
dialogue and collaboration between advisory groups of local scientific and field practitioner experts for
development and localization of Disaster Risk Reduction strategies through the use of educational
materials and structural resilient design.
10
 Finally, considering the continuing challenges in the creation and more importantly the enforcement of
Coded designs and construction standards within vulnerable multiple hazard communities, and in support
of the Aga Khan Planning and Building Service and this Conference I am pleased to announce an intended
new initiative, that global technical networking is to be assisted by the proposed creation of SSSAFE
“School Structural Safety Advisory Forum Executive” made up of invited globally recognised
Engineers, Architects and field Project Managers. The role of the executive is to act as a discrete global
forum and focal point to review and discuss codes and good practices, raise issues, and introduce and
encourage specific research, individual ideas and methodologies, administered through COGSS. The
objectives are to assist creating a coherent globally coordinated strategy in developing safer resilient
designs and retrofit procedures for all new and existing schools within vulnerable and hazardous
environments.
Acknowledgements: Paper Compiled and presented by Garry de la Pomerai COGSS
Substantive sections researched and produced by Marla Petal -Risk Red for the UN-ISDR
Structural facts and figures extracted from the proposed Code of Practice for use within Pakistan
A big thanks to all those working in the field producing excellent project examples and for their perseverance

11