Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Seismic Protection of Schools: A New Perspective - Michael Mahoney
Seismic Protection of Schools: A New Perspective - Michael Mahoney
Seismic Protection of Schools: A New Perspective - Michael Mahoney
Seismic Protection of Schools: A New Perspective - Michael Mahoney
Seismic Protection of Schools: A New Perspective - Michael Mahoney
Seismic Protection of Schools: A New Perspective - Michael Mahoney
Seismic Protection of Schools: A New Perspective - Michael Mahoney
Seismic Protection of Schools: A New Perspective - Michael Mahoney
Seismic Protection of Schools: A New Perspective - Michael Mahoney
Seismic Protection of Schools: A New Perspective - Michael Mahoney
Seismic Protection of Schools: A New Perspective - Michael Mahoney
Seismic Protection of Schools: A New Perspective - Michael Mahoney
Seismic Protection of Schools: A New Perspective - Michael Mahoney
Seismic Protection of Schools: A New Perspective - Michael Mahoney
Seismic Protection of Schools: A New Perspective - Michael Mahoney
Seismic Protection of Schools: A New Perspective - Michael Mahoney
Seismic Protection of Schools: A New Perspective - Michael Mahoney
Seismic Protection of Schools: A New Perspective - Michael Mahoney
Seismic Protection of Schools: A New Perspective - Michael Mahoney
Seismic Protection of Schools: A New Perspective - Michael Mahoney
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Seismic Protection of Schools: A New Perspective - Michael Mahoney

571

Published on

2013 EERI Annual Meeting Session: School Seismic Safety

2013 EERI Annual Meeting Session: School Seismic Safety

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
571
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • One strategy not presented here is to move the building/campus away from the EQ Hazard (fault trace, poor soil, etc.) to another site. Generally this is too impractical, unless consideration of alternate sites is part of the District long term facilities Master Plan- Incremental Rehabilitation is the strategy with the greatest FINANCIAL FLEXIBILITY.
  • Transcript

    • 1. Seismic Protection of Schools: A New Perspective Earthquake Engineering Research Institute 2013 Annual Meeting Michael Mahoney, Senior Geophysicist FEMA, Building Science Branch
    • 2. 1933 Long Beach Earthquake • The M6.4 Long Beach earthquake was the first major earthquake to show the threat of URM school buildings. • It collapsed or severely damaging thousands of URM buildings, including over 230 school buildings. • Fortunately, school was not in session, or hundreds of children would have been killed. • This event did lead to California passing the Field Act, which required special inspection of new school buildings.Franklin Junior High School before and after the 1933 earthquake. Photo: NICEE and Historical Society of Long Beach
    • 3. 2008 Sichuan China Earthquake• The M7.9 Sichuan China earthquake caused over 69,000 fatalities. Many of them were the children who were in the thousands of school buildings that collapsed.• The most riveting images to come out of the event were the reactions of parents losing their only child and their protests for the government allowing poor construction. Photos: guardian.co.uk
    • 4. 2011 Mineral Virginia Earthquake• The M5.8 Mineral Virginia earthquake was the largest Virginia earthquake since 1897 and the most widely felt in US history.• Two Louisa County schools closed for school year and were eventually razed and replaced using FEMA disaster funds.• Louisa County High School • Primarily a 1975 steel frame structure with masonry walls. • Most damage to the marginally reinforced masonry walls. • The high school was a community center for this depressed county.• Thomas Jefferson Elementary School • Two story URM, near collapse of perpendicular kindergarten wing.• Louisa County Middle School, built in 1990’s, was undamaged and was used to house both middle and high school classes.• Only minor injuries reported.
    • 5. Louisa County High School
    • 6. Strategies to Reduce School Earthquake Risk • Highest initial cost Replace • Substantial disruption Buildings • Value-added benefits Risk Reduction Single • Moderate initial cost Strategies Stage • Substantial disruption Rehab • Quick resolution • Lowest initial cost Incremental • Minimal disruption Rehab • Longer term solution
    • 7. Advantages of Incremental Retrofitting Single-Stage Retrofitting Incremental Retrofitting• All costs are concentrated in a short • Costs are distributed over multiple time period fiscal years• Construction is disruptive to school • Construction can be phased to occur operations during summer breaks to minimize• Requires temporary space during disruption to school operations construction to house displaced • Students and staff are not displaced students and staff • Seismic vulnerabilities are mitigated• All seismic vulnerabilities are in a phased approach, beginning with mitigated in a single phase of work the most severe vulnerabilities first• Seismic retrofitting work is generally • Seismic mitigation can be integrated performed independent of future with other scheduled maintenance maintenance and remodels and remodel projects
    • 8. Mitigation Options• Complete Seismic Retrofitting of Schools – Advantage: complete retrofitting reduces future seismic risk to an acceptable level. – Disadvantage: Expensive, difficult to justify in low seismic areas, potential loss of use during retrofit.• May be Justifiable for Critical Facilities. – Schools also used as shelters, critical to response.• Retrofitting Process: – Identify candidates using FEMA 154 or ROVER – Evaluate hazardous buildings using ASCE 31 or 41. – Design retrofit using ASCE 41. – Retrofitting techniques provided in FEMA 547. – Comply with IBC Chapter 34 or IEBC.
    • 9. Mitigation Options• Incremental Retrofitting – Advantage: cost effective, focus on specific risk area, and can be done during normal maintenance. – Disadvantage: not full retrofit, some risk remains• Incremental Seismic Rehabilitation series – FEMA 395 – Schools FEMA 396 – Hospitals – FEMA 397 – Offices FEMA 398 – Apartments – FEMA 399 – Retail FEMA 400 – Hotels – FEMA P-420 Engineering Guideline• Retrofitting done during normal maintenance. – Example: bracing parapets during re-roofing.
    • 10. Mitigation Options• Nonstructural Retrofitting – Nonstructural damage accounts for most damage. – It can result in complete loss of use of a building.• Nonstructural components include: – Architectural building components. – Mechanical, electrical and plumbing components. – Furniture, fixtures and equipment.• Nonstructural Design Guide (FEMA E-74) – Recently improved, web-based design guide. – Provides design guidance for over 70 different nonstructural components. – Provides examples of damage and plans or photos of the recommended mitigation technique. – Includes technical specifications, risk rating forms and sample inventory checklists. http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/earthquake/fema74/index.shtm
    • 11. What Has Been Done by State• There have been notable efforts by some states to identify at- risk school buildings and to begin the process of addressing the risk they present. For example: – California Field Act (which requires peer review of new school buildings) and URM laws have resulted in safer school buildings. – Oregon initiated a Seismic Rehabilitation Grant Program which awarded $15 million to 14 schools and 11 emergency services facilities. K-12 grants were from $120,000 to $1,490,000, with an average award of about $777,000 for high- to very-high risk of collapse buildings. – Utah used FEMA state assistance funds for an assessment pilot project for 80 schools, about 10% of the schools in the Wasach Front. This project will help to develop a complete inventory to identify those schools requiring further engineering evaluation and future seismic retrofitting. – Several other states have funded outreach programs to raise awareness.• However, they have all been limited by budget issues and the day-to-day problems local governments face to just to keep their schools operating.
    • 12. What Has Been Done Nationally• The U.S. Department of Education has several programs to provide funding to improve school buildings, but they do not address structural risk from natural hazards. – Some examples include meeting the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and to wire school buildings for internet capability. – While they cannot help seismic retrofit a school building, they could possibly help fund a new replacement building.• FEMA has the post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) that could be used to reduce seismic risk to existing school buildings. – This would require that states and localities have in place a recognized mitigation plan prior to a triggering disaster that includes seismically retrofitting school buildings.
    • 13. What Could Be Done*• Any action to reduce the seismic risk presented by URM schools must be undertaken and supported at the national, state and local levels.• All three are required; the absence of any one will doom any initiative to failure. – Local involvement is the most critical: schools are local entities and this is where any program will succeed or fail. Local champions are necessary for any program to work. – State involvement is needed as many successful school retrofit programs require state funding and leadership. – National initiatives can help lead the way and provide a model template or target for state and local governments. * The views in the this presentation are strictly those of the author and do not represent the views of the FEMA, its management, or more importantly, those who decide how federal funds are spent.
    • 14. What Could Be Done has to be Done Locally• However, any action to address the risk presented by URM school buildings must begin at the local level, and should include educating, empowering and supporting the following partners and advocates: – Concerned parents – Parent Teacher Associations/Organizations – Teachers unions – School administrators – Local/regional seismic safety advocates – Local media outlets – Local building code department – Local elected officials
    • 15. Impediments• However, such actions have a hard time succeeding because they must fight for public attention and resources in an increasingly difficult environment.• Such initiatives only succeed when there are local champions to raise awareness and drive the issue.• What would help this process and these champions would be to establish a national goal that has been endorsed by relevant constituents, organizations and others.• Such a national goal could serve as a rallying cry to help state and local efforts get the attention and traction they need to succeed.
    • 16. A Possible Program Goal• The concept of establishing a long term ultimate goal with several intermediate goals was effectively used to seismically retrofit or replace hazardous hospitals under California Hospital Bill SB 1953.• Such a combination of a long-term visible end goal along with a series of smaller achievable intermediate steps could help to keep the risk of URM schools and how this risk can be addressed in the public eye as it moves forward.
    • 17. A Possible Program Goal• The year 2033 will mark the 100 year anniversary of the 1933 Long Beach earthquake; the first earthquake to demonstrate the vulnerability of URM school buildings.• A possible goal to address the risk of URM schools could be that by the year 2033, every URM school building in our nation’s high seismic zones will have been either: 1) fully seismically retrofitted or 2) replaced by a new seismically safe school building.
    • 18. Possible Intermediate Steps• By 2013: Adoption by seismic advisory organizations.• By 2018: State adoption of a program to identify and assess all of their seismically vulnerable URM school buildings.• By 2023: 1) A seismic assessment of all URM school buildings, 2) State adoption of a program on how seismic vulnerabilities of specific URM school buildings will be addressed, either by seismic retrofitting or by replacement, and 3) State or local adoption of a plan to fund that work.• By 2028: State or local approved funding for all of the schools identified in the program.• By 2033: Completion of all seismic retrofitting or replacement construction.
    • 19. “URM Free by ’33”

    ×