Utah Students at Risk

8/7/2019 Utah Students at Risk

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/utah-students-at-risk 1/18

A PRELIMINARY SURVEYBY THE UTAH SEISMIC SAFETY COMMISSION AND

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF UTAHCommittee on Rapid Visual Screening of Utah Schools:

• RogerEvans,Chair,UtahSeismicSafetyCommission

• LarryNewton,UtahStateOfceofEducation

• GlenPalmer,StructuralEngineersAssociationofUtah

• LarryWiley,UtahHouseofRepresentatives

• BobCarey,UtahDivisionofHomelandSecurity

• BarryWelliver,StructuralEngineersAssociationofUtah

Written by Lee J. Siegel

Funded by theFederal Emergency

Management Agency

February 2011

U TAH S T U D E N TS A T R IS K

TH E EA R THQ UA K E HA

ZA R DS O F SCHOO L B U

I L D I NGS



UtahStudentsAtRisk

PreliminarySurvey-February2011

Contents

1. Summary 1

2. Te Problem: Utah School Children at Risk 3

3. Methods: Rapid Visual Screening o Schools 6

4. Findings: 60 Percent o Schools May Be Vulnerable 9

5. Conclusions: Legislation and Gradual Repairs 11

6. Reerences 15

7. Websites 16

“Children have the right to be safe in

school buildings during earthquakes.”

– Western States Seismic Policy Council



UtahStudentsAtRisk


1

1. Summary

Utah aces a serious risk o a major earthquake. Te most serious threat is a magnitude-7 ruptureo the Salt Lake City segment o the Wasatch ault that could kill 2,300 to 2,900 people, injure30,000 to 40,000 more and cause damage and other losses totaling $37 billion. Other Utah aultsalso could produce strong, destructive quakes.

Schools are major public assets that warrant seismic protection, not just because our children andschool teachers and sta are required to spend much o the day in them, but because they alsoprovide temporary shelter during and aer disasters. Te ability to get schools open quickly aer amajor earthquake helps get society back to normal.

Tere is a need to understand the vulnerability o older school buildings to help protect the stu-dents, teachers and other employees who occupy our schools.

Te Utah Seismic Saety Commission (USSC) and Structural Engineers Association o Utah(SEAU) used a method known as “rapid visual screening” to make a preliminary assessment o theearthquake saety o a sample o 128 school buildings out o more than 1,000 schools in the stateo Utah. Te Utah Schools Rapid Visual Screening Pilot Project was unded by $69,000 in grantsrom the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

O the 128 public and charter school buildings screened using these so-called “sidewalk surveys,”

51 were determined to have an acceptable level o seismic saety, but 77 school buildings – or 60percent – were ound to require more detailed seismic evaluation to determine i they can with-stand strong earthquakes or instead need to be retrotted or replaced.

O the 77 school buildings needing urther evaluation, 46 scored poorly enough that the screeningguidelines suggest they are at least 10 percent likely to collapse during a major earthquake, and thescores o 10 o those buildings indicate they are highly likely to collapse during the “big one.”

Te joint USSC-SEAU Committee on Rapid Visual Screening o Utah Schools wishes to expresssome caveats about this study. First, ull rapid visual screenings – particularly including collec-tion o school district records and drawings o buildings – were not completed on most buildings.

Second, a basic eort was made to pick the sample o schools in this study based on the state-wide proportions o schools o various ages, geographical locations and types (elementary, juniorhigh, high and charter). Tird, some o the numbers in this report may place ocus on individualschools, but it is important to remember there is a statewide need or seismic evaluation and reha-bilitation o schools. Fourth, with only 128 school buildings studied out o some 1,085 statewide,this report is hardly the nal answer to the problem o schools that are vulnerable to earthquakes,but is meant to move the issue orward.



UtahStudentsAtRisk


2

Te ndings do not include more extensive evaluations obtained by certain school districts andcharter schools, nor do they take into account seismic rehabilitation that has been perormed on anumber o schools.

Tis pilot project highlights an urgent need to conduct rapid visual screening o all o Utah’s 1,000-plus schools to determine which meet seismic saety standards and which require more detailedseismic evaluation o the possible need or seismic retrotting or replacement.

Legislative action is needed to authorize a $500,000 project to screen all Utah school buildings orseismic saety and set priorities or which o these buildings require more detailed evaluations o their seismic saety.

Eventual retrotting or replacement o vulnerable schools – like any other expensive inrastructureupdating – may be done in phases over a period o years as part o the normal school constructionprocess, and should not come at the expense o ongoing education budgets.

It is hoped that this survey o a sampling o Utah schools leads to rapid visual screening o all Utahschools or seismic saety, and to a broader goal o establishing a systematic program – or publicand charter schools statewide – that deals with the very real problem o the earthquake saety o Utah’s large number o older, seismically unsae schools and other buildings.



UtahStudentsAtRisk


3

2. The Problem: Utah School Children at Risk

It oen is said that a major earthquake in Utah is not a matter o i, but when. Utah’s amily-orient-ed culture places great emphasis on children – children who spend much o their time in school.Yet school districts have struggled to make progress to protect children rom the hazard – wellknown to earthquake scientists and engineers – posed by many school buildings, especially thoseconstructed beore modern building codes and made o unreinorced bricks or other masonry blocks.

Some school districts have taken steps to deal with buildings that are at seismic risk by replacingolder acilities, rehabilitating existing ones and planning to rebuild others. But when the big quake

occurs, the shortcomings o many other older school buildings may become tragically apparent.Te problem was outlined in July 2010 by the Western States Seismic Policy Council, o whichUtah is a member:

“Every community is required to educate children, and it is the responsibility o governmentalagencies to design and construct sae buildings to house them. While current building codes andconstruction practices have recognized the eects o earthquakes and provide state-o-the-art de-sign considerations, many older school buildings were built beore these principles were under-stood.

Additionally, many existing buildings are constructed o materials such as unreinorced masonry,

which are not in common use today due to their poor perormance in past earthquakes through-out the world. Tese older buildings have not been properly graded or passed the test o seismicsaety. Consequently, many students ace signicant seismic risk.”

Most children don’t have a choice about going to school; attendance is mandatory. So there is animplicit government obligation to ensure the saety o schools.

Probabilities o a Big Quake, and Its Human and Economic Toll

Prior to the implementation o modern seismic building codes about 1975 and even more strin-gent codes in 1997, many Utah schools were built using unreinorced masonry and other materi-als not allowed by today’s codes. Without a ull understanding o the implications o using thesebuilding methods, along with the lack o a major damaging quake in modern time, there was littlepressure to do otherwise.

In recent decades, however, research has revealed a history o magnitude-7 earthquakes along theSalt Lake City segment and other central segments o the Wasatch ault.



UtahStudentsAtRisk


4

According to the University o Utah Seismograph Stations, the chance o the “big one” – a mag-nitude-6.5 or larger quake on the Salt Lake City segment o the Wasatch ault – is estimated be-tween 3 percent and 11 percent in the next 50 years. Te chance o such a quake somewhere on

the Wasatch ault’s ve central segments (rom Brigham City south to Nephi) is 12 percent to 15percent in 50 years, while the odds o a big quake somewhere in the Wasatch Front region (on theWasatch ault or other aults) is 25 percent in 50 years.

Te death, injury, disruption and destruction expected rom a major earthquake on the Wasatchault has been estimated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency using computer simula-tion soware known as HAZUS, or Hazards U.S. Tis scenario included nine counties inhabitedby about 2 million people: Salt Lake, Utah, Davis, Weber, ooele, Box Elder, Summit, Wasatch andMorgan.

A 2009 simulation estimated that a magnitude-7.0 earthquake on the Salt Lake City segment o theWasatch ault would kill about 2,300 to 2,900 people, depending on the time o day. Another 8,300to 10,800 people would be hospitalized, and yet another 22,800 to 31,400 people would requiremedical attention but not hospitalization.

Te simulation estimated the quake would displace a total o 97,700 households, and that 62,328people would seek temporary housing in public shelters.

Te HAZUS scenario also estimated damage to Utah buildings, utilities, transportation and othereconomic losses at almost $37 billion. Buildings alone would account or $35.4 billion o the losses.

Te region covered by the 2009 HAZUS simulation included 541,000 buildings with a replacement value o $115 billion. A magnitude-7 quake would moderately, extensively or completely damagemore than 38 percent o those buildings. I slight damage is added, hal o all buildings would sus-tain damage.

Among education buildings in the HAZUS scenario, 22 percent would be completely damaged, 11percent extensively damaged, 12 percent moderately damaged, and 10 percent slightly damaged –in other words, more than hal o the schools would sustain damage.

Unreinorced Masonry is a Hazard

Many Utah schools were built beore seismic saety regulations were used or enorced in the state.Te rst widespread seismic regulations came in the 1973 Uniorm Building Code and were notully implemented and enorced until 1975 and later. Tose seismic requirements were crude by current standards. Each subsequent version o seismic design requirements reected better under-standing o earthquakes’ eects on buildings, particularly weaknesses observed during real quakes.



UtahStudentsAtRisk


5

Masonry is the predominant type o school building structure in Utah. Unreinorced masonry –lacking rebar that gives strength to block walls – was used in Utah into the 1960s and 1970s and,aer that, reinorced masonry.

Unreinorced brick, cinder block or other masonry is a dangerous building type because it is sus-ceptible to damage and collapse in earthquakes, as has been shown during strong quakes through-out the world. Structural engineers and seismic saety advocates believe all unreinorced masonry buildings should be subject to a mandatory evaluation by licensed structural engineers to deter-mine their lie-saety rating.

Reinorced masonry building practices – those using rebar or other materials to reinorce thestructure – were improved and considered acceptable aer the 1997 building code was enorced,but most o the older reinorced masonry schools remain open to question in terms o whether

they met minimum seismic design requirements.

Beginning with the 2000 International Building Code, school buildings were required to be de-signed or an elevated “importance” actor. Tis essentially increased the orces buildings mustbe designed to resist by 25 percent. All buildings constructed beore this are deemed “under de-signed.”

Te risk is not limited to public schools. Te growth o charter schools has accelerated in recentyears. Te Utah State Ofce o Education estimates that at least 22 o Utah’s 76 charter schools – 29percent – are located in older buildings that school districts held in surplus or that were convert-ed rom other uses. Charter school boards should be asking tough questions on the seismic risk

posed by these buildings.

An inormal Utah State Ofce o Education study in 2006 indicated that 58 percent o Utah schoolswere built beore 1975, when seismic regulations began to be enorced through building codes – astatistic cited by the Utah Seismic Saety Commission and the Structural Engineers Association o Utah in January 2010 in support o legislation to assess all schools or seismic risks.

Tat study recommended the state undertake a seismic inventory o all Utah schools and begin a10-year plan to rehabilitate decient schools.



UtahStudentsAtRisk


6

3. Methods: Rapid Visual Screening of Schools

Te Utah Schools Rapid Visual Screening Pilot Project was unded by $69,000 in grants rom theFederal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Te project was intended to encourage seri-ous consideration o the seismic vulnerability o Utah’s school buildings and action to address theproblem.

Tis study surveyed the seismic saety o 128 Utah school buildings to help project what might beound by a ull inventory o the more than 1,000 schools statewide.

Seventeen licensed engineers organized by the Structural Engineers Association o Utah con-

ducted the survey during Sept. 13-15, 2010 using methods established in FEMA Publication 154,“Rapid Visual Screening or Potential Seismic Hazards.” Rapid visual screening allows structuralengineers or other trained individuals to make quick “sidewalk surveys” or assessments to identiy and rank buildings that may be vulnerable to earthquakes and thus require urther evaluation andpossible rehabilitation or replacement.

FEMA calls rapid visual screening “a nationally accepted standard procedure or rapid assessmentso local communities can understand their vulnerabilities in their existing building stock.”

FEMA says this “sidewalk survey” approach allows buildings to be classied into two categories:“Tose acceptable as to risk to lie saety, or those that may be seismically hazardous and should be

evaluated in more detail by a design proessional experienced in seismic design.”

ROVER Data Entry Soware or Smart Phones

As part o the survey o 128 Utah school buildings, the participating engineers tested ROVER(Rapid Observation o Vulnerability and Estimation o Risk), which is a soware version o FEMA’srapid visual screening process. ROVER allows screeners to enter into smart phones the data they collect on buildings.

FEMA and the Applied echnology Council provided the data-entry soware and trained the en-gineers how to use the soware on smart phones purchased with FEMA unds.

When a building was screened, its address, year built, occupancy and some other data was loadedinto the phone. Te engineers also used their phones to photograph the buildings they screenedand to log soil types and other hazard conditions.



UtahStudentsAtRisk


7

Selection o Schools or the Survey

O approximately 1,085 schools in Utah counted by the Utah State Ofce o Education, 128 school

buildings were surveyed using rapid visual screening. Te 128 buildings represented a somewhatsmaller number o schools because at some schools, more than one building was screened.

High schools, junior highs, elementary and charter schools were included in the survey in propor-tion to their statewide numbers.

O the school buildings surveyed, about 40 percent were rom northern Utah (North Salt Lakenorthward), 50 percent rom Salt Lake City south to Juab County, and 10 percent rom Juab Coun-ty southward.

In terms o age o schools, the survey placed greatest emphasis on those constructed beore mod-ern seismic building codes: 50 percent were built beore 1975, when the rst seismic buildingcodes were enorced; 30 percent rom 1975 through 1996; and 20 percent aer the onset o eventougher seismic codes in 1997. Tis distribution o ages o the schools in the survey may not ac-curately reect the actual proportions or the entire state. A 2006 inormal study by the Utah StateOfce o Education ound 58 percent o Utah schools were built beore 1975.

Most o the schools in the study – like those statewide – were built prior to the implementation o newer building codes that now better protect the lives o building occupants during major seismicevents.

Rapid Visual Assessment and Scoring o School Buildings

A rapid visual screening, or “sidewalk survey,” takes 15 to 30 minutes, during which the engineeror other screener identies the building’s primary structural system or resisting “lateral loads” –sideways orces on the building rom earthquake shaking – and other characteristics o the build-ing that inuence how well the building’s structure will resist such shaking.

Te screener lls out a data-collection orm that includes the building’s name, use, number o stories, year built, oor area, number o occupants, a sketch and a photograph o the building, soil

type, unusual building congurations such as an irregular oor plan, and any nonstructural allinghazards such as chimneys, parapets and cladding.

Te data orms include pre-determined basic seismic hazard scores or each o 15 dierent struc-ture types, ranging rom small wood-rame residential and commercial buildings, which are mostquake-resistant, to unreinorced masonry buildings, which are least resistant.

Tere are three dierent versions o the basic orm: one each or low-, moderate- and high-seis-



UtahStudentsAtRisk


8

micity regions. So, or example, in a moderate-seismicity region, a wood-rame home might havea basic score o 5.2 and an unreinorced masonry building might have a basic score o 3.4, but inhigh-seismicity regions the scores would be lower at 4.4 and 1.6, respectively, indicating greater

building vulnerability due to higher seismicity. Most o Utah is classied as a high-seismicity area,and some o the state is characterized as moderate in seismicity.

On the data-collection orm below the basic scores, points are added or subtracted i the buildinghas eatures that add or detract rom its basic seismic hazard score.

For example, an unreinorced masonry school in a high-seismicity area may have a basic seismichazard score o only 1.6 – already low enough to warrant detailed evaluation or seismic saety.But the screener also noted the irregularity o the school’s oor plan (such as jogs in the building’sootprint, or a non-rectangular building), resulting in subtraction o 0.5 points, and the act theschool was constructed beore building codes, worth another 0.2 o the total. And with another0.4 deducted or so soil, the building’s nal seismic hazard score was only 0.5.

In this study, however, a somewhat more complicated ormula was used within the ROVER so-ware so that no school received a negative nal score – something that would imply a chance o collapse greater than 100 percent, which is not possible.

FEMA says the hazard score “reects the estimated likelihood that building collapse will occur i the building is subjected to the maximum considered earthquake ground motions or the region.”

FEMA recommends a cuto score o 2.0, meaning that any building with a score o 2.0 or less

should be evaluated in detail or seismic saety.

Te scores are on a logarithmic scale. So a score o 2.0 means the chance o building collapse dur-ing a major quake is one in 10 to the 2nd power, or one in 100, and thus should be evaluated indetail, according to FEMA. Buildings in this category may or may not require rehabilitation orreplacement once a more detailed study has been completed.

A score o 1 means the chance o collapse is one in 10 to the 1st power, or one in 10. And a score o zero means one in 10 to the zero power, which is a one-in-one chance, or near certainty o collapse.



UtahStudentsAtRisk


9

4. Findings: 60 Percent of Schools May Be Vulnerable

Te Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) says that its rapid visual screening method“can be implemented relatively quickly and inexpensively to develop a list o potentially hazard-ous buildings without the high cost o a detailed seismic analysis o individual buildings.” FEMAdivides buildings into two groups based on their rapid visual screening scores:

◆ “I a building receives a high score above a specied cut-o score [2.0] … the building isconsidered to have adequate seismic resistance.”

◆ “I a building receives a low score on the basis o this RVS [Rapid Visual Screening] pro-cedure, it should be evaluated by a proessional engineer having training or experience in

seismic design. On the basis o this detailed inspection, engineering analyses, and otherdetailed procedures, a nal determination o the seismic adequacy and need or rehabilita-tion can be made.”

Te Utah Schools Rapid Visual Screening Pilot Project o 128 Utah school buildings ound theollowing:

■ 40 percent o the Utah school buildings screened (51 o 128) were ound to have adequateseismic resistance. All but a ew o them were reinorced masonry buildings, the predomi-nant alternative in Utah to seismically unsae unreinorced masonry.

■ 60 percent o the Utah school buildings screened (77 o 128) scored 2.0 or lower, indicat-ing a one-in-100 or greater chance o collapse during the maximum earthquake consid-ered likely, and thus requiring urther evaluation o seismic saety. A one-in-100 chanceo collapse may seen low, but is consistent with established national engineering standardsor the prevention o building collapse.

Analysis o the 77 school buildings requiring urther evaluation or seismic saety revealed othertrends:

• School type: 45 are elementary schools, 15 are junior highs, 12 are high schools and ourwere other schools.

• Collapse potential: 46 (or more than a third o all 128 school buildings that were screened)had scores between 1.0 and 0.0, indicating a 10 percent to 100 percent potential chanceo collapse during the maximum credible earthquake, according to FEMA guidelines.Tirty-nine o the 46 are unreinorced masonry. en o the 46 schools with scores o 1.0 orless had scores o 0.0 or 0.1, indicating a potential 100 percent collapse risk, according toFEMA. All 10 are unreinorced masonry buildings. Based on the total number o schoolsin Utah, this preliminary nding suggests some 650 schools statewide may have a greater



UtahStudentsAtRisk


10

than a 1 percent chance o collapse. O those, 390 may have a 10 percent to 100 percentchance o collapse, while, in turn, 85 o those may have a potential 100 percent risk o col-lapse.

• Construction date: 61 o the 77 buildings were built beore 1975, when seismic buildingcodes were rst enorced, while 16 were built rom 1975 onward. O the total sample o 128 school buildings, 50 percent were built beore 1975, compared to 80 percent o those(61 o 77) requiring urther evaluation.

• Building type: 45 o the 77 school buildings requiring urther evaluation are unreinorcedmasonry (58 percent), 23 are reinorced masonry with exible oor and roo diaphragms(30 percent), three are reinorced masonry with rigid (generally more dangerous) dia-phragms, ve are concrete rame with unreinorced masonry inll and one is concreteenergy-resisting rame. None o the 51 seismically adequate school buildings are unre-

inorced masonry. O those 51, 41 are reinorced masonry with exible diaphragms andanother six were reinorced masonry with rigid diaphragms.

Note on survey fndings: Te data collection orms or the 128 school buildings in this survey arenot included with this report, nor are individual schools named. However, these public recordsmay be obtained rom the Utah Division o Homeland Security pursuant to provisions o theUtah Government Records Access and Management Act.



UtahStudentsAtRisk


11

5. Conclusions: Legislation and Gradual Repairs

In July 2010, the Western States Seismic Policy Council issued a ormal recommendation that stat-ed: “Children have the right to be sae in school buildings during earthquakes. WSSPC recom-mends each state, province, territory and community adopt a program that would identiy andrank the potential seismic vulnerability o schools in their communities in a timely manner. Fur-thermore, programs to reduce the seismic vulnerability o those schools at greatest risk should bedeveloped.”

Te Federal Emergency Management Agency also recommends such an approach in its Publica-tion 395, “Incremental Seismic Rehabilitation o School Buildings (K-12),” which calls or gradu-

ally strengthening school buildings as part o the regular program o maintenance and capital im-provements.

Prior to this report, several attempts have ailed in recent years to secure legislation to use rapid visual screening to create an inventory o all Utah schools and rate their potential vulnerability toearthquakes – a necessary rst step toward setting priorities or repairs and/or reconstruction.

It is hoped this study will highlight the need or legislative action to authorize and und such an inventory (at a cost o $500,000) and thus identiy potential problems with the older stock o schoolbuildings in our high seismic risk area.

In unding the Utah Schools Rapid Visual Screening Pilot Project, the Federal Emergency Man-agement Agency stated that the project “is intended to lead the way or developing a completeinventory o vulnerable school buildings in the area.”

FEMA’s intent was clear, saying the eort “will enable Utah to identiy which schools need urtherengineering evaluation and uture seismic retrotting to ensure the saety o sta and studentsshould an earthquake occur. Tis would also set a model that Utah could employ towards a morecomprehensive building assessment project that would include other state-owned critical acili-ties.”

Legislation or Rapid Visual Screening o All Utah Schools

Many school construction programs are dealing with the problems o updating and replacing old-er buildings, or putting into place plans to rehabilitate or replace them, but there currently is nouniorm system to evaluate the seismic saety o Utah’s school buildings or to set priorities in retro-tting or replacing seismically vulnerable schools.



UtahStudentsAtRisk


12

Yet engineers and earthquake specialists are in wide agreement that schools and other buildingserected prior to seismic regulations in building codes most likely will experience signicant dam-age during a moderate to major earthquake.

Te rapid visual screening method used in this study and developed by FEMA would provide auniorm way to identiy Utah’s most vulnerable school buildings as candidates or urther evalua-tion and or possible rehabilitation or replacement.

During the 2011 Utah Legislature, legislation is being introduced in what will be the ourth ormalattempt to authorize and und rapid visual screening o schools statewide or potential seismichazards.

During the 2010 legislative session, state Rep. Larry Wiley – a building inspector and contributorto this report – sponsored House Bill 72, the Utah School Seismic Hazard Inventory Act. For acost o $500,000 the bill would have authorized and unded rapid visual screening o all 1,000-plusschools in Utah, with the money made available to school districts and charter schools.

By conducting rapid visual assessment o all Utah schools at a cost o $300 to $600 per school, “theschools most at risk can be identied and steps taken to lessen the danger,” according to a sum-mary o the legislation.

Costs and Other Objections

Past eorts to pass this legislation have encountered objections, such as the high cost o repairingor replacing hazardous schools, potential disclosure o such schools’ seismic status to the public,and the possibility o obligating the state to remedy dangerous buildings – although the 2010 billwas amended to address that issue. And because the Legislature has been reluctant to view schoolsas part o Utah’s critical inrastructure, school administrators and teachers have voiced concernthat money to assess schools’ earthquake saety may come at the expense o the overall school bud-get.

Rep. Wiley’s 2010 bill summary stated that “a plan or addressing the seismic vulnerability o Utah’sschools can be integrated into the acilities maintenance operations through incremental seismic

rehabilitation methods. Tis process interjects seismic rehabilitation components into the regularmaintenance and improvement plans or structures and is a proven cost-eective means o ad-dressing seismic saety.”

Te Western States Seismic Policy Council also has addressed some o the concerns in its 2010policy recommending rapid visual screening, which said: “Protecting children rom preventableinjury during a seismic event is o the highest priority.”



UtahStudentsAtRisk


13

“Public saety is a distinct presumption and should be considered outside the realm o educationspending,” WSSPC said. “Further, the costs o seismic retrotting can oen be segregated into dis-crete projects that can be incrementally achieved through the existing maintenance and upkeep

programs already a part o most school building programs.”

Strengthening older masonry schools to make them better withstand earthquakes can range incost rom $14 to $32 per square oot, according to 1994-95 FEMA national estimates that have notbeen adjusted or ination or location. Many school districts use this process rather than replac-ing acilities.

WSSPC acknowledged that the cost o reducing school buildings’ seismic vulnerability “can bechallenging and needs to be ully justied in order to be properly assessed and ranked within thebudgeting process. Tereore, it is necessary to put sufcient energy and resources into quantiying

the extent o the problem. … Te rst step toward seismic saety o schools should be to demon-strate the magnitude o the problem; then the community can prepare to take the necessary pre- ventive measures.”

Te group recommended rapid visual screening o all schools to determine which should be ur-ther investigated or seismic vulnerability, ollowed by ranking o the inventoried schools – withthose prone to collapse ranked high – and development o a program to reduce the seismic vulner-ability o schools, ranging rom gradual strengthening o some schools to retrotting or phasingout the most dangerous buildings.

A Time to Act or School Children

In recent decades, major earthquakes around the world have provided important lessons aboutthe necessity o adopting and enorcing modern building codes. Tey also have shown that unre-inorced masonry buildings can pose a major liability problem and may be highly vulnerable tocollapse during powerul earthquakes.

Many older school buildings in Utah were built o unreinorced brick or other masonry. Te re-sults o this pilot study indicate a critical need to check all o Utah’s schools or seismic saety by conducting rapid visual screening on all o them. School buildings are occupied by large numbers

o children and adults, and many Utah communities consider using schools or emergency pur-poses such as shelters and command centers. Making sure that these school buildings are availableor use aer a major earthquake can provide shelter to displaced residents and help society getback to normal.

A number o states, notably Oregon and Caliornia, are ahead o the curve on this issue, not only screening all schools, but in some districts such as Portland, undertaking major seismic rehabili-tation o a number o schools. In Utah, the Salt Lake City School District has ollowed a similar



UtahStudentsAtRisk


14

practice, replacing or strengthening many older acilities. Te district could aord it because vot-ers approved bonds and because low enrollment growth meant the money didn’t have to go to newschools or more students.

It is hoped that this pilot survey o 128 Utah school buildings leads to rapid visual screening o allUtah schools or seismic saety, and ultimately to a broader goal o establishing a program that willstart improving the earthquake saety o Utah’s large number o older, seismically unsae schoolsand other buildings.

Nevertheless, the proposed legislation to und statewide rapid visual screening o all schools costsonly $500,000, does not impose any requirements or rehabilitating school buildings, and merely will alert school districts and charter schools o the need or more thorough review o the build-ings deemed by screening to be potentially hazardous.

Utah may have time to prepare and make its schools stronger beore the next large earthquake,but research suggests that such a quake is likely sooner rather than later. So the danger to schoolsshould be addressed with urgency but not alarm.

One must ask: Do we start improving the seismic saety o our schools now, or do we wait until thebig quake collapses school buildings?



UtahStudentsAtRisk


15

6. References

Applied echnology Council, “Rapid Visual Screening o Buildings or Potential Seismic Hazards:A Handbook,” Federal Emergency Management Agency Publication 154, Edition 2, March 2002.

Krimgold, Frederick; Hattis, David; and Green, Melvyn; “Incremental Seismic Rehabilitation o School Buildings (K-12),” Federal Emergency Management Agency Publication 395, December,2002.

Lewis, Don, “Statewide Seismic Needs Assessment: Implementation o Oregon 2005 Senate Bill2 Relating to Public Saety, Earthquakes and Seismic Rehabilitation o Public Buildings,” State o Oregon Department o Geology and Mineral Industries, Open-File Report O-07-02, 2007.

Newton, Lawrence, “Facilities Seismic Saety in Public Schools: A 10 Year Mitigation Plan,” UtahState Ofce o Education, May 15, 2006.

Utah Seismic Saety Commission and Structural Engineers o Utah Association, “HB 072 – UtahSchool Seismic Hazard Inventory,” inormation sheet on bill sponsored by Utah state Rep. Larry

Wiley, Jan. 12, 2010.

Western States Seismic Policy Council, “Identication and Potential Mitigation o Seismically Vulnerable School Buildings,” WSSPC Policy Recommendation 10-08, July 9, 2010.



UtahStudentsAtRisk


7. Websites

University o Utah Seismograph Stationswww.quake.utah.edu

Earthquake Inormation Center:www.quake.utah.edu/EQCENER/eqcenter.htm

Utah Seismic Saety Commissionhttp://www.ussc.utah.gov

Utah Geological Survey – Earthquakes and Hazardshttp://geology.utah.gov/utahgeo/hazards/index.htm

“Putting Down Roots in Earthquake County: Your Handbook or Earthquakes in Utah”http://ussc.utah.gov/putting_down_roots.html

“Earthquakes and Utah”http://geology.utah.gov/online/pd/pi-48.pd

Utah Division o Homeland Security http://publicsaety.utah.gov/homelandsecurity

Be Ready Utahhttp://bereadyutah.gov/EarthquakePreparedness.html

Federal Emergency Management Agency http://www.ema.gov/hazard/earthquake/index.shtm

U.S. Geological Survey – Utah Earthquake Inormation

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/?region=utah

Structural Engineers Association o Utahhttp://www.seau.org/?a=appLibrary&p=viewLibraryCategoryItems&id=10

Utah State Ofce o Educationhttp://www.schools.utah.gov/nance/Facilities/School-Facility-Saety.aspx

http://www.quake.utah.edu/

http://www.quake.utah.edu/EQCENTER/eqcenter.htm

http://www.ussc.utah.gov/

http://geology.utah.gov/utahgeo/hazards/index.htm

http://ussc.utah.gov/putting_down_roots.html

http://geology.utah.gov/online/pdf/pi-48.pdf

http://publicsafety.utah.gov/homelandsecurity

http://bereadyutah.gov/EarthquakePreparedness.html

http://www.fema.gov/hazard/earthquake/index.shtm


http://www.seau.org/?a=appLibrary&p=viewLibraryCategoryItems&id=10

http://www.schools.utah.gov/finance/Facilities/School-Facility-Safety.aspx

http://www.schools.utah.gov/finance/Facilities/School-Facility-Safety.aspx

http://www.seau.org/?a=appLibrary&p=viewLibraryCategoryItems&id=10


http://www.fema.gov/hazard/earthquake/index.shtm

http://bereadyutah.gov/EarthquakePreparedness.html

http://publicsafety.utah.gov/homelandsecurity

http://geology.utah.gov/online/pdf/pi-48.pdf

http://ussc.utah.gov/putting_down_roots.html

http://geology.utah.gov/utahgeo/hazards/index.htm

http://www.ussc.utah.gov/

http://www.quake.utah.edu/EQCENTER/eqcenter.htm

http://www.quake.utah.edu/

Documents

Utah Students at Risk