From Code to Practice

Challenges for Building Code Implementation

And the Further Direction of Housing Earthquake Safety

Records and outcomes of

International Symposium 2008 on Earthquake Safe Housing
28-29 November 2008, Tokyo, JAPAN

UNCRD
United Nations Centre for Regional Development
Disaster Management Planning Hyogo Office
© 2009 United Nations

Mission Statement of UN/DESA

The Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat is a vital interface
between global policies in the economic, social and environmental spheres and national action. The
Department works in three main interlinked areas: (a) it compiles, generates and analyses a wide range
of economic, social and environmental data and information on which State Members of the United
Nations draw to review common problems and to take stock of policy options; (b) it facilitates the
negotiations of Member States in many intergovernmental bodies on joint courses of action to address
ongoing or emerging global challenges; and (c) it advises interested Governments on the ways and
means of translating policy frameworks developed in United Nations conferences and summits into
programmes at the country level and, through technical assistance, helps built national capacities.

Designations employed and presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any
opinion whatever on the part of the United Nations Secretariat or the United Nations Centre for Regional
Development, concerning the legal status of any country or territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or
concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
Table of Contents

Preface by Ando Shoichi

Coordinator, Disaster Management Planning Hyogo Office (Kobe, JAPAN),
United Nations Centre for Regional Development UNCRD 1
Foreword by Salvano Briceño
Director of UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction UN/ISDR 2

Opening Remarks
Kazunobu Onogawa, Director of UNCRD 3

Housing Earthquake Safety – Lessons and Challenges

Earthquake and Non-Engineered Buildings:

Role of Governments, Experts and Guidelines
Anand Swarup Arya,
Professor Emeritus of IIT Roorkee
National Seismic Advisor of Government of India / UNDP
India 6

Lessons from the Reconstruction of Houses In Aceh

After the Dec. 26, 2004 Tsunami
Teddy Boen,
International Expert on Non-engineered Buildings
Senior Advisor, World Seismic Safety Initiative – WSSI
Indonesia 14

Development of Building Code: Experience of Nepal

Surya Bhaktha Sangachhe,
Director General,
Dept. of Urban Development and Building Construction - DUDBC
Ministry of Physical Planning and Works
Nepal 28

Bridging Gap between Engineering and Construction

Tatsuo Narafu,
Senior Coordinator for International Cooperation
Building Research Institute – BRI
Japan 34

Building Code Implementation

Another Problem: Seismic Protection of Existing Buildings

Shunsuke Otani,
Professor Emeritus, the University of Tokyo
Japan 40

Experience of Damages in Recent Earthquakes

Shoichi Ando,
Coordinator, UNCRD Disaster Management Planning Hyogo Office
Japan 51

i
 Challenges of Building Code Implementation in Nepal
Amod Mani Dixit
Executive Director, National Society for Earthquake Technology – NSET
Nepal 61

Framework for Building Code Implementation:

Experience of Housing Earthquake Safety Initiative - HESI
Jishnu Kumar Subedi,
Researcher, UNCRD Disaster Management Planning Hyogo Office
Japan 67

Discussion and Closing Session

Discussion 76

Closing Remarks
Kenji Okazaki,
Professor, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS)
Japan 79

Annex – Expert Meeting on Housing Earthquake Safety Initiative

Indonesian Earthquake Problem

(Paper presented at the Expert Meeting)
Teddy Boen,
International Expert on Non-engineered Buildings
Senior Advisor, World Seismic Safety Initiative – WSSI
Indonesia 82

Efforts for Anti-seismic Building Code Dissemination

UNCRD’s Housing Earthquake Safety Initiative 2007-2009
Shoichi Ando,
Coordinator, UNCRD Disaster Management Planning Hyogo Office
Japan 88

Extracts of Discussion on Earthquake Housing Safety

conducted at the Expert Meeting 93

Contributors 102

Notes: International Symposium 2008 on Earthquake Safe Housing (28-29 Nov. 2008) in Tokyo, Japan has hosted by
three organisations; Building Research Institute (BRI - Tsukuba, Japan), National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies
(GRIPS - Tokyo, Japan) and United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD) Disaster Management
Planning Hyogo Office, Kobe, Japan. This publication is a record of the Part II of the symposium, whereas
proceedings of the Part I (coordinated by GRIPS) and the Part III (coordinated by BRI) are issued separately by
respective institutions.

ii
Preface
by Shoichi Ando
Coordinator
UNCRD, Disaster Management Planning Hyogo Office

For those whom live in earthquake prone area in the world, reduction of damages in
earthquake disaster is one of the urgent issues. Every single earthquake may occur massive
damage in human lives and properties- as recently for instance, around 70,000 people were
killed with the Wenchuan Earthquake occurred in Sichuan Province of China on 12 May 2008.
Many of them claimed their lives by being pressed with collapsed buildings particularly their
own houses. Remembering the similar damages in Kobe in 1995, and other disasters, I
believe that the victims have taught us the importance of building and housing safety against
the earthquake as mostly killed by their own houses.

The impact of earthquake on livelihood of people can be reduced by measures such as

adherence to earthquake resistant building design and construction standards, proper
planning, education and trainings. However, the risk is ever increasing as urbanisation in
developing countries is adding extra pressure on building construction. Although those
countries have established a building controlling system, it can seldom function effectively due
to lack of awareness on disaster prevention in communities as well as lack of regulatory
mechanism for effective implementation, monitoring and reviewing.

Obtaining the support from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport (MLIT),
Government of Japan, in 2007, United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD)
launched the Housing Earthquake Safety Initiative (HESI) with goal to improve structural
safety of houses and currently is working on activities for policy recommendation and capacity
development. As the initial step for the works of HESI, UNCRD has launched a project on
Anti-seismic Building Code Dissemination (ABCD) in Algeria, Indonesia, Nepal and Peru. One
of the major endeavours within those activities is creation of platform for networking,
information exchange, sharing knowledge and sharing good practices in mitigating earthquake
risk throughout the world. For maximising the effectiveness of the platform, UNCRD has
organised “International Symposium 2008 on Earthquake Safe Housing: Discuss together on
the keen and common issue” in Tokyo, Nov. 2008 with Building Research Institute (BRI),
Tsukuba, JAPAN, and National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS), Tokyo, JAPAN,
which are both also working on the matter of housing safety in terms of preparedness of
earthquakes. UNCRD was in charge of the second part of the symposium- “From Code to
Practice: Challenges in Building Code Implementation”. Also, utilising the occasion of
international symposium, UNCRD also conducted the international expert meeting on HESI in
order to identify the further way to promote the work on Earthquake Safe Housing.

A record of the above mentioned events was prepared and published to illustrate the work for
HESI. At this symposium the HESI received valuable inputs from the greatest authorities in this
field. Having been successfully clarified the latest issues around housing earthquake safety
the papers included here go beyond the mere records of the reports, rather precious literatures
and resources which indicate the latest issues of the Earthquake Safe Housings. UNCRD
believes, therefore, even though published as a part of series of proceedings under HESI
events, the booklet would be instrumental as one of the crucial reference for the future
activities on Housing Safety, which would be the significant outcome of the platforms amongst
stakeholders which was intended under the HESI project. I sincerely thank to the participants,
particularly presenters at the symposium, co-organisers of the symposium: BRI and GRIPS as
well as the MLIT, which also supported the symposium and the project.

Shoichi Ando
Coordinator,
Disaster Management Planning Hyogo Office,
United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD)

1
Foreword
by Salvano Briceño
Director
UNISDR Secretariat

The loss of life and property from disasters is detrimental to the

effort of sustainable development and to achieve the
Millennium Development Goals. Notwithstanding the progress
of the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) 2005-2015: Building
the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters, the
damages witnessed in the recent earthquakes in China,
Indonesia and Pakistan are cruel reminder of the challenging
task to meet the goal of sustainable development. Majority of
the losses in earthquakes are caused by damages to buildings
and structures. There is tremendous progress in science and
technology of earthquake safer structures and the knowledge
has been documented as codes and guidelines. Unfortunately,
many structures unsafe against earthquakes are still being
raised. Effective implementation of those codes and guidelines
is essential for reducing losses from earthquakes.

The United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) has supported
initiatives for housing earthquake safety, conducted by various organizations. Those initiatives
should be further implemented and shared regionally amongst earthquake affected areas. The
UNISDR, thus, appreciates the Anti-seismic Building Code Dissemination (ABCD) project
conducted under the Housing Earthquake Safety Initiative (HESI) by UNCRD, which connects
regionally various efforts and experience in various sectors, international and local experts,
national and local governments and policy makers, expert NGOs, academic institutions and
construction practitioners.

The HESI of UNCRD is a very important step to translate the existing knowledge into practical
measures to mitigate the risks from earthquakes. This publication, which is a summary of the
experiences of UNCRD in the dissemination of building codes to different countries and of
experience of noted experts who have devoted many years in propagating the message of
earthquake safer society, will contribute further in understanding the achievements so far and
challenges ahead for safer housing.

I hope that readers will find it useful and will use it as reference material in their work for
mitigating earthquake disaster risk and building resilience of nations, regions and communities
to disasters. Also, I cordially expect for further challenges of HESI of UNCRD and collaboration
with us in order to build disaster resilient households, which are essential requirements for
building resilience in communities, regions, and the world to natural hazards.

Salvano Briceño
Director
UNISDR Secretariat

2
Opening Remarks
by Kazunobu Onogawa
Director
UNCRD

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen,

Thank you very much for your participation in this

International Symposium 2008 on Earthquake Safe
Housing, jointly organized by Building Research Institute
of Japan, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies,
and UNCRD.

I also appreciate the participation of the people coming

from abroad including resource persons for this session
“From Code to Practice: Challenges in Building Code
Implementation”, such as Professor Arya from India, Mr. Boen from Indonesia, Mr.
Sangachhe, from Nepal. I am also happy to be able to see the face of our long term friend
Mr. Amod Dixit, from NSET, Nepal. .

Ladies and gentlemen,

Earthquakes in different parts of the world are claiming thousands of lives and million of
dollars’ worth property every year.

Despite the tremendous progress made in the science and technology of earthquake
resistant building construction, many buildings including public facilities such as schools,
are still being constructed with a manner not safe enough against earthquakes. The
earthquake in Pakistan in 2005 damaged 10,000 schools, and by this earthquake, 17,000
students were killed, trapped in collapsed school buildings. More than 7,000 students died
during the Wenchuan China earthquake in May 2008.

A survey conducted by UNCRD and Geo Hazard International in 2001 highlighted the fact
that, regretfully, many cities await similar fate.

The UN MDG envisages that, by the year 2015, children all over the world will be able to
complete a full course of primary schooling. As we are insisting on every child to go to
school, it becomes an essential task to keep all the schools safe. Schools have important
roles to play in a community and they can play central role in all stages of disaster risk
reduction cycle: starting from preparedness, response, and to recovery.

UNCRD conceptualized and initiated School Earthquake Safety Initiative (SESI) in 1999,
and from 2001, Hyogo – Nepal collaboration on earthquake school safety was started.
After that, “school safety programs” have been at the core of UNCRD’s disaster risk
reduction activities. The current project on Reducing Vulnerability of School Children to
Earthquakes is being implemented as model projects in four countries, Fiji, India,
Indonesia and Uzbekistan.

It is also important to extend such efforts to other buildings. UNCRD’s approach, in

collaboration with Building Research Institute of Japan, for the development of building
code with due attention to the non-engineered buildings, and its dissemination among the

3
developing countries is another activity of us. I am happy that Dr. Narafu, BRI, would
introduce such a collaborative approach to you at this session.

What is important is the materialization of the ideas, theories and concepts in the real
world. For this purpose, I understand the importance of the involvement of all the
stakeholders in our society, starting from the responsible government offices, association
of engineers, masons and further, our own communities. In addition to the fundamental
roles and responsibilities of the leading organizations for construction and urban planning,
it is essential that we ourselves are being prepared for possible disasters including the
earthquake.

There is no doubt that we need an established building code for our own buildings.
Having an alerting system in our society for such disaster, including forecasting system,
information dissemination system using public media, etc, are also essential. But, at the
same time, we have experienced many cases that these systems and established rules
and requirements did not function well as were expected because of the lack of
communication network among ordinary citizens. We should not forget the fact that the
final actors are individuals, citizens, ourselves.

This is why UNCRD has worked on the community based approach to be prepared for the
disasters, in particular earthquakes, since the establishment of Disaster Management
Planning Office at Kobe in 1999, seeking the effective involvement of local citizens in this
activity expecting effective improvement of the situations we have faced.

Ladies and gentlemen,

All of our activities on earthquake safe housing which we are discussing today can be
effective tools to reach to the communities for building a culture of safety. All the key
components of our activities can become good opportunities to create awareness in the
community and to build their capacity for disaster preparedness, response and recovery.

At this opportunity I would like to express my gratitude to the counterpart organizations

and experts that have been involved in this collaborative initiative. UNCRD will continue to
seek possibilities to share the outcomes of our work, and to promote our activities in the
future, for the sake of the people who are facing disaster related problems in the world.

Thank you.

4
Housing
Earthquake
Safety

Lessons and
Challenges
Earthquake and Non-Engineered Buildings
Role of Governments, Experts and Guidelines
by Anand Swarup Arya,
Professor Emeritus, IIT Roorkee
National Seismic Advisor – Government of India / UNDP
INDIA

Abstract

This paper illustrates the importance of institutional arrangements in terms of (earthquake)

disaster preparedness alongside with guidelines for construction of non-engineered
buildings, which is widely used in seismic countries particularly in India. Outlining the
comprehensive action to be taken for safer non-engineered buildings, the paper explains
the role of experts and governments to complete the duties. In the list of works, the author
focuses more on long term action, by employing legal and educational strategies; as it is
essential for minimising the loss which could be happened with the earthquakes in the
future to see consolidated efforts of experts as well as governments.

Introduction

Earthquake falls in the category of hazards which have low frequency probability of
occurrence in a given area but highly disastrous consequences. The occurrence of an
earthquake cannot be prevented nor predicted with any precision at present. The
catalogue of earthquakes in India prepared by India Metrological Department (IMD) lists
more than 1200 earthquakes of magnitude ≥5 on the Richter scale which have occurred in
India from the year 1505 to 2006, (about 90 of these belong to the period before 1897).
Earthquake zoning map of India classifies 59% of land area prone to earthquakes of MSK
VII and higher Intensities (See Figure. 1). Thousands of masonry buildings have been
damaged or totally destroyed in some of the moderate to major earthquakes with
Magnitudes 6.0 to 8.7 on Richter scale. A few of the better known damaging earthquakes
are shown in TABLE 1 with the numbers of lives lost. The experience in the recent
earthquakes in Kachchh district in Gujarat State in 2001 and in Jammu & Kashmir in 2005
has created high concern about earthquake damages in the Government circles in the
country.

Figure.1:- Seismic Zoning Map of India

6
TABLE 1. SOME BETTER KNOWN DAMAGING EARTHQUAKES IN INDIA

Year Area Date (I.S.T) Latitude Longitude Magnitude Max. Deaths

Time degrees degrees M MM
hr:m:s North East Int.
1819 Gujarat (Kutch) Jan.16 Mid Night - - 8.0 XI Thousands
1833 Bihar-Nepal Aug.26 - 27.5 86.5 7.7 XI Hundreds
1897 Assam (Shillong) Jun.12 16:36:- 25.9 91.0 8.7 XII 1600
1905 Himachal Pradesh Apr 4 06:20:- 32.5 76.5 8.0 XI 20000
(Kangra)
1934 Bihar -Nepal Jan 15 14:13:26 26.6 86.8 8.3 XI 14000
1950 Assam (NE) Aug 15 19:39:28 28.7 96.6 8.6 XII 1500
1956 Gujarat (Anjar) Jul 21 21:02:36 23.3 70.0 7.0 VIII Hundreds
1956 UP Oct 10 - 28.1 77.7 6.7 VIII Many
(Bullandshahar)
1988 Bihar - Nepal Aug 21 04:39:10 26.76 86.62 6.6 VIII 1003
1993 Maharashtra Sep 30 03:55:47 18.07 76.62 6.3 VIII 7928
(Killari)
2001 Gujarat (Kachchh) Jan 26 08:46:00 23.6 69.8 Mw = 7.7 X 13805
2005 J&K (Kashmir) Oct 08 09:20:00 34.5 73.6 Mw = 7.6 X Ind-1400
POK-73276

Figure 2. Earthquake Safety Elements in Non-Engineered Building

1. Lintel band
2. Roof / floored band
3. Vertical bar at corner
4. Door
5. Window

1. Lintel band
2. Eave level (Roof) band
3. Gable band
4. Floor band
5. Plinth band
6. Vertical bar
7. Rafter
8. Holding downbolt /
Vertical bar
9. Door
10.Window

7
TABLE 2. EARTHQUAKE OCCURRENCE IN INDIA, M ≥5.0 (RICHTER SCALE),
JUL. 1505 TO SEPT. 1996

Seismic Region No. of Earthquake Having M = Max Average

5-5.9 6-6.9 7-7.9 8.0 or MSK Return
more Intensity Period
Observed for
M≥5.0
Kashmir & western Himalayas (J&K, 135 35 11 1 X 7 months
Himachal Pradesh, Sub-mountain parts of
Punjab)
Central Himalayas (UP & Nepal 104 28 4 1 XI 9 months
Himalayas, North Bihar)
North East India 339 157 20 4 XII 2 1/2 months
Indo-Gangetic basin & Rajasthan 82 26 5 - VIII 1 year
(Rajasthan, Punjab, Haryana, Delhi,
Plains of UP, Bihar & Bengal)
Cambay and Rann of Kachchh 12 4 1 1 IX – X 6 years
Peninsular India 24 8 - - VIII 3 years
Andaman & Nikobar 136 54 2 1 > IX 6 1/2 months
Whole India including those before 1897 832 312 43 8 XII 1 month
(32) (40) (18) (1)

Earthquake engineering studies in India formally started in India in 1960 at the University
of Roorkee, where a full interdisciplinary Department for Earthquake Engineering was
established in 1971. Most of the research and development work on the earthquake safety
of Non-Engineered buildings has been carried out at the University of Roorkee. Some of
the selected research papers by the author and his associates have been compiled in a
book published in November 2006. As a result of these studies an Indian Standard Code
of Practice IS:4326, was brought out in 1967 in which small amount of reinforcing at
critical points of the building (see Figure 2 and 3.) was specified based on research
carried out till then. Many of the government Departments started adopting these details in
construction of masonry buildings used for residences, schools as well as offices. Actual
damaging earthquake occurrences since then have proved the efficacy of these
provisions in not only preventing the total destruction but also minimizing cracking
damage, which saved the lives of occupants and contents of those buildings. This paper
outlines the role played by the Experts on Guidelines prepared on the subject and the
action taken by the government on various aspects regarding earthquake protection.

Figure 3. Overall Seismic Arrangement

1 Lintel Band, 2 Ceiling/ floor band, 3 Vertical member, 4 Door, 5 Window, 6 Plinth band
7 Dowels at wall corners

8
Holistic Approach for Safer Non-Engineered Buildings

In any country undertaking the objective of achieving earthquake safe non-engineered

building construction, it must develop a holistic approach consisting of the following action
points:-

1. Assessment of the earthquake hazard in the country which could be expressed in

either a probabilistic hazard map or an earthquake intensity-wise map defining the
various seismic zones in the country.

2. Collection of data on building types existing in the country as well as the kind of
non-engineered building construction is prevalent in various geographical areas of the
country.

3. Assessment of the vulnerability of the identified building types in relation to the various
earthquake Intensities. It should lead to categorization of the damageability under the
future earthquakes.

4. Assessment of risk of damage under the postulated earthquake Intensity occurrences

which should also include the awareness of the various communities about the
dangers and their preparedness if any.

5. Awareness to various stakeholders, for example, schools, hospitals, industries,

resident welfare associations, etc. The awareness issue of safer construction
technology will be the most important issue since most losses under earthquakes
occur due to the collapse of buildings.

6. Sensitisation of the policy makers and top administrators towards priority actions
required and funding to be provided for taking such actions. They need to be made
aware of the following actions on priority:-
• Creation of necessary legislative instruments for proper town planning as well
as rural area habitation development.
• Land-use Zoning for developing Master Plans taking care of hazard proneness
of the areas such as landslide and liquefaction potential affected by the
earthquake activity.
• Development Control Regulations and appropriate Building Bylaws in the
Municipal bodies called Urban Local Bodies as well as Rural-Local Bodies
called Panchayats in India.
• Training of professionals including architects, engineers, construction
supervisors, masons, bar benders and carpenters. In this regard it is to be
understood that most non-engineered buildings are constructed in the informal
sector without any involvement of architects or engineers, wherein the
construction planning is carried out by Master Mason so as to meet the
requirements of the owner.

In all these issues the experts as well as the government have to play extremely important
role.

9
TABLE 3. BUILDING CATEGORIES (FOR USE WITH INDIAN STANDARDS: IS
4326 AND IS 13928)

Building Category in Seismic Zone

Building Use
II III IV V
Ordinary B C D E
Important
C D E E
(I = 1.5)

- Hospitals
- Schools
- Monumental Structures
- Emergency Buildings
(i.e. telephone exchange, television, radio stations, railway stations, fire
stations)
Important
- Large Community Hall
Buildings
(i.e. cinemas and assembly halls)
- Subway Stations
- Power Stations
- Important Industrial Establishments
- VIP Residences
- Residences of Important Emergency Persons

TABLE 4. MEASURES FOR ACHIEVING SEISMIC SAFETY ACCORDING TO THE

BUILDING CATEGORIES

- Control on length, height and the thickness of walls in a

All types buildings in
room
Seismic Zones (IS-4326
- Control on size and location of openings
for masonry walls)
- Control on material strength and quality of construction
Additional Measures for - Seismic band at plinth level (may be omitted if founded on
all building categories D rock or hard soil)
to E+ - Seismic band at door-winder lintel level in all cases
- Seismic band at ceiling level of floors or roofs consisting of
joisted roofs or jointed prefab elements
Where flat roof is adopted - Stiffening of prefab elements in roofs/floor where used
(using peripheral seismic band and RC screed integrated
together)
- Seismic band at eave level of sloping roofs
- Seismic band at top of gable wall and ridge wall top
Where sloping/ pitched (where such walls used)
roof is used - Bracing in roof structure of trussed as well as raftered
roofs
- Vertical Steel bar at each corner and T junction of walls
- Seismic band or dowels at corners and T junctions at
Additional measures for
window sill level
all buildings of Category
- Vertical Steel reinforcing bars at jambs of doors and large
E or E+
windows

Note: The Vertical Reinforcement at jambs of small windows at ventilators (say 600 mm x 600 mm or
less) may be omitted

10
TABLE 5. PREDOMINANT MATERIALS USED IN HOUSES* IN INDIA (CENSUS
1971)

Wall Percent Percent Percent Roofing Percent Percent Percent

Material of Rural of Urban of all Material of Rural of Urban of all
Houses Houses Houses Houses Houses Houses
Clay Mud 48.67 15.10 41.99 Tile, Slate, 37.12 33.11 36.32
Shingle
Unburnt 8.35 3.26 7.34 Corrugated 4.68 12.02 6.30
Bricks Iron, Other
Metal
Sheets
Burnt 15.55 59.08 24.21 A.C. 0.40 2.47 0.81
Bricks Sheets
Stone 14.17 12.00 13.74 Brick & 1.52 4.09 2.03
Lime
Concrete
Cement 0.14 1.11 0.33 Stone 2.65 6.13 3.34
Concrete Slabs
Wood 1.32 2.28 1.51 Cement 2.93 23.10 6.92
Concrete
or R.B.
Slabs
Metal 0.14 1.76 0.46 Grass 50.42 18.92 44.15
Sheets Leaves,
Grass 11.57 5.26 10.31 Reeds,
Leaves, Thatch,
Reeds, Wood,
Bamboo Mud,
Bamboo
Others 0.09 0.14 0.10 Others 0.08 0.26 0.11

* The term houses here includes: Residences 72.98%; Shop-cum Residences 9.86%; Residence-cum-household
Industry 1.41%; Hotel, Sarai, Dharamashlas, Inspection and Tourist Homes 0.14%; Shops including Places and
Offices 2.93%; Factories, Worksbeds 1.3%; Places of Gathering and Worship 1.23%; Others and Vacant 10.15%

Role of Experts

In achieving safety of various types of buildings in general and non-engineered buildings

in particular the most important expertise is required in the field of civil engineering. The
experts will have to contribute in the following ways:

• Identification of building types and assessment of their damageability under various

earthquake Intensities.

• Carry out research and development studies to determine the available strength of the
various building types prevalent in the country, to identify their deficiencies and
weaknesses from seismic behaviour point of view, and to workout how such
deficiencies and weaknesses can be eliminated or minimized by feasible and
economical actions in the field. The objective of such intervention will be to reduce the
risk of total collapse and prevent the loss of life as well as loss of contents in the future
earthquake occurrences.

• The experts should produce such Guidelines which could be easily understood by the
construction workers, masons, carpenters and bar benders for adoption in the new
constructions.

• The expert’s role in developing workable building bylaws can not be over emphasized.
The building bylaws will have to be made in such a way that they are fully transparent,
as well as, will make the involved persons accountable for the safety of the buildings.

11
• The professionals should make the results of R & D and the know-how so created,
available to the community at large without any copy rights or reservations to keep it to
them.

In India we have tried to work for achieving these objectives and all R & D results have
been brought out in the formal Bureau of India Standard Building Codes for various types
of Non-Engineered buildings (Brick, Concrete Block, Stone, Wood and earthen
constructions) as well as in large number of informal Guidelines for free distribution. A list
of such Codes and Guidelines is attached in Annexure – 1. Effort is being made to
disseminate these guidelines in many different ways, the best example of which was in
the reconstruction programme after the Kachchh earthquake of January, 2001.

Role of Governments

The role of government can best be exemplified by citing the initiatives undertaken by
Government of India since after the super cyclone in Orissa and the major earthquake in
Gujarat.

A National Disaster Management Act was adopted by the Indian Parliament in 2005 which
have provided the establishment of National Disaster Management Authority at the Centre,
the State Disaster Management Authorities in the States, as well as, the District Disaster
Management Authorities in all Districts numbering more than 600. These authorities have
to plan and execute all actions for advance preparedness as well as mitigation activities
so that the future hazard occurrences may not impact the society as badly as before. The
safety of non-engineered buildings will be one of the important issues to be taken up by
the authorities. Already training of architects and engineers as well as training of masons
and bar benders has been initiated on sufficiently large scale which are proposed to be
expanded to larger numbers and larger areas in the near future. Besides the earthquake
safe elements to be provided in all new constructions actions are being taken towards
retrofitting of all lifeline buildings such as schools, health centres, large community
buildings and residences of government officials who will be taking care of post disaster
management. Model Amendment to existing Acts and Building Byelaws in various levels
of Local Bodies has been worked out at the Centre and being disseminated to States for
implementation.

TABLE 6. GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES

- Techno-legal Regime
- Techno-financial Regime
- Training of Engineers
- Training of Industrial Workers
- Training of Masons, Bar Benders
- Awareness
e.g. Videos of Earthquake Resistant Construction
e.g. Shake Table Tests, to Prepare Videos for Showing on TV Channels

Concluding Remarks

In most areas, frequency of damaging earthquake occurrence in India is very low except
in the North East region, hence people have very little concern and perception about
earthquake safety. Traditional constructions are coming down for ages and in high
earthquake prone areas some indigenous safer construction developed such as like Ikra
construction in the North-east India and Dhajji Diwari in Western Himalayas. In such
circumstances, we have found that no revolutionary changes would be practical. Only
marginal low cost improvements will be found feasible and acceptable. Such philosophy
and intentions are successfully incorporated into the guideline which the Government of

12
India had developed so far based upon practical inputs proved by the scientific experiment
and academic analysis conducted by experts.

To achieve safety of Non-Engineered masonry buildings which account for 85% of all 249
million building units as per Census 2001, and which are increasing at the rate of about 6
million housing units every year, is a gigantic task in India. However, in the seismic zone
based on MSK VII the extra expenditure for earthquake seismic safety measures remains
only 2 percent of the construction of the building. In seismic zone 4 or the intensity VIII, it
is just 4 to 5 percent. Even in the most serious hazardous area, it could be just 6 percent
of the whole expenditure of the construction. The inclusion of anti-seismic technology
which requires only marginal improvements in the traditional construction procedures,
therefore, can be feasible and adaptable for the public in general.

For any other country also depending on their own resources, the task of providing safety
to all house holds will indeed be huge. But a concerted initiative has to be taken in which
the experts as well as the government have to play their roles over a long period to
minimize the losses which could be caused by the future earthquakes.

Annexure 1.

Guidelines Uploaded on Website of Ministry of Home Affairs National Disaster

Management Division, Govt. of India, www.ndmindia.nic.in

1. Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings

i) Rapid visual screening of masonry buildings
ii) Rapid visual screening of RCC buildings
2. Amendment of Draft IS 13935 - Repair, Restoration & Retrofitting of Masonry
Buildings – Guideline
3. Design Criteria for Buildings in Tsunami Affected Areas of States/UTs.
4. Preparation of Strategy Document for Protection and Mitigation from the Risk of
Tsunami Disasters.
5. Design Guidelines for Construction of Cyclone Shelters
6. Preparation of Sample Design for unit houses supported by Indira Awaas Yojana
7. Earthquake Safe Construction Of Masonry Buildings [Simplified Guideline for All New
Buildings in the Seismic Zone III,IV & V of India]
8. Guideline for Earthquake Resistant Reconstruction and New Construction of Masonry
Buildings in Jammu & Kashmir State
9. Guideline for Repair, Restoration and Retrofitting of masonry Buildings in Earthquake
Affected areas of Jammu & Kashmir
10. Seismic safety of non-structural elements and contents of Hospital Building.
11. Model School Designs for Construction in Various Seismic Zones of India.
12. Cyclone Resistant Building Architecture
13. Self Assessment Guide for Buildings Situated in Seismic Zone IV of India
14. Condition Assessment of building for repair and retrofitting.
15. Self Assessment of Earthquake Damageability of residential brick Building in NCT of
Delhi
16. Simple Retrofitting Details for Improving Earthquake resistance of Brick Masonry
Building in NCT of Delhi and the NCR

13
Lessons from the Reconstruction of Houses in Aceh
After the Dec. 26, 2004 Tsunami
by Teddy Boen,
International Expert on Non-engineered Buildings
Senior Advisor of World Seismic Safety Initiative- WSSI
INDONESIA

Abstract

This paper is a summary of four papers by the author regarding the reconstruction of
houses in Aceh post December 26, 2004 tsunami (ref. 1/, 2/, 3/, 4/). The issues of
reconstruction are elaborated and four years after the tsunami it can be said that the
statements in all those papers are still valid. Some significant shortcomings are identified
and serves as lessons learned.

Quality of Houses Built

One year after the December 26, 2004 tsunami, the author and others wrote that in
general, the quality of materials and workmanship for the reconstructed houses in Aceh
are below average and in many cases poor (ref. 3/, 5/). However, it seemed that the
government ignored the findings and no improvement was introduced. The main reasons
are among others, lack of knowledge in earthquake resistant buildings; the main target is
“numbers” and imposing a policy to maintain cordial relationship with donors. All those
resulted in compromising the safety of the beneficiaries. From recent site visits it is clear
that no improvement has been introduced in spite of the Simeulue earthquake of February
2008 where newly built houses were severely damaged or collapsed. In 2007, almost
three years after, most NGOs and world organizations recognized the poor quality of
houses built and some of them assigned the design of seismic retrofitting for a small
number of poorly built houses to some structural engineers/engineering firms (ref. 6/, 7/).
Unfortunately, there were few experts that are capable to do retrofitting, particularly for
Indonesian non-engineered buildings. Many of them lack professional conduct and made
recommendations or follow whatever pleases the client (ref. 1/).

Figure 1. Poorly built new houses caused by poor quality materials and poor
workmanship (left); Simeulue earthquake, February 20, 2008 revealed houses built
are not earthquake resistant (right).

Reconstruction of houses Simeulue eq, February 20, 2008

14
 Figure 1. (Cont.)

Reconstruction of houses Simeulue eq, February 20, 2008

Reconstruction of houses Simeulue eq, February 20, 2008

Reconstruction of houses Simeulue eq, February 20, 2008

15
Figure 1. (Cont.)

Reconstruction of houses Simeulue eq, February 20, 2008

16
In 2009, BRR will end its assignment and since the end of 2007, almost all NGOs already
left Aceh, leaving behind poorly built houses that are not earthquake resistant. All the
evidence indicates that the reconstruction of Aceh missed the golden opportunity to
introduce earthquake mitigation measures. Once again, the Simeulue earthquake,
February 20, 2008 demonstrated the above statement.

Prevailing House Type

The majority of the buildings, particularly houses that were destroyed by the tsunami in
Banda Aceh city, and villages in Lhok Nga, Krueng Raya, Meulaboh city and villages
along the West coast of Aceh, are non-engineered buildings consisting of two types (ref.
4/
).

The first type is one or two stories confined masonry buildings which has become the
“new culture” all over Indonesia and from observations for the past 40 years, are
earthquake resistant if built with good quality materials and good workmanship. And the
second type is timber construction which is in line with the facts obtained during past
earthquakes surveys in various areas all over Indonesia (ref. 8/). However, as the
economic condition is prospering, people tend to upgrade their timber houses into
masonry because a measure of status is associated with the owners of such masonry
houses. Therefore, for the permanent housing, it is advisable to construct masonry
houses because they are in accord with the local culture and will therefore be sustainable
(ref. 3/). In most cases, the quality and strength of masonry buildings must be improved,
however, it would be wrong if instead of enhancing the trade, try to re-invent the wheel by
introducing “alien” types of houses (ref. 4/)- particularly using “progress” as a justification.

Lessons Learned

Almost four years after the Dec. 26, 2008 tsunami in Aceh, it can be said that the quality of
constructed houses so far is poor and are among others caused by the following
shortcomings, namely:

1. Needs Assessment and Site Specific Information

Needs assessment is a statement of what needs to be done. It is a prerequisite for the

success of any reconstruction. They must have appropriate and timely information about
what has happened, what needs to be done, and what resources are available. It provides
a preliminary estimate of the total cost of damages; identifies the needs for reconstruction
and outlines some strategic considerations and guiding principles for implementing a
reconstruction program and strengthening disaster risk management as part of a medium
term development process. The assessment reflects in the first instance damage (direct
impact) estimates. These refer to the effects on assets / stock / property, valued at agreed
replacement unit values (as different from actual or possible reconstruction costs). The
assessment considers the level of damage, i.e., whether an asset can be rehabilitated /
repaired, or was completely destroyed. The total damage and loss assessment also gives
close attention to losses (indirect impact) which refer to income flows that will be affected,
such as reduced or lost income, increased expenditures, etc. until the assets are
recovered. These are quantified at the present value of such flows.

One of the important component in the needs assessment for a reconstruction is the in
depth study of the site specific information, local wisdom and expertise. The
reconstruction strategy should be localized and site-specific as far as possible. Economic,
environmental, social and cultural factors must all be taken into account when developing
disaster risk mitigation strategies and solutions must be anchored in the prevailing
circumstances of local situations.

A detailed and accurate disaster assessment is a very important factor for a successful

17
planning and execution of the rehabilitation and reconstruction. Such assessment is
expected to produce reliable data of beneficiaries of houses such as to which target group
they belong; numbers of Internally Displaced Peoples (IDPs) eligible for the program at
the transition stage as well as the long term; number of persons who do not possess land
and are permanent evacuees; the suitability and availability of site for relocation; the
availability of the resources (human, material and fund) necessary to carry out such a
huge undertaking, namely building thousands of houses within a very short time span. All
those data is vital prior to commencing the actual reconstruction. In Aceh, within six
months after the tsunami, many foreign “experts” introduced all sorts of house types which
are not the prevailing practice and many are culturally unacceptable.

As mentioned in various reports, until one year after, the number of IDPs and housing
needs is constantly changing depending on the various sources. This is a clear indication
that an in depth disaster and needs assessment was not available. The poor quality of
houses was also a result of lack of assessment concerning the real need of materials,
construction workers and technical supervisors.

After announcing the completion of the 100,000 houses, the Agency of the Rehabilitation
and Reconstruction for the Region and Community of Aceh and Nias (BRR) claimed also
that the majority of need have been made. At the same time, approximately 6,000 families
remain in temporary shelters and barracks as their houses are still under construction,
and four years after, thousands of completed houses are still not occupied. This is an
indication that the needs assessment is still far from accurate and number of constructed
houses is still the main target (ref. 1/).

Figure 2. Lack of need assessment caused many houses that were ready were not
yet occupied (Aceh)

2. Directives from the Authority

Any successful reconstruction needs a capable authority with strong leadership that can
provide clear directives and requirements concerning the type of buildings and the
standards to be followed from the onset. The approval / permit system must be strictly
enforced and all parties (NGOs, Government and other organizations) involved in the
reconstruction of houses should provide continuous qualified technical assistance and
inspect their respective works on a consistent basis.

In Aceh, most NGOs felt that the government did not provide clear cut guidance,
particularly with regard to quality of the construction. Therefore, NGOs developed their
own guidance. Unfortunately, the guidance in some cases provides incorrect or conflicting
information which can cause confusion. BRR considers that it is the responsibility of the
local authority to enforce good practice, however, at the same time recognizes they do not
have the capacity to do that (ref. 5/).

In developing countries, if earthquake resistant design codes exist, they have been
adopted by some larger cities only and very few if not any have been adopted and

18
enforced for smaller cities and rural areas. Also most codes are incomplete; almost no
standards have been developed for non-engineered buildings. The current Indonesian
seismic code does not regulate non-engineered buildings, but for Aceh and Nias, a
Building Code was issued by the Ministry of Public Works in July 2005. The code is an
expression of desired results than a set of instructions on how to attain that. However, it is
not accompanied with the necessary sketches of seismic detailing (ref. 1/, 5/, 9/).

Past experiences showed that in developing countries, unfortunately, most earthquake

disasters occurred in rural areas, thus affecting non-engineered buildings. Codes are also
designed to regulate new developments and not the repair, retrofitting, and strengthening
of existing and/or damaged buildings. In other words, the minimum standards contained in
the codes are meant to build new buildings or rebuilding totally damaged ones and do not
address the issue of repair and strengthening, the most common situation with most
buildings after an earthquake disaster. This is one of the main reasons why no provisions
to prevent future losses are taken into account after an earthquake disaster since people
has no understanding and is not aware about repair, retrofitting, and strengthening
methods.

For new construction, relevant guidance for good practice of non-engineered buildings
exists or has been developed for Indonesia, long before the reconstruction in Aceh and
Nias (ref. 10/, 11/, 12/). Yet all those relevant materials were ignored and instead, many
foreign consultants made their own layout and adopted the confined masonry construction
method, but leaving out the detailing for seismic resilience (ref. 1/, 8/).

From surveys in Aceh and Nias, the author found out that almost all designers involved in
the reconstruction of Aceh did not follow the existing guidelines and at the same time did
not perform the necessary appropriate analysis and design for earthquake resistance (ref.
1/ 5/
, ).

3. Differentiation between Emergency Shelters, Transition and Permanent

Houses

Reconstruction of houses after a disaster must be planned within the overall context of
phases from emergency shelter to durable solutions. Immediately after the disaster,
displaced people moved to emergency shelters provided by the government and NGOs.
They will soon be shifted to transition houses until permanent housing can be built.
Differentiation between emergency shelters, transition houses and permanent houses
shall be made.

In Aceh, in the early stage of reconstruction, several NGOs do not differentiate type of
houses between immediate shelter needs (which were already built by the government);
medium term / transition houses and permanent houses (which are appropriate to restore
their livelihood). Therefore, in the early stage, many of the houses already built were of the
transition type but built on permanent former lands belonging to recipients. Many of those
“temporary / transition” houses become permanent and the final reconstruction stage fails
to materialize (ref. 4/, 9/). The need for “permanent” housing in part reflected the large
amount of funding available and was articulated in terms of reconstruction rather than the
recovery. This lead to a focus on physical construction rather than how the process of
rebuilding can lead to economic activity and the role than shelter plays in meeting needs
and allowing families to return home and carry out their livelihoods.

Also no phase construction which will allow phasing of occupancy is observed. Usually
phase construction is adopted to construct transition houses on the site and allow early
occupation while the permanent houses are being constructed. Programs to provide
semi-permanent shelter sought to provide this assistance, quickly and economically but
were superseded by the demand created for “permanent” housing, and affected by poor
quality timber.

19
Figure 3. No differentiation between emergency shelters, transition and permanent
houses (Aceh)

Figure 4. “Temporary / transition” houses become permanent. Pictures were taken at

the end of November 2008 (Aceh)

4. Influx of Local and Foreign “Experts”

In major disasters, developing countries are often offered and accept large amount of
technical assistance as foreign aid and most of the time such assistance may not be
linked with the actual needs of the disaster victims.

In Aceh, the lack of immediately available site-specific information is coupled with the
influx of many so-called “experts” (local and foreign) offering an endless number of
earthquake resistant building type “solutions” causing unsatisfactory results. Most of those
“experts” lack technical capacity and a clear understanding of the local building culture
and the social order of the community as well as the ability to adapt disaster resistant
techniques to local styles and situations. Many NGOs ended in trying to “re-invent the
wheel” by introducing house types defying the local culture. Only few NGOs constructed

20
houses based on the prevailing culture in Aceh (ref. 4/, 9/). It is not advisable for experts to
try to "teach" local people, but instead they must try to absorb and understand the local
wisdom regarding why it was done the way it is. Having understood the local way of
thinking, experts must try to facilitate locals in among others making their houses
earthquake resistant but without introducing abrupt changes or use new “alien” materials.
The “experts” need to draw upon the past knowledge and practice of that area and try to
incorporate their expertise and latest developments to develop an appropriate, do-able
solution to ensure that their reports and works are meaningful and also useful.

Even though Indonesia is highly vulnerable to earthquakes, seismic engineering does not
form a core topic in undergraduate engineering degree programs leading to Bachelor or
Engineering (Civil). Concrete design is one of many modules and seismic design is only
included for those taking structural options in the final years. The knowledge of local
engineering consultants can not be assumed to include seismic design. This appears to
be largely due to the lack of expertise in construction and knowledge of how to specify and
verify materials. However, it was compounded by the fact that neither the government, nor
NGOs, carried out a strategic assessment of local capacity at the outset of the
reconstruction process. This would have identified the limitations in local supply and the
need to strategically build capacity to manufacture or import materials. (ref. 9/)

Based on the Aceh reconstruction experience, the author suggests that in any
reconstruction everywhere in the world, criteria of “experts” shall be clearly defined and
the number shall be limited.

5. Alien Type of Construction, Culturally Inappropriate and NOT Sustainable

From the beginning of the reconstruction, the author suggested to build confined masonry
houses because confined masonry houses are permanent and not transition houses and
since masonry houses is the new culture in Indonesia (ref. 4/). Many donors started to
adopt the confined masonry houses for their reconstruction project one year after the
reconstruction. However, BRR directed NGOs to construct confined masonry houses in
Aceh and Nias in 2007, two years after the reconstruction, and after many houses were
built without considering the local culture.

In spite of repeated elaboration by the author regarding type of houses to be built and
preferred by Indonesian people, in 2007, many NGOs introduced alien construction
methodologies that will not be sustainable apart from being seismic resilience (ref. 1/, 3/).
The re-emergence of alien construction methodologies in 2007 only confirms that the
main target of the reconstruction of houses is only numbers and not seismic safe houses.
Sustainability and cultural appropriateness shall be the main justification not to introduce
such alien construction methodologies.

Apart from that, the author has not seen any analysis for all the “alien” construction
methodologies. Also, it is evident that there is no more overall context and clear direction
for the reconstruction of houses in Aceh and Nias.

The trouble with most of the “imported solutions” is that the buildings last as long as the
fund is still available. The village people learn how to fit up the alien buildings, but as soon
as the free materials stop arriving, the village people are as badly off as ever – except, of
course, for the buildings they already have. The point is that they can not employ the skills
they have learned because they can not afford the materials. “Alien methods”, in fact,
merely succeeds in giving the village people an illusory feeling of progress and superiority
while tempting them into the most frustrating blind alleys, a sophisticated trade that will
inevitably be shut to them a short time later. In Indonesia, disaster victims rely more upon
family, neighbourhood, friends, and other local coping mechanism and such mechanism
must be encouraged and supported. Some of the alien methodologies observed by the
author in the second and fourth quarter of 2007 are as follows (ref. 1/):

21
5.1. Pre-cast Construction

Poorly designed connections and poor workmanship at connections between pre-cast

components has lead to catastrophic behaviour of structures incorporating pre-cast
concrete during past earthquakes.

Figure 5. Pre-cast construction using wet joints and reinforcement splices of

approximately 10 cm as the connections (Aceh)

Figure 6. Walls using extra large size blocks with poor connections

22
Figure 7. Pre-cast construction using 2 bolts for connections between components

5.2. Interlocking Masonry

The criteria for interlocking which the blocks should be sized and shaped precisely are not
met due to poor quality of blocks and poor precision. All the shortcomings resulted in poor
quality houses.

Figure 8. Interlocking masonry walls, poor quality blocks and no precision (Aceh)

23
 5.3. Light Steel Construction

From the beginning of reconstruction, the author did not advise to use this method
because defy the local culture and will not be sustainable. However this method is still
used by NGOs and BRR agreed it.

Figure 9. Light weight steel construction (Aceh)

6. Main Target is Numbers and NOT Quality

One year after tsunami, the author suggested to go beyond numbers for the
reconstruction of houses and to concentrate on the technical aspect as well as quality of
the houses (ref. 3/). The author also wrote about the importance of the need assessment
to be able to exactly know among others the correct number of houses needed. However,
until today (almost four years after), the main target is still numbers and not quality (ref. 1/,
2/ 3/ 7/
, , ).

BRR compared the reconstruction of houses in Aceh and Nias with reconstruction of
houses in Bam (Iran), Gujarat (India), and Turkey and claimed that Aceh and Nias is the
fastest in the world (ref. 1/). BRR did not realize that the need assessments for Bam,
Gujarat, and Turkey were made more accurate and therefore the number of houses built
within a certain period was as planned. The reconstruction in those three places also
followed the concept “do it right the first time” with the aim to prevent vulnerabilities in
future earthquakes. On the contrary, in Aceh, most of the houses built so far are not
earthquake resistant (ref. 2/, 3/, 4/, 5, 9/) and this could be a disaster in the making until the
Sumatra fault or the plate boundary breaks. As mentioned earlier, the damage of new
houses before they were occupied due to the February 20, 2008 Simeulue earthquake
confirmed that the quality of houses are below standard and are not earthquake resistant.

7. Site Development and Infrastructure

The other important aspect in the reconstruction process of houses is the planning of site

24
engineering design and infrastructure such as the drainage, the arrangement of access
roads and foot paths, provision for sanitary facilities, provision of water supply and utilities.
It must run parallel to the planning of the site layout (ref. 3/) and must be constructed
during the site preparation stage. However, in Aceh, almost four years after, the
engineering design was still left out (ref. 9/).

Figure 10. Site engineering construction activity did not run parallel with the site
layout planning. All pictures were taken at the end of November 2008 (Aceh)

8. Misinterpretation of Community Based Reconstruction

Local communities will need to be actively involved in planning, decision-making and

implementation in most sectors if reconstruction is to be successful. Experience with
disaster reconstruction all over the world has shown that community participation is a
fundamental requirement that helps in reducing trauma, ensuring appropriate solutions,
equity, community ownership, transparency and accountability. It will also be essential to
set up a fair and accessible grievance redress system.

At the onset of the reconstruction of houses in Aceh and Nias, one of BRR’s missions was
community driven or community based reconstruction. Basically, community based
construction is a bottom up model; beneficiaries are involved, jointly with the professionals,
in planning and implementation (ref. 1/). They are engaged in decisions about the project
through discussions among themselves and professionals. Within the community there
will be a range of experiences, skills and resources among the beneficiaries. The ideal is
for each to participate according to his or her special abilities. In reality, however, not all
will contribute, and, in most communities, the collaboration with professionals will be
largely left in the hands of representatives or local leaders.

Basic safety regulations must be developed within the context of community based

25
construction and this is a challenge for technicians: closing the gap between communities
based and safe structural methods is a priority. Only thereafter one can expect to build a
safe but affordable building. Participation stimulates self reliance, because, people who
participate in their own house building, will be confident about problems and less
dependent on outside agencies.

At the beginning of reconstruction of houses in Aceh, most of NGOs and other

organizations provide the fund but leave the purchasing of materials and hiring of
construction workers to the beneficiaries. They forgot that with community based mass
housing; the quality control becomes a difficult issue. The facilitators and consultants
hired were civil engineers, architects with no specific seismic experience and were
unaware of the importance of ductile detailing. This resulted in the poor quality houses.

In the course of the reconstruction, due to many complications due to misinterpretation of

community based construction, BRR, NGOs and other donors moved to project type of
construction by assigning a local contractor to do the job and the beneficiaries are not
involved in the construction of the houses.

9. Core Housing, Building Completion and Further Extension

Core houses are frequently introduced but seldom really understood. Many architects
2
working for NGOs as well as World organizations were suggesting that the 36 m house
should be considered as a core house that can be extended by the beneficiaries at a later
date. Such opinion becomes very common in Aceh and Nias, while in fact, in earthquake
prone countries like Indonesia, it is not advisable to encourage beneficiaries to extend
their houses unless the extension is pre-designed and all the connections for the
extension are already in place.

Extensions are not advisable without engineering assistance. Unless already

pre-designed, earthquake engineers will not recommend the idea of extending core
houses for the following reasons: seismic resistance depends upon wholeness of building
action in which building acts as one integrated unit and not as a loose assembly of pieces.
Therefore, the continuity and rigidity of construction that is so required is difficult to ensure
when the completion of core structures and their physical expansion over a larger plan
area is undertaken without technical supervision.

Extension and original core house must be united structurally to act as one integral unit
when shaken by earthquakes. The newly extended house must be re analyzed because
the new extended house will behave differently than the original core house. Or the
extension house shall be structurally completely separated from the core house.

Figure 11. Core housing, unplanned extensions. All pictures were taken at the end of
November 2008

26
Figure 11. (Cont.)

References
1/. Boen, Teddy, Reconstruction of Houses in Aceh, Three Years after the December 26, 2004 Tsunami
(ICEEDM, April 2008)
2/. Boen, Teddy, “Reconstruction of Houses in Aceh, Twenty Months after the Tsunami of Dec 26, 2004”
th
(12 Japan Association Earthquake Engineering (JAEE) Symposium, Special Session, Japan,
November 2006).
th
3/. Boen, Teddy, “Building a Safer Aceh”, (40 Anniversary of Trisakti University- “Answering the
Challenges in Today's Civil Engineering”. 2006).
4/. Boen, Teddy, “Reconstruction of Houses in Aceh, Seven Months after the Earthquake & Tsunami,
Dec 26, 2004”, (ICUS Conference, Singapore, 2005)
5/. Arup, Ove & Partners Ltd.,.Aceh & Nias Post Tsunami Reconstruction – Review of Aceh Housing
Program, April 2006 (2006).
6/. Multi Donor Fund for Aceh & Nias, Three Years after the Tsunami, Delivering Results, Supporting
Transition, Progress Report IV, December 2007 (2007)
7/. Nazara, Suahasil and Resosudarmo, Budy P., Aceh-Nias Reconstruction & Rehabilitation; Progress
and Challenges at the End of 2006 (Asian Development Bank (ADB), June 2007).
8/. Boen, Teddy, “Earthquake Resistant Design of Non-Engineered Buildings in Indonesia”, (EASEC
Conference, Bali. 2003)
9/. Arup, Ove & Partners Ltd., “Tsunami Appeal Assurance Mission, REP/121348/001”, (Disaster
Emergency Committee, 28 November 2007)
10/. Boen, Teddy, Detailer’s Manual for Small Buildings in Earthquake Areas (Jakarta, 1978)
11/. Boen, Teddy, Dasar-Dasar Perencanaan Bangunan Tahan Gempa, (Jakarta, 1969)
12/. IAEE Committee on Non-engineered buildings, Guidelines for Earthquake Resistant Non-engineered
buildings (International Association for Earthquake Engineering, 1986)

27
Development of Building Code
Experience of Nepal
by Surya Bhaktha Sangachhe,
Director General, Department of Urban Development and Building Construction,
Ministry of Physical Planning and Works, Government of Nepal
NEPAL

Abstract

Learning the lessons of the devastated damage caused by Nepal Bihar Earthquake in
1988, Nepali government successfully developed earthquake resistant building code.
This paper illustrates the multi-methodological efforts of its implementation conducted
by DUDBC, including the challenges in terms of UNCRD’s HESI initiatives.

Introduction

Nepal is a highly seismic country, lying between collisions of Indian to the Eurasian plate
and moving continuously resulting devastating earthquakes within this region. It is one of
the countries where the earthquakes are frequent and sometimes very devastating. Nepal
experienced such catastrophic damages in 1934 and 1988 earthquakes. It is related to the
presence of active faults between tectonics plates along the Himalayas.

In the context of Nepal, more than 90% of the housing units have been constructed by
individual people as per their own needs and budgets. So, most of the houses including
engineered buildings in Nepal are highly vulnerable to earthquake of event moderate
intensities, due to lack of knowledge of earthquake safety measures. It was estimated that
207,000 buildings were affected in 1934 earthquake in Nepal as one of the biggest
earthquake in Nepal which was estimated as 8.5 Richter scale. Another big earthquake
occurred in eastern Nepal in August 1988, magnitude of 6.7 Richter scale. As of recent
years, most of the uncontrolled building processes are rapidly producing structures of
unacceptable standard and prone to the risk of damage and collapse under earthquake.

Figure 1. Seismic Hazard of Nepal

Map courtesy: National Seismological Centre, Department of Mines and Geology

28
Historical Background

After 1988 earthquake in eastern Nepal which resulted in more than 600 deaths and more
than 20,000 buildings collapsed or damaged, including many hospitals and school
buildings, drew attention and conscious to the Ministry of Physical Planning and Works
(former Ministry of Housing and Physical Planning) the need for changes and
improvement in current building construction practices in Nepal. The Government of
Nepal, then, requested technical assistance to UNDP and UNCHS (Habitat) to set up a
three-year program on "Policy and Technical Support to the Urban Sector" within the
ministry. The sub-project of the policy and technical support, namely, "National Building
Code Development Project" (UNDP/UNCHS/(Habitat)Nep/88/054) was formulated on
1992-93 within the Department of Urban Development and Building Construction
(DUDBC) (former Department of Buildings) to assist the Government of Nepal. A
consortium, consisting of international consultants from New Zealand, Canada, USA,
commenced the project in May 1992 with the government counterpart from the
Department. The major works of the project had been divided into following three sub
components.

a) Seismic Hazard Mapping and Risk Assessment of Nepal

b) Preparation of National Building Code of Nepal
c) Development of Alternative Buildings Materials and Technologies

Formulation of Code

The Nepal National Building Code (NBC) provides both regulation and guideline regarding
to the construction of building in all regions of the country. Furthermore, designers should
use their professional judgment in the adoption of appropriate design standards. The
following four different levels of design parameters and construction are addressed in the
code:

(I) International state-of-the-art

(II) Professionally engineered buildings
(III) Building of restricted size designed to: Mandatory Rule-of-thumb
(IV) Remote rural building where control is impractical: Guidelines

TABLE 1. THE LISTS OF CODES RELATED TO BUILDING DESIGN WHICH

DUDBC-NEPAL HAD ALREADY PUBLISHED

1. NBC 000 : Requirements of State of the Art Design

2. NBC 101 : Materials Specifications
3. NBC 102 : Unit Weight of Materials
4. NBC 103 : Occupancy Load
5. NBC 104 : Wind Load
6. NBC 105 : Seismic Design of Buildings in Nepal
7. NBC 106 : Snow Load
8. NBC 107 : Fire Safety
9. NBC 108 : Site Consideration
10. NBC109 : Masonry Un-reinforced
11. NBC 110 : Plain & Reinforced Concrete
12. NBC 111 : Steel
13. NBC 112 : Timber
14. NBC 113 : Aluminum
15. NBC 114 : Construction on Safety
16. NBC 201 : Mandatory Rules of Thumb : Reinforced Concrete Buildings with Masonry Infill
17. NBC 202 : Mandatory Rules of Thumb : Load Bearing Masonry
18. NBC 203 : Guidelines for Earthquake Resistant Building Construction : low Strength Resistant
19. NBC 204 : Guidelines for Earthquake Resistant Building Construction : Earthen Buildings
20. NBC 205 : Mandatory Rules of Thumb Reinforced Concrete Buildings without Masonry Infill

29
Revision and Updated to the Codes

As a part of Government of Nepal, DUDBC made revisions and updated to the codes on
2060 BS (2003). It also prepared additional three codes last year besides of the existing
20 volumes of the codes. They are;

Architectural Design Requirements-NBC 206:2003

Electrical Design Requirements-NBC 207:2003
Sanitary and Plumbing Design Requirements-NBC 208:2003.

With the highly commendable and pioneering initiatives taken by DUDBC, all the codes
was approved successfully by Cabinet and has been implemented (enforced) in the
government buildings compulsory on "12th. Shrawan 2060" (2003). The announcement of
21th Shrawan 2060 means that three more codes on Architecture, Sanitary and Electrical
had been added ten years after the enactment of formerly organised building related
codes. Now the codes are being implemented as per "Building Act: 2055" (1998) in all
public and private building throughout the country after it was activated by the cabinet
decision.

The practice of applying building code has already been started in government as well as
private buildings. However, this requires massive training as well as dissemination
including public awareness programme. The current 23 volumes of the codes are not
sufficient for fully earthquake resistant design of building - should be extended as India
has more than 1000 codes of its own. It is also absolutely necessary to train the engineers,
architects and technicians who will use directly the codes to practice. Simultaneously, it
should be done the works for public awareness in general on the importance of the codes.
The efforts for implementation of building codes, therefore, are consisted with two
components; i) Massive training to the Technicians about the code, and ii) dissemination
and public awareness raising programme about earthquake resistance building
construction.

Strategy for Implementation of the Codes

The existing building code is more than ten years old. It should be revised incorporating
additions, alterations and modification accordingly - We need to prepare new codes. In
order to conduct such project, DUDBC found that there would be strong demands for
launch international funded programmes for the development of new codes by introducing
various global experiences. Professionals often understand the Code's intent but do not
know how to conduct the calculations on earthquake resistance design according to NBC
and existing seismic hazard mapping of Nepal. Practicing professionals, namely, civil
engineers and architects must be given training in order to enable them to design
earthquake safe buildings as per Seismic Hazard Map of Nepal.

DUDBC is trying to enforce the NBC in all government buildings and at the same time it is
trying to enforce the code in the private buildings through municipalities. After the
implementation of NBC, it is believed that the buildings will be more earthquake resistant
and will save human lives, the property of the individuals and the wealth of the country as
a whole. For the successful enactment of NBC, the Department has set different
strategies, some of which are as follows:

a) Illustration of the role of DUDBC’s role and initiative: DUDBC acts as manager,
facilitator and policy maker
b) Coordination and corporation of other institution: DUDBC’s coordination with the
Curriculum Branch of Universities to endorse NBC in the engineering courses

As privately owned buildings are occupied more than 90% of total buildings of the country,
wider and wider awareness to all people is prerequisite factor nowadays. The Department,

30
therefore, is developing different modes in the awareness programs regarding the impact
of earthquake in the haphazardly constructed buildings. Awareness strategies targets to
give general knowledge about the importance of NBC for the construction of the safer
buildings.

Trainings on NBC by DUDBC

In incorporating NBC into the practical construction of buildings, DUDBC put in the highest
priority fostering technical personnel and craftsmen: particularly by launching educational
opportunities on the implementation process of the codes. In connection to this aspect
DUDBC had already trained more than 250 numbers of engineers and architects, 300 mid
level technician (overseer and draftspersons) about how to use the building code. More
than 4000 artesian and mesons in 75 districts of Nepal had been already trained about
proper use of building materials and earthquake resistant building construction with
practical and audio visual programs. The department also developed Manual on Building
Construction Guidelines (with Earthquake Safety provisions) 5th edition in Nepali.

Figure 2. Training on NBC and Earthquake Resistance Construction for Engineer and
Architects

Figure 3. Training on 2D Software Earthquake Analysis Design for Engineers and

Architects (Left) and Hoarding Board for Public Awareness on Earthquake Housing
Safety (Right)

31
Meanwhile, Housing Earthquake Safety Initiative (HESI) led by UNCRD Disaster
Management Hyogo Office has been crucial milestones of implementing DUDBC’s efforts
for implementation of NBC. In August 2007, HESI’s National Workshop on Effective
Enforcement and Dissemination of Building Code was organised by Ministry of Local
Development, Ministry of Physical Planning and Works, DUDBC, National Society of
Earthquake Technology- Nepal (NSET) and UNCRD. The workshops covered quite wider
stakeholders and issues around efficiency of the works for implementation and
dissemination of NBC. The second HESI workshop in Nepal was held in 19-23 May 2008
by DUDBC, UNCRD and NSET. The workshop involved successfully 25 officers from
various municipalities and DUDBC local staffs. During 5 days workshop, an Action Plan
for building code was successfully developed.

Figure 4. HESI National Workshops (2-3 August 2007, Nepal)

DUDBC is also taking a part of the project of Earthquake Risk Reduction and Recovery
Preparedness Programme- ERRRP for Nepal. This is a regional programme developed
by UNDP Bureau of Crisis Prevention and Recovery (BCPR) with the support of
Government of Japan, which was initiated in five high risk South Asian Countries; namely,
Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. DUDBC has already organised proposals
to launch ERRRP in Nepal with the aim to reduce the impact of potential earthquakes on
seismically vulnerable 5 municipalities; Biratnagar of Eastern Development Region,
Hetauda of Central Development Region, Pokhara of Western Development Region,
Surkhet of Mid-Western Development Region, and Dhangadhi of Far Western
Development Region.

Figure 5. ERRRP Proposed Project Municipalities

32
The project in Nepal is expected to launch a mean to enable local governments for
systematic implementation of Earthquake Risk Reduction Management, and DUDBC
directly commits into the project by launching the project office in the DUDBC premises.
The programme is also designed in the context of the International Recovery Platform
(IRP) for the fulfilment of the Hyogo Framework of Action (HFA) 2005-2015, which was
issued as a part of World Conference on Disaster Reduction in January 2005, in Kobe,
Japan.

In the project, following activities are conducted throughout 5 municipalities;

- Earthquake Risk, Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment

- Implementation of Earthquake Preparedness Planning and Safe Construction
Practice
- Launching Disaster Recovery Preparedness and Recovery Operations in Post
Disaster Situations
- Implementation of Disaster Management Framework by supporting locally appropriate
solution for Earthquake Risk Reduction

With these efforts, DUDBC and target municipalities can update profile related to
earthquake vulnerability. Also, the project could be good opportunities to conduct various
types of trainings, awareness programme including publication and poster exhibition. In
the project, it would be focused also retrofitting works and recovery preparedness.
DUDBC believes that those programmes could be crucial chance for the implementation
of Nepali NBC.

Figure 6. DUDBC’s Interaction with disaster management related organisation

through ERRRP programmes

Conclusion

Needless to say, earthquake is an unavoidable kind of natural disaster. It has already

been mentioned that Nepal lies in high-risk seismic zone. Considering the gravity and
magnitude of the earthquake risk, especially those who are involved in design and
construction profession and in creating awareness among the people, implementation and
local execution of NBC are expected to play significant role in earthquake resistant design
of buildings.

Lastly, it is crucial to illustrate that in every structure design and construction works each
stakeholders must consider how the earthquake resistant design technique can be
adopted using the existing Building Codes of Nepal to safeguard life and property during
earthquake. Proper use of NBC, therefore, can be the vital key in reducing Earthquake
Risk in Nepal.

33
Bridging Gap
between Engineering and Construction
by Tatsuo Narafu,
Senior Coordinator for International Cooperation,
Building Research Institute – BRI
JAPAN

Abstract

Building Research Institute- BRI has found so far that there are huge gaps between
engineering methods and actual construction conducted by manual labourers. Whilst it is
focused on the issues of implementation of engineering technologies into practices in
order to mitigate the damage of earthquake disasters, the paper aims to make policy
recommendations on engineering frameworks in order to overcame the differences
between methods and practice- firstly to review on-site based feasibility of techniques
from workmen to professional designers, which can be added to the knowledge transfers
from engineers to workmen, and secondly to review and simplify the guidelines which can
be applied to non-engineered constructions. For the latter, technical verification would be
necessary to identify effective items in terms of prevention of functional destruction of
buildings at earthquake disasters, adding to the efforts to reduce the amount of required
items in the technical guidelines in terms of safety and the cost.

Serious Damage of Human Casualties – from Findings of Field Survey

There are devastating damages because of earthquakes, and the main causative factor
for casualties is collapsing buildings. There was a very devastating earthquake damage
occurring in China again in 2008. So far, Building Research Institute -BRI has experiences
of, many times so far, conducting post-disaster surveys. Already there have been many
findings that, very intriguingly, many of the reinforced concrete buildings were collapsed. It
was quite surprising outcomes for researchers, which leads to see conditions of collapse
of RC member buildings; most of failures occur in the junction and connection.

Figure 1. Un-reinforced brick masonry houses in Hongkou, Dujiangyan, Chengdu City,

Sichuan Province, China

Meanwhile, at least during the field survey that BRI has involved, BRI has not seen any
cases of fracture. The reinforced steel bars became loose, came out to the surface, and
fell off as a result. When examining these conditions, we found that the Reinforced

34
Concrete members are bent by design to give some reinforcement in the concrete at the
juncture or at a connection part.

Another Approach- from Construction Sites

So far, it is often pointed out that the quality of workers, who had the knowledge, did not
pay attention to the aspects on strength of the buildings, as having been rather negligent
in completing details of the buildings. But the researcher found that it was not always the
case when examining the outcome of on-site monitoring activities. The mission has
looked into the facts on how they have been constructed in above mentioned survey
activities; construction workers conduct manual works, and they use the leverage, quite
simple tool, to make the RC bent. They make an assembly of boxes on the earth and then
carry them to the site of construction for the installation. The following figure [Figure 2]
shows the RC bent – and such design can be prepared by a professional consultant
based upon math equation accurately. Although reinforcing rod bars seem to be quite thin,
they are not something to be bent with manual labour- at least it requires non-simple tools
for such works.

Figure 2. Gap between Structural Design (Left) and Construction Practice (Right)

The mission team, therefore, frequently makes face to face interviews as follows;

Researcher: Can a workman follow the details of the design you made
at the construction site?

Consultant: Yes, I believe a workman can do this.

Researcher: Can a workman REALLY follow detail of the design you

made at the construction site- I have seen that using such tools is not
the practice that they do at the construction site.

Consultant: It is not my problem. My duty is only to draw the chart to

make the drawing of details of design. I have studied in the university,
and I have done what the text book says, so what the workman does in
the field is not my responsibility.

Indeed, there are huge gaps between professional engineers who employ the technical
accuracy into the works and workmen who put them into practice at the construction site.
Such situation in developing countries might be quite hard to understand when getting
used to the practices in Japanese construction. The Japanese building society, where BRI
has many contacts, says that the people studied in a university need to go to the
construction site. Such professionals interact directly with carpenters to see actual works
on the site. The carpenters, who have a lot of experiences in their works, often complain
to highly educated engineers that carpenters’ practices in the field are not same as
engineering approach- which might be said “professional approach”. The Japanese

35
designer therefore can take into account the practices when conducting their works. In the
seismic developing countries however still remains significant gap between what the
carpenters do at the site and what the designers do.

It is often said that the construction workers who have less knowledge should learn more
from the engineers and designers. There is no doubt that the knowledge transfers from
engineers and designers to construction workers are crucial. With such transfer alone,
however, it would not be ensured the construction works can be carried out well. In the
case of making bend for RC bars, there would not be simple but technically appropriate
tools to be developed very soon. In the meantime, there should be bottom-up/ on-site
based approach, where it is considered the feasibility of practical incorporation of
engineering techniques at the construction site adding to the design instruction granted by
professional engineers.

Hereby BRI would like to put this cyclic approach into a policy recommendation on
bridging gap between engineering and construction. With the bottom up approach
engineers can learn actual condition of construction sites, and elaborate proposal based
on actual conditions. Also, in this approach it would be quite indispensable to verify the
feasibility of design on construction sites through monitoring/ model projects etc, and
make feed-back inputs from construction sites to engineering.

Incorporation of Earthquake Safety Requirements to Non-engineered Buildings

Adding to the application of bottom-up approach in engineering, it should be also

mentioned one more important point- Non engineered buildings. The word
“non-engineered” might be unfamiliar to Japanese engineers/ researchers on
development policy studies, but it signifies “less engagement of engineers / engineering
technologies”. Here, the TABLE 1 aims to make comparison of engineered buildings and
non-engineered in order to clarify the gaps occurred between engineered buildings and
non-engineered buildings.

TABLE 1. COMPARISON OF NON-ENGINEERED AND ENGINEERED

Aspects/ Items Conventional/ Non-Engineered Engineered

Materials Available at the area Usually Controlled in Size,
No control Quality etc.
Construction Workers Non/ Semi-skilled Workers Skilled Workers
Technical Intervention No/ Little Intervention Intervention in Design,
Construction Procedures, etc
Users/ Residents Low/ Middle Income People Middle/ High Income People

As it is shown on the table, whilst the materials are controlled in engineered construction,
accessibility to the material in the locality would be put in higher priority in selection of
materials in non-engineered construction. When constructing houses, the materials are
usually heavy and certain amounts are needed. Regarding to the quality of labours as well,
engineered buildings have skilled workers whereas non-engineered have non-skilled, or
rather frequently residents or house owner themselves construct the houses by their own.
Similar issues would be emerged in terms of technical involvement as well. Also, in
reviewing the nature of social aspects of different types of construction, it would be
needed to illustrate the difference of end-users: low income people tend to use
non-engineered construction whereas high income people can be benefited from
engineered construction. Therefore, conventional construction is completely different from
engineered ones, particularly regarding to feasibility of methods, and appropriate
strategies would be needed particularly for non-engineered construction.

36
There was an example of the reconstruction works of Central Java Earthquake, which was
conducted under JICA programme with strong technical support of Teddy Boen
(International Expert on Non-engineered Buildings/ Senior Advisor of World Seismic
Safety Initiatives), and Iman Satyarno (Professor, Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta).
The guidelines, which organised by two eminent experts, focused on simple technical
requirements. As construction workers in non-engineered buildings have less knowledge
of engineering, it is quite difficult to ask them to meet with quite amount of requirements
through guidelines. So amongst experts the team put a lot of efforts to reduce the number
of items of requirements. The outcomes of works are put into a sheet of poster, and
presented before the workers for their application.

The Figure 3 (Right) shows the strategic criteria for the selection of basic requirements in
building design in non-engineered housing. Analysing the component of actions taken for
the reinforcement, the experts found that there are requirements which can increase the
level of safety significantly with less costs in one hand whereas there are what needs
more costs with little effects in safety improvements.

Figure 3. Key Requirements for Safer Housing Presented in Reconstruction Works

after Central Java Earthquake, Indonesia (Left) and the Conceptual Image of the
Selection of Reducing Number of Items of Technical Guidelines (Right)

In Japan, of course, it is asked to meet every requirement for the construction regardless
of the analysis; or rather in order to get 100% scores in construction every action should
be performed in the works. Ideally of course, the same things should be done everywhere.
But the situation in developing countries is not something to pursue 100% scores- the
engineers and development policy makers should put lots of efforts to make 10% scores
to 20% or much higher. And the experts have try to launch the basic requirements to
make every non-engineered building pass the “exam”. In the selection of requirements put
by experts, therefore, it is taken into full account “cost versus safety”; the measures which
can enable the buildings to achieve high effects with little costs put much higher priorities
than others, which cannot disturb local workers.

Taking into account of above mentioned demands in non-engineered construction,

technical verification would be necessary to identify effective items. BRI has conducted for
example test of bonding strength of mortar in order to improve the bonding methods which
can be applicable for developing countries by using the cement with similar mixture ratio

37
in Pakistan or Indonesia. So far BRI also has conducted shaking table experiment twice
by using full scale models in Tsukuba; one in December 2007 by using the brick structure
without reinforcement and the other in July 2008 by using Confined masonry structure
with RC frame, which intended to be applied in Indonesia.

Figure 4. Shaking Table Experiments of Full Scale Models in Tsukuba (2007)

Indeed, as the second clause of the policy recommendation to bridge gap between
engineering and construction, it should be raised the approach to focus on critical items in
order to achieve more effects in safety measures rather focusing on perfect instalments of
overwhelming amounts of measures- exhaustive guidelines are not appropriate for
non/semi skilled workers. Particularly Japanese engineers are accustomed to the
environment to pursue 100% scores in techniques, which makes engineers to be
perfectionalist. For the interest of non-engineered buildings, however, it is required to take
the adverse prioritisation in works in order to pursue wide dissemination and basic
implementation of safety measures.

Observing the situation here in Japan, it can be also found out that there are many areas
of expertise in engineering- from selection of materials, structures, and construction. It
might be quite difficult to identify limited items for the safety measures in such situation. At
least it is highly essential to take inter-sector consideration for improvements of
non-engineered houses; and so far BRI has benefited from cooperation from various
areas in the expertise. Such works can be strengthened through discussion, analysis and,
crucially, technical verification.

38
Building
Code
Implementation
Another Problem
Seismic Protection of Existing Buildings
by Shunsuke Otani,
Professor Emeritus, the University of Tokyo
JAPAN

Abstract

For the improvement of earthquake resistance of the society, it is important to develop

state-of-the-art design codes for new construction, but also essential to assess
earthquake damage vulnerability of all existing buildings and, if necessary, to retrofit the
vulnerable buildings. The development of internationally uniform earthquake resistant
design and retrofit technology is desirable, but may not be feasible because the expected
performance (minimum required strength and acceptable damage) of buildings varies
from a country to another. Difference exists in (a) seismic risk, (b) hazard tolerance, (c)
economic background, and (d) technical development (construction practices and
materials).

Introduction

Earthquake engineering is not a pure science which is formulated on rational hypotheses

and strict logics. The earthquake engineering has been developed through lessons
learned from bitter experience of disasters, and observation and analysis of failures,
aiming toward the future improvement of infrastructures construction, disaster warning
measures, early relief of the affected, and reconstruction of the society, by reducing
possibilities, as much as possible, of repeating similar failures of the past in the future
event. With the development of earthquake engineering, the design codes and
construction methods for new structures may be revised, new countermeasures may be
prepared. However, the safe society may not be realized unless existing structures,
designed and constructed using old technology, are also retrofitted to the level of new
construction.

The following development and application of technology are needed to mitigate

earthquake disaster from construction point of view: i.e.,

(a) Effective earthquake resistant building codes for new construction,

(b) Earthquake vulnerability assessment methods for existing buildings,
(c) Seismic strengthening technology for vulnerable buildings,
(d) Seismic damage evaluation methods for damaged buildings after an earthquake,
(e) Technology to repair damage for immediate occupancy, and
(f) Technology to rehabilitate damaged buildings for permanent use.

It should be noted that these countermeasures may not be the same from a country to
another because the expected performance (minimum required strength and acceptable
damage) of buildings varies from a country to another. Each country has different levels of
(a) seismic risk, (b) hazard tolerance, (c) economic background, and (d) technical
development (construction practices and materials).

During the 1995 Kobe Earthquake disaster, majority of people were killed under the
collapsed traditional timber houses with heavy roof and with less earthquake resisting
walls. New timber houses suffered much less damage because the roof was built lighter to

40
attract less earthquake inertia forces and more walls were provided to resist earthquake
forces. Figure 2 shows the statistics of damage in timber construction in Awaji Island, in
which severer damage was observed to increase with construction age. It is true that
structural properties of construction materials decay with age, but the decay of material
properties cannot explain the difference in damage rate.

Figure 1. Old traditional houses & New engineered houses

¾ Heavy roof tiles

¾ Lack of walls
¾ Decay in structural properties

Figure 2. Damage levels of timber houses with construction age (1995, Awaji)

Damage Level
500
No Damage
450 Minor Damage
400
Number of Buildings

Half Loss
350 Total Loss

300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Very Old Old Normal New
Construction Age

Damage of Reinforced Concrete Structures with Code Change

The 1968 Tokachi-oki Earthquake caused significant damage to reinforced concrete

school buildings; i.e., reinforced concrete columns, which deformable length was
shortened by non-structural spandrel beams, failed in brittle shear mode. Japanese
structural engineers, researchers and the general public believed that the reinforced
concrete construction was earthquake resistant, and the reinforced concrete construction
had been promoted throughout the country after the 1923 Kanto (Tokyo) earthquake

41
disaster. The government organized an extensive research program to clarify the failure
mechanism of reinforced concrete columns under lateral loading, and the code
requirements were revised, in 1971, to require closer tie spacing in columns to prevent
brittle shear failure and to improve deformation capability.

Figure 3. Tokachi-oki Earthquake (1968)

¾ Lack of ductility

Figure 4. Tie Spacing Requirements in 1971

D
Beam

100
2D

： mm
Unit:
Column top and bottom

At the same time, the concern was expressed as to the earthquake safety of existing
reinforced concrete buildings in the future earthquake; similar brittle failure might be
repeated in existing buildings although new construction might be protected by the code
revision. Various methods were developed for the seismic vulnerability assessment of
existing buildings against future earthquakes. The reliability of the methods was tested by
the damage observation of buildings in the following earthquakes.

There was a significant improvement in seismic design requirements in 1980. Ministry of

Construction organized an integrated technical development project, entitled
“Development of New Earthquake Resistant Design (1972-1977).” The research findings
were reflected in the revision of the building code; i.e., design seismic forces were
specified

(a) by story shear (resistance in each story) rather than horizontal forces at floor levels,
(b) in terms of fundamental period of the structure,
(c) using traditional allowable stress design format for serviceability examination, and
(d) lateral resistance at failure for safety examination.

42
Figure 5. Criteria of “Life-Safety” Performance

Story Shear Capacity

Earthquake Response
Capacity

Structural Performance Criteria

• Serviceability
• Life Safety: Collapse Prevention

Lateral Displacement

Figure 6. New seismic design requirements in 1981

Specified Shear Mechanism

Distribution

Collapse due to poor structural planning

The ultimate lateral resistance is defined as the minimum story shear at the formation of
collapse mechanisms under lateral loading; the required lateral story resistance was
varied with the deformation capacity of the story and the irregularities in structural
configuration (eccentricity of the stiffness centre with respect to the mass centre in plan
and distribution of the lateral story stiffness along the height).

Let us examine the effect of design code revisions on damage statistics of reinforced
concrete buildings. The 1995 Kobe Earthquake disaster clearly demonstrated the
superiority of more recent construction as shown in Figure 7. The damage level was
classified as operational damage (no damage, light damage and minor damage), heavy
damage (intermediate damage and major damage), and collapse (including those already
removed at the time of investigation). Buildings with operational damage could be
occupied immediately after the earthquake. Buildings with heavy damage needed some or
major repair work for the occupancy.

43
Figure 7. Damage statistics of reinforced concrete buildings with construction age -
no soft first-story buildings included (1995 Kobe Earthquake)

2000

1800

1600 Damage level

Operational
Number of buildings

1400 Heavy
1200 Collapse

1000

800

600

400

200

0
-1971 1971-81 1981-
Construction age

Figure 8. Reinforced concrete buildings in the 1995 Kobe disaster

Most common type of failure in earthquakes was the collapse of the soft first-story
construction, in which the lateral stiffness and resistance of the first story were
significantly reduced from those of the upper stories by removing structural walls in the
first story for building usage (garage and commercial use). The collapse took place in the
first story in the form of brittle shear failure of columns because all lateral forces acting in
upper floors had to be resisted in the first story. Figure 10 compares the damage rate of
soft first-story buildings with construction age. It can be noted that a significant
improvement in the safety of the soft first-story buildings with the revision (improvement)
of the design code. Almost one half of those soft first-story buildings constructed before
the 1971 revision suffered severe damage or collapse. The current design code is not
sufficient to prevent soft first-story construction from collapsing.

44
Figure 9. Soft first-story buildings (1995 Kobe Earthquake)

Figure 10. Damage of soft first-story buildings with construction age

200

180

160 Damage level

Operational
Number of buildings

140
Heavy
120
Collapse
100

80

60

40

20

0
-1971 1971-81 1981-
Construction age

Vulnerability Assessment of Existing Buildings

Most building codes in the world explicitly or implicitly accept structural damage to occur in
a building during strong earthquakes as long as the hazard to life is prevented. Indeed,
many earthquakes caused such damage in the past. Then, what percentage of buildings
suffered heavy damage in major earthquakes? The Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ)
collected damage statistics in Mexico City and Lazaro Cardenas after the 1985 Mexico
Earthquake, Baguio after the 1990 Luzon, Philippines, Earthquake, Erzincan after the
1992 Erzincan, Turkey, Earthquake, and Kobe after the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nambu
Earthquake. A heavily damaged area was first identified in each city, and the damage
level of all buildings in the identified area was assessed by structural engineers and
researchers.

45
 Figure 11. The 1985 Mexico City Earthquake disaster

Figure 12. Damage Distribution in Mexico City

Damage Distribution in Mexico City

2%
4%
Operational

Heavy

Collapse

94%

100
2000
90 Collapse
1800
Collapse 80 Heavy
1600 Heavy 70 Operational
Number of Buildings

1400 Operational
Number of Buildings

60
1200
50
1000
40
800
30
600
20
400
10
200

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Number of Stories Number of Stories
Damage Distribution in Mexico City Damage Distribution in Mexico City

The damage level is classified here to (a) operational damage, (b) heavy damage, and (c)
collapse. There was a significant code change in 1981 in Japan; therefore the damage
statistics are shown for buildings before and after the code change.

The damage statistics show that 75 to 95 percent of buildings in severely damaged areas
remained operational after the strong earthquakes in Mexico City, Lazaro Cardenas,
Baguio, Erzincan, and Kobe. A definite trend is observed in the damage statistics that (a)
the percentage of heavy damage increased with the number of stories, and (b) the
damage rate decreased with the development of new technology. The damage rate was
small in Mexico City because the majority of buildings were low-rise less than four stories
high.

46
TABLE 1. DAMAGE STATISTICS OF BUILDINGS FROM MAJOR EARTHQUAKES

Operational Heavy
City, year of earthquake damage damage Collapse Total
Mexico City, 1985 4,251(93.8%) 194(4.3%) 87(1.9%) 4,532
Lazaro Cardenas, Mexico, 1985 137(83.5%) 25(15.2%) 2(1.2%) 164
Baguio City, Philippines, 1990 138(76.2%) 34(18.8%) 9(5.0%) 181
Erzincan City, Turkey, 1992 328(77.4%) 68(16.8%) 28(6.6%) 424
Kobe (pre-1981 construction), 1995 1,186(79.4%) 149(10.0%) 158(10.6%) 1,493
Kobe (post-1982 construction), 1995 1,733(94.0%) 73(4.0%) 38(2.1%) 1,844

From damage statistics, we realize the importance of identifying the small percentage of
those buildings possibly vulnerable in future earthquakes. Therefore a simple procedure is
desirable to examine the vulnerability of all existing buildings in a region, spending a few
hours at most for a building, and "screen out” the majority of safe buildings. A more
detailed and sophisticated procedure, spending a few weeks, may be utilized to those
buildings identified as vulnerable by the simple procedure.

In a simple screening procedure, for example, dimensions of columns and structural walls
per floor areas may be used to roughly estimate lateral load resistance. The lateral load
strength is not a single index to represent the safety of a building, but gives some idea if
the structure has a sufficient capacity to resist earthquake motions by strength.

Those buildings, identified as questionable by the simple procedure, must be analyzed by

more sophisticated procedure, taking into account, for example, (a) strength and
deformation capability of constituent structural members, (b) material properties on site,
(c) floor weight, (d) structural configuration, (e) foundation, (f) site conditions, (f)
soil-structure interaction, (g) quality of workmanship, (h) importance of buildings, (i)
structure's age, (j) installation of building facilities, (k) safety of non-structural elements, (l)
hazard history and (m) intensity of possible future earthquakes. The deterioration of
earthquake resisting capacity, for example in reinforced concrete buildings, caused by (a)
existing cracks, (b) deflection under gravity conditions, (c) uneven settlement caused by
foundation deformation, (d) neutralization of concrete, and (e) rust on reinforcement, may
be carefully examined at the building site. The strength and deformation capacities of
structural members must be estimated on the basis of actual dimensions and material
properties investigated on site.

Retrofit of Existing Buildings

Methods to retrofit structures vary with structural types (for example, moment resisting
frames, wall systems, dual systems), construction materials (reinforced concrete, steel,
timber, adobe, masonry), technical levels (engineered or non-engineered), floor weight,
structural configuration, expected performance (importance and economical levels), and
expected intensity of ground motions. General strategy of retrofit is to remove possible
causes of damage in vulnerable structures; i.e., lack of lateral load resistance and
deformation capacity in comparison to the earthquake demand. If the lateral resistance is
low, the building may be damaged under more frequent earthquakes. Large deformation
capacity (ductility) is necessary for the life safety under the maximum credible earthquake.

For example, the 1995 Kobe Earthquake disaster revealed the weakness of reinforced
concrete columns designed in accordance with the pre-1971 design code. Failure of
reinforced concrete columns was primarily in shear at a small story drift attributable to the
lack of lateral reinforcement. Larger deformation capacity may be attained by shifting
failure mode from shear to flexure; e.g., enhancing the shear capacity higher than flexural
capacity by (a) jacketing reinforced concrete columns with steel plates and (b) wrapping

47
 reinforced concrete columns with fiber reinforced plastics (FRP). The use of FRP sheets
has merit of easy construction work and of light material weight. Placement of gaps
between a column and adjacent monolithic spandrel beams, can reduce shear input at the
flexural yielding at the top and bottom of the column. Placement of bracing structures
(structural walls or steel braces) is effective limiting the response deformation of the
structure, thus avoiding the failure of brittle members at a small story drift.

Figure 13. Precast Reinforced Concrete Braces & External Steel Bracing (Japan)

Figure 14. Placement of steel bracing (Japanese Schools)

Figure 15. Detailing of wall-frame connection (Left) and Reinforcement of Columns

(Right)

Post-cast concrete walls

Separation

Weight on
foundation
Casting of
concrete in Carbon Fiber Reinforcement

walls Spiral or ties

48
Adobe is good construction materials; e.g., economical, easy to obtain, less demanding of
construction skill, and efficient for heat insulation. However, the heavy adobe construction
attracts large earthquake inertia forces, and is not strong enough to resist large in-plane
shear forces or to resist out-of-plane overturning moment. The reinforcement methods
should be developed to maintain integrity of adobe walls, to increase in-plane shear
resistance, and to resist out-of-plane overturning at the base.

The occupancy of a building during the retrofit work should be considered in selecting
retrofit works. For example, the strengthening work of reinforced concrete columns
normally requires the removal of mortar and other finishing materials (tiles) from the
concrete surface. The noise, vibration and dust during the retrofit work will not allow
occupants to stay in the building.

Figure 16. Effect of Carbon Fiber Sheet Reinforcement

400
Vmax=288 kN
300 Vmax=236 kN
200
Shear Force, kN

100
0
-100
FRP Reinf.
-200 Old Column

-300
-400 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
Drift Angle R (x10-3 rad)

Figure 17. Base Isolation for Retrofitting

The failure of buildings often takes place in the form of partial collapse in a soft (and weak)
story due to shear failure of columns. In addition to enhancing shear capacity of columns,
it is highly desirable to increase the stiffness and strength of the soft story by providing
bracing members to avoid the concentration of excessive deformation.

The eccentricity between the centres of stiffness (and associated strength) and floor mass
causes torsional vibration of a structure, resulting in large deformation away from the
centre of stiffness. The eccentricity in floor plan should be corrected during the retrofit
work.

49
If advanced technology is affordable, especially in hospitals for post-earthquake medical
treatment of the injured, the earthquake induced inertia forces may be reduced by placing
isolation devices at the base. The response of a structure may be reduced by installing
tuned mass dampers or energy dissipating devices; different types of energy dissipating
devices such as visco-elastic fluid damper, visco-elastic solid damper, hysteretic energy
dissipating damper and friction damper are available.

The failure of foundation piles was reported after the 1995 Kobe earthquake disaster. In
some structures, the failure of pile foundation is said to reduce the earthquake ground
motion input to the structure and limit the damage in the super-structure. However, the
cost of damage investigation of foundation as well as the repair work of damaged
foundation is expensive. It is normally desired to provide the foundation structure with
higher resistance.

Figure 18. Image of the relation of Design Code for New Construction

New Buildings
(New Technology)

New
Buildings
Existing Buildings
(Old Technology)

Existing Buildings

YEAR 2009 YEAR 2029

Concluding Summary

The following development and application of technology are needed to mitigate

earthquake disaster from construction point of view: i.e.,
(a) Effective earthquake resistant building codes for new construction,
(b) Earthquake vulnerability assessment methods for existing buildings,
(c) Seismic strengthening technology for vulnerable buildings,
(d) Seismic damage evaluation methods for damaged buildings after an earthquake,
(e) Technology to repair damage for immediate occupancy, and
(f) Technology to rehabilitate damaged buildings for permanent use.

This paper discusses the need of the earthquake vulnerability assessment methods for
existing buildings. Statistics of damaged buildings in past major earthquake disasters
indicate that relatively small percentage of buildings suffer heavy damage. Therefore, a
rough but simple procedure is needed to assess the vulnerability of all existing buildings in
a community. More sophisticated procedure may be used if a building is identified as
questionable by the simple procedure.

A building, if assessed as vulnerable, should be retrofitted using local technology. Retrofit

methods suitable for a locality vary with structural types, construction materials, expected
performance, and expected intensity of ground motions. General strategy of retrofit is to
remove possible causes of damage in vulnerable structures; i.e., lack of lateral load
resistance and deformation capacity in comparison to the earthquake demand.

50
Experience of Damages
in Recent Earthquakes
by Shoichi Ando,
Coordinator,
UNCRD Disaster Management Planning Hyogo Office
JAPAN

Abstract

This paper records the recent field surveys conducted as a part of activities of UNCRD
Disaster Management Planning Hyogo Office. The paper takes up recent five missions to
the sites of massive earthquake (related) disasters: Indian Ocean Tsunami (2004),
Pakistan Earthquake (2005), Java Earthquake (2006), Pisco Earthquake (2007) and
Wenchuan Earthquake (2008), and explains what UNCRD has seen in terms of
earthquake housing safety in the context of enhancing regional development.

Introduction

Apart from the main project based mandates, UNCRD Disaster Management Planning
Hyogo Office conducts field based survey after the occurrence of disasters in order to see
social and structural impacts of disasters, process of reconstruction, and the tips for
seeing further preparedness of the disaster. There are several functions for UN agencies’
works on disaster management- Coordination, Humanitarian support, Financing,
Development, Social development, and Research/ Trainings. UNCRD is in charge of the
last function in UN agencies in terms of regional initiatives, and it would be crucial to
collect the experience and practices of the disasters in each countries as well as regions.

Figure 1. Area of Works in Disaster Management and UN/ international agencies

Coordination
ISDR
(Former, IDNDR, UNDRO)
Policy
Institutions
Humanitarian
OCHA, UNICEF Types of Hazards

Finance Economy Floods

Finance Cyclones
World Bank, ADB Land Slides
Tsunamis
Development Earthquakes
Volcanic eruption/ activities
UNDP
Other agencies: i.e. JICA
Social Affairs Draught
Epidemics
Education etc.
Forest Fires
Social Development Global Warming etc.
UNESCO, WHO

R & D / Training Knowledge

Technology and
UNU, UNCRD dissemination

Besides of the fact that natural hazards occur constantly so far, the society faces adding
risks of disasters as follows: i) expansion of populations and city (urban areas), ii) trends

51
of heavier damages to the poor in the Least Developing Countries, and ii) degradation of
ecosystem and/or climate change. Particularly in the case of earthquake, hazards affect
heavily not only the least class of the society but to those who have middle incomes. Both
groups, then, occupies the major part of the populations in the society as a whole, which
obviously leads serious effects to any activitiy in the country. The presentation therefore
examines the recent field based survey of disasters in Indonesia (2004 and 2006),
Pakistan (2005), Peru (2007) and China (2008), and analyses the lessons learnt in terms
of earthquake housing safety.

Indian Ocean Tsunami (2004)

Indonesia has been extremely vulnerable to natural hazards. It is located on the ring of fire,
and as such prone to earthquakes, volcanic eruptions as well as to tsunamis caused by
seismic activity. The tropical climate with heavy rain showers during the wet season can
cause flooding and landslides. These natural hazards combined with high population
densities, poverty, often poorly constructed buildings and deficient urban planning,
inadequate warning systems and poor institutional disaster preparedness contribute to
natural hazards to turn into disasters. Local governments and communities need
assistance to realize the urgency of these issues. From experiences in the past as in Aceh
after the 2004 tsunami, many lessons can be learned. Physical reconstruction is one
aspect of recovery, while socio-economic recovery is another.

Figure 2. Reconstructed House (Left) and Traditional Buildings in the Aceh Region
(Right), Banda Aceh, Indonesia, December 2007

UNCRD has visited Banda Aceh in August 2005 and December 2007 (3 years after the
disaster). The reconstruction of urban area was being implemented. Many houses and
most of public facilities have been rebuilt or rehabilitated by late 2007.

During the second mission, one of the staff members of Syiah Kuala University made us
testimonies of his experience. He saw the Tsunami wave of more than 7-8 meters depth
when he stayed in his house, and many friends who stayed with him at his house were
disappeared in a second. He fortunately survived as grasping an edge of a boat – and he
waited until the tsunami activity could be ceased completely. After three months, however,
he was severely suffered from the trauma (PTSD) because of the strong shock and
feeling of spiritless. Volunteers for psychological care helped him to heal from the trauma
of tsunami and loss of many friends.

There were remaining ships in the residential area where is located a few kilometres from
the coast line. There are huge amount of construction sites of new houses in the areas.
Most of public facilities have been reconstructed while the houses are still under the
process of recovery.

52
Figure 3. Damaged Masonry School (Left) and Remained Ship in the Residential
Area (Right), Banda Aceh, Indonesia, December 2007

Pakistan Earthquake (2005)

Barakot is the most heavily damaged city by the Pakistan Earthquake that occurred on 8
Oct. 2005. More than 70 % of buildings in the city were collapsed and the destructed
materials still remain all over the city when UNCRD reached to the site in March 2006.
The reconstruction work started finally in early 2006, as having improved the weather in
winter. New commercial buildings began to be constructed in the market, and the mission
visited a bamboo model house constructed by a local NGO in corporation with
Bangladeshi team using the bamboo imported from Myanmar, which is in higher quality
comparing the local one.

Another model house was built by a Nepali NGO; National Society for Earthquake
Technology Nepal- NSET, funded by HABITAT Pakistan and the local government. Their
construction system can be adapted only to the new construction. However, because the
system is familiar with local construction engineers and technicians, it may be the best
way to construct earthquake resistant buildings and houses in the affected areas. UNCRD
also had experience to promote same type of (reinforcement) construction system in the
past with NSET in Afghanistan, Iran, and India.

Figure 4. Reconstructed House (Left) and Traditional House in the Region (Right),
Pakistan, March 2006

Using the mission survey opportunity in Pakistan, UNCRD participated in JICA’s

workshop in Muzaffarabad in March 2006 on public education on earthquake resistant
houses– the demonstration method utilising the shake table test. The awareness
methodology was developed and shown by NSET so far in UNCRD’s seminars and
symposiums as the most convincing method to illustrate the effectiveness of proposed
reinforcement for houses. At this time, including PP band system, which is a newly
developed skill in recent years, JICA’s workshop obtained more than 300 participants who

53
were all attracted by the explanatory remarks conducted by NSET experts. The testing
table conserved two typical model houses of scale 1/6- one is reinforced on its walls and
columns whilst the other employs no measures- which successfully illustrated the
changes created by the reinforcement measures.

In April 2007, a field survey of earthquake hit area of northern Pakistan was carried out in
order to get insight of the vulnerability, the efforts of reconstruction and future prospects of
seismic construction in the earthquake hit areas. Comparing the situation on the mission
in March 2006, the reconstruction of houses and towns then had been achieved
significantly. In particular, most of the hospitals have been reconstructed, whilst some of
schools still remained as they were affected. The mission found that the cause of the large
scale devastation is basically the total ignorance of the earthquake risk and not because
of the large shaking intensity. It is observed that some buildings with good construction
workmanship, maintenance and compliance with simple seismic consideration like
configuration and integrity between structures survived the earthquake in the hardly hit
area.

Figure 5. City of Muzaffarabad (Left) and the Operation of Reconstruction Works

(Right), Muzaffarabad, Pakistan, March 2006

The damage has concentrated in masonry houses. In general, the quality of material and
workmanship, particularly that of mortar and limited concrete works is poor. The traditional
construction with wood (or wood and stone) has been eroding and RC construction with
brick infill has been emerging. The basic rules and quality of construction of this new
typology has been grossly violated. The recovery process of the damaged houses is
comparatively in a good momentum. The limited resources available to house owners to
rebuild their houses, however, prompted partial/stage construction which leads to
undesired consequences; i.e. incompatible construction joints, abrupt change in
construction material etc.

Java (Yogyakarta) Earthquake (2006)

In September 2006, guided by Sarwidi, Professor of the Islamic University of Indonesia

(UII), UNCRD team visited some important sites where were affected by the May 2006
Earthquake in the south part of Yogyakarta City (approximately 5-20 Km south and
south-east of the central areas): a governmental (regional revenue office) building, where
its ground floor was totally collapsed as well as the “Institute SENI Indonesia Yogyakarta”
and its “Departemen Pendidikan Nasional” in the Sewon District.

The team also visited the reconstruction works conducted by UII in Bantul Region where
is the most affected area by the earthquake. For the purpose of public demonstration, the
UII constructed, with some financial support from the Japanese embassy, a model house
for the local people using bricks with reinforced concrete columns and beams (so-called
confined masonry structure) in the middle of the damaged areas and very close to the
trunk cross-roads of Pleret District. In order to observe the impacts of the efforts, the
mission entered to two forest villages in the district. One of the villages invited BRI expert

54
with professor Sarwidi and conducted village-based testing by using several experimental
pieces. The village has also a model house which incorporated earthquake resistant
methods before the earthquake, which resulted in success to withstand against the
earthquake.

Figure 6. Recovery Works (Left) and the Traditional Construction of Java (Right),
Yogyakarta, Indonesia, September 2006

The mission also visited Gadjah Mada University (UGM) in Yogyakarta to see Ikaputra,
Prof. of Architectural Department, who has learnt architecture and urban planning at
Osaka University. The UGM has evolved several model houses (of bamboo, palm tree
and/or wood, which were all non-engineered) for tsunami prone and earthquake prone
regions. Using posters, UGM experts conduct efforts of dissemination of anti-seismic
technologies and tips for reconstructing/ repairing houses of community peoples.

In December 2007, the second mission of UNCRD was conducted along with the team of
Hyogo prefecture to see the reconstruction of vital regional facilities, particularly schools
and kindergarden in Yogyakarta Special Province with the guide of the chief of planning
section of the Regional Development Bureau of the Provincial government. Hyogo
prefecture decided to support for retrofitting the Margoyasan elementary school in the city,
which was constructed in 1901 and has approx. 240 students. Meanwhile, the mission
found that communities around Plus Mutiara kindergarten, which is located in the Bantul
District, have been reconstructed by the mutual cooperation system in the community one
and a half year after the earthquake.

Figure 7. Poster for public awareness on earthquake resistant methods for

non-engineered houses (Left) and Reconstructed (Temporary) House using local
materials (Right), Java, Indonesia, September 2006

Peru Earthquake (2007)

Peru has an old history for developing National Building Code; established in 1963 and
enacted in Lima in 1968, and even recently updated incorporating advanced
understandings on earthquake safety. With the advanced building code in place, however,

55
the implementation of the code is still not effective owing to various reasons. Particularly,
the lack of awareness and sensitization of the importance of the latest building code
amongst professionals, lack of capacity of municipal authority to deal with the building and
related urban planning issues are the major constraints. In order to achieve the essential
objectives of the code earthquake safety, it requires a mechanism to enforce the
application of the code, monitoring of its performance, the advancement of the level of
understanding and the specific preparation of design / supervision by professionals. More
importantly, there is an indispensable need for capacity building of local governments for
effective enforcement as well as guidance of citizens for the building code compliance.

Figure 8. Recovery Works (Left), the Traditional Construction in Peru (Right), and the
Damage caused by the Earthquake (Bottom), Pisco, Peru, August 2007

The role of stakeholders including the private sector is instrumental for development of
building code compliance incentive scheme and social marketing in line with the product
specified or implied in building codes. The most challenging issue is to make building
code reach to individual houses- be them conventional isolated buildings or apartment
houses or public buildings. Though building code applies to all form of houses in Peru,
hardly it gets appropriate supervision by municipal authorities for all these construction.
There is also tendency amongst small builders that they avoid the procedural rules to
follow in compliance with the building code. Enforcing the use of a code demands its
application mandatory through the creation of enforcement and inspection system. This
can be achieved through developing appropriate strategies and putting a system in place
for collection of design data responding to technical questions and checking the actual
and appropriate use of the code.

The Housing Earthquake Safety Initiative (HESI) conducted by UNCRD, includes Peru as
a target country in Latin America. From its first expert meetings, Javier Pique, Dean of
Peru Engineering College was invited as one of the resource person, and identified the
essential demands of capacity building of national government and local governments to

56
comprehend the necessary tools for code application- with the appropriate chain of
building permit system, planning for human and financial resources for code enforcement
through certification and inspection.

Figure 9. A Family Desperate after Losing their House by the 2007 Earthquake (Left)
and Damage of Adobe-made House (Right), Pisco, Peru, August 2007

The international conference and the PERU HESI workshop that was coincidently held
just one week after the August 2007 Pisco (Peru) Earthquake, established an important
foundation to implement the HESI project in Peru. The earthquake that occurred off the
coast of Pisco on 15 August 2007 claimed more than 500 lives, most of them died as a
result of the collapse of houses. Following the event, safety of houses became a major
concern in Peru. Nevertheless, majority of the people remain unaware of the national
building code and continue to live in potentially vulnerable houses. Dissemination of the
building code, including “adobe” (sun-burned clay brick) related one, is essential for future
disaster prevention. Inclusion and mobilization of municipal governments, which are
responsible for implementing the Peruvian national building code, is crucial for the
effective enforcement of building code nationwide. The country needs better coordination
between the central government and local governments. The role of UNCRD is to help
improve coordination between the two key players.

Wenchuan Earthquake (2008) in Sichuan Province

With the Wenchuan Earthquake, occurred on 12 May 2008 in the afternoon, the human
damage of the disaster amounted to more than 69,000 casualties except the lost and to
one millions of people who lost their houses. According to the national announcement and
newspaper reports, the following issues were reported in early June 2008;

• Northwest Region of Sichuan Province is affected by the magnitude 8.0 Earthquake;

• The most heavily damaged cities are Dujiangyan, Mianzhu, and Beichuan;
• Many schools were destroyed and children died by the collapsed buildings;
• The rescue efforts have been finalized by almost 10 days after the earthquake;
• Chinese government opened data on disaster affected area from the first stage;

The first mission of UNCRD was conducted early June 2008 in order to verify the main
damage and action taken in the community in relation with the implementation of national
policy. Although the infrastructure, particularly roads were still under construction, with
one month Chinese government were equipped to prepare and disclose the detailed
maps of affected areas in the website which enabled to achieve the objectives of the
survey. To begin with the mission firstly stepped into central part of Mianzhu city, with a
half million populations, which locates 100km north of Chengdu city, the capital of Sichuan
Province. Mianzhu city got severe damage in its north-west part, particularly Zhundao
town and Hanwang town. Although the central part of the city did not have severe damage
the mission found that people were afraid to stay in the apartment houses with cracks. A
number of tents were distributed alongside of the trunk road all over the city. As accessing
closer to the severely damaged area (Zhundao town and Hanwang town), the mission
also found the numbers of destroyed brick houses gradually increased. Comparing to the
centre of the city, the towns have a lot of middle storey apartment houses- most of them

57
have one or two storeys and made by pure brick or brick with reinforced concrete frame
structure. The town office, which should be essential for management operation in the
disaster response and recovery works, was totally collapsed and removed. Several
temporary office rooms were built in the plane playground of the office.

Figure 10. Temporary Shelters in Dujiangyuan (Left) Damage on Traditional

Construction (Right), and Traditional Construction in the Region (Bottom), Sichuan
Province, China, August 2008

The mission also visited Dujiangyan city, part of Chengdu city municipality area, where
locates 50km west of the downtown of the Chengdu City, which has renowned historical
monuments designated as the World Heritage. Although having attracted tourists, the
historic monumental area had a lot of refugees then – no tourist service available at all.
Having visited the Libing Middle (Junior-high) School, the mission found that the debris
was removed whilst it was distributed dozens of white tents donated by the Hyogo
Prefecture through the Japanese government in May 2008.

Having saw the difficulties in the disaster damaged area for recovery operation, through
Gu Linsheng, Head of an institute of Tsinghua University in Beijing, who was formerly
dedicated as a researcher at UNCRD in Nagoya, and who managed a part of
reconstruction works with the request from Chinese national government, the mission
obtained the list of issues emerged in the analysis conducted by the authority.

• A total of 16,599 aftershocks of the M8.0 main shock were recorded since May 12, including 226 during the past 24
hours, 8-9 July.
• The official death toll stood at 69,197 as of Wednesday, July 9th, according to the State Council Information Office.
The number of injured and missing stood at 374,176 and 18,379 respectively
• According to the State Council Information Office, about 5,461,900 houses collapsed, 5,932,500 houses were
seriously damaged, and another 21 million may have need repairs.
• Eventually, the rubble in cities and neighbourhoods will probably be dumped into the fields and valleys of rural areas,
although some may be recycled for rebuilding.
• China's military has already disposed of nearly 8 million cubic meters of debris.

58
• Wen Jiabao, the Prime Minister, signed a regulation on reconstruction which established the “protection of the
ecological environment with economic and social development" as a guiding principle.
• Contaminated water is one of the biggest environmental issues after the earthquake.
Contamination sources include:
1) the quake lakes,
2) spill of hazardous materials,
3) factory wastes.
• The government disaster relief fund reached 56.088 billion yuan (8.19 billion USD), including 50.748 billion yuan from
the central budget and 5.34 billion yuan from the local budget.
• Domestic and foreign donations reached 56.925 billion yuan in cash and goods, of which 20.479 billion yuan was
forwarded to the hardest hit areas.
• About 1.58 million tents, 4.87 million quilts, 14.1 million garments, and 1.84 million tons of fuel oil had been sent to
the quake-hit areas.
• As of Wednesday noon, July 9th, 52,418 km of the 53,295 km of roads damaged in the quake, had been restored to
service.
• As of Tuesday, July 8th, relief workers had built 447,600 temporary houses and another 23,600 were ready to install.
The materials for 50,600 new shelters had arrived in the affected areas
(The National announcement dated on 9 July 2008)

Figure 11. Damages in Middle Storey Apartment Houses- 5-6 Storeys Buildings (Left),
Hospital in Hanwang (Right), Sichuan Province, China

The second mission of UNCRD to Sichuan conducted early August 2008, in order to
examine closely the reconstruction work conducted by local governments and the issues
emerged from the operation. The mission conducted meetings with local government
officers, particularly from the Planning Directorate of the Mianyang city, one of the major
affected cities in the Earthquake.

TABLE 1. DAMAGES AND RESPONSE ACTION OF MIANYANG CITY BY THE 12

MAY 2008 EARTHQUAKE

Damages on Populations 21,963 dead, 7,795 missing, and 174,000 injured / 5 million populations
Rescued Populations 24,135 persons rescued from the debris/ 188,900 persons hospitalized
(around 10,000 persons were transferred to another hospital to have detailed check)
Collapsed Houses Many in the north-west part of the city (incl. Jiangyou city ward)
2
Rural houses: Total 69 million m , 841,000 units collapsed
2 2
Urban houses Total 6.3 million m collapsed, 57 million m partly damaged
(3/4 houses were totally or partly damaged, 1.73 million people)
Industrial Damage Direct economic losses: 297,840 million yuan
Geological Disasters 2,432 geological disasters including 55 lakes (created by earthquake landslides)
The biggest lake caused evacuees amounted to 1.73 million residents early June
Launch of refugee camps On 13 May (next day of the earthquake) by using large facility incl. gymnasia
Traffic Control Immediately after the disaster- only emergency cars were allowed
Service provided by the city Temporary houses, Medical care, Infrastructure repair etc.

Mianyang city has more than two thousand years history and now became the 2nd leargest
city in Sichuan with 0.7 million population live in the city central area (70km2) amongst 5
million populations. The city has 22 famous research institutes where guards 170,000
researchers, who are taking the key factor for launching Science and Technology City
development of the city to attract people, based upon “scientific tourism”- which is quite
unique initiative in China. Just before the disaster in 2007, the Gross Product of the city
marked 67,350 million yuan, and connected to Xian, Chengdu, and Chongqing by
expressways. The city also has airport which connects to Beijing, Shanghai, Hangzhou
everyday.

59
In the meeting, city officials illustrated their main focuses of the reconstruction / recovery
plan as follows;
(1) Housing reconstruction (including farmers’ houses)
(2) Infrastructure reconstruction
(3) Industrial revitalization
(4) Agricultural recovery
(5) Tourism rehabilitation
(6) Partnership cooperation
(7) Maintenance, protection and safety
(8) Balanced development (with economy and livelihood)

Brief Analysis and Concluding Remarks

In each site-visit mission, the collapse of buildings causes major tragedies in the
earthquake related disasters. In order to achieve resilient social infrastructures with
earthquake resistant buildings, cooperation of engineers and governments is essential. As
observing the examples of mission to Sichuan, China after the most recent disastrous
earthquake, the housing/ sheltering matters put the highest priority in the reconstruction,
which is also put the crucial parts of the response operation in earthquake.

Figure 12. HESI Conference in Peru, 2007 (Left) and Field Visit with Seismic Policy
Makers at the event for HESI in Nepal, 2007 (Right)

In order to meet with such practices in the field, the UNCRD launched the Housing
Earthquake Safety Initiative (HESI) since 2007, and conducted various activities
throughout the three (four) target countries: Indonesia, Nepal, Peru (and Algeria, where
the activity could not be conducted unfortunately in 2007-2009 due to the UN Security
regulations). Amongst various issues around the earthquake safety of housing, the first
expert meeting conducted in Kobe, Japan in Jan 2007, successfully identified the
necessity of implementation of earthquake-resistant building regulation of various process
around the buildings. The HESI launched, therefore, various opportunities for Anti-seismic
Building Code Dissemination (ABCD) and capacity buildings in those countries. Such
attempts are now spread and shared by other development initiatives in international
organizations as well as development agencies; namely, UNISDR and UNDP Indonesia’s
publication of “Handbook on Good Building Design and Construction”, Project conducted
by JICA in Indonesia, and the project partner of HESI in Nepal – NSET’s various activities.
The field survey showed above, then, signifies the strong needs for implementing various
measures, including capacity building, on the building related preparedness for various
stakeholders, particularly those who might face directly preparedness operation for the
disastrous situation; community workers who motivate community residents directly, local
government officials who enforce important policy directly at the local level, and the policy
(decision) makers at the national level.

60
Challenges of Building Code Implementation
in Nepal
by Amod Mani Dixit,
Executive Director,
National Society for Earthquake Technology – NSET
NEPAL

Abstract

This paper overviews the situation of the building construction in Kathmandu Valley, and
illustrates the process of implementation of building code into the practical level in Nepali
society. It explains about the approach adopted by National Society for Earthquake
Technology- Nepal (NSET) in terms of building code implementation, and illustrates the
importance of both “bottom-up” and “top-down” approaches which are additionally
effective for spreading culture of disaster prevention in the whole society.

As being a part of the private sector of engineers and experts, discussing on Building code
implementation is a difficult task for NSET even if it is the context of Nepal only. Rather,
the paper would explain about some of the modalities that NSET has adapted in Nepal on
this mission.

Background: Buildings in Kathmandu Valley

Observing the building construction process for residential buildings in Kathmandu valley
(see Figure. 1), where is a central part of the country, most of the buildings not only in
rural area but also even in urban area are constructed by their owners. Although there are
significant increases in sub-urban area in numbers of buildings constructed by contractors,
who can work rapidly and take all the responsibility for the buildings, owner-built housings
are still common phenomena in the area.

Figure 1. Building Construction Process for Residential Buildings in Kathmandu

Valley

(Total Number of Buildings Surveyed= 961 )

100% 92%

90% 82% 79%

80%
Percentage of Buildings

Urban
70% Sub-Urban
Rural
60%

50%

40%

30%
17%
20% 11%
7% 7%
5%
10% 1%

0%
Owner Built Purchased Constructed by Contractor
Construction Process

Figure courtesy: Building Inventory Survey under the SEDM (2000)

61
Meanwhile, the social issues which are surrounding those types of buildings are quite
critical. Whilst there are high rate of non-engineered houses in the cities, as long as the
building code and building code implementation is concerned, it had been talked about
much lower level of awareness in the whole society; policy makers, building professionals,
general public including potential house owners, and even educated masses. Ironically,
god has created such social atmosphere whilst becoming the destroyer at the time of
earthquakes.

When focusing on technology, it can be found out that the manpower does not reach to
the level of what it is required. Some of the local materials remained in low quality
including mud mortar and burnt bricks. Regarding to methods incorporated into the
building construction, there are some complex process for transmit appropriate
methodologies to be implemented. As Sangachhe, director of DUDBC explained in the
earlier of the symposium, there are mainly four levels of implementation process of
adequate modality of the building construction. First, it is high level awareness, which
permits construction to the constructor. Secondly, it is what is considered usually as the
code, which transmits the methodologies of (earthquake) safe housing. Thirdly, is the
pre-engineered guidelines which was referred by Arya, Professor Emeritus of IIT Roorkee,
and lastly, there are guidelines for rural housings. It might be difficult to differentiate many
types of buildings from various social and economical backgrounds; from poor to rich
populations, but the guidelines and other social functions ensure that any types of the
building can be earthquake resistant as long as it can follows adequate modalities with
appropriate manpower and materials. Therefore, such processes and thoughts have gone
over technology whilst the one also takes into account of resources as one additional
factor on the building construction: financial resources – particularly when talking about
the least developing countries or economically weak countries where majority peoples
cannot afford to the same acceptable level of safety in the other countries. With all of such
process and different adaptation of the methodology, earthquake resistant technology can
be transmitted and implemented via two distinct types of construction mechanism:
Engineered construction and non-engineered construction.

Combining building construction process as well as the mode of transmission of the

construction, it can be found out that less than 10 percent of the buildings are engineered
which is constructed by engineers, and over 90 percent are non-engineered, by craftsmen
or local masons. In terms of pre-construction investment on the other hand, very less
investment has been done to majority craftsmen whereas there are a lot of training and
fostering process for engineers and even for sub engineers. That is, practically, there is no
investment for production of qualified construction workers in Nepal. Therefore, thinking
about key stakeholders in housing construction in Nepal, whereas there are clients
(owners), consultant which in charge of design as well as construction supervision,
contractor of builders, masons, owner builders, and material suppliers, craftsman or
craftsmen play(s) crucial roles in non-engineered construction.

Approach Taken by NSET: “Make Unaware To Be Aware”

Meanwhile, owner-built non-engineered buildings do not possess earthquake-resistant

features in Nepal. Even engineered buildings do not have compliance with the seismic
demand unfortunately as engineering input is limited only to preparing architectural plans
not site-based works. Due to political and economic situation, there are phenomena of
rapid erection of new unsafe buildings. In addition, large number of already existing
unsafe buildings stock is contributing to high seismic risk of the country. Sort of innovative
approach, thus, should be taken in order to cope for these problems. Facing huge
numbers of owner builders as well as capable masons and hundreds of peoples who
know about the techniques, NSET tried to put them together to make awareness on the
issues around Building Code Implementation. However, in order to launch earthquake
safer housings, dealing with numbers of masons can be unpractical approach in terms of
balance of purpose, achievement and efficiency. There are only less than hundreds

62
trainers when there are several hundred thousands construction.

Figure 2. Gaps in Stakeholders of Safe Housing Construction

Technical / Training Persons

upgrading Training
Involved peoples:

Technical Skill
Less than Hundreds

Involved peoples: Technical

Several Hundred orientation Involved peoples:
Thousands Several Thousands
Demand /
People/community Monitor
Capable Masons
Owner-
Builders Safer House Construction
Involved peoples:
Culture of Prevention / Safety Several Hundred Thousands

Facing the difficulties, NSET took alternative approach by organising a very strong
technical group of experts which involves academic professionals and professional
leaders beyond the country adding to the international cooperation. With the commitment
of technical practitioners like NSET, who can contrinuously get feedbacks from the
scientific research experts, successfully the initiative could create the platform of
interaction of experiences and expertise. NSET also could provide the commitment from
our mobile team, which can tell the capable masons in the field to the platform. At the
same time the technical operation has been done for making awareness for the common
unaware peoples including owner builders regarding to safer buildings. Once unaware
people became aware, they can create demands for more capable masons as well as
monitor masons. Likewise, ultimately, they could create not only safer houses but also
culture of disaster prevention as newly “enlightened” people spread other linkages with
the different sectors of the society

NSET learnt that even the process needs to be expanded and brought in more people to
make the chain of people’s awareness. It is quite huge task and should be conducted
under the concept of social mobilisation. Although what NSET conducts is firstly just to
give peoples some technical know-how, people begins incorporate learnt skills in social
aspects. The process, therefore, needs participation of sociologist, psychologist and then
information workers who help dissemination of the culture of prevention. Figure 3 refers to
broader scheme of what NSET is implementing at the moment for challenging for
dissemination of building code in various corners of the society. Although various inputs
would be needed to complete the scheme, it would give whole picture of the strategy to
lead us ultimately safer house construction and the culture of prevention of the safety.

Even conducting efforts for creating awareness at the side of civil society, it cannot be
enough. Unless civil society gets very strong policy guideline development in the
enforcement body, the challenge can be easily failed. It is therefore needed to create
awareness at the top- policy enforcement level in terms of monitoring of the process. It
should be adequately monitored, educated, penalised for those who go beyond the
regulations, and encouraged the process with so many legal and semi-legal instruments:
Policy, Standards, Guidelines and Mechanisms, which lead the society to the enforcement.
In return from the society, it is needed to enhance the compliance of the community
towards the implementation of the building code which explained above already.

63
Therefore, there is a matching of top down approach and bottom up approach.

Figure 3. Alternative Approach of Code Implementation

Strong Technical Group
Continuous Knowledge and Capacity Enhancement

Social Mobilization Experts Technical / Training Persons

Social Mobilization General Technical Technical Training

Training Training

Technical Mobile
Information Social Mobilizers (Field) Teams
workers (with Social Mobilization Skills

upgrading Training
+ Technical know-how)

Technical Skill
Information
Campaign

Social
Mobilization Technical
orientation

Common / Demand /
Aware people Capable Masons
unaware people Search for Monitor
knowledge Owner-
& Info. Builders Safer House Construction

Culture of Prevention / Safety

Figure 4. Policy, Standard and Enforcement

Strong Technical Group Policy, Guideline Development

Continuous Knowledge and
Capacity Enhancement
and Enforcement Body
Technical / Training Persons Guidelines, Mechanism
Policy, Standards

Technical Training

Technical Mobile
(Field) Teams
upgrading Training
Technical Skill

Technical Support

Enforcement
Continuous

Technical
Compliance and

orientation
Inspection,

Monitoring

Demand /
Aware people Monitor
Capable Masons
Owner-
Builders Safer House Construction

Culture of Prevention / Safety

The challenges and activities explained so far are conducted with the consolidation of
many organisations – not only NSET as a part of civil society, but also with government
department as well as social mobilisers. The group initiated the challenge firstly at the one
of the municipalities in metropolitan area of Kathmandu Valley – Lalitpur Sub-Metropolitan
City. As a result of the work, over 80% of the application of the newly constructed
buildings comply the National Building Code since January 2003. The remaining 20% is
being carried out with a lot of engagement of the applicants. NSET sees that most of them,
at least 15%- and ideally whole 20% would be able to apply the building code without

64
huge problems. In this process, the group could successfully involve not only social
mobilisers but building inspectors. Having cooperation between experts of social work as
well as technical experts, the project can be successful.

Although the project was quite new, municipalities conducted their work excellently with
huge political support including policy guidance. Councillors, the mayor, and responsible
staff members have launched separate section in their department: “Earthquake Safety
Section”. Of course it is not something to say that the establishment of special section can
prove municipalities’ better involvement into the process. We don’t see that the problem
was perfectly solved, but it has been made very sound and strong step to us for safer
construction.

Similar exercises have been launched in other cities in metropolitan area of Kathmandu,
which covers much wider area. It could be very difficult to work with large apparatus where
hardly provokes change in their remaining structure and facilities due to the political
uncertainties whereas smaller municipalities could easily adopt a part of bottom-up and
top-down approaches since 2007. Even though, several other municipalities now
successfully make the code mandatory and several other municipalities are now trying,
otherwise prepared, to implement into the same way.

The efforts illustrated here is just one of the efforts for implementing Building Code into the
field. Working with many stakeholders, the participants to the challenge found that people
want the person(s) in charge to launch measures on safety in institutionalised manners by
responsible organisation(s) no matter what the institution(s) is(are) – NPOs, NGOs,
Governmental institutions and academic institutions. Therefore it is required to devise
instrument to help peoples to achieve their own safety.

Varieties of efforts with people

Along with the efforts to implement Building Code into practice, NSET believes that public
awareness is absolutely necessary. Through awareness related programmes, mobilisers
can contact with the community peoples directly and identify areas to be supported. In
awareness programme, there are many modes of involvement including model
presentation of earthquake resistant construction technologies and shaking table
demonstration. In addition, recently NSET has launched a new term for a part of
awareness activities – Earthquake Clinics. It is a clinic like programme- people walks into
a clinic and a person in charge answer to the problems. Whilst the clinic deals with each
individual, NSET also introduces mass activities; rallies and campaigns.

Figure 5. Shake Table Demonstration, Earthquake Mobile Clinics

Shake table demonstration can be one of the practical methods for awareness delivered
to the people. By showing the image of safety directly to the people mobilisers can
challenge to the people’s risk perception. These methods can show the risk quite simple
manner in front of the community peoples. If the provided object at the shaking table is
something which brings effects directly to the community life, the people can observe the

65
importance of safety as a crucial part of their life. NSET is thinking to do such
demonstration by putting the table into mobile car- which enables to launch the
programme in the entire country. Even though NSET tries to adopt reusable materials for
the efficiency, it is important not to compromising in terms of quality of every programme
at the same time.

Furthermore, continuous efforts to simplify the modes of varieties of trainings are taking
into place; by showing actual construction materials, actual construction methodology and
all typology. Regarding to trainings for local masons, by using various opportunities
including Earthquake Safety Day, NSET trains thousands of masons with strong support
of the government which allocates a lot of efforts. Internationally as well, NSET got
support for awareness programme, including supports from Building Research Institution
of Japan. With the partnership of UNCRD, NSET could launch opportunities of training
programme on code implementation targeting local masons. The involvement of various
stakeholders under UNCRD’s HESI programme, which could be one of the opportunities
of interaction between national government to local masons, symbolises that multi-level
implementation of building code should be needed.

Figure 5. HESI Symposium in Nepal and its Field Based Training, May 2008

Concluding Remarks

It is obvious that increased awareness and enhanced capacity of masons help

implementing building code effectively and practically. Making decision at the top level
alone is not sufficient for the challenge of implementation. It should be needed to have
sufficient number of capable professionals in the field. Meanwhile, bottom-up approach is
powerful for effective building code implementation. When working on bottom-up
approach, there are several tools available. But at the same time, strong policy support
and environment is indispensable for such activities. With multi dimensional efforts, it is
not impossible to achieve the launch society with earthquake safety of buildings even in
weak economy like Nepal.

66
Framework for Building Code Implementation
An Experience of Housing Earthquake Safety Initiative (HESI)
by Jishnu Kumar Subedi,
Researcher,
UNCRD Disaster Management Planning Hyogo Office
JAPAN

Abstract

The paper reviews activities under the Housing Earthquake Safety Initiatives (HESI) of
UNCRD, which has been designed to launch consolidation of the work on dissemination
of anti-seismic building code in target countries; Algeria, Indonesia, Nepal and Peru. The
project is consisted with four main components- system evaluation of the current
institution on building regulations, awareness raising, policy development and capacity
building. The reality in the field the project team found that peoples are struggling for
implementing building regulations, whilst most of developing countries, particularly the
target countries mentioned above, have already a set of relevant codes. By summarising
the lessons learnt in the project, the paper sees further challenges for ensuring building
safety in developing countries.

Damages to buildings and built environments from earthquakes in different parts of the
world indicate the fact that earthquake risk mitigation is one of the most essential task for
sustainable development of a city and region. Earthquake risk mitigation requires proper
implementation of building code. Limited loss of lives from earthquakes in the United
States, Japan and other developed countries with long history of implementation of
building safety compared to loss of lives in India, Pakistan, China and other developing
countries where building safety measures are not properly regulated is an indicator of how
the earthquake risk can be reduced in cities. However, even in the countries with long
history of building safety measures, inadequacies in the performance of building are
evident quite often. Burby and May (1999) mention that cautionary assessments after the
1994 Northridge earthquake found that "there would have been far less damage had
building codes been rigorously enforced." Similar evaluation has been made after the
1995 Kobe earthquake in Japan which resulted in extensive loss of lives and properties
despite of the fact that Japan has long history of practicing building safety regulations.

Building code is a tool which can improve performance of the built environment to
earthquakes and other natural hazards. A survey conducted by UNCRD in 2006 revealed
that most of the earthquake prone countries have already established building codes and
many countries have also enacted the codes. However, lack of institutional mechanism,
lack of complimentary planning tools e.g. zonal planning tools and lack of awareness
about earthquake risk reduction among implementing authorities, designers, builders and
general public have contributed to the poor enforcement of the building codes. The
"failures in enforcement undermine[s] the effectiveness of building codes and present a
challenge in figuring out how to bring about stronger implementation of code provisions."
(Burby and May, 1999)

There has been tremendous development in science and technology of earthquake

resistant building construction and this development have been translated into practical
measures which are documented in building codes, regulations and standards. Despite of
this advancement in knowledge base and available tools, the damages incurred in past
earthquakes provide challenge on how to translate this knowledge into practices so that
the loss from disasters like earthquake can be minimized. Hundreds of thousands of
vulnerable buildings world-wide are waiting their fate in future earthquakes and many

67
more vulnerable buildings are being erected.

Observation of damages from the past earthquakes have pointed to the fact that buildings
perform the way it is constructed in the field not the way it is designed. In order to mitigate
earthquake risk all stages of building construction – from planning to construction and
maintenance – are important. A properly designed building may not perform the way it is
supposed if it is constructed improperly (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Collapse of a newly constructed building from 2001 Gujarat Earthquake

(Left, top), improper detailing seen in one of the columns (Right, top) and a building
under construction in Nepal (Bottom, left) where similar detailing is being practiced

Anti-seismic Building Code Dissemination

During 2006, UNCRD sent a questionnaire to national and local governments in many
countries to collect information on building safety regulations and on the status of
implementation and dissemination in their countries and regions. As a follow-up of the
initiative and planning for next phase on housing safety, UNCRD organized expert
meeting on Anti-seismic Building Code Dissemination (ABCD) in Kobe, Japan on 17-19,
January 2007 to present analysis report on the questionnaire replies and identify pertinent
issues. Summary of survey and the expert meeting is given below 1/:

Status of building code implementation

Most of the earthquake prone countries have building codes
Algeria (Established 1981-83, enacted 1988), Indonesia (1998), Nepal (Established
1994 and enacted 2004), Peru (Established in 1963, Enacted in 1968-70)
Implementation is a key

Challenges in building code-implementation

Capacity of Local Government/ stakeholders (Algeria, Nepal, Peru)
Lack of skill of building control officers
Underpaid staff

68
 No professional trainings and continuing education
Lack of skill/ understanding in designers, petty contractors and artesian
Not enough motivation among engineers on building codes
Social /economic obstacles
Lack of awareness in Public (Nepal, Bangladesh)
Myth –high cost to follow codes (Nepal)
Large ratio of self-built construction (informal)- Peru, Nepal

Housing Earthquake Safety Initiative

Against this background UNCRD Disaster Management Planning Hyogo office

commenced Housing Earthquake Safety Initiative (HESI) from 2007 in four project
countries: Algeria, Indonesia, Nepal and Peru. The goal of HESI project is to improve the
structural safety of houses to prevent damage and safeguard people's lives, property and
livelihood from earthquakes through effective implementation of building safety
regulations. The objectives of HESI are as follows:

- To raise awareness on the importance of implementing building safety regulation

effectively to reduce risk of life and property losses caused by earthquakes

- To develop policy recommendations on improving the safety of houses, particularly that

of traditional houses

- To develop capacity of national and local government officials to implement building

safety regulations effectively

The four activities under HESI are as follows: 2/

System evaluation
Awareness raising
Policy development
Capacity development

Figure 2. Four activities of HESI and their inter-linkages

Awareness
Raising

Demand Creation
System Policy
Evaluation Intervention

Capacity
Development

69
The four components of HESI and their inter-linkages are given in Figure 2. One of the
important components of HESI is creating awareness among general public,
implementing authorities and policy makers. Awareness creation is instrumental not only
in building culture of safety and resilient communities but also in creating demand for
intervention in disaster mitigation. The demand ultimately helps in creating conducive
environment for policy intervention, in realizing institutional mechanism of code
enforcement for the municipal authorities and creating demand for competent
professionals.

Enforcement of Building Code: Compliance vs. Control

Enforcement of building code requires intervention to a wide group of stakeholders: from

general public to policy makers. Their role is interlinked and non-conformity by any one of
the stakeholders is serious impediment to effective implementation of building code.
Although the approach and essential tools may be different, it is essential to reach to each
of the stakeholders in the pyramid (Figure 3, left). At the base of the stakeholders pyramid
is a large mass of general public and at the top of the pyramid is authorities which include
municipal authorities and others who are responsible to devise tools and policies.
Enforcement through control may be effective at the higher level of the pyramid; however,
compliance is more effective at the bottom hierarchy of the pyramid (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Compliance and Control for Effective Enforcement of Building Code

M = Manager
M Control
Designer

Builders

House Owners Compliance

Masons

General Public

In order to achieve compliance awareness-raising is the most important task along with
capacity development and policy tools. Compliance and control have an inter-linkage and
they compliment each other. Compliance can be increased and made effective by indirect
control tools such as housing loans and insurance; whereas, effectiveness of control
relies heavily on compliance. Compliance is effective and achievable strategy for effective
enforcement of building code and it has to be complemented by both direct and indirect
control tools.

Material quality and workmanship

Despite of existence of building codes and serious intention for its effective
implementation, realization of safe buildings in the field requires quality material, good
workmanship and awareness in masons, builders and house owners. After 2004 Tsunami,
Aceh witnessed rapid growth in construction of buildings and there was influx of many
development agencies competing to build largest number of buildings. This intervention in
construction of houses demanded large quantity of material supply and large number of
masons. However, both were in short supply. The local industry could not supply enough
building materials such as bricks and cements and quality was compromised. People
without previous experience in construction were involved as masons and carpenters and
they were never trained about quality construction let alone earthquake resistant

70
construction.

After field visit in construction sites in Aceh of Training on Quality Construction carried out
by UNCRD in August 2008, participants of the training reported many issues about quality
of materials and workmanship. Following is the summary of their report:;

Footing of the column is not placed under the ground but is exposed which points
to lack of proper consideration in design

The brick quality is so poor that it can be crushed in hand

Poor workmanship was observed in the field where size of the column varies
along the elevation and reinforcement bar is exposed.

Figure 4. Problem in design, material quality and workmanship as observed in Aceh

These issues are relevant not only in Aceh but also in other cities around the world. One
sided control mechanism for implementation of building can not solve the problem and
has to be integrated with other tools in order to achieve safety of buildings and built
environments against the earthquakes.

Framework for Building Code Implementation

Building code enforcement needs multi-sectoral intervention and starting point for different
municipalities will be different. Depending upon the prevalent building construction
practices in the area, available resources within the municipalities, condition of existing

71
industries and awareness and capacity among local masons, the strategy for
implementation of building code is different. In order to have a realistic implementing
strategy, the municipal authorities themselves need to assess the circumstances, identify
the issues and develop a strategy that best suits to them.

With this approach, UNCRD organized a Training Workshop in Kathmandu, Nepal to

develop framework for building code implementation for municipalities. Out of 30 about
municipalities participating in the workshop, they were grouped into 3 different categories
according to their size, types and numbers of buildings constructed per year. The
participants participated in group interaction, attended field visit and visited two
municipalities – Kathmandu and Lalitpur – which are already implementing the building
code. Finally, the participants prioritized activities that they consider as most important for
effective implementation of the building code. Priorities listed by one of the groups – group
of middle sized municipalities – are given in TABLE 1. Detail outcome of the workshop is
published in separate publication (Framework, 2008)

TABLE 1. PRIORITIES OF ACTION LISTED BY MIDDLE SIZED MUNICIPALITIES

IN NEPAL (2008)

No Actions
1 Preparation of implementation process guidelines
2 Training to the technical staffs and consultant overseers
3 Computer based structural designing training to designers
4 Establishment of Monitoring cell/ Field inspection
5 Widening of the scope of Mandatory Rules of Thumb
6 Incorporate the code in the housing loan system
7 Trainings to new masons, contractors and technicians (50 masons, 10 J. Engineers, 5
engineers per 100 buildings per year)
8 Field supervision made compulsory to the public and Class A buildings
9 Commitment of Local suppliers and Local Chamber of commerce for supply of quality
materials by sensitizing them

Two priorities are listed as most important: Development of process guideline from the
experience of Municipalities already implementing the building code and capacity building
of designers and technical persons.

Experience of Building Code Implementation

Lalitpur Sub-Metropolitan City (LSMC) was the first municipality in Nepal to implement the
Building Code. Experience of Lalitpur can be instrumental in realization of building code
enforcement not only for municipalities in Nepal but also for other countries struggling with
building code implementation. As one of the priorities of the Framework of Building Code
Implementation was also development of process document, UNCRD in collaboration with
LSMC published a handbook on Building Code Implementation: Learning from
Experience of Lalitpur Sub-Metropolitan City, Nepal (Figure 5). The document
summarized initiation of LSMC and its approach along with organization structure.

The document also provides information on how LSMC conducted awareness raising and
capacity building activities in parallel with building code enforcement. The publication
gives detail outline of the Masons' Training Program with material requirements and cost
estimation sheet, sample public awareness raising program with checklist and cost
estimation sheet and check-list for field inspection system.

72
Figure 5. Two of the publications of HESI project

Figure 6. Flow chart for effective implementation of capacity building program

Management Training
Orientation Program

Capacity Building of Technical

Person in Implementing Agencies

Training of Trainers
Capable Designers/ Trainers

House Owner Contractors

Orientation Training

Masons Training

Capacity Building

Capacity building of technical persons including designers and masons is not an easy task.
Hundreds of designers and engineers are involved in design and construction of buildings
and thousands of masons are involved. In addition to that house owners, contractors,
builders and municipal authorities also need awareness raising and capacity building
programs. In order to reach to the widest possible mass and to make the capacity building
process effective, a step-wise approach is most suitable.

UNCRD adopted the step-wise approach (Figure 6) which started with Management
Training and Orientation Program for municipal authorities and technical persons in the
municipalities. The program was followed by capacity building of technical persons from
municipalities. As awareness raising and training to Masons, Technicians and Builders

73
require large pool of resource persons, a logical intervention would be to develop trainers
by conducting training of trainers and to use them for further training. This strategy can
help in creating large pool of capable resource persons and capable masons who are the
persons to implement requirements of building code in the field.

Conclusions

Building code is important tool for earthquake risk mitigation. Despite of the tremendous
advancement in the technology in earthquake resistant building construction and
demonstrated success of the technology to reduce impact of earthquakes, many
earthquake prone countries are still struggling with implementation of building code. The
earthquake prone countries already have established and enacted building code. Of
course it is essential step but not sufficient. Enforcement of building code requires many
other initiations which need to be developed in parallel in order to achieve the target of
earthquake safer buildings.

Some of the key lessons from observation of building code enforcement can be
summarized as follows:

1. Even with existence of code, effective implementation is challenging task and majority
of earthquake prone countries are struggling implementation of the code.
2. Scale of implementation and intervention is different in different cities and for small
municipalities with majority of construction from informal sector Mandatory Rules of
Thumb (Non-engineered Buildings) can help much for enhancing seismic safety of
buildings
3. Earthquake risk mitigation requires combined effort of designers, builders, masons,
house owners, material suppliers and many others in the chain. Improving quality of
material and workmanship is essential to realize safer built environment.
4. Awareness raising programs are essential initial step as it creates demand and in turn
can help channel political will for effective implementation of the code.
5. Capacity Building appears to be priority one action required for building code
implementation and step-wise capacity building can reduce the time and volume of
the work.

Notes

1/ Detail is available from http://www.hyogo.uncrd.or.jp/hesi/hesi_index.htm

2/ Detailed description of HESI and outputs are given in HESI 2007,
http://www.hyogo.uncrd.or.jp/hesi/hesi_index.htm

Bibliography
May, Peter J. and Burby Raymond J. et al.. Adoption and enforcement of earthquake risk-reduction
measures (PEER Report 1999/04, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of
Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 1999)

Subedi, Jishnu Kumar and Naoko, Mishima (ed.) Handbook- Building code implementation: Learning
from experience of Lalitpur Sub-Metropolitan City, Nepal, (LSMC and UNCRD Publication, 2008)

Subedi, Jishnu Kumar and Naoko, Mishima (ed.) Framework for building code implementation:
Participants resource book (UNCRD publication 2008)

74
Discussion and
Closing Session
Discussion on Non-Engineered Buildings
and Building Code Implementation
Comments from the floor

Anand Swarup Arya, Professor Emeritus of IIT Roorkee

The issue of implementation of the code has engaged attention for the last few years, and
what we thought is that we should have established institutional arrangement in the country.
Now the situation in India we have been having earthquake safety codes since 1962. The
codes are prepared for all buildings and all infrastructures; dams, bridges and etc. For
non-engineered buildings the codes are launched in 1967. Its implementation is, still, very poor.
Why does it happen? It is because our various codes are legally accepted on documents but
not mandatory documents. Therefore there’s a difference between legal acceptability and
mandatory. How do they become mandatory? How they become mandatory only if they go into
the municipal building bylaws, then they become mandatory.

As is where the house plan comes for approval, they can be checked whether they have
implemented or incorporated all the safety measures and plans and laws. This is the area
where to be checked. Now since, in all the municipalities, including municipality and
corporation of Delhi, there was no requirement in the building bylaws whereas all building must
be designed to the code, it is just depended upon the architectures and engineers to adopt. I,
therefore, think the first task for implementation is that, whatever codes we have framed, they
must be made mandatorily through the building bylaws of local body of authorities. This should
be the first step to move forward for housing safety. What India has done in the Ministry of
Home Affairs, where is in charge of management of research on the matter, is to commit into
the rural building bylaw. Actually rural buildings bylaw should be also made, and I strongly
believe that such actions should be taken as the first step of housing earthquake safety.

In addition, in order to implement codes through the building planning approvals which are
obtained from the municipal engineers, it is absolutely required to conduct the capacity
building of municipal personnel. It is crucial to make a path for implementation: as there is
absolutely lack of the capacity entitled, training should be given effectively for municipal
engineers enough to mandatorily enforce the building bylaw, not leaving it to others “sweet”
will. They then must check the plan totally before giving approval. For recent buildings, they
must declare, in the plan, that they are going to provide all the vertical steels, the types of
mortar, etc. Through the building bylaws the checking becomes much easier, and it also brings
transparency in construction.

Secondly, it should be needed accountability. Accountability is now granted by signatures of

certain forms to be submitted along with the building plan: the owner certificate, the builder
certificate, the structural designer certificate. These names should be clearly noted on the
record of municipalities. If something
happens, they are to be accountable to
the matters.

Securing two key elements: transparency

and accountability, the codes are now
ready to be implemented through all the
state governments, local bodies of
authorities. Implementation has still been
done by some municipality, but it is quite
crucial to commit various stakeholders in
institutional manner enough to continue
over ages. However, with just doing
something temporarily the action cannot

76
be long lasting. So what is raised here- the work that I have conducted in India, and the case of
Nepali colleagues cannot be adequate. Those pieces of works should be adopted intuitionally
for lasting effect.

Iman Satyarno, Professor, Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

In the implementation of code or standard, there should be law enforcement. What would be
happened if a construction worker who knows that they met details written required according
to the code? What should be done to him? If the seller of the brick, quality is low, what should
be done to the brick seller? If there is no law enforcement, the practice of non compliance can
be repeated again and again. This is the problem which everyone faces. Although having
implementation the society misses in the implementation.

However, in practice, there is no legal enforcement.

I suppose this is the key factor to successfully
implement all the codes and the standards.
Probably it is quite sarcastic to say that
construction workers who missed making a joint
should be sent into the jail. Criminalisation and
penalisation of incompliance of the code would be
probably one of the solutions but I don’t think it
could be a good idea.

Anyhow, it is sure that something must to be done.

In Yogyakarta, after the earthquake, it seems that
all the construction workers follow the guideline.
They obey the codes – but also they still fear that the disaster may happen again if they make
a mistake. After several years in the future, however, they probably forget it then. In such
situation, if there is law enforcement institutionally as Professor Arya mentioned, the quality of
the construction could be guaranteed as sustainable for the longer use.

Carlos Cuadra, Associate Professor, Akita Prefectural University, Japan

I would like to comment on the problem of informal construction of the rule. Maybe as one of
set of problems, we can found that the owners are incompliant of laws. Why so? Because the
land has not in the situation to obtain a construction licence as it is required to show the land
certificate of ownership. Many settlements were taken by people, and the people take the land
by themselves. They divide the land but they don’t have certificate which refers that they are
the owner of the land. The problem starts here. Then, at constructing formal building, people
needs a land certificate, which could be impossible procedure for them. As they cannot get the
document, they start construction by themselves. Of course, it is not exactly them to construct-
as in practice they work with some masons usually.

The other problem that I would like to raise is that the vital facilities which constructed under
ordinary rules can be failed during earthquake. Hotels, for example even a hotel which should
have been constructed in accommodation with the code regulation were failed. They obtained
license for the construction - but what can be the reason for the failure? I think in that case,
their failure was the lack of knowledge of engineers. Unfortunately good professionals are
concentrated in big cities, not rural areas which covers majority of the parts in most of the
countries. There are not good professionals in rural areas. Dichotomy of “rurality” and
“urbanity” in engineering and distribution of professional engineers should be one of the major
areas to be tackled.

Shoichi Ando, Coordinator, UNCRD Disaster Management Planning Hyogo Office

I would like to make remarks on how to implement the building code. There are two issues on
this work. The first issue is, as is the Peru case, whether owner will take a formal procedure of

77
building code. The owners sometimes feel that tax office will impose tax to their own property.
Also, the proportion of non-engineered building can be prevailing one of amounts of formal
building due to the current tax system in some countries probably. In addition, another
preoccupation to implement building code is that whether the owners will take that the formal
procedure spends so much time that the owners might face more problems in construction.
Some politician may even think that building code implementation may prevent economic
development. Actually last year or two years ago, in Japan, some delay in building permission
procedures caused slight economic recession, which leads to a kind of social problem. From
the experience of Japan, however, the building permission procedure is nothing to do with tax
system anymore in the country. Fortunately Ministry of Finance didn’t rely on Ministry of
Construction. Then there is no connection between for the moment the tax system and
building permission system in Japan.

The second issue that I would like to raise is on the relation between economic recession or
the delay of the procedure and the application of building codes. Normally the Japanese
building code permission system allows that local government has to give permission within 3
weeks in case of rather larger building. For small buildings or detached houses, the permission
has to be given within 7 days. Meanwhile in other countries normally it takes one or two
months for checking or permission system. These requirements are rather strictly followed in
comparison with other countries. If having a kind of transparency in procedure, the delay of the
procedure which might lead economic recession would be nothing to do with the application of
the codes.

78
Concluding Remarks
by Kenji Okazaki,
Professor,
National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS)
JAPAN

Thank you very much for your participation

today to the symposium. As having worked for
UNCRD Disaster Management Planning
Hyogo Office, I believe that I was asked to
make a wrap-up comment on today’s
discussion.

Reviewing the discussion

Today we have discussed Building Code

implementation. Arya, Professor of Emeritus
of IIT Roorkee delivered a great presentation
based upon his knowledge and expertise on
non-engineered building policy. The own
experience was shared from Indonesia by
Teddy Boen, International Expert on Non-Engineered Buildings. He showed us various
issues around non-engineered houses in the process of reconstruction in Aceh: he raised
critical issues in international development aid policy as well. Regarding to Nepal, where it
has been introduced building code recently, Sangachhe, Director of DUDBC, shared the
outcome of their activity and efforts of the implementation. Narafu, Senior Coordinator of
BRI highlighted the fact that the engineering technology cannot be accurately
implemented into the construction site, and discussed the gap between the engineering
and construction.

Otani, Professor of Emeritus of the University of Tokyo, gave technical insight about
retrofit and the application of various methodologies with specific examples. He also
raised the issues of existing buildings, which are not covered with the current building
code. Ando, coordinator of UNCRD Disaster Management Planning Hyogo Office,
explains about the field survey conducted under UNCRD’s mission, and applying the
lessons for strategy buildings for the future activities on housing earthquake safety. From
Nepal, Amod Dixit, Executive Director of NSET showed various mindsets in the activities
in terms of the implementation of building code in the field. The experience in Nepal
illustrated that it is required to introduce strongly policy support. Lastly, Subedi,
Researcher of UNCRD Hyogo Office, referred to what UNCRD has done in the HESI
project for dissemination of building code implementation, particularly on
institutionalisation for obtaining compliance of building regulations as well as efforts of
putting codes mandatory, which was also agreed by Arya in the discussion.

Further Challenges for Housing Earthquake Safety by Policy Arrangements

Obviously, efforts of institutionalising of policies on compliance of Building Code are

essential and indispensable. When it is said “compliance” – it might be somewhat
“top-down” words, but inter-disciplinal inter-directive measures should be taken including
awareness-raising as well as capacity buildings of staff members who would conduct
monitoring activities of the codes. But even disseminating and implementing building code,
even in Japan, cannot achieve effective protection of existing buildings, which do not

79
apply the updated codes and/or became unsafe against earthquakes due to deterioration
of the building. The importance of awareness raising, sensitisation of the issues, capacity
buildings and education was raised by most of presenters today at the symposium. It
might be unpractical to expect the all existing buildings can be safe enough against the
earthquake disasters just by dissemination of building code through such channels.

In my opinion, I found that there would be some sort of factors, in our society, which
prevent from exercising the code into practice. There are, for instance, some measures
taken in which “non-compliant peoples” can get more benefits than “compliant peoples” do.
Whilst building codes ensures the seismic safety of the buildings, victims, no matter if they
are compliant to Building Code or not, could be supported equally by (public) mutual aid
funds after the disaster. In case of Japan, at maximum 3 million yens would be paid to the
victims from Socioeconomic Rehabilitation Aid Funds without asking for the quality of
destroyed houses. Earthquake Insurance, as well, which supported 550 billion yens (80%
could be paid from National Revenue, which is directly input from the tax), would be
probably paid mostly to those who did not follow the code. After all, code-followers would
be granted less rights to spend tax money whilst non-follower could be justified to spend a
lot of tax money; not only for reconstruction funds but also for response operation such as
removal of debris and instalment of temporary houses.

Therefore, there should be new mechanism to create more incentive in peoples to be

directed to follow building codes: more benefits would be granted to followers of the codes
whereas the benefits to non-followers should be re-considered by focusing more on the
aspect of humanitarian needs rather than reconstruction supports in general. Justice for
followers, therefore, would be essential for creating incentives for the compliance in the
society. This means that the aid system should be reformed to make enable those, who
followed very well the code but unfortunately face house destruction, be provided
maximum and the fastest support for reconstruction and recovery. Another option would
be differentiation in payment of tax and insurance based upon the situation of compliance.
With such efforts to institutionalise compliance of the code, I believe that the earthquake
resistant engineering and technique can be disseminated widely, and implemented deeply
in the society.

80
Indonesian Earthquake Problem
by Teddy Boen,
International Expert on Non-engineered Buildings
Senior Advisor of World Seismic Safety Initiative- WSSI
INDONESIA

Abstract

Almost every year earthquake disasters occur in many places in different parts of Indonesia
and cause damage and destruction to non-engineered buildings. Despite of the many human
casualties and the severe impact on the regional economy and development, it seems that
relatively little is being done to prepare, prevent or mitigate the effects of future earthquakes.
The Yogyakarta (27 May 2006), West Sumatra (6 March 2007), Bengkulu (12 September
2007), Dompu (Sumbawa, 25 November 2007), and Simeulue (20 February 2008)
earthquakes are repetitions of all past occurrences and is a demonstration that not much has
been done with regard to non-engineered buildings. With the re-occurrence of the same
mistakes until today, it is time to review about “the earthquake problem in Indonesia“. This
paper discusses about some important issues for Indonesia to ensure that all non-engineered
buildings are earthquake resistant.

Key words: non-engineered, code, technical competence, research, retrofitting

The Problem

Every time there is a damaging earthquake in Indonesia, all printed as well as electronic media
provides a wide coverage about the earthquake related problems. Various government
agencies/departments announce plans to take care of the problem. Many experts and
scientists are being interviewed by newspapers, tabloids, magazines as well as TV stations
and issue numerous opinions regarding what has happened and offer solutions to prevent
similar happenings in the future. Needless to say, all “experts” that were interviewed
considered their field of expertise as the most important and therefore, the media is filled with
all sorts of opinions which are confusing the common people. The actual real problem is the
damaged or collapsed of non-engineered buildings during the earthquakes and very few are
highlighting the need to make all non-engineered buildings earthquake resistant. Subsequently
many seminars, workshops, trainings related to earthquakes are held. The community is lead
to believe that their earthquake safety is taken care of, until the next earthquake shows that not
much has been done since the last damaging earthquake. With the damages and casualties
that occurred in the past two years, among others in Yogyakarta (27 May 2006), West
Sumatra (6 March 2007), Bengkulu (12 September 2007), Dompu (Sumbawa, 25 November
2007), and Simeulue (20 February 2008) it is high time to do some introspection with regard to
“what is the Indonesian earthquake problem”. It must be admitted that since the largest
tsunami in modern history Dec 26,2004 in Aceh and the repeated earthquakes in the last two
years, there is no drastic change in earthquake related matters, such as the enforcement of
seismic resistant buildings all over Indonesia. Also, no regulations related to earthquakes
resistant buildings have been changed. In Aceh and Yogyakarta during the reconstruction,
most of the buildings are still being constructed following the old practice, prevailing prior to the
occurrence of the damaging earthquakes.

Normally, after those damaging earthquakes, the government should have a comprehensive
plan related to earthquake resistant development. Also, until today no requirements have been
issued related to retrofitting of buildings. As an example, Indonesia enforced a compulsory
primary education, on the contrary many school buildings collapsed in past earthquakes. The
damages that occurred in Yogyakarta, West Sumatra, Bengkulu, Dompu, and Simeulue

82
showed that simple houses collapsed claiming human lives. In Yogyakarta, with the assistance
from JICA there is an ongoing activity to introduce the Building Permit System (BPS) for simple
houses in villages, however, so far the code for non-engineered buildings is not yet developed.
A BPS is part of an enforcement of a code (ref. 1/).

It is very common that every stakeholder in earthquake matters tends to think that its role is the
most crucial in addressing an issue. Therefore, there are always differences of opinion
between scientists, geologists, engineers, administrators, social scientists and NGOs on how
to solve the problem. Some stakeholders would say that mass awareness campaigns are
needed to create a demand for safe buildings. Others would say that more seismic instruments
are critical. Many recommend tsunami early warning system and drill exercise for the purpose.
Or would think seismic micro-zonation must be prepared before any progress can be made.
Administrators explain that everything is taken care off and many other statements, opinions.
All those different opinions are important, however, no one will disagree that the problem will
simply go away if somehow all buildings are built earthquake resistant. It is very clear, unsafe
building stock, particularly non-engineered buildings, is the problem and the solution is to (a)
ensure that all new non-engineered buildings are earthquake-resistant, and (b) all existing
non-engineered buildings are made earthquake resistant over a period of time through well
thought retrofitting suiting the local culture.

Ensuring that All Non-engineered Buildings are Earthquake Resistant

Some important issues for Indonesia to ensure that all non-engineered buildings are
earthquake resistant as follows;

1. Public Awareness

A program concerning the safety of buildings when shaken by earthquakes will be easily
implemented if there is awareness in the society. It is easy to implement safety programs if the
public is well aware of the seismic risks. The Dec 26, 2004 Aceh tsunami and the repeated
disastrous earthquakes within the past two years could in fact be used to create awareness
concerning earthquake risk, however, since no concerted and systematic efforts were done,
the government / authority missed the momentum to start while the awareness is still there.

Information concerning the need to build earthquake resistant buildings, to use good quality
materials and to adopt earthquake resistant features must be continuously and consistently
disseminated to the community. This shall be made as the main target of the government, to
create awareness for the need to build earthquake resistant, non-engineered buildings.
Awareness of the need for house owners to incorporate earthquake resistant features in
buildings as they are constructed. This activity will require a variety of commitments and
adjustments on the part of the government. The first is enacting a national housing policy
which recognizes the role of non-engineered buildings, supporting activities to improve this
type of housing and developing a public awareness program concerning asseismic
construction practice should be the immediate goal.

2. Technical Competence

Forty years ago, the author introduced the subject earthquake engineering into the curriculum
of the Civil Engineering Department of one University in Jakarta and currently almost all civil
engineering departments in Indonesia teach the subject. The subject is only taught at the
undergraduate level and is focussed on engineered buildings. Non-engineered buildings are
not being taught and the subject building construction is lately not taught intensively. In the last
twenty-five years, many engineers, architects, government administrators, contractors got
their post graduates in earthquake engineering at various reputable universities abroad.
However, to date, similar damages to non-engineered buildings still occurred after
earthquakes as demonstrated in the past two years; implying that some rethinking must be
introduced with regard to earthquake engineering in Indonesia.

Besides the non performance of engineers in this regard, there has also been a considerable
decay in the capabilities of artisans and technicians associated with building trade. A mason

83
today has far lower competence than one two decades ago. As explained earlier, most
structural engineers, architects and consultants might be familiar with “engineered” buildings,
however, do not consider non-engineered simple houses as part of their trade.
Non-engineered buildings are considered too simple for engineers and are left at the discretion
of the foremen (ref. 2/). In actuality, not many engineers have the capability to do structural
analysis for non-engineered people’s houses, and already forgot about the correct way of
laying bricks, mixing concrete, preparing correct reinforcing detailing for seismic resistance.
This unfortunately resulted in the poor quality of the houses built so far in Aceh and Nias, that
were supervised by engineers and architects who were supposed to have the very basic skills
needed for earthquake resistance. Equally true is the fact that currently it is very difficult to find
artisans who still have the qualifications to appropriately construct a simple house.

No doubt non-engineered buildings must be introduced in the earthquake engineering syllabus

and the subject on building construction must be refreshed. However, a lot more remains to be
done to raise the competence of engineers and architects regarding non-engineered buildings.
It is essential for the successful implementation of improved construction practices for
earthquake resistance that engineers and architects be familiar with these requirements.
Therefore, the competence of engineers and architects entrusted with design and supervision
of non-engineered buildings should be upgraded. Equally important is to raise the competence
of the construction workers.

It is also suggested that professional societies should work closely with universities to develop
courses of study for engineering and architectural students related to effects of earthquakes
on non-engineered buildings. It is essential that information on improving building designs to
better resist earthquakes be made available to engineering and architectural students. This
can be done by holding seminars, workshops, special lectures and formal courses.

3. Guidelines for Non-Engineered Buildings and Information Dissemination

The current Indonesian seismic code does not regulate non-engineered buildings. A seismic
resistant code for non-engineered buildings is urgently needed. The code should be a
performance code rather than a specification code. The code should be more an expression of
desired results than a set of instructions on how to attain that. Minimum building standards
based on building performance and emphasizing the safety of the occupants should be
developed by the government for non-engineered buildings. For the purpose, all
existing/available materials should be adopted and not try to re invent the wheel. The code
must have clout, because codes are of little use unless it is backed by a powerful enforcement
agency and a comprehensive inspection service. Effective communication of correct
techniques for earthquake resistant houses is essential. Although the technology may be
known by engineers/architects and those involved in housing development, simple materials,
easily understandable to the villagers must be developed and disseminated. One of the major
constraints found in Aceh and Yogyakarta was a lack of imperative to adopt construction
methods for seismic resistance. Among the contractors, engineers, architects as well as
construction workers, little or no awareness of earthquake risk exists; therefore, attempts to
introduce new practices did encounter difficulties. Due to the long interval between events,
even those who experienced earthquakes often felt the threat was too remote to warrant
change. House owners were aware of seismic activity, however, tremors of recent memory
failed to drastically affect their houses, they felt that their houses were strong enough to
withstand earthquake shaking. Construction habits will be dictated by tradition, popular trends,
availability and cost of labour and materials. Concurrently, efforts to enact legislation against
erratic building habits in villages should also be encouraged.

4. Seismic Retrofitting of Existing Non-Engineered Buildings

In Indonesia, the sophistication required for undertaking retrofitting has not been adequately
articulated. In Aceh, several NGOs assigned the design of seismic retrofitting for a large
number of poorly built houses to some structural engineers/ engineering firms. Unfortunately,
no effort was made to ensure that the individuals/firms are capable of delivering such services,
or that the expectations from them are realistic. It is becoming clear that many of those
individuals/firms had no expertise for such a task, particularly for Indonesian non-engineered

84
buildings. Some facts about retrofitting need to be recalled: Retrofitting is a corrective measure
and therefore, almost all corrective measures are usually costly. It requires considerable
expertise and technical know how when the objective is to achieve better than life-safety
performance. Judging from the huge number of houses all over Indonesia that must be
retrofitted, it is very urgent to develop consensus documents on seismic assessment of
existing non-engineered buildings, and criteria for seismic retrofitting. The documents should
contain solutions to make those buildings earthquake resistant utilizing locally available
materials and workmanship and suiting the local social, cultural, ethnographical, economical
as well as political conditions. It is basically activities which can be carried out by homeowners
with minimal financial and technical assistance, and do not require extensive reconstruction or
modification of the existing building. To do that, a lot of preparation and background work is
needed before a serious effort at retrofitting can be launched and the government / authority
must not miss the momentum to start while the awareness is still there. The government
should first make a policy decision that retrofitting of houses is in the interest of the
government and should develop an appropriate framework to encourage such activities.
Subsequently, the government must designate agencies to serve as coordinator for housing
improvement activities.

5. Research and Development

Methods of construction in Indonesia differ from methodologies used abroad, particularly with
regard to non-engineered buildings. Therefore, several technical problems require indigenous
research and development. There is a clear need to focus research on “engineering” of
earthquakes as against the focus on “science” of earthquakes that many researchers have
been doing. It is important to put in perspective that earthquake safety is a rather challenging
engineering problem requiring decades of focused work, and that even though science is
important, engineering aspects shall not be trivialized or ignored. The contributions science
can make to reducing earthquake disasters are necessary and needless to say that if possible,
the best approach to earthquake problems is to work on all the fronts simultaneously:
engineering, science and instrumentation, public awareness, public policy, etc.

Much can be learned from foreign research results and in principle some of the results could
be applied provided they are adjusted to suit Indonesian conditions. For Indonesian
non-engineered buildings, technological solutions wherein the common man can construct an
ordinary earthquake-resistant house with locally available resources are needed. Such
technology can be found by studying the site specific information and adhering to the local
culture. In this regard, most probably foreign consultants must learn from Indonesia and not
the reverse. It is precarious to know that for the reconstruction of the minimum size houses in
Aceh after the December 26, 2004 tsunami, more than 2000 foreigners were in Aceh for the
purpose, more so, to learn that the majority of the houses built are not earthquake resistant (ref.
3/ 4/ 5/ 6/ 7/
, , , , ).

Concluding remark

The problems as elaborated above are similar in India (ref. 8/). In the author's opinion, the
Indonesian earthquake problems are equally valid for most developing countries.

References

1/ SEEDS International Cooperation. Sub-Project on Housing Administration Capacity Enhancement to

improve the vulnerability of Housing for Central Jawa and DIY Earthquake Reconstruction Program,
Indonesia (Expert for Architectural Design Engineer, Final report March 20th, 2007)
2/. Sukamta, Davy, Bangunan Tahan Gempa (Kompas, 11 Juni 2006)
3/ Arup, Ove & Partners Ltd. Tsunami Appeal Assurance Mission (REP/121348/001, Disaster
Emergency Committee, 28 November 2007)
4/ Arup, Ove & Partners Ltd.,. Aceh & Nias Post Tsunami Reconstruction – Review of Aceh Housing
Program, April 2006 (2006)
5/ Boen, Teddy, “Reconstruction of Houses in Aceh, Twenty Months after the Tsunami of Dec 26, 2004”,
(12th Japan Association Earthquake Engineering (JAEE) Symposium, Special Session, Japan,
November 2006)

85
6/ Boen, Teddy. “Building a Safer Aceh”, (40th Anniversary of Trisakti University, “Answering the
Challenges in Today's Civil Engineering”, 2006).
7/ Boen, Teddy.. “Reconstruction of Houses in Aceh, Seven Months after the Earthquake & Tsunami,
Dec 26, 2004”, (ICUS Conference, Singapore. 2005)
8/ Jain, Sudhir K.. The Indian Earthquake Problem (Current Science, Vol. 89, No. 9, 10. 2005)

Bibliography

Arya Anand. Swarup. Masonry & Timber Structures including Earthquake Resistant Design (New Chand
& Brothers)

ATC-40. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings Volume 1 (Applied Technology Council,
California. 1996)

Boen, Teddy. Indonesian Earthquake Problem, (ICEEDM, April 2008)

Boen, Teddy. Engineering Non-Engineered Buildings, from Non-Engineered to 3D Non-Linear Analysis,

Performance Based Design, (HAKI Conference, August 2007)

Boen, Teddy. “Sumbawa, Indonesia, Earthquake of November 26, 2007”, (EERI Newsletter Vol. 42,
Number 1. 2007)

Boen, Teddy. Bengkulu & West Sumatra Earthquakes, September 12, 2007, Structural Damage Report
(2007)

Boen, Teddy. West Sumatra Earthquake, 6 March 2007, Structural Damage Report (EERI, 2007)

Boen, Teddy. Yogya Earthquake 27 May 2006, Structural Damage Report (2006)

Boen, Teddy. Membangun Rumah Tembokan Tahan Gempa, (Jakarta, 2005).

Boen, Teddy. “Nias / Simeulue Earthquake March 28, 2005” (EERI Journal, Vol.39. 2005)

Boen, Teddy. Sumatra Earthquake, 26 December 2004 (Special Report ICUS, 2005)

Boen, Teddy, and Jigyasu, Rohit,. “Cultural Considerations for Post Disaster Reconstruction
Post-Tsunami Challenges” (UNDP Conference, 2005)

Boen, Teddy. “Earthquake Resistant Design of Non-Engineered Buildings in Indonesia”, (EASEC

Conference, Bali, 2003)

Boen, Teddy. “Earthquake Resistant Design of Non-engineered Buildings in Indonesia”, (EQTAP

Conference, Kamakura, 2001)

Boen, Teddy. “Earthquake Resistant Design of Non-engineered Buildings in Indonesia”, (EQTAP

Conference, Bali, 2001)

Boen, Teddy, et.al.. “Post Earthquake Disaster Relocation: Indonesia’s Experience”, (APEC Conference,
Taiwan. 2001)

Boen, Teddy. “Impact of Earthquake on School Buildings in Indonesia” (EQTAP Conference, Kobe,
2001).

Boen, Teddy. “Disaster Mitigation of Non-Engineered Buildings in Indonesia” (EQTAP Conference,

Manila, 2001).

Boen, Teddy. Gempa Bumi Bengkulu: Fenomena, dan Perbaikan / Perkuatan Bangunan 5 (Berdasarkan
Hasil Pengamatan terhadap Bangunan-Bangunan yang Rusak akibat Gempa Bumi Bengkulu, 4 Juni
2000), (Jakarta, 2000)

Boen, Teddy. Bencana Gempa Bumi: Fenomena, Akibat, dan Perbaikan / Perkuatan Bangunan yang
Rusak (Berdasarkan Hasil Pengamatan terhadap Bangunan-Bangunan yang Rusak akibat Gempa Bumi
Biak, 17 Februari 1996, (Jakarta, 1996)

Boen, Teddy. Manual Perbaikan dan Perkuatan Bangunan yang Rusak akibat Gempa Bumi
(Berdasarkan Hasil Pengamatan terhadap Bangunan yang Rusak akibat Gempa Bumi Kerinci, 7 Oktober
1995), (Jakarta, 1995)

86
Boen, Teddy. Earthquake Hazard Mitigation in Developing Countries, the Indonesian Experience (1994)

Boen, Teddy. Manual Perbaikan Bangunan yang Rusak akibat Gempa Bumi (Hasil Survey Gempa
Lampung Barat, 16 Februari 1994), (Jakarta. 1994)

Boen, Teddy. Anjuran Perbaikan Detail Struktur Bangunan Sederhana yag Rusak akibat Gempa Bumi
(Hasil Surey Gempa Bumi Halamahera, 21-1-1994), (Jakarta 1994)

Boen, Teddy. Manual Perbaikan Bangunan Sederhana yang Rusak akibat Gempa Bumi Flores, (Jakarta,
Desember 1992)

Boen, Teddy. Detailer’s Manual for Small Buildings in Earthquake Areas, (Jakarta, 1978).

Boen, Teddy. Dasar-Dasar Perencanaan Bangunan Tahan Gempa (Jakarta. 1969)

Building Research Institute Japan. Result of Consulting Activities (2006)

CIB/W-73. Small Buildings and Community Development (Proceedings, International Conference on

Natural Hazards Mitigation Research and Practice. 1984)

Computers & Structures Inc.. Technology for a Safer World Put into Action, (CSI Berkeley,
www.csiberkeley.com. 2004)

Curtin, Shaw, Beck. Structural Masonry Designers Manual, (BSP Professional Books. 1987)

Fintel, Mark. Handbook of Concrete Engineering (Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1974)

IAEE Committee on Non-Engineered Construction. Guidelines for Earthquake Resistant Non-Engineered

Construction (International Association for Earthquake Engineering. 1986)

Institute Technology Bandung. Rebuilding a Safer Aceh (2006)

Kicklighter. Modern Masonry: Brick, Block, Stone, (Goodheart-Wilcox Publisher. 1996)

Kyoto University & WSSI. The World Bank Group - Training Module Development and Follow-Up
Training Programming on Community-Based Disaster Management for the Community Based
Settlement Rehabilitation & Reconstruction Project for Aceh & North Sumatra (CSRRP) (2006)

Mayes, Ronald L. and Ray W. Clough. State of the Art in Seismic Shear Strength of Masonry – An
Evaluation and Review, (Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
1975)

Pauley and Priestley. Seismic Design of Reinforce and Masonry, (John Wiley & Sons, Canada, Ltd.
1992)

Sahlin, Sven. Structural Masonry (Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1971).

Tomazevic, Miha. Earthquake Resistant Design of Masonry Buildings (World Scientific Publisher, Co.
1998)

87
Efforts for Anti-seismic Building Code Dissemination
UNCRD’s Housing Earthquake Safety Initiative (HESI) 2007- 2009
by Shoichi Ando,
Coordinator,
UNCRD Disaster Management Planning Hyogo Office
JAPAN

Abstract

The paper records and analyse activities conducted under UNCRD’s Housing Earthquake
Safety Initiative 2007 – 2009 (except workshops conducted in Aceh-Indonesia in Oct 2008 and
international symposium in Tokyo in Nov 2008), which focuses particularly on Anti-seismic
Building Code Dissemination (ABCD), The paper also defines the directions to go for the future
activities on housing earthquake safety.

Outline of HESI

In January 2007 United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD) Disaster
Management Planning Hyogo Office launched a project titled “Housing Earthquake Safety
Initiative (HESI)”. The project aims to improve the safety of houses and protect them from
earthquake disaster through effective implementation of building code. The project is
implemented in Algeria, Indonesia, Nepal and Peru. Although building code is only a part of
large dialogue of building safety, it is important and key element. Under this initiative, UNCRD
provides an international information exchange platform to share policy experiences. The
activities included perception and implementation gap analysis of target countries, awareness
raising among the stakeholders, developing policy recommendations on improving safety of
houses and developing capacity of national and local officials to implement building safety
regulations effectively. One of the major activities envisaged in HESI is creation of platform for
networking, information exchange, sharing of knowledge and sharing of good practices in
mitigating earthquake risk throughout the world.

The project aims to improve structural safety of houses to reduce impact of earthquakes in life
and livelihood of people through effective implementation of building safety regulations.
Because the collapse of buildings and houses is the single largest cause of human deaths and
economic losses resulting from earthquakes, anti-seismic building code dissemination (ABCD)
and effective enforcement of control systems can reduce the loss significantly. Though many
earthquake prone countries now have building codes, there is serious challenge for effective
implementation of the codes because of lack of awareness, lack of institutional mechanism for
implementation and insufficient capacity of authorities.

Preliminary Survey of HESI

The HESI project attempts to rectify the situation through its 4 core activities: system
evaluation, awareness raising, policy development and capacity development. In November
2006, a pre-survey on building code enforcement was conducted involving a number of
countries in the world. The responses obtained uncovered the existence of vulnerable
houses spread in a number of earthquake prone countries. In Peru, for instance,
non-engineered houses, which are built without proper structural safety considerations,
account for 60 percent of the total building stock in the country. The survey also found that
although many responding countries indicated that they have building codes in place, the
codes are not effectively implemented due to a number of problems including lack of capacity
of building officials and low level of awareness among public and building professionals on the
code itself or the safety aspects of houses.

88
Figure 1. Four Components of HESI Activities (Left) and HESI Expert Meeting in Kobe, 2007
(Right)

Although building code is a technical document to be used by technical persons, the

stakeholders responsible for enacting, managing, implementing and observing the building
code are at different levels from general public to the national government. Even though legal
provisions make the building code mandatory and non-compliance to it subject to legal actions,
control is not a practical approach to implement building code. This fact can be observed from
the implementation of building code in different countries. In Nepal, it has been mandatory
from 2005 in all Municipalities to implement the building code. However, only three out of 58
municipalities have initiated the process. Peru has long history of enactment of building code,
but there is significant gap in implementation in the field. This is true for many other developing
countries as well.

HESI Expert Meeting in Kobe

UNCRD held an expert meeting on Anti-seismic Building Code Dissemination (ABCD) project
for Housing Earthquake Safety Initiative (HESI) in Kobe in January 2007. The representatives
from India, Indonesia, Japan, Nepal and Peru joined it. The following are the key points raised
at the meeting:

Role of the private sector in building code implementation should be explored including the
private sector in building permit process might make the process more efficient. Peer review
can be useful if there aren’t sufficient municipal engineers to examine all buildings.

It is required to establish a strategy in order to enforce building code to existing buildings and
not only to new constructions in developing and developed countries. There is a need for
training and capacity development, including the strengthening of existing training institutions
towards safer non-engineered housing. Guidelines will suffice for non-engineered houses.
Technical research should be done to set the minimum specifications such as size, width of
walls and the use of columns. They have to be readily understandable for people with no
technical background.

There is an immense need for awareness raising how to educate communities and technicians
about the importance of making safer houses. Information hasn’t tricked down to communities
and individual house owners. Community-based activities are the key. There is an issue of
setting policy priorities, governments tend to devote more resources for primary health, basic
education and infrastructure development and pay little attention to earthquake resistance of
non-engineered houses

Awareness raising and Dissemination

Compliance is difficult to achieve without awareness. House owner who is aware of the
practical measures to reduce earthquake risk in building prefers to follow the standard which is

89
not only cost effective but also saves life in case of earthquakes. A large group of general
public, who is aware of the impending disaster of sitting in vulnerable buildings, not only
comply with the building code provisions but also create demand for trained technicians,
trained masons and trained builders. Therefore awareness raising and capacity buildings are
inter-related tasks and features as one of the key components in the approach of HESI for
effective implementation of the building code.

The awareness of general public has three parts: first, they know the risk and try all means to
reduce the risk; second, they know that incorporating earthquake resistant measures in new
construction doesn't increase the cost significantly; and third, they know that such measures
need to be considered from the very beginning of construction i.e. from the planning process.
Once house owners have this awareness there will be increased demand for trained
technicians and masons. In order to cater to the public demand, a large pool of trained
technicians and masons is required and this process requires a well planned approach: From
top to bottom the number of required trained persons increases by geometric ratio. Therefore,
capacity building requires a systematic approach where first tier of trainers are developed who
can serve as trainers for next tier. This approach is effective not only in developing large mass
of trained manpower but also in developing such manpower in a short time.

Disseminating building code is an effective tool to safeguard houses from earthquake disaster.
However, a number of challenges are expected as UNCRD implements the HESI project in
Algeria, Indonesia, Nepal and Peru. Two selected challenges are mentioned. The first
challenge is to define the process that is appropriate for individual country contexts. Each
country has diverse stakeholders of housing safety and the relationship among them might
differ. Each of them might require a unique coordination approach. The second challenge is to
disseminate the code to communities. In order for a building control system to work, there
have to be not only knowledgeable, well trained and highly motivated suppliers of building
code but also demanders for building code implementation. The system will always have a
loophole unless people who pay for houses demand that their houses be made safe. It is
imperative to have a system of punishment for violators of the code, and the house owners
and other community members can be part of the enforcement body. The role of governments,
both national and local, is enormous given the fact that they have to be technically capable to
enforce the code as well as to be able to convince and motivate professionals and the public to
comply with the building regulation.

HESI National Meetings in Nepal and Peru

Raising awareness on the earthquake-proof buildings and the importance of enforcement of

building regulations is one of the core project activities. In this regard, the first national
workshop was held in Nepal and Peru in August 2007: 1) to raise awareness among policy
makers from the national government and code implementing local governments, and 2) to
identify problems that hinder effective building code enforcement. In Nepal, for instance, only
three municipalities currently implement the Nepal National Building Code. The two-day
consultative workshop in Nepal was attended by over 70 participants from the Ministry of
Physical Planning and Works (MPPW), Ministry of Local Development (MOLD), mayors and
executive engineers of 20 municipalities, UNDP, NGOs, academia and the media. The
One-day workshop in Peru was held immediately after an earthquake that claimed over 500
lives in August 2007, and was attended by 30 participants from the Ministry of Housing of Peru
including Vice-Minister, universities, the media and other relevant institutions.

UNCRD in partnership with MOLD, Department of Urban Development and Building

Construction (DUDBC)/ MPPW, and National Society for Earthquake Technology –Nepal
(NSET) conducted a two–day workshop in Kathmandu on 2-3 August 2007. One of the
objectives of the workshop was to find country specific problems in effective implementation of
the Nepal National Building Code (NBC). The workshop, attended by senior officials and
engineers from the Government of Nepal and municipalities all over the country, underscored
the fact that capacity development of local authorities is necessary for effective implementation
of the building code. A survey among the participants was conducted which showed that 91
percent of the participants were familiar with the building code before attending the workshop.
The survey, however, showed that 53 percent of the attending municipalities do not have

90
building bye-laws for implementation of building code and all of the municipalities expressed
their desire to develop building control system in their municipalities. As the second step of the
HESI project in Nepal, a training workshop on “Building Code Implementation" was organized
on 19-23 May 2008 for engineers/planners/architects from 25 Municipalities all over the
country. The workshop was organized by UNCRD in partnership with the DUDBC/ MPPW and
NSET.

After five days of lectures, field visits and group discussions, the municipalities were asked to
draft actions which are most essential in their municipalities to implement the building code.
The municipalities were divided according to their size, population and number of
constructions per year into large (Group A), medium (Group B) and small (Group C). The
municipalities recommended series of actions in 5 different aspects of building code
implementation: Design aspect, municipal laws and bye-laws, field inspection and monitoring,
quality control and capacity building and awareness raising. They further discussed within the
groups and came up with priorities of action for building code implementation in large, medium
and small sized municipalities.

Conclusion

The results and future direction of the HESI project are as follows; in case of Nepal,
institutionalisation of building code enforcement is expected to result in better coordination
between the MPPW and municipalities that are responsible for code implementation.
Institutionalisation means more periodic and vigorous training activities for municipal
engineers, which will have a direct impact on the effectiveness of building code
implementation. The Executive Officer of Kathmandu Metropolitan City committed to establish
a new section for building code enforcement in the near future. Learning from public
dissemination initiatives by other municipalities is expected to increase similar activities
nationwide. In case of Peru, HESI is expected to contribute to safer housing involving a wide
range of stakeholders in the presence of increased awareness of the need to make houses
earthquake resistant following major earthquakes of 8 October 2005 in Pakistan, 27 May 2006
in Java of Indonesia, 15 August 2007 in Peru and 12 May 2008 in China. The final results of
HESI will be disseminated during in 2008 and 2009 through various international events
including the nest Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction (GP/DRR) in 2009.

The conclusions arrived from the HESI / ABCD including problem identification workshops in
2007 and training workshops in 2008, are very important in order to understand the process of
building code implementation in developing countries.

• Mandatory Rules can help much for enhancing seismic safety of buildings in urban areas;

• Checklist for middle size buildings for capable municipalities, for others support to check
design will be provided;

• Capacity building appears to be priority one action required for anti-seismic building code
implementation;

• In order to incorporate building permit process in the building code existing system can be
modified and clearer legal provisions can be devised;

• Political and social acceptability of the urgency to implement building code and the roles of
municipality, national government, engineering and/or architectural councils, professional
associations, academia in its implementation needs to be enhanced;

• Awareness raising programs creates demand and in turn can help channel political will for
effective implementation of the code;

• Municipal engineering professionals have pivotal role in developing systems for effective
implementation of building code by: 1) Creating demand and 2) Establishing system for
addressing the needs;

91
• In case of earlier implemented countries, illegal buildings caused problems. Illegal building
construction without permission should be decreased by promoting incentives, awareness
raising, capacity building and political measures.

For further information

Outline of the HESI/ABCD project: http://www.hyogo.uncrd.or.jp/hesi/hesi_index.htm

Preliminary survey on anti-seismic building code:

http://www.hyogo.uncrd.or.jp/hesi/survey.htm

Outcomes of the Expert meeting for ABCD in Kobe:

http://www.hyogo.uncrd.or.jp/hesi/exp_meeting.htm

General conclusions from Peru workshop: http://www.hyogo.uncrd.or.jp/hesi/peru_ws.htm

General conclusions from Nepal workshops:

http://www.hyogo.uncrd.or.jp/hesi/nepal_ws.htm

92
Extracts of Discussion on Earthquake Housing Safety
conducted at the Expert Meeting

Chaired by Teddy Boen

Regarding to “Indonesian Earthquake Problem” (presentation conducted by the chair prior to

the discussion / Incorporation of non-engineered issues into engineering

Hidetomi Oi
JICA has been developing retrofit-related initiatives in El Salvador for past five years with
particularly focusing on structural examination and building methods of adobe made houses,
which are widely used for poor peoples in the country. Now we are going to its second phase
of the project on house retrofitting for poor peoples. My concern, regarding to the presentation
on Aceh case which focusing on “retrofitting” of new houses, is on method of retrofitting:
whether there is a housing retrofitting method to be applied to poor populations in the region.

Teddy Boen
Yesterday’s session [ref. earlier papers written by Arya and Boen] stressed that for non
engineered buildings we must use marginal cost with materials available on the site. For
example, when a professor of a university in Tokyo introduced new methodology he asked me
if it can be applied to Yogyakarta case. Without doing basic research, I could say it would not
be acceptable to Yogryakarta. Apparently it was correct that they built good example which
nobody came up with. But it should have been applied with local materials. The methods after
all, after the launch of one model building, it was rejected in Yogyakarta. In other countries as
well: Nepal and Pakistan, the situation is the same.

Anand Swarup Arya

When I visited Nepal to explain about non-engineered buildings, we have tried to do retrofitting
by examining the structural safety, utility and the cost: including painting, and other additional
payments we need. And we found that the retrofit project cost much less than replacement and
rebuild of the house. So I recommend strongly retrofitting in seismic zones. Back in India, I am
teaching buildings- like caring human body. But there are some factors to demolish those
buildings in the society. But even adding some costs for improvements of the buildings,
retrofitting costs much less than replacement, and in urban planning it should be taken full
account of utility of retrofit methodologies as well as efficiency. Retrofitting should take main
parts of mindsets of engineers. When engineers enter to the seismic zones, even in Nepal and
Pakistan, they try to remove all the buildings. So I strongly believe that such mindset should be
changed totally. Therefore, now in India, the guideline was developed: assessment, retrofitting
techniques, and repair, restoration. Such sets of guidelines are legally accepted document.
Therefore, in order to enhance the initiative for retrofitting, institutional arrangements should be
launched.

Teddy Boen
Yes, we have the same phenomenon in Indonesia regarding to mindset problems on
retrofitting. But the retrofit works should not be something for psychological retrofitting by
making major changes in the buildings without quantifications. The important thing in
retrofitting is to identify the components to be restored / strengthened.

Marqueza Reyes
First of all, thank you very much for input. Although it was a highly specialised engineering
related topic, it was very clear not only for engineering experts but also for non-engineers:
including me. My question is about on Tsunami- as the input was more on earthquake. I am
wondering if there is already acceptable performance of housing regarding to Tsunami.

Teddy Boen
What we must be more concern is earthquake shaking and not tsunami. This is because
tsunami is a collateral hazard and is relatively a rare phenomenon compared to earthquakes.

93
Maybe one tsunami is out of 100 earthquakes and in a particular area only. For example, if you
live in coastal areas in Western part of Aceh, you need to build earthquake resistant two story
building and make the sleeping rooms on the second floor. Many papers wrote that the
tsunami "wave" in Aceh was 40 m high, but there is no evidence. If we look at mosques along
the coast that survive the tsunami, the walls and windows between the columns on the ground
floor were wiped out, but people who climbed to the roof of the mosques were saved.

Tsunami is not a wave; tsunami is a wall of

water which approaches the coast with a
velocity 50 km/hour. In Aceh, people who were
on the second floor of their houses were saved.
However, if your building is not earthquake
resistant, earthquake shaking could damaged
or caused collapse and could claim lives.

Amod Mani Dixit

Have you analysed the remains on palm
trees? I saw the picture of a (tall) palm tree
affected by tsunami.

Teddy Boen
In Aceh, almost all houses destroyed and walls are broken into pieces by the tsunami. Those
wall pieces were carried by the tsunami and sometimes bumped into coconut trees and those
pieces formed a stake of debris along the coconut tree trunk. And the wall of water climb along
this wall of debris, sometimes reaching the coconut leaves. Tsunami wall of water very strong
and scoured the beaches and moved the mud along the beaches / rivers into land. That is why
after the tsunami, 1/3 of Banda Aceh is full of black mud and because the flow was very strong,
many victims were “impregnated” by the black mud and dead bodies are blackish.

Anand Swarup Arya

We have already drafted a tsunami-resistant structural design home which will be used for
offshore structures. Meanwhile, for onshore, the technique that is being suggested is to build
two or three storey reinforced concrete column with in-fill walls. And you must not use the
ground floor permanently for something: use it for play area or something others. So the in-fill
wall will be like fuse: when the first wave comes, those walls will give way, the columns will
remain standing, the building will remain standing and then no danger from tsunami.

Amod Mani Dixit:

Now I have one more question regarding Banda Aceh. I was also unfortunately there so that
you might count me as a “tourist engineer”, that is tsunami expert that you criticised. What I
was surprised then that nobody talked about the destruction of earthquake because there was
time gap between tsunami and earthquake. I must guess that there must have been several
destructions by the earthquake.

Teddy Boen
Magnitude is not equivalent to degree of damage. In Aceh, the epicentre of the M9.0
earthquake was approximately 125 km from Banda Aceh. Therefore, even though the
magnitude is substantial, the damage by shaking only occurred to buildings that were very
poorly built. One of the engineered buildings that collapsed is the hotel building and witnessed
by participants of the 10K marathon gathered on an open area closed to the hotel. The
participants of the 10K marathon were not to concern because they were saved on an open
area. Thirty minutes after the earthquake, the first tsunami water entered the city, but the deep
of the water was approximately only 30 cm.

People started running to the centre of the city which is closed to the main mosque. Five
minutes later, the second water "wall" with a height of 2 m came and than subsequently
followed by the third. The second one wiped out almost everything. One case worth
mentioning is the prison located behind the main mosque. Prisoners were locked in cells and
died in their cells. People run to the main mosque and up to the second story the tsunami level
stopped just at the level of the last stair. Thousands of people were saved in the mosque that

94
was some kind of miracle. In Aceh, many of the mosques remained standing.

I was asked by a Malaysian reported to explain as an engineer why the mosques are standing.
I replied as follows; "I think nobody dares to steal from God." If you built my house, maybe you
dare to steal the cement, or the reinforcing bars. It is not only phenomena in Aceh. In Thailand
and Sri Lanka, almost all religious buildings survived the tsunami.

Anand Swarup Arya

It is not God’s mercy. I have seen churches collapsed in Baroda I have seen temples collapsed.
I have seen mosques collapsed. In North Yemen a mosque collapsed killing 200 children who
were using the mosque as a madrassa, as a teaching place. So please do not be misled that
God’s house is safe. God’s house is as unsafe when it is built by man, not by God.

Teddy Boen
Many mosques in Indonesia that collapsed usually were built after 1965, after the 1965 coup
d’etat. At that time, if you did not go to the mosque, you will be branded as a communist.
Therefore, even though people were very poor, they built mosques with whatever materials
they had and needless to say, they were very poorly built.

In Indonesia, we stress the important of earthquake resistant buildings, particularly hospitals,

schools, religious buildings, etc. among others by creating earthquake awareness. However,
because the interval between two events is long, we tried to tell people to build earthquake
resistant houses, if necessary providing them with technical assistance. Such pilot project was
launched in Yogyakarta with Gadjah Mada University students and professors. Students
assisted community based initiative; this is what is community-based all about. They assisted
the people almost 24 hours – they give the guidance by saying "You do this, you do that".

Now we have building codes or comprehensive documents. But people do not read them.
Even for me – five books, I have difficulties in reading. This is why we translate the codes into
posters. For poor people, they must know the "how" only and leave the "why" to the engineers
to explain.

Amod Mani Dixit

I have one comment on your project. It seems that your poster is too much crowded with
information. I think maybe you should make two or three posters. Containing everything into
one poster might be too much of information for peoples.

Teddy Boen
No, we put one poster for one type of reinforcement; so it can not be too much for people.
Guidance on timber reinforcement and concrete reinforcement are put in different posters. The
poster size is big enough, and it can not be problem – it is big enough to read easily. So,
people look at it and say: "Oh, I make the foundation like this. I mix the concrete like this".
Otherwise they have to look into several pictures.

USAID saw the posters, provided the fund for printing and distributed to people for free. In my
opinion, you must make similar posters. I visited many villages and asked whether they
understand the posters and explained the
parts that they do not understand. From my
experience, those posters are well accepted
and understood.

After the Yogyakarta earthquake, I analyzed

the one-brick thick masonry wall buildings
that remain standing. Apparently one-brick
thick masonry walls are more stable even
though without reinforcement compared to
half-brick buildings.

Surya Bhaktha Sangachhe

We have recently the flooding problems in

95
Eastern Nepal and far Western Nepal. Many people are displaced because the river has
changed the course and the whole villages have been washed out in Nepal and in Bihar. Now
JICA has a program now for poor people on land and preparedness: it has gone from the
tradition of the community I think the posters are very useful tool.

Teddy Boen
I developed theses posters. Why? – It is to get through what you want to poor people. Poor
people are very humble and honest people. Once they see a computerized drawing or they
see a lecture note, then they might say "I never attend the school". They get scared. So
psychological-wise you must give them as many drawings – if possible in free hand. If drawing
in free hand, they might think: "Oh I can also do this". So that is why I made the posters as
simple as possible. Do not put too many explanations because they get scared off and they do
not read, particularly some of them are illiterate.

Surya Bhaktha Sangachhe

What I am to say is, the new engineers do not know the detailing particularly when the
teaching is something wrong. The real carpenters that are the experienced carpenters are
better than these new engineers.

Teddy Boen
Yes, exactly. When I went to ITB, I got lectures regarding the theory of bricklaying and at the
same time to practice bricklaying. At that time, I did not pass because I did not pool a chord to
lay each layer of brick.

Surya Bhaktha Sangachhe

I agree. From the last 3 years my department is being entrusted to reconstruct the buildings
which have been damaged during the last 10 years of insurgency. We have the problem about
new engineers have been sent to the site and they do not know the detailing. I found it a very
difficult point from the new engineers and then as we have mentioned that we have made this
detailed – corner detailing, T-joints…

I Wayan Sengara
That’s because of change in curriculum. I think before 1970s and 80s, most of the
constructions handled such methods: it is first to like lay a bridge, bricks and so on. But after
90s, the engineering look for the high rise buildings. They forgot about the non-engineering
structures but they do not realize that most of the victims come from this kind of building.

Amod Mani Dixit

Actually I had a fight with the institute. The engineers, even the professors, they say they can
do mason training. I, then, say “no, you can’t”. First thing that you have to start is respecting
the mason: this is the first course in mason training. So they say “no, no, no, what you are
talking?” Then I say “you are not allowed to teach. I will ask you to sit in the mason training.
Once you go together with the mason, only then you can start teaching given a mason”. They
said that I was crazy. They really thought, still perhaps some of them they thought that I was
crazy. But I did not allow them. I did not put my NSET logo in the certificate that they
distributed. The reason is because it was
wrong. They gave masons so much of
knowledge which masons did not understand
at all. They were not living with masons.
They were not eating with masons during the
lunch. They had lunchtime separately- they
did not talk about their family or their houses.
So they are detached. Engineering has been
mystified so much in our country that people
are absolutely scared of the engineers.

Anand Swarup Arya

Can I just cite you one attempt that we have
made for mason training because this is an
important issue for this discussion. We have

96
just got one booklet where all mason training published by the UNDP in New Delhi, which is a
6-day hands-on training program after giving them some knowledge about what happens
during the earthquake, showing pictures, and explaining many theories. Then, the real thing
starts – how to make the mortar, how to lay the bricks for earthquake safety, how to lay the
vertical sheet, etc. During this 6-day training, they are required to construct one room using all
the details. Now, the manual for this training is already printed out. I have checked every bit of
it and approved, then only it was printed.

Now, the second book that we have got prepared is for the training of that trainer or the training
of engineers who will be supposed to train the masons. It is important to know that trainers
also need to be trained. Trainers are told what they have to do before the class come; which
means, all the materials get ready beforehand.

For them also, a training manual has been prepared and he is told what he has to do before
the class comes – get ready for them all the materials everything ready. And so that is
training of the trainer. Also a manual has been prepared. I hope that they will make these
books available free to any country or anybody who would like to have a copy of those. In my
view, such kinds of materials will give the real practical tips for training of the trainers, for
masons and the training activities delivered to masons in the field. I have insisted the training
must include a factor of hands-on. That is, they should do something during the training period
so in 6 days training; they will start with the foundation, they will raise the walls, they will raise
the roof also, and they will prepare one room during the training. This is the information I would
like to pass to you.

Amod Mani Dixit

Regarding to the problem of training of craftsmen and others, in many developing countries
what I have seen is that they do not produce the instructor’s manual. They just produce the
handout to be given to the masons whereas instructor’s manual is not produced. When we
produce the instructor manual, we have the instructor manuals as well as the handouts for the
masons, just a carry-home document. For the instructor’s manual, it provides advices to the
engineers starting from how to talk to the mason; set of instruction and information is prepared.
I guess perhaps similar to what Professor Arya has produced.

This is not what engineers do. They criticise

us by saying “Are you to teach us something?
You are from an NGO and trying to teach us?”
That is why I am requesting engineers to
make instructors manual an official Nepali
document so that the training for trainers
could be an educational method acceptable
for all, not only for NGOs.

Teddy Boen
I agree with Amod. In Indonesia I suggested
that all universities should go back to basic;
re-introduce subjects concerning building
materials and building constructions. How can an engineer instruct a mason if they do not
even know how to lay bricks? In Aceh, I found that poor construction is allowed because the
facilitators / inspectors do not know that it is poor construction.

For your information, 30 years ago, I already prepared a detailer’s manual for small buildings
in earthquake areas. Now it is planed to be published by CSI – Computers & Structures, Inc. It
will be printed in two languages. Although the manual was written 30 years ago, it is still
relevant. It has a lot of drawing – so people can see “do like this, do like that”. So if I may
suggest to Nepal, Nepal should translate the code into a poster – so that you have a very
comprehensive code for non-engineered buildings.

Amod Mani Dixit

Our building code of Nepal provides for mandatory rule of thumbs which we have translated
into Nepali language but not into posters. But the problem is, Professor Arya and Professor

97
Otani, our universities teach our students how to design a 30-storey building not a two-storey
building. And the entire teaching profession is geared towards fulfilling the demand of
developed countries. I do not find good engineers in Nepal now. Everybody has migrated
somewhere outside of the country. So, I have to take whatever remaining, patriot ones, and
then start teaching them because they also have not been able to learn engineering methods
necessary for the country.

Shunsuke Otani
I hope you are not blaming engineering education in universities. I do not think we can ask
students to learn how to lay bricks, masonry works and so on. I do not think it is our subject to
teach at universities. I think you should develop training schools for workers. I understand the
differences between masonry trainings and higher education for engineers. In universities, we
have to abstract the phenomenon, develop theories and teach those theories to students.
Student will learn the theories or basic ideas, and then develop her/his own ideas. This is the
important part of the university education and I do not think it is possible for a student to learn
how to mix concrete. We do not have much time anymore. Education on practical techniques
should be done at other place. Our engineers or our graduates will never mix concrete on site.
That is not our job or a graduate’s job. I think there should be some separation.

Amod Mani Dixit

But they should understand the logic of mixing concrete and the logic of laying the bricks.
Engineer should be able to distinguish a bad concrete from a good concrete.

Teddy Boen
It is different in Indonesia and Nepal compared to Japan. In big cities like Jakarta, engineers
just call the concrete mix factories and stipulate the strength they want and the concrete truck
mixer will deliver to the site. The engineers do not have to know how to mix it. However, in
villages engineers must know how to lay bricks and how to mix concrete. If engineers do not
know, how do you expect the poor people to know?

Anand Swarup Arya

I agree with Professor Otani on this subject. Earlier when I was a student, we were taught such
things during construction. We were taught also carrying out surveys on the practice although
those subjects are completely out of the syllabi of engineers. Rather, as the demands on the
engineers are now for major structures whilst major structures are coming in almost every
country.

Therefore, the answer to the problem is that we have to bring this subject in a strong way in
our junior engineering polytechnics and industrial training institutes and that is where are to be
trained and then they become the trainers. Now people like me who have spent more than 50
years in profession, we started from seeing the bricklayer’s job to the most sophisticated
computer analysis applicable to what they were showing vibration of the mathematical model.
Who will do it if engineers don’t do so? I think these are areas of work to be shared. At the
national level we cannot expect full involvement of high-level engineers whilst we also need in
large numbers. So, we should have industrial training institutions and the diploma polytechnics
for doing this job and learning these traits. The engineers, of course, should have exposure,
maybe by way of 2 days training or 3 days
training – then they can put their theoretical
ideas also into work.

Amod Mani Dixit

But the philosophical question is, do you
mean to say that for non-engineered
construction, the engineers trained by
universities should not be involved or you
want to detach it?

Anand Swarup Arya

They need to be involved – but in a very small
way, not in the way that you would like to

98
have them for trainings of the masons, I do not think so. I got the manual done and I could be
with the engineers who will be the trainers for a day to explain the whole philosophy of the
things around the non-engineered construction. As somebody said, earthquake occurrence is
the mother of earthquake engineering. I have learned through observations in earthquakes. I
have learnt in Bali earthquake, in Katmandu, and in so many other areas how the
constructions and bad construction, good constructions were being done. But since it was
more personal interest, most engineers will not like to do that – let me tell you very frankly.
Most engineers will not even like to go to such badly affected areas and most engineers will
not like to go at the engineering construction sites. They will be very happy sitting in air
conditioned rooms and doing the computer work and design work.

Amod Mani Dixit

What I raise here is a much deeper question. Shall we confine dissemination of our imitative
only to the technicians or training-school graduates whilst the Government in our case only
looks at you – an engineering university? Engineers trained at Stanford or Tokyo University
are rated much higher than graduates of training schools. Now in this discussion if I presume
that the graduates of the training school should be better knowledgeable for my
non-engineering construction than Stanford or Tokyo University- graduates. But the
government as well as the society listens to high educated engineers- so my problem is not
going to be solved.

Shunsuke Otani
I do not think we should separate engineered construction and non-engineered construction.
Our graduates from universities do not have to do non-engineered construction and so all of
our graduates cannot do the construction of non-engineered. Some may do. For example,
some of our graduates will teach at universities but not all of them. They would go to design
office and they would go to some construction site. So some may go to non-engineered
construction site. But you are expecting all of our graduates to do non-engineered construction.
That is not the case.

Anand Swarup Arya

I think some of university graduated engineers will look at also government offices, university
buildings, large hospital buildings. Who will do so if they do not do so? Not every engineer will
be able to do that. Therefore, I think the ability of the engineers will determine who will go here
and who will go there. It is a job.

Shunsuke Otani
Also Mr. Teddy Boen is involved in non-engineered construction whilst he is a graduate of
engineering. But he is designing very tall buildings as well.

Teddy Boen
I do both, engineered as well as non-engineered constructions. That is why in Indonesia,
engineers must know about non-engineered constructions as well. If we ask engineers
whether they know non-engineered construction, they would said "Yes, I know", while in reality
it is not the case.

In Nepal also, you might be qualified to deal

with engineered constructions but not
necessary non-engineered houses. I think
such gap is not good for the country because
the majority of the people build and live in
non-engineered buildings. In closing, I would
like to mention about one good example in
Padang, after the September 12, 2007
earthquake. There was a hospital that was
damaged and there were cracks in the walls.
The hospital director immediately (the
following day after the earthquake) just
patched and repaired the hospitals by
themselves.

99
Shoichi Ando
In regard with the political solution on involvement of engineered to non-engineered structure,
as Professor Otani mentioned, University students learn only a little small part of the
non-engineered construction in Japan. Through learning on structure, culture, and multiple
viewpoints on the wooden structure, which is Japanese traditional non-engineered structure,
we absorb some idea on Japanese history of non-engineered structure a bit. So far we have
categorised Japanese architects in three classes through political involvement- first class,
which is engineered, second class and third class. Second class architect is qualified as high
level carpenter. It is a kind of expert of non-engineering structure but we call it second class
architect or second class structural engineered. And later, the ministry established the third
class- it is a kind of wooden class architect; which is not so popular in Japan at the moment. By
recognising both sectors under categorisation of a set of policies on architecture, Japanese
policy tries not to divide the engineered and architects into non-engineered person. But it is
just a categorisation- second class architects can be applied to the first class architect exam
after some experiences.

Jishnu Kumar Subedi

Just I want to add that in the discussion whether or not to include non-engineering construction
is because majority of the constructions are non-engineered construction. There is a demand
for non-engineers who can talk about or discuss non-engineered construction. But the demand
from the student side is different. Because I come from the engineering institute (Nepal
Engineering College), so demand is totally different. They want to go for high-rise buildings.
Our institute now has started just for rural engineering which focuses on aspects of
non-engineered construction. So that might be one approach to consider this problem.

Also, as Professor Arya mentioned, the key has been capacity building. UNCRD has
conducted questionnaire based survey on mechanism of building codes, and found there is a
necessity of capacity buildings on matters related to codes. Therefore, HESI 2007-2009 have
focused on the issue- and the challenge is still continuing. What I want to mention, just to
summarize, is that, there is already existence of knowledge base. We have codes, guidelines,
and everything. Therefore, maybe it is a good idea to translate that code into something
understandable to the local masons and others. And in Nepal there is a good practice of these
mandatory rules of thumb, but which is a very thick document. So it should be translated into
something comprehensive. Therefore through HESI works, such opportunities are always
available: to see how to upscale local experience to the country-wide level. Also, I would like to
mention that we work with various local partners including NGOs as well as academic
institution; and the implementation of our work would be done with the cooperation of those
stakeholders.

Regarding to current issues and the way to go

Shoichi Ando
As it is shown in various materials prepared by
Ministries, for example, since past 25 or 30 years
ago, some efforts of disseminating building code
have been done here in Japan. And now, the
current Japanese issue is retrofitting of houses,
particularly after Kobe earthquake. Firstly, for
non-engineered construction, self-checklist was
developed by the ministry with supervision of Tsuneo Okada, professor of the University of
Tokyo. Besides, the ministry has prepared very thick document on the concrete structure as
well. Meanwhile, I would like to introduce you that the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology (MEXT), Government of Japan, prepared the guide and set of good
practice booklet for promoting retrofitting of school buildings. It refers to total assessment
system of all Japanese schools including how to select the schools to be retrofitted.

Jishnu Kumar Subedi

I would like explain the school safety with based upon experience of UNCRD’s initiative on
school earthquake safety. What our coordinator, Ando, has mentioned is that earlier in Japan

100
we have no policy to retrofit all the schools. Particularly after the Kobe Earthquake they
realised that the schools built before 1980 which were using the previous code had some
deficiency, so maybe 60% of the educational facilities were considered to need retrofitting. The
MEXT organised a guide, which is a very comprehensive one and it will be very useful and not
only for schools but other buildings as well that information.

Shoichi Ando
Regarding to school retrofitting, the MEXT is subsidising for its cost. However, cost for
assessment of school building is subsidised not by the MEXT but by the MLIT (Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism). Therefore, school is just a part of the building related
policy under the MLIT – MLIT prepared
the subsidy system to assess all types
of buildings even if it is private sector.
The ministry subsidises to local
government if local government
prepared the plan to assess all the
building in their municipality.

Amod Mani Dixit

So private hospital buildings are also
subsidised or being assessed by MLIT?

Shoichi Ando
It is subsidised by MLIT through local
government. The cost is around 200
million (US) dollars per year, only for assessment. But if the retrofitting cost is maybe 100
times bigger than assessment cost- so it cannot be done at the same time.

Jishnu Kumar Subedi

Japan has a very comprehensive policy for school retrofitting; comprehensive in the sense that
they have included all the components; how to assess vulnerability etc. The major part as far
as I remember is transparency; not to hide the information and to make it public. Then, the
publics take it as very important issues. With regard to the experience of retrofitting under
UNCRD for School Earthquake Safety Initiative (SESI) the outcome documents would be
issued in early 2009, and shared to the stakeholders of HESI as well.

Amod Mani Dixit

If you endorse the translation of English reports into posters, do you think that you can include
it in your further project? Shall we put proposals?

Teddy Boen
Yes, I will assist you.

Amod Mani Dixit

Very good. But somebody should provide the research also on this regard. So can we make
proposal for the next phase of HESI?

Shoichi Ando
The next phase of HESI from 2009 to 2012,
the budget will be decided by the MLIT,
Government of Japan, soon. MLIT also
would like us to focus on the existing
building. Therefore this time I appreciate
all the participants that very useful
information, especially for the existing
building – how to deal with existing
buildings.

101
Contributors

Presenters at Symposium, Nov. 2008

Anand Swarup Arya (India)

Professor Emeritus of IIT Roorkee / National Seismic Advisor, Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India. Expertise in earthquake engineering, he has supported recovery from
Gujarat Earthquake in 2001 as well as formulation of guidelines on Anti-Seismic Safety
buildings in U.P. and Kashmir Winner of UN Sasakawa Disaster Prevention Award in 1997. He
has contributed as advisor of many projects under UNCRD- including IndESI- India
Earthquake Safety Initiative 2001-2004.

Teddy Boen (Indonesia)

Leading expert on earthquake engineering in Indonesia / Senior Advisor of World Seismic

Safety Initiative WSSI. He is considered as the founding father of modern earthquake
engineering in the country. During the recovery from earthquake and tsunamis hit in Aceh in
2004, he has contributed a lot for retrofitting of buildings in the region. He is international
expert on non-engineered housings.

Surya Bhaktha Sangachhe (Nepal)

Director of Department of Urban Development, Building and Construction (DUDBC),

Government of Nepal (-2008). He has long experience for slum development issues as well as
Heritage Conservation in many parts of Nepal, particularly at Lumbini, Patan, Bhaktapur and
Kathmandu. He has developed so far manuals and reports on Building Regulations Bylaws for
municipalities of Kathmandu Valley as well as Land Pooling for financial strategies for
development of urban infrastructure.

Tatsuo Narafu (Japan)

Senior Coordinator of Building Research Institute- BRI (PhD in Engineering, Tsukuba Univ.).
After graduating from University of Kyoto, he worked for Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,
Transport and Tourism (MLIT), Government of Japan. He moved to BRI in 2003 and has been
dedicated to earthquake engineering research globally. Not only coordinating some
international research initiatives conducted by BRI, he is involved, as expert, development
project in Indonesia and Peru launched by development agencies such as World Bank.

Shunsuke Otani (Japan)

Emeritus Professor of the University of Tokyo. After graduating from University of Illinois (PhD
in Engineering), he has taught at University of Illinois, University of Toronto, The University of
Tokyo, and Chiba University. He is one of the international leading experts on RC Structural
Engineering, and awarded with many prizes.

Shoichi Ando (Japan)

Coordinator of UNCRD Disaster Management Planning Hyogo Office. After graduating from
the University of Tokyo (PhD in Engineering), he has been engaged into Housing policy, Urban
Development Policy, and Disaster Mitigation (building and urban context) at MLIT,
Government of Japan. Contributed for the establishment of CISMID – Japan/Peru Seismic
Disaster Centre in Lima, and dedicated to Department of Environment of OECD- Paris as
Chief Management Officer.

102
Amod Mani Dixit (Nepal)

Founder and General Secretary of National Society of Earthquake Technology – Nepal

(NSET), Mr. Dixit also serves as its Executive Director. He is a renowned geologist, and has
been closely studying the affects of earthquakes mainly in the Himalayas – particularly India,
Pakistan and Nepal. He has 30 years of experience of working in areas of landslide, erosion
and flood hazard mitigation including 20 years of efforts in earthquake risk reduction.
Contributed article to World Disaster Report 2002, organised by IFRC, and awarded with
RONAST Science and Technology Promotion Award 2005 (by the Royal Nepal Academy of
Science and Technology)

Jishnu Kumar Subedi (Japan)

Researcher of UNCRD Disaster Management Planning Hyogo Office. After graduating from
Saitama University, Japan (PhD in Engineering), he has been involved in teaching and
research on Earthquake Engineering and Disaster Risk Reduction as Vice Principal/ Associate
Professor of Nepal Engineering College before joining UNCRD.

Kenji Okazaki (Japan)

Professor of National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS), Tokyo, Japan. He has
been engaged into Housing policy, Urban Development Policy and International Cooperation
at Ministry of Construction (former MLIT), Government of Japan. He has also worked for
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UN/ESCAP),
Bangkok, and the Secretariat for International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR),
Geneva. Before joining GRIPS, he worked at UNCRD DMP Hyogo Office as Coordinator.

Participants for Expert Meeting

Anand Swarup Arya (India)
Teddy Boen (Indonesia)
Shunsuke Otani (Japan)
Surya Bhakta Sangachhe (Nepal)
Amod Mani Dixit (Nepal)
Kenji Okazaki (Japan)
Tatsuo Narafu (Japan)

He Yong Nian (China) Research Professor, China Earthquake Administration

I Wayan Sengara (Indonesia) Professor of ITB - Institute of Technology, Bandung
Iman Satyarno (Indonesia) Professor of Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta
Marqueza Reyes (Philippines) Lecturer, University of Philippines, Quezon city
Najib Ahmed (Pakistan) Professor, Preston University
Lasarusa Vuetibau (Fiji) Mineral Resources Department
Hidetomi Oi (Japan) Senior Advisor of Japan International Cooperation Agency- JICA

[UNCRD Secretaries]

Kazunobu Onogawa, Director

Shoichi Ando, Coordinator, Disaster Management Planning Hyogo Office
Jishnu Kumar Subedi, Researcher, Disaster Management Planning Hyogo Office
Hayato Nakamura, Research Assistant, Disaster Management Planning Hyogo Office

103
Chief Editor:
Shoichi Ando

Editors:
Jishnu Kumar Subedi
Hayato Nakamura

Design and layout:

Hayato Nakamura

Cover pictures:
Front: Some Extracts from UNCRD’s field survey on damages caused by Java
Earthquake (2006) in Yogyakarta
Front-Back: Building Code/ Guidelines prepared by Lalitpur Municipality Office, Nepal-
photo prepared by UNCRD Disaster Management Planning Hyogo Office