Showing posts with label retrofitting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label retrofitting. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 28, 2021

Community Based Seismic Retrofitting Program for Disaster Risk Reduction

Seismic retrofitting improves community resilience on housing. Even it is smaller activities compare to the post-disaster reconstruction. It is still workable even during Covid-19 pandemic on reducing earthquake risk on densely populated houses. This writing is based on retrofitting program implemented by Indonesian Red Cross and supported by the American Red Cross and Build Change, and funded by USAID. The program takes place in Indonesia at a city and at a sub-district which are located at earthquake prone area.

Many houses were poorly built in the earthquake prone area; therefore, they are in vulnerable state. Homeowners might not realize that they are at risk until earthquake with certain magnitude occurs. Their houses might collapse or might have significant damage. Therefore, these houses need to be seismically strengthened as a disaster risk reduction measure. In densely populated community this initiative become more crucial since large-scale houses might collapse if earthquake occur. Moreover, the debris might block their narrow evacuation route. Even retrofitting is less expensive compared to the rebuilding cost, but due to unavailability of funding more people reluctant to retrofit their houses.  During the program implementation, several initiatives have been taken to promote seismic retrofitting and strengthened with the community engagement initiatives. All of these are to create retrofitting demand at community level.

Seismic retrofitting and disaster risk reduction

Photo: Retrofitting with conventional method

Seismic retrofitting is to modify the existing structures to make them more resistant to the seismic activity due to the earthquakes. After the retrofitting, the structure could be damaged by the earthquake at certain elements such as beams but must not catastrophically collapse. Retrofitted house might prevent sudden failure which might cause its dwellers get injured. Seismic retrofitting can be done either in recovery or in preparedness setting. But to carry it out under homeowners’ initiative on preparedness setting is bit difficult compare on post-disaster recovery. During recovery process the house owners have the urgency to repair and retrofit their houses. On the other hand, without disaster occurrence homeowners tend to put retrofitting below other priorities.

There are similarities whether it is in recovery context and preparedness setting. Retrofitting is intended not to demolish the house but to strengthen it. It is the cost, to begin with. Cost-benefit assessment is used to evaluate the effectiveness of various seismic retrofit strategies to address concerns about earthquake safety and damage to older concrete frame buildings. When houses evaluated on the basis of repair costs only, the maximum cost of retrofit measures that offer a positive rate of return is 10% to 30% of the building replacement value.[i] Secondly, retrofit need skilled masons and under experienced technical person supervision. It is because seismic retrofitting need’s structure evaluation to check its vulnerability, design and then the construction work itself.

Since the cost is less than to construct from foundation to the roof, retrofitting can be implemented in every economic situation. During economic slowdown, retrofitting provides important contribution to the local economy. The construction work will provide job for builders and workers from other related sectors. Even it is a small-scale activity compared to the common construction work, the construction process needs inputs from other industries and production factors. This could generate considerable employment through multiplier effects.[ii] But its impact on the economy still depends on the volume of the retrofitting work within the area. The bigger the demand it will bring more resources and increase in economic activities. Moreover, the retrofitting cost might even less than 30%, if the activities reach economies of scale.

Naturally construction works always need time to reach the pace and amount of work of economies of scale. Surely kickstart always not easy and simple. It needs preparation such as training for builders, construction material provision, structure assessment and lastly homeowner confidence on retrofitting. Therefore, to ensure the retrofitting program can be implemented those for aspects should be prepared. In this writing, as it will be focused on the community engagement.

Challenges on proper construction and retrofitting

In every country the Government issued Building Codes that the people need to follow to ensure that they can have robust and earthquake resistant structure. The code also available for structural elements such as beam, column and foundation. The code also expected to be a guidance for design and prerequisite to get building permit. But the challenge is on the compliance. In the developing world, the compliance mostly only happens at multi story buildings not at one or two story landed houses. The situation even more challenging in the rural since the monitoring for compliance and enforcement is quite rare. In most countries, house builders or masons do not think that they are responsible for the vulnerability or collapse of the houses they constructed[iii].

Brick gable wall without concrete frame

Photo: Brick gabble wall without concrete frame

In rural area construction practices are far different from the code. The builders are confident about the safety of the houses which they constructed although most of builders do not know the building codes[iv]. For instance, in a village in in Sukabumi, West Java, Indonesia the houses have no columns. The builders laid the brick at the stretcher face not at their bed. Besides of the ignorance of the codes, people done this because they want to save money by putting less brick. Another example is how the homeowners and builders construct brick gable wall. Since concrete structure is being considered costly, the builders constructed it without concrete frame which make their houses are quite vulnerable when the earthquake occur. The risks are when the earthquake occurs, the brick gable wall might fall off. Surely it can endanger the house owner since it is catastrophic.

Ignorance of the Building Codes is the first barrier to have safe structure. The next barrier is the economic cost of retrofitting. Currently, retrofitting is at the supply driven rather than demand driven as homeowners are heavily dependent on grant or financial incentives. homeowners are unwilling to invest in their house as the house is not a source of income for them and seismic safety is not a priority for them.[v]

If the people are willing put themselves at risks by putting no column at the wall it will be difficult to persuade them to retrofit their house. Some people put the retrofitting at lower priorities then other needs, even though they received the information on earthquake risks. Earthquake is not always occurred regularly like flooding which has seasonal occurrence. People easily forgotten. Even if people have sufficient money, they want to enlarge the houses or just put new paint in their houses.

Another challenge on retrofitting is unavailability skilled builders and proper construction material which need to be used in retrofitting. This can be easily understood since retrofitting is not common in the area therefore it is difficult to find builders which have retrofitting skills. Also, if most of the houses in the area were built without following the Building Code, then it is difficult to find construction material as directed in the code, for instance on using steel deformed rebar. Steel deformed rebar is prerequisite for earthquake resistance reinforced concrete structure. In those area, the demand for deformed rebar is less than the smooth rebar, hence the deformed rebar become expensive.

Creating the demand for retrofitting

Provision of skilled builders and retrofitting material is directly proportional to the demand for retrofitting. The more people want to retrofit their houses the more builders come and work in the area. New builders will be introduced to the retrofitting technique by the skilled builders, as they will work as an intern. More construction material will be available due to the needs of ongoing retrofitting work. Then how to increase the retrofitting demand?

Photo: Retrofitted house using Ferrocement technique which developed by Dr. Teddy Boen

The recent development, many retrofit strategies are feasible and several traditional and innovative options are available to engineers[vi]. There are research and studies on retrofitting which can be implemented on using available material and with affordable price. For instance, ferrocement[vii] technique which developed by Dr. Teddy Boen, can be implemented with simple technique and at an affordable cost. And depends on the needs, homeowners also have the option on choosing conventional method by adding seismic resistance attribute to particular structural element.

Other than the engineering approaches is the encouragement with social language using the positive messages, i.e. homeowners are crucial to be convinced that the investment in safer housing will eventually prove to be worthwhile.[viii] On the other hand from the negative messages, it is also important to increase disaster imagination of the people to understand the importance of seismic retrofit of weaker houses that is the main cause of casualty and to create some social systems by which homeowners are encouraged to retrofit their own weaker houses by themselves.[ix] These initiatives should carried out by trained community volunteers.[x]

Other initiatives to create demand is through connecting the people with the banking institution. Some of banks have financial loan for house renovation but they do not have loan for retrofitting. The bank has been approached and currently is calculating the potential market and benefit of the loan program.

Currently Indonesian Red Cross is developing strategic level collaboration with the Public Works and Housing, to re-shape the government program. It is expected that the current house renovation program which funded by government can be changed to house retrofitting. More retrofitted houses also mean more training opportunity for the builders.


Photo: Training of community volunteers to equipped them on their role as Retrofitting Agents. 

Another campaign done by the trained community volunteers who are using the retrofitted houses as retrofitting showcase. People invited to visit the houses, discuss with the homeowners and trained community volunteers. This campaign was launched to create bandwagon effect in the community. The Community Volunteers acted as Retrofitting Agent visited homeowners door-to-door sending the messages of retrofitting. 

Still, more effort needs to be made. Supply chain is one important area need to be developed. The need of affordable construction and retrofitting material such as deformed bar, wire mesh, Polypropylene (PP) bands or fiber-reinforced paint should be available in local shop. At the end it will reduce the cost.

Collaboration with other humanitarian organization program, such as livelihood and others, need to be developed. Improved quality of living of the society will increase homeowners’ capacities and then at the end they may retrofit their houses.

All of these should be seen as approaches which can strengthen the community effort, since the retrofitting awareness should be a bottom-up initiatives. Homeowners who eventually aware on earthquake risk reduction should be able to connect with available retrofitting resources. Then at the end the retrofitting can be implemented and initiated by the community.

 Arwin Soelaksono



[i] Liel, Abbie & Deierlein, Gregory. (2013). Cost-Benefit Evaluation of Seismic Risk Mitigation Alternatives for Older Concrete Frame Buildings. Earthquake Spectra. 29. 1391-1411. 10.1193/030911EQS040M.

[ii] Wibowo, M. Agung. The Contribution of The Construction Industry to the Economy of Indonesia: A Systemic Approach (2009)

[iii] Okazaki, K and T. Saito.   Seismic Risk Perception Concerning Non-engineered Houses (2012)

[iv] ibid.

[v] Build Change, 2019.

[vi] Zerbin, Matteo . et. al. Sustainable retrofit design of RC frames evaluated for different seismic demand (2015)

[vii] Boen, Teddy. Retrofit Bangunan Yang Rusak Akibat Gempa , 2015, 2019 https://www.teddyboen.com/Retrofit_Bangunan_yang_Rusak_akibat_Gempa.html

[viii] Okazaki, Kenji et. al. Study on willingness of the residents in seismic retrofitting of the house - comparison among Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, Turkey, The Philippines, Fiji, and Japan

[ix] Sathiparan, Navaratnarajah. Mesh type seismic retrofitting for masonry structures: critical issues and possible strategies. European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering. Volume 19, 2015

[x] In Indonesian Red Cross (PMI) program, supported by the American Red Cross and Build Change and funded by the USAID, the trained community volunteers (known as Community Based Action Team) acted as Retrofitting Agents. They have been trained how to spot vulnerabilities, provide retrofitting option and solution including calculating retrofitting budget. On their role the Retrofitting Agents are equipped by Retrofitting field guide the help them during house visits and encourage their neighbors to retrofit their houses.

Wednesday, December 9, 2020

Improving post-disaster housing reconstruction based on Nepal recovery S-curve

S-curve is commonly used in construction project management tool for planning the work and its milestone and monitoring its progress. S-curve already proven as powerful tool whether in sophisticated construction work also for humanitarian works in rural and remote places. This article offers insight on how post-disaster housing recovery can be improved. It can also be applied in other regions who promote housing recovery with owner-driven setting.

Creating the S-curve

S-curve is an important project management tool, which allow the progress of a project to be tracked visually over time and form a historical record of what has happened to date.[i] The S-Curve below was created on August 2015 following the Gorkha earthquake on April 2015.[ii] Most importantly the S-curve was created based on owner-driven setting recovery in rural, hilly, and mountainous area.

The steepness of S-curve slopes indicates good condition which might propel the progress such as presence of technical support and robust system on cash transfer programming (CTP). Through CTP each homeowner will receive cash grant in 3 tranches. On the other hand, the flatness indicates challenges which potentially hamper the progress. It is predicted there are seasons of festivals such as Dashain and Tihar which celebrate across the country. During the festivals which almost no one is working, very few number of house completion is expected and make the slope become flat for around half a month. Each year. Monsoon and winter also considered as part of challenges.

As mentioned above, the S-Curve plan was created in August 2015, is to track and to develop strategy for more than 3,000 houses rebuild. The ground-breaking is planned on November 2015 then all houses expected to be completed in June 2018. The green line on the S-Curve indicate the 32 months construction program.

Unfortunately, the program was started way beyond, due to substantial government delay. The first tranche of cash transfer which homeowners received for kick-start the construction was in September 2016.[iii] Consequently the most optimistic that homeowners started the ground-breaking was in October 2016. Aware on time limitation, the timeline of 32 months will not viable anymore. It should be shortened. Therefore, the strategy should be revised, then in December 2016, the S-Curve was revised. This was to achieve houses completion still in June 2018. The 21 months program is as indicated by the brown line at the S-Curve.

 


Reading the S-Curve, plan vs actual

Every month the number of house completion was reported, and it is reflected on the black line. Since it is actual number, therefore many valuable information can be seen. For instance, at point 1, during October 2016 through March 2017, the slope was almost flat. During these months’ homeowners were not convinced they can rebuild and complete their houses. Almost none who dare to start the construction since they know the cash grant will not be sufficient to complete their houses. During that time, government also struggling to provide engineers[iv] to monitor the construction and to certify the paperwork prior to releasing the second and third tranches. During that time seems all construction stuck due to unclear government policy on how much money that the homeowner can receive as the second tranche.[v]

At point 2, a slight jump on houses completion above the revised S-Curve projections from April 2017 to August 2017. The systems were in place and helped the homeowners to have enthusiasm and confidence to build. In my working area in Thulogaun, Rasuwa, community practice of working in turn, locally named alo palo, encouraged to be used by groups of homeowners in February 2017. This initiative also replicated in other area i.e. Kaule and Balche in Nuwakot. But it was not worked well in Gogane, Makwanpur. Due to scattered houses location, this approach of community work is not practical.

At point 3, I had no idea there will be general election when creating the S-Curve. These were the first elections of the local and national body to be held in nearly two decades[vi]. There was huge public participation in campaigning and many people who usually work for construction, worked as temporary support for the police force during elections. Hence, it was difficult to have enough masons and carpenters. Therefore, the flattening slope can be seen as a combination of monsoon, festivals and general election. During August – November 2017, only a small number of homeowners started the construction.

Point 4 and point 5, during November 2017 to June 2018, was the window of opportunities. The weather was good, and systems are in place which were reflected on the steep slopes. Right after the festivals, the homeowners were in the spirit of getting the job done before monsoon and government deadline. It was series of government deadline[vii], shown below, that the homeowners can access their government support otherwise they will loosed it.

 


At point 6, the slope became flat again. It was due to monsoon and continued with festivals. But the situation was different, even the government had extended the deadline, not all who were eligible to the grant could finished their houses. Even the technical support and community messaging already given, the recovery program of Nepal Red Cross Societies supported by American Red Cross, there are people who could not completed the houses. Even some of them had no willingness to participate to rebuild their houses. By March 2019, the program which covers Kaule, Balche, Thulogaun and Gogane completed 2,885 out of 3,031 homeowners who had received the first tranche[viii]. The gap of actual S-curve and the planned one is 5%.[ix]

The lessons learned and recommendation

This is owner-driven recovery program. The bright side is the homeowners take the lead and for sure, the ownership. They can have their houses based on their preference, on the design also selection of construction material. It is different with donor-driven program which there are potentials of houses are not occupied and have one-size-fits-all house design. The owner-driven setting gives homeowner freedom including the timeline. Those who live abroad and have different priorities always difficult to find themselves fit to the government timeline. The extended deadlines might have no impact to them. Therefore, the message should be changed from deadline to the limited opportunity. The homeowners have the freedom on when they could join the recovery program. It is also good vibe for the government and partner organizations. As opportunity has time limitation, they must work at their best to formulate the strategy and build cooperation with any institution to implement their program.

The most vulnerable should be served at the earliest of the recovery program. They have different timeline with their neighbors. They are slower due to lack of capacities and resources. Even they have difficulties to kick-start the construction. They do not have enough money or manpower to remove the debris or clear the construction site. Therefore, on starting the recovery program this kind of people had to be helped. It is good to use their houses as the showcase of robust constructed house which local labours and other homeowners an learn. Their houses can be used for masons training for newly constructed house or retrofitted. At the earliest, the reconstruction policy should allow them to have additional grant from government or partner organizations that might cover their lack of resources.

It is understandable that the recovery takes time. It is across the globe. But preparing the system should be taken as a crucial disaster preparedness initiative. Cash as modalities is well-proven in many regions but how to make it effective in the field, need to be prepared accordingly. Partnership with local bank, post office, mobile money provider and even with the cooperatives at village level need to be strengthened. Streamlining supply change should be set and can be easily activated when the disaster event occurs. The construction material needs to be ensured can be transported to the most remote area. But on the other hand, local government at the village level need to promote reuse of salvage material in order to reduce the dependency on imported material. This is also good to protect their environment, since imported material usually linked with new material which they need to harvest from local forest.

Retrofitting should be in the highlight following the disaster. In many disasters rebuilding new houses always in the main media coverage. It is also pressurizing many governments to rebuild as fastest as they could. This condition put retrofitting initiatives are left from the recovery plan. Then people who have the possibility on retrofitting start thinking to demolish their houses to have a new one. The message of recovery should start from the other way around, retrofitting should be ahead of the building new houses. Since it is cheaper and more environment friendly.

Arwin Soelaksono



[ii] I was posted in Nepal following the April 2015 Gorkha earthquake, and worked for the American Red Cross as Shelter Delegate to support Nepal Red Cross Societies on recovery program. My role was managing housing reconstruction program with owner driven setting. The responsibility encompasses setting up strategy to support more than 3,000 households to rebuild their houses with cash transfer programming and technical assistance. The program started by builders training, setting up cash disbursement mechanism through local banks and lastly ensure build back safer can be achieved. The project went well and checked with the S-curve which designed 3 years earlier and received acknowledgment by the government.

[iii] The Himalayan Times. Quake-hit to get first tranche of grant by Sept 18. August 16, 2016. https://thehimalayantimes.com/nepal/quake-hit-get-first-tranche-grant-sept-18/

[iv] Keshab Sharma, Apil KC, Mandip Subedi & Bigul Pokharel (2018) Challenges for reconstruction after Mw7.8 Gorkha earthquake: a study on a devastated area of Nepal, Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 9:1, 760-790, DOI: 10.1080/19475705.2018.1480535. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2018.1480535

[v] January 12, 2017. The Steering Committee of the National Reconstruction Authority (NRA) recently approved the increase of the housing reconstruction grants to NPRs.300,000 (about USD3000). The Committee also decided that NPRs.25,000 from the third instalment must be mandatorily used to build toilets, install biogas plants or solar systems. https://www.nepalhousingreconstruction.org/news/government-nepal-approves-increase-grants-subsidy-nrp-200000-npr-300000

[vi] BBC. Nepal election: First poll since civil war ended. November 26, 2016. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-42126210

[viii] Nepal Earthquake Recovery Program – Utthan | End of Program Evaluation Report. July 2019.

[ix] For comparison on number, the completion of houses supported by Nepal Red Cross Societies in partnership with American Red Cross is 95%. The number from NRA statistics across the country in June 2019, the first tranche received is 669,147 and house completed is 388,395 i.e. 54%. (House Construction Statistics NRA, CLPIU-GMALI 2019)