３．学校建築物とその周辺の被害

学校建築調査グループ（河野、前田、真田、高橋）
7/7 UGMでの調査結果報告会での発表用PPT抜粋

School Buildings(Expected TOC of the final report)• Introduction• Regulations– Indonesian Design Codes– Typical construction practices• Detailed survey on 14 school buildings– Structural type, plan, materials, construction year
– Suggested retrofit schemes– Materials strengths• Statistics– Residential houses around schools– Public buildings surveyed by UGM????

• Conclusions– Cause of damage– Suggested retrofit schemes1Survey Area21714613124510118Damage Level
viewed from the directivity• Longitudinal direction of buildings
N-S

N-SIIIIIIIVV
E-W

IIIIIIIVV

E-W

0%

10%20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Total (39 buildings)buildings)

80%

90%

100% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Near fault line (28• Buildings lining north-south direction have more damage as thelocation is closer to the fault!!!

2

Damage Level
viewed from structural type
RC Frame+URM

IIIIIIIVVRC Column+URM

URM

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%Damage levelviewed from construction period
2000's7

1990's5

1980's11

1970's16

1960's1950's1

1940's

1
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

I
IIIII
IVV100%• Damage level does not depend on the year ofconstruction. ---------> This is not good!!!

3

Damage level ofresidential houses
1
714

13

6

12

2
45

1011
8

Causes of school building damage• Unreinforced masonry walls• They have very low lateral force resisting capacity and carry no load
after the capacity is reached.
• They have no reinforcement and collapse very easily due to smalldeformation. Out-of-plane deformation capacity is extremely low.
• Connections of two perpendicular walls, walls and columns, walls androofing trusses are not firmly fixed. They dissembled easily leading acomplete collapse of buildings.

• Clay tiles• Clay tiles not fixed to the roofing frame fell down and hurt people.

• Design concept• Lateral force resisting capacity and deformation capacity should beclearly understood.
• Force pass should be clarified.

4

SD2 Putren, constructed in 2005

R/C connecting beam

SD2 Putren, constructed in 2005

Failure of connecting beam

5

Important facts• Damage level has directivity.
• Longitudinal direction lining north-south direction get severe damage
especially near the fault. (Directivity)• Damage level strongly depends on the type ofstructure.
• RC frame with infill wall were more resistant.

• Damage level did NOT depend on the year ofconstruction.
• New building should have been more resistant.

• Damage level of residential houses depends on thedistance from the fault.
• Damage level has good relation with the damage of school buildings.

Recommendations• Seismic observation network should be establishednationwide.
• Seismic evaluation/retrofit be conducted as soon aspossible.
• URM needs to be well confined using RC frame structures.
• Educating engineers/constructors about EQ resisting
structural system is important. General public who makes
their own houses also needs to be educated.
• Inspection system at construction is strongly recommended.

6

Future works• From 14 schools,– Evaluate the lateral force resisting capacity of damaged buildings
using the plan drawing.

• Data of geotechnical group will be combined with
our structural damage to see correlations.
• Ground motion such as PGA not recorded thistime will be estimated.

Special thanks• Gadjah Mada University– Dr. Ir. H. Nizam– Dr. Ir. Fitri Mardjono– Mr. Arief Setiawan Budi Nugroho– Two students (Wisnu and Indra)• Andalas University, Padang– Dr. Ir. Jafril Tanjung– Mr. Sabril Haris HG• Yogyakarta Heritage Society– Dr. Laretna T. Adishakti– Ruli, Iwan

• People in Indonesia7