DRH-Asia: Disaster Reduction Hyperbase
(by Google translation. Translation will be reset by reloading.)

1. Title

Process for community acceptance of earthquake technology --- UNCRD Experiences applying NSET Approach of Shaking-table Demonstration ---

ID: DRH 22 Masonry Training before Shake-table Demonstration
Hazard: Earthquake
Category:

Implementation Oriented Technology (IOT) , Process Technology (PT)

Proposer: Shoichi Ando
Country: NEPAL; JAPAN; AFGHANISTAN; BANGLADESH; INDIA; INDONESIA; IRAN, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF; PAKISTAN; TAJIKISTAN;
Date posted: 07 February 2008
Date published: 09 June 2009
Copyright © 2009 Shoichi Ando (proposer). All rights reserved.

Masonry Training before Shake-table Demonstration

 Jump to related Web site.

Contact

Shoichi Ando Dr. (UNCRD) andos@hyogo.uncrd.or.jp
Phong Van G. Tran Dr. (UNCRD) tranp@hyogo.uncrd.or.jp
Hayato Nakamura (UNCRD) nakamura@hyogo.uncrd.or.jp
Amod M. Dixit Mr.(NSET-Nepal) adixit@nset.org.np

Disaster Management Planning Hyogo Office,
United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD), UN DESA

1-5-2 Wakihama-kaigan-dori, Chu-ku, Kobe city, Hyogo, Japan
e-mail: rep@hyogo.uncrd.or.jp
Tel: +81-78-262-5560,
Fax: +81-78-262-5568

2. Major significance / Summary

Community Based Disaster Management (CBDM) activities utilizing shake-table demonstration resulted in effective to disseminate earthquake resistant technology as well as to raise public awareness through the experiences of Disaster Management Planning Hyogo Office of the United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD).

3. Keywords

CBDM (community based disaster management), public awareness, shake-table demonstration, NSET approach


II. Categories

4. Focus of this information

Implementation Oriented Technology (IOT) , Process Technology (PT)

5. Users

5-1. Anticipated users: Community leaders (voluntary base) , Administrative officers , Municipalities , NGO/NPO project managers and staff , International organizations (UN organizations and programmes, WB, ADRC, EC, etc.) , Experts , Teachers and educators , Architects and engineers , Information technology specialists , Others

Academic institutes
Specialists group
Community members

5-2. Other users: Policy makers , Motivated researchers , Local residents

6. Hazards focused

Earthquake

7. Elements at risk

Human lives , Business and livelihoods , Buildings , Urban areas , Rural areas , Cultural heritages


III. Contact Information

8. Proposer(s) information (Writer of this template)

Shoichi Ando Dr. (UNCRD) andos@hyogo.uncrd.or.jp
Phong Van G. Tran Dr. (UNCRD) tranp@hyogo.uncrd.or.jp
Hayato Nakamura (UNCRD) nakamura@hyogo.uncrd.or.jp
Amod M. Dixit Mr.(NSET-Nepal) adixit@nset.org.np

Disaster Management Planning Hyogo Office,
United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD), UN DESA

1-5-2 Wakihama-kaigan-dori, Chu-ku, Kobe city, Hyogo, Japan
e-mail: rep@hyogo.uncrd.or.jp
Tel: +81-78-262-5560,
Fax: +81-78-262-5568

9. Country(ies)/region(s) where the technology/knowledge/practice originated

NEPAL; JAPAN; AFGHANISTAN; BANGLADESH; INDIA; INDONESIA; IRAN, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF; PAKISTAN; TAJIKISTAN;

10. Names and institutions of technology/knowledge developers

National Society for Earthquake Engineering - Nepal (NSET)
Amod M. Dixit Mr.(NSET-Nepal) adixit@nset.org.np
United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD) / UN DESA
Shoichi Ando Dr. (UNCRD) andos@hyogo.uncrd.or.jp

11. Title of relevant projects if any

Sustainability in Community Based Disaster Management (CBDM) (-2004)
Urbanisation and CBDM (2005),
Gender in CBDM (from 2006-)

12. References and publications

See website: http://www.hyogo.uncrd.or.jp/publication/proceedings.html and
http://www.hyogo.uncrd.or.jp/cbdm/htfviii.htm

13. Note on ownership if any

UNCRD, NSET


IV. Background

14. Disaster events and/or societal circumstances, which became the driving force either for developing the technology/knowledge or enhancing its practice

High human casualties in earthquakes in Bam, Iran and Gujarat, India are attributed to the collapse of traditional adobe and masonry houses built informally by homeowners themselves with input from local masons. The buildings did not have the engineering input to be safe from earthquakes. There is large stock of such residential buildings in seismically active part of the world and people, particularly in developing countries, continue practice to build and live in such houses because of the socio-economic and technical reasons.

 

 


V. Description

15. Feature and attribute

 The improvements over the traditional construction for earthquake resistance should be simple to adopt so that local craftsmen can easily get the know-how and implement it without difficulty in construction. Awareness to the homeowners is critical for safer construction of non-engineered buildings as owner themselves do decide the construction.

 UNCRD is committed to providing expertise, opportunities, and ways for communities to be empowered to increase their resiliency against disasters. Simultaneously, it aims to impart the CBDM and low-tech safer construction practice at the government level so that both communities and government can sustain efforts at the grass-roots level through institutionalization of these activities.

16. Necessary process to implement

 Masons are the technical service providers for non-engineered construction. Urban dwellers may take service from technicians to prepare building layout drawings for municipal approval, if permit process exists. Hence technicians and masons are key persons in implementing the safer construction practice. As capacity building of the community for safer technology, training to these groups is must. Projects have been formulated in such way that hands-on trainings, which are much more effective than classroom session for masons, can be provided in a demonstration work. Shake table tests have also been used as confidence building measure for masons on what they would have been learning. It requires knowledge on earthquake engineering to explain the damages of buildings to the public, it needs also easily understandable explanation to disseminate the necessary information to the governmental officers and general public.

 

                                                                                                                                                                                   (Sponsored by JICA)

17. Strength and limitations

Positive aspects

1) All participants easily aware the danger of collapse of vulnerable houses. 2) It is also easily understandable how retrofit works effectively. 3) Masons training can be implemented during the preparation process.

Negative aspects

1) It will take almost two weeks to prepare the demonstration model. 2) It may be rather expensive to prepare a shake-table.

18. Lessons learned through implementation if any

All participants recognized the importance of seismic retrofit and reinforcement of their own houses aster the shake-table demonstration, not only in the urban area but also in the rural area. 

2003 Tajikistan

2003 Tajikistan                               2002 Afghanistan


VI. Resources required

19. Facilities and equipments required

Simple test demonstration on pair of building models, one in traditional form and another with proposed seismic improvement, prepared at 1/10th scale and shook on the top of improvised shake-table is found as a very convincing tool for common people to opt seismic resistance system. As this methodology was developed by NSET (National Society for Earthquake Technology – Nepal), UNCRD calls this method as “NSET Approach” recently. At some incremental shaking to the table, traditional building will collapse and one with seismic measures will withstand with minimum or no damage.

20. Costs, organization, manpower, etc.

Resource persons from NSET Manpower: one project manager, one engineer, and one experienced mason in addition training participants such as local masons and engineers Fund: approximately 15-20,000 US$ for full demonstration and training


VII. Message from the proposer if any

21. Message


VIII. Self evaluation in relation to applicability

22. How do you evaluate the technology/knowledge that you have proposed?

It is a technology/knowledge that

23. Notes on the applicability if any


IX. Application examples

No.1

    E1-1. Project name if available

    PNY project
    (Patanka New Life Plan)


    E1-2. Place

    Patanka village, Gujarat, India


    E1-3. Year

    2003


    E1-4. Investor

    CODE (NGO Kobe), SEEDS,
    and other organizations


    E1-5. People involved

    Manu Gupta (SEEDS),
    Earthquake Disaster Mitigation Research Center (EDM),
    National Center for People’s-Action in Disaster Preparedness (NCPDP), NSET,
    UNCRD


    E1-6. Monetary costs incurred

    oint project implementation by SEEDS, EDM, NCPDP, NSET, and UNCRD (UNCRD covered mission cost of researchers)


    E1-7. Total workload required

    See Patanka New Life Plan; The report summarizing the purpose, the methods and the activities of the PNY (Patanka New Life Plan) project (Published by UNCRD)


    E1-8. Evidence of positive result


No.2

    E2-1. Project name if available

    Afghanistan Shake-table Demonstration


    E2-2. Place

    Kabul, Afghanistan


    E2-3. Year

    2003


    E2-4. Investor

    Afghanistan government, UNCRD


    E2-5. People involved

    Minister, Ministry of Urban Development and Housing, Afghanistan
    Prof. Anand S. Arya, India and professors of Kabul Univ.
    NSET,
    UNCRD


    E2-6. Monetary costs incurred

    Public organizations (Implementation by NSET) (UNCRD covered mission cost of researchers)


    E2-7. Total workload required

    See GUIDELINES For Earthquake Resistant Design, Construction, and Retrofitting of Buildings in AFGHANISTAN; Ministry of Urban Development and Housing / Government of Afghanistan UNCRD Hyogo (Published by UNCRD)


    E2-8. Evidence of positive result


No.3

    E3-1. Project name if available

    Bam Shake-table Demonstration


    E3-2. Place

    Bam, Kerman province, Iran


    E3-3. Year

    2004


    E3-4. Investor

    Kerman government, Hyogo prefecture


    E3-5. People involved

    Iranian Ministries
    NSET, CODE
    UNCRD


    E3-6. Monetary costs incurred


    E3-7. Total workload required


    E3-8. Evidence of positive result



X. Other related parallel initiatives if any

Message

Project name if available


XI. Remarks for version upgrade

Message

Similar technologies

By Hazard

> Earthquake (21)

Institutions contributing to DRH Contents (Click here): posted on request