Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 230–237

7th International Conference on Building Resilience; Using scientific knowledge to inform policy
and practice in disaster risk reduction, ICBR2017, 27 – 29 November 2017, Bangkok, Thailand

A Post-Disaster Functional Asset Value Index for School Buildings

Rizalyn C. Ilumina* and Andres Winston C. Oretaa
a
De La Salle University, 2101 Taft Avenue, 1004 Manila, Philippines

Abstract

School buildings must be resilient during hazardous events like earthquakes so that the important functions of the school will not
be affected. During disasters, schools have an added value and important function in post-disaster activities. Schools are often
used as evacuation centers. When schools are damaged, the school’s mission of continuous delivery of education will be
disrupted. Due to the inadequate number of structures in our country which are intended for evacuation during disasters, schools
have been used in some cases as evacuation centers, again disrupting the school’s operations. To assure that school buildings will
be operational in times of disaster, structural vulnerability assessment and appropriate retrofitting must be carried out. Due to
budgetary constraints in most schools, a prioritization scheme must be devised to identify the buildings that must be given
immediate attention. A rapid visual screening on the structural vulnerability due to earthquake hazards can be done and then rank
the buildings for more detailed inspection and retrofitting. To refine the screening and ranking, the functional asset value of the
buildings can be used as a second criterion. In a post-disaster scenario, school buildings have two important functional asset
values: (a) Educational Functional Value and (b) Emergency Functional Value. The educational function focuses on “continuous
learning” and consists of continuous conduct of classes, preservation of school records and documents for future use, and
availability of basic resources and access to basic facilities. Emergency function focuses on “protecting lives” and consists of
post-disaster uses of the school such as an evacuation center, storage of relief goods and an operation center. This study aims to
develop a method of assigning an index corresponding to a school building’s post-disaster functional asset value using the
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and an expert’s survey. Moreover, using the two-level vulnerability screening as a
prioritization scheme, decision makers can prioritize the buildings that have high seismic risk and high functional asset value.
This methodology was applied on a school campus as a case study.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
© 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience.
Keywords: Post-disaster functional asset value, Educational Functional value index, Emergency functional value index, Rapid Visual Assessment

* Corresponding author: Tel:, +63755406113

E-mail address: rizalyn_centino@yahoo.com

1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience.

1877-7058 © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience
10.1016/j.proeng.2018.01.030
 Rizalyn C. Ilumin et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 230–237 231
2 Ilumin and Oreta/ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

1. Introduction

Schools must be resilient during hazardous events like earthquakes so that their operations would not be affected.
During disasters, schools have an added value and important function in post-disaster activities. Schools are often
used as an evacuation centers. However, when schools are damaged, the school’s mission of continuously providing
quality education will be disrupted. Moreover, schools have been utilized as evacuation centers which indeed
interrupt the schools’ operation. Therefore, structural vulnerability assessment and appropriate retrofitting must be
carried out to assure that school buildings will be operational during disaster. Nevertheless, due to budgetary
constraints and the increasing number of schools in the country, building prioritization must be devised to identify
the buildings that must be given immediate attention. To refine the screening and ranking, the functional asset value
of the buildings can be used as a second criterion.
A safe school is an indication of a healthy learning environment and a suitable temporary shelter having
structurally sound buildings even when exposed to any earthquake related hazards. It is one of the worldwide issues
that need to be addressed especially in high seismicity region. A safe school denotes minimal disruption of school
activities and ensures safety of the children both during and after the impact of any natural hazards [1]. However,
statistics shows that tremors have brought significant damage and incurred loss of lives of many children worldwide
due to the failure of structures which caused disruption of the operations of schools consequently affects the delivery
of quality education. The 2008 Sichuan earthquake in China with magnitude 7.8 had caused a high number of deaths
with more than 10,000 school children and 7,000 classrooms were severely damaged. Also, the 2005 Kashmir
earthquake had brought major impact in Northern Pakistan where 17,000 students died and 10,000 school buildings
were destroyed [2]. In the Philippines, the 1990 Luzon earthquake caused serious damage to some educational
buildings. The six-story building of Christian College of the Philippines in Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija collapsed
during the tremor. The library building of Central Luzon State University was partially damaged. Also, the nine
story building at the University of Baguio was severely destroyed [3]. Moreover, 604 elementary schools and 92
high schools were damaged during the 2013 Bohol earthquake with magnitude 7.2 [4]. Since seismic vulnerability
tends to be the reason of the widespread collapsed of school buildings globally, rapid visual screening as an early
precautionary measures should be employed. Although structures nowadays are constructed with seismic provision,
the existing buildings may still endanger the occupants because of deterioration and age of building [5].
Furthermore, old school buildings are utilized due to economic reasons. Hence, assessment of structural
vulnerability is vital. Based on the survey conducted after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, evacuation centers
were packed with evacuees and 32.7% of these temporary shelters were schools [6]. Additionally, about 89.3% of
all public schools in Japan serve as an evacuation sites. School facilities such as toilets and washrooms, large indoor
space and school ground which are excellent for evacuation and operation centers are the necessary factors why
schools are commonly utilized in post-disaster activities [7]. In the Philippines, the Department of Education
designated public school buildings as evacuation centers that made school buildings readily available in times of
emergency [8]. Therefore, schools utilized as evacuation center can serve as an additional incentive for decision
makers to retrofit. The functional value of schools as educational and emergency can be used as criterion to refine
the prioritization. Structural vulnerability assessment and appropriate retrofitting must be carried out to assure that
school buildings will be operational during disaster. Moreover, the implementation of prioritization scheme of
school buildings for retrofit is vital to ensure a safe learning facilities and temporary shelters for the community [9].
Thus, post-disaster functional asset value is employed as a second criterion for ranking and prioritization purposes.

2. Post-Disaster Functional Asset Value

The post-disaster functional asset value is referred to as the degree of importance of a building in performing its
post-disaster functions. The post-disaster functions of the school buildings comprise of educational and emergency
functions. In this study, the educational function (EdV) denotes “continuous learning” where the continuous delivery
of education is significant even during a post-disaster scenario. Aside from this, the psychological impact, the
preservation of school records, the availability of basic school resources and the access to essential facilities are also
deemed important. On the other hand, emergency function (EmV) focuses on “protecting lives” where the buildings
can serve as an evacuation center, storage of relief goods, and an operation center. Decision makers like school
administrators and teachers, local government and emergency response officials have different priorities on the
232 Rizalyn
Ilumin C.Oreta/
and IluminProcedia
et al. / Procedia Engineering
Engineering 212
00 (2017) (2018) 230–237
000–000 3

functions of schools during a disaster. Therefore, it is necessary to determine on which function a school should
perform by rating the degree of importance of that function based on expert’s opinions. Table 1 shows how the
respondents rated these functions. The various spaces of a school building have also specific function during a post-
disaster event. Hence, the uses of space in a school building are rated separately based on these functions. The multi-
criteria decision-making method in prioritizing school buildings to be retrofitted due to time and budget constraints
is an excellent technique to weigh the importance of the different parameters [10].

2.1. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Method

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Method is utilized to determine the level of importance of a school with
respect to educational and emergency functions. This technique is a useful tool to arrive in a reliable decision where
scoring and comparing can be done simultaneously. The 1-9 fundamental scale shown in Table 2 is a numerical
representation to weigh the importance of one element to the other. A size of a 2x2 matrix or 4 pairs of elements is
assessed based on their level of importance using the intensity scale [11]. The computed Eigen value (λmax) is equal
to the number of elements (n) which is equal to 2. Consistency Index is equal to zero while the value of R.I. for 2
elements is equal to zero. Consistency Ratio should also be calculated to evaluate the consistency of the pair wise
comparison by means of the formulas shown below.

Consistency Ratio, C.R. = C.I./R.I. (1)

Consistency Index, C.I. = (𝜆𝜆 max −𝑛𝑛) /(𝑛𝑛 − 1) (2)

Table 1. Pairwise comparison between educational and emergency functions

Educational Importance Emergency
Function Very Very Extreme Function
Extreme Strong Moderate Equal Moderate Strong
strong strong

Table 2. Fundamental Scale

Intensity of
importance on an Definition
absolute scale
1 Equal importance
3 Moderate importance
5 strong importance
7 Very strong importance
9 Extreme importance

2.2. Survey result from AHP Method

An AHP method was utilized to determine the importance of a post-disaster function of a school based on
experts’ opinions. A survey from a total of 339 respondents was conducted. The result showed that majority of the
respondents expressed prioritization of educational function of the schools with an average value (w1) of 0.68 or
68% over emergency function with a mean value (w2) of 0.32 or 32%. Therefore, the school’s main role in a post-
disaster situation is to perform its educational function but may support emergency function when necessary only.

2.3. Expert’s Survey

The uses (Ui) of space considered in this study are classroom (U1), laboratory (U2), computer room (U3),
auditorium and gymnasium (U4), activity and physical education room and covered court (U5), administration and
records (U6), faculty room (U7), library (U8), toilet (U9), canteen (U10), audio visual room and multi-media center
(U11), and clinic (U12). These were rated by the respondents according to their degree of importance in educational
 Rizalyn C. Ilumin et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 230–237 233
4 Ilumin and Oreta/ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

and emergency functions. The scale of 1 to 5 in Table 3 served as a rating guide to measure the importance of school
building’s space in a post-disaster situation with respect to educational and emergency functions. Table 4 shows the
weight (pi and qi) of specific uses of a school building’s space for educational and emergency functions,
respectively.

Table 3. Rating Guide

Score Description
5 Very Important
4 Fairly Important
3 Important
2 Slightly Important
1 Not Important

Table 4. Weights of Uses of Buildings based from Expert’s Survey

Educational Function Weights (pi)
U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6 U7 U8 U9 U10 U11 U12
4.76 4.10 4.19 4.01 4.04 4.17 3.98 4.32 4.10 4.00 4.14 4.30
Emergency Function Weights (qi)
U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6 U7 U8 U9 U10 U11 U12
4.08 2.90 2.87 4.32 4.20 2.96 3.16 3.00 3.89 3.63 3.15 4.29

3. General Procedure in calculating the Post-Disaster Functional Asset value

The following formulas were utilized to determine the post-disaster functional asset value index of a school
building. Detailed procedures are presented below to illustrate the use of the equations.

The equivalent area (Ai) of each use of space is converted into its corresponding number of persons by dividing
Ai to the standard space (Ss):

;<
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜/𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠, 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 = (3)
=>?@A?BA CD?EF, =C

GHIJFB KL MEEHD?@>C <@ ? JH<NA<@O, GMJ

𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 = (4)
PH<NA<@O Q<>R >RF S?BOFC> GHIJFB KLMEEHD?@>C, SGMJ

Computation for the actual capacity of toilet:

𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 = 1: 20(1 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 20 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝) (5)

𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶, 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 = 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛. 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑎𝑎 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝑥𝑥 20 (6)

fE
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇, 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴9 = (7)
GMJ

The Educational Value or EdV index of a building is the sum of the product of: (1) each Norm Np and pi and (2)
Ac and pi where Ac can be AcU8 or AcU9 or AcU10:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = ∑[ 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 + 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑥𝑥 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴8 + 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑥𝑥 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴9) + (𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑥𝑥 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴10 + (𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑥𝑥 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴12)] (8)

The Emergency Value or EmV index of a building is the sum of the product of: (1) each Norm Np and pi and (2)
Ac and qi where Ac can be AcU8 or AcU9 or AcU10:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = ∑[ 𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 + 𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 𝑥𝑥 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴8 + 𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 𝑥𝑥 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴9) + (𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 𝑥𝑥 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴10 + (𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞 𝑥𝑥 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴12)] (9)

The PDV index of a building is the weighted sum of the educational and emergency indices:
 Ilumin and Oreta/ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 5
234 Rizalyn C. Ilumin et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 230–237

𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = 𝑤𝑤1 𝑥𝑥 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 + [𝑤𝑤2 𝑥𝑥 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑉𝑉𝑖𝑖 ] (10)

3.1. Equivalent Area of each uses of space and its corresponding number of occupants

The standard spaces set by DepEd were mostly applied in the manipulation of determining the number of
building stakeholders. However, a different approach in calculating the number of occupants is made for clinic,
library, canteen and toilet. The standard space and ideal capacity of the uses of space for educational function are
presented in Table 5 while the ideal size equal to 3.5 m2 for emergency function is utilized.

Table 5. Standard area and ideal capacity for various spaces in a school building
Uses of Space Standard Area Source/s
Living Space
U1. Classroom 1.4 sq. m. per place 2010 Educational Facilities manual by DepEd
U4. Auditorium/Gymnasium 1.4 sq. m. per person (assumed)
U5. Activity/P.E.Room/Covered Court 1.4 sq. m. per person (assumed)
Health, Food and Sanitation
Department of Health, New South Wales (2011)
U9. Toilet 1 toilet cubicle for 20 persons
and Ramos et al. (2015)
U10. Canteen 1.4 sq.m. per person 2010 Educational Facilities manual by DepEd
not less than 65 sq.m. for schools
U12. Clinic Racelis, Rachel H. (2013)
with 3,000 or more students
Others
U2. Laboratory 2.10 sq.m. per place 2010 Educational Facilities manual by DepEd
U3. Computer Room 1.40 sq m. per place 2010 Educational Facilities manual by DepEd
U6. Administration & Records 5 sq m. per place 2010 Educational Facilities manual by DepEd
U7. Faculty Room 5 sq m. per person 2010 Educational Facilities manual by DepEd
2.4 sq. m. per place (10% of the
U8. Library 2010 Educational Facilities manual by DepEd
total number enrollees)
U11.Audio Visual Room/Multi-media center 5 sq m. per place (assumed)

3.2. Educational Function Asset Value (EdV) and Emergency Function Asset Value (EmV)

Results from the expert’s survey which corresponds to the importance value of each use of a space under
educational and emergency functions were applied. The importance value of a space is multiplied to its equivalent
normalized number of persons per space. Moreover, the actual capacity of toilet, clinic, library, and canteen is
multiplied to its importance value. The score gathered from this procedure is employed to determine the level of
importance of a building with respect to educational function, denoted as EdV. Similar procedures are utilized in
determining the value of a building in an emergency function where the only difference is the standard space used to
compute for the number of persons per space equal to 3.5 m2. Their resulting products were totalled and matched to
the importance index as shown in Table 6 to determine the level of importance of the building under emergency
function, denoted as EmV.

Table 6. Importance Index

EdV/EmV/PDV Index Degree of Importance
0.00 - 5.00 Low
5.10- 10.00 Moderate
10.10 - 15.00 High

3.3. Post-Disaster Functional Asset Value Scoring

A post-disaster functional asset value scoring is significant to determine the individual importance of the
buildings to the school’s post-disaster functions. The results from an AHP method and the values of EdV and EmV
were adopted in the process. First, the importance rating of a school in performing its educational function is
weighed (w1) using AHP and multiply it with the Educational Function Asset Value (EdV). Second, the importance
of a school in performing its emergency function is weighed (w2) using AHP and multiply it with the Emergency
 Rizalyn C. Ilumin et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 230–237 235
6 Ilumin and Oreta/ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

Functional Asset Value (EmV). Lastly, their products were summed to develop a post-disaster functional asset value
scoring.

4. Pangasinan State University (PSU) as a Case Study

A case study was conducted in Pangasinan State University (PSU) Urdaneta City Campus and utilized the two-
level vulnerability screening approach. In this study, the 11 buildings were assessed based on their seismic risk and
post-disaster functional asset value.

4.1. Seismic Vulnerability Screening and Seismic Risk

The parameters used in a rapid visual screening (RVS) for seismic vulnerability are the following: year built,
building height, column spacing, separation gap, number of bays, vertical irregularity, plan irregularity, and
material. The average scores of 11 buildings and their corresponding level of vulnerability are presented in Table 6.

The Peak Ground Acceleration is associated to the intensity values to assess the seismic hazard of the site as
shown in Table 7. Point method approach of PSHA which is based on the epicenter of the historical earthquake
events only not on the fault was utilized. The result revealed that the minimum probability of exceedance is equal to
43% wherein the maximum PGA at the site is equal to 0.13g. This indicates that the Campus has a high level of
seismic hazard with a score of 3 based from table below. The value of seismic risk of a building is computed by
multiplying the hazard (H) rating of the site to the vulnerability (V) score of the structure as shown in Table 8.

Table 7. Seismic Hazard Rating Guide

Hazard Rating Range of Intensity or equivalent PGA
Low (1) If Intensity I-III or PGA less than or equal to 0.015
Moderate (2) If Intensity IV –VI or PGA from 0.015g to 0.10g
High (3) If Intensity VII and up or PGA greater than 0.10g

Table 8. RVS for Seismic Vulnerability results

Building No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
RVS Result (Average) 1.63 2.00 2.13 1.75 1.75 1.63 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.50 1.88
Hazard Rating 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Seismic Risk =H x V 4.88 6.00 6.38 5.25 5.25 4.88 5.25 5.25 5.25 4.50 5.63

4.2. A Post-Disaster Functional Asset Value (PDV) of Engineering Building 3

Engineering Building 3 also named as Building No. 3 is utilized to illustrate the calculation of a post-disaster
functional asset value. The scores of Np are normalized with respect to the building with the largest number of
occupants equal to 781.The normalized Np values are multiplied to their respective importance rating (𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝) of each
uses of space. Moreover, the actual capacity of toilet is computed using the above mentioned procedure and
multiplied to the its importance rating. The actual capacity of clinic, canteen or library where it is assumed in this
study that a building has only one distinctive space is multiplied to its respective importance rating. Their resulting
products are summed to determine the educational function asset value (EdV) with a score of 6.89 as shown in Table
9. In solving for the emergency functional asset value (EmV), the normalized Np values are multiplied to their
corresponding importance rating (𝑞𝑞𝑞𝑞) of each uses of space. The actual capacity of toilet, canteen, clinic, and library
whichever is applicable is also multiplied to its corresponding importance rating. Their products were totalled to
determine the value of EmV which is equal to 10.14 as presented in Table 10. The weight of educational function
(0.68) is multiplied to the EdV while the weight of emergency function (0.32) is multiplied to the EmV. Their
products are summed to determine the score of PDV as shown in Table 11.
236 Ilumin and
Rizalyn C. Oreta/
Ilumin Procedia Engineering
et al. / Procedia 00 (2017)
Engineering 212000–000
(2018) 230–237 7

Table 9. Educational Function Asset Value of Engineering Building 3

Educational Function
Standard Space, No. of Actual capacity ∑[ (pi x Norm Np) + (pi x AcU8)
Area,
Uses, Ui pi 2 Person/space, Norm Np (AcU8, AcU9, +(pixAcU9)+(pi x AcU10)+(pi x
Ai (sq. m) Ss (m )
Np =Ai/Ss AcU10, AcU12 ) AcU12)]
U1 4.76 266.00 1.40 190 0.24 1.16
U2 4.10 126.00 2.10 60 0.08 0.32
U6 4.17 94.50 5.00 19 0.02 0.10
U7 3.98 31.50 5.00 6 0.01 0.03
U11 4.14 155.25 5.00 31 0.04 0.16
Largest No. of Occupants (LNOb )= 781 0.39
U9 4.10 7 Toilets 1:20 0.46 1.88
U12 4.30 49.00 (should not be less than 65 sq m for 4,012 total population) 49/65= 0.75 3.24
Total 6.89

Table 10. Emergency Functional Asset Value of Engineering Building 3

Emergency Function
No. of Actual capacity ∑[(pi x Norm Np) + (pi x AcU8)
Area, Std space,
Uses, Ui qi person/space, Norm Np (AcU8, AcU9, +(pixAcU9)+(pi x AcU10)+(pi x
Ai (sq. m) Ss
Np=Ai/Ss AcU10, AcU12 ) AcU12)]
U1 4.08 266.00 3.50 76 0.48 1.96
Largest No. of Occupants in a building (LNOb )= 158
U9 3.89 7 Toilets 1:20 1.00 3.89
U12 4.29 49.00 space of clinic meets the minimum standard space 1.00 4.29
Total 10.14

Table 11. PDV Result

AHP (w1 ) EdV AHP (w2 ) EmV PDV [(w1 xEdV)+(w2 x EmV)]
0.68 6.89 0.32 10.14 7.93

4.3. Post-Disaster Functional Asset Value Index

A summary of the 11 buildings’ post-disaster functional asset value is shown in Table 12 where the smallest
possible value is zero and the largest possible value is 15.

Table 12. Summary of the buildings’ PDV and their level of importance
Building No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
PDV 5.97 5.52 9.15 5.67 5.40 1.22 4.50 4.72 3.60 7.94 1.10

4.4. Degree of Priority using Two-dimensional Vulnerability Screening

The two-level vulnerability screening approach is composed of seismic risk and post-disaster functional asset
values in x and y, respectively. The values of seismic risk were plotted against the scores of PDV as shown in Fig.
1(a). Four quadrants which represent Priorities I (Very High Priority), II (High Priority), III (Moderate Priority), and
IV (Low Priority) classify the order of prioritization. For each quadrant, letters A (Very High), B (High), C
(Moderate), and D (Low) denotes the order of priority. The Prioritization Matrix revealed that Building No. 3 is the
only structure whose rating falls in Priority I (Very High Priority). This building has the highest scores of seismic
risk and PDV. According to various researchers, the existing unsafe schools must be retrofitted to convert it into a
disaster resilient for swift recovery and every newly built school must ensure a safe learning environment [12]. A
safer school can assure the safety of the school children; hence, schools can be used as an evacuation center and can
be an essential place to enhance the populaces’ awareness on preparation and mitigation activities [13]. Therefore,
Building No. 3 as presented in Fig. 1(b) is the most vulnerable and important building in the Campus must be given
the highest priority for a detailed structural investigation and retrofit to assure life safety and functional continuity.

5. Conclusion

The study presents a methodology of assigning an index corresponding to a school building’s post-disaster
functional asset value using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and an expert’s survey. Each building in a
campus can be assigned an educational functional value index, an emergency functional value index and an over-all
 Rizalyn C. Ilumin et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 230–237 237
8 Ilumin and Oreta/ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

a b
15.00
Post-disaster Functionaal Asset Value (PDV)

C A C A
Priority III Priority I
11.25 (Moderate Priority) (Very High Priority)

D B D B
Bldg 3
7.50
Bldg 10
Bldg 4
C A C A
Bldg 1 Bldg 5
Bldg 8 Bldg 2
3.75 Priority IV Bldg 7 Priority II
(Low Priority) Bldg 9 (High Priority)
D B D
B
Bldg 6 Bldg 11

0.00
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00
Seismic Risk

Fig. 1 (a) Two-dimensional matrix; (b) Photo of Building No. 3

post-disaster functional asset value index. The case revealed that although some buildings have larger total area
when compared to the other buildings, this does not give an assurance that they are more important and can
contribute more to the school’s post-disaster functions. Based from the survey, a classroom was rated as very
important to the school’s educational function while an auditorium or gymnasium is the most preferred space in
emergency function. The study revealed that the two-level vulnerability screening considering a post-disaster
functional asset value of the school buildings provides practical basis in building prioritization. Buildings that need
proper retrofitting can be easily identified and ranked. The researcher suggests that to have a more conducive
learning environment, basic needs of building occupants such as having a sufficient toilet should be provided and
the standard space for clinic, canteen, and library should be observed.

References

[1] Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies & Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery, Guidance Notes on Safer
School Construction: Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery. Washington, D.C.: International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development – The World Bank, 2009.
[2] M. Petal, Disaster Prevention for Schools Guidance for Education Sector Decision-Makers, International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
Thematic Platform for Knowledge and Education, UNISDR, Geneva, 2008.
[3] R.L. Sharpe, Luzon (Philippines) earthquake, Earthquake Engineering, 1994, Tenth World Conference, Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN
9054100605, 1990.
[4] United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF), Philippines: Humanitarian Situation Report, 2014.
[5] A.W. C. Oreta, O. M. Cammayo Jr., K.S. Baluyot, A.J.C. Ramos, M.C.N. Suarez, Rapid Visual Screening and Two-Dimensional Seismic
Vulnerability Classification of Important Buildings. Joint Conference Proceedings,9th International Conference on Urban Earthquake
Engineering/4th Asia Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan, 2012.
[6] K. Tokuda, H. Kunishima, Y. Gu, S. Endo, M. Hatta, H. Kanamori, T. Aoyagi, N. Ishibashi , S. Inomata, H. Yano, M. Kitagawa, M. Kaku, A
survey conducted immediately after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake: evaluation of infectious risks associated with sanitary conditions
in evacuation centers, 8, 2014, pp. 498-501.
[7] Y. Takeuchi, R. Shaw, Damage to education sector and its recovery, In East Japan earthquake and tsunami: Evacuation, communication,
education and volunteerism, Research Publishing, Singapore, 2012, pp. 143-164.
[8] Department of Education (DepEd), Dissemination of DepEd-DSWD-DILG-DOH Joint Memorandum Circular No. 1, Series 2013, Guidelines
on Evacuation Center Coordination and Management, Philippines, Memorandum Order No. 58, s. 2015.
[9] International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC and RCS), Handbook for a School-based Risk Reduction Initiative,
2015.
[10] M. Raissi Dehkordi, M.H. Torabizadeh, A. Shahri, M. Yekrangnia, M. Eghbali, Prioritizing algorithm for retrofitting of school buildings in
Iran, Second Europian Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Istanbul. 2014.
[11] T.L. Saaty, How to make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process, European Journal of Operational Research, Interfaces 24:6, DOI:
10.1287/inte.24.6.19, 1990, pp.19-43.
[12] G. Fernandez, R. Shaw, Y. Takeuchi, School Damages in Asian Countries and its Implication to Tohoku Recovery, In East Japan earthquake
and tsunami: Evacuation, communication, education and volunteerism, Research Publishing, Singapore, 2012, pp. 201-221.
[13] R Shaw, M. Kobayashi, Role of Schools in Creating Earthquake-Safer Environment, Disaster Management and Educational Facilities,
Greece, 2001.