VS America Archives - School Construction News

Webinar to Explore Creating Safe Spaces for School Returns

School News — Wed, 10 Mar 2021 23:14:41 +0000

By SCN Staff

CHARLOTTE, N.C.—VS America is hosting a webinar next Friday, March 19, around how physical spaces impact student well-being, and how spaces can help as students are fully back in school.

Opportunities & Obstacles as Students Return to School and how physical spaces impact well-being will take place Friday, March 19, 12:00 – 1:30 p.m. Eastern Time, focusing on one of the key topics in current education.

While many students are in school in some capacity, once students and staff are fully back in school there are many things to work through, from feelings of isolation and loss to the need for social reconnection and structure.

It’s possible to create physical spaces that help build opportunities and break down barriers for deep connection, healing, and exploration. Please join us in this conversation with diverse practitioners – including a school administrator, clinical officer, social justice specialist, learning designer, as well as students – to dive into the opportunities and obstacles for students and staff, and discover how schools can create spaces to allow for the healing and connectivity needed.

America’s Promise Alliance’s National Survey of High School Students during COVID-19 finds widespread negative impact on learning time, emotional health, and social connection.

More than half are much more concerned about the present and future (self and family physical and emotional health)
38% worried about current and future education
30% worried about basic needs
25% trouble sleeping because of worry, unhappiness, depression
29% don’t feel connected to others

The webinar’s panelists include:

RJ Webber, Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction at Novi Community Schools in Novi, MI
Caelan Soma, Chief Clinical Officer and Senior Trainer at Starr Commonwealth
Jill Ackers, Learning Designer at Fielding International
Roger B. Fisher, Associate Director of the Program on Intergroup Relations (IGR) at the University of Michigan

All attendees will get a 6-month free subscription to Starr Commonwealth’s on-demand, trauma-informed, resilience-focused professional development.

March 19
Eastern Time
12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.

Central Time
11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.

Mountain Time
10:00 a.m. – 11:30 a.m.

Pacific Time
9:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.

The post Webinar to Explore Creating Safe Spaces for School Returns appeared first on School Construction News.

Disaster Preparedness for Existing School Structures

When a 6.4 magnitude earthquake in 1933 destroyed at least 70 schools and damaged 420 more in Long Beach, Calif., the state enacted the Field Act to establish design and construction standards for new schools.

The act did not cover the existing schools, however, where according to the U.S. Geological Survey, the greatest earthquake risk lies due to their being built prior to modern building codes — in much of the country, that includes facilities built as recently as the early 1990s.

In 1966, 30 years later after the Field Act was enacted, the state attorney general issued an opinion stating if schools were found to be unsafe and the board did not make the necessary corrections to make them safe, the individual school board members were personally liable.

USGS officials said concerned school board members, realizing the gravity of the situation, soon followed with legislation.

In 1967, the governor signed the Greene Act, which relieved the individual school board members of personal liability only if schools were properly examined and an intent was established to complete all steps necessary for replacement or repair.

Almost 50 years later, the act has not been reinforced as it should, according to reports.

On Shaky Ground

A 19-month investigation by California Watch, a project of the Center for Investigative Reporting, concluded the Division of the State Architect "shirked responsibility" to fully enforce the law, approving at least 20,000 school building projects without final safety certification required by the act.

An analysis by California Watch determined that roughly six out of every 10 public schools in the state have at least one uncertified building project, ranging from minor fire alarm upgrades to major construction of new classrooms.

The report "reveals how the Division of the State Architect has routinely failed to fully enforce the Field Act, California’s landmark earthquake safety law for public schools, allowing children and teachers to occupy buildings with structural flaws and potential safety hazards," according to the group.

"The state architect’s office has allowed building inspectors hired by school districts to work on complex and expensive jobs despite complaints of incompetence," officials said. "Some inspectors have failed to show up at construction sites at key moments."

Based on its investigation, the center alleged that state regulators seemed more concerned with caseload management than enforcing the Field Act.

The report cites an April 1993 memo in which state architect Harry Hallenbeck ordered what he titled "Close-O-Rama" — authorization to approve projects even if they lacked sworn affidavits from architects and engineers, or were missing documents proving that fire alarms had been installed.

The group alleges that the state architect’s office continues to currently reclassify hundreds of projects as simply missing paperwork without actually visiting the schools to verify that fixes were made.

The last of the center’s three-part series said a separate seismic inventory created about 10 years ago shows more than 7,500 older school buildings as potentially dangerous, but due to restrictive rules only two schools in the state have been able to access a $200 million fund set aside specifically for urgent seismic repairs.

“As the Schwarzenegger administration decided how to dole out a limited amount of money, it worried about a rush on the funding, according to internal e-mails and memos obtained by California Watch,” the report states. “The concern prompted the administration to set a high bar for schools to qualify.”

The vast majority of the buildings remain unfixed, and the money goes unused, according to the center.

The report also found that the state architect’s office relaxed its oversight and became closely aligned with the industry it regulates.

The team cited examples of government officials who became "dues-paying members of a lobbying group for school construction firms; mingled at conferences, golf tournaments and dinners; and briefed the lobbying group’s clients at monthly meetings."

The report states that while a 1972 law requires the state to publish detailed maps of active earthquake fault zones, the California Geological Survey has “amended those maps over the years, frequently shrinking the size of the hazard zones,” based on pressure from property owners, real estate agents and local government officials who feared property values would decline inside seismic hot spots, according to interviews and documents obtained by the center.

California Watch found examples of schools removed from hazard zones, including ones in the seismically active areas of Los Angeles and Alameda counties.

The survey excluded older, potentially active faults and narrowed the zones considered hazardous. Removing schools from the hazard zones was not the agency’s central intent — but several ended up outside the lines when the new maps were published, California Watch stated.

"As the maps shifted, some schools were located in hazard zones one day and out the next,” said Mark Katches, editorial director of California Watch. “This seismic safety project points out glaring weaknesses in the state’s system of oversight at a time the tragedy in Japan is still front and center."

In addition to the 20,000 projects lacking Field Act certification, the state discovered 59,000 more that have yet to be fully reviewed by the state architect’s office to identify their Field Act status, according to the center.

The California Watch series includes a searchable and interactive map to locate individual schools and potential hazards, rich video content, an iPhone app, a coloring book on earthquake preparedness for kids and resources for taking action, along with a guide to resources for readers to get involved in earthquake safety in their community.

Robert Rosenthal, executive director of the Center for Investigative Reporting, the parent organization of California Watch, said they have been working on this project almost from the day the division was started.

"This series reveals issues that can be addressed and understood before a potential disaster,” he said. “We hope it leads to reforms that will serve the public interest."

“We’ve seen inconsistencies in some of the submitted documentation,” said Howard Smith, who became acting head of the state architect’s office in August. “But we haven’t actually seen a case where a significant, imminent hazard or risk was posed by one of these projects.”

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s risk management publication series, Incremental Seismic Rehabilitation of School Buildings (K-12),some seismically active parts of the country, such as schools in the Midwest, have only recently adopted appropriate seismic design standards while in other parts, like the Northwest, estimates of seismic risk have been revised upward.

Like the Field Act, since the standards do not apply retroactively to existing school buildings, there is no automatic requirement to improve older buildings that are more susceptible to damage due to age. Any injuries caused by earthquake damage to these buildings is the responsibility of the owner or operator, according to the agency.

School construction projects traditionally have been carried out by facility managers, who look at the parameters of educational program development, area demographics and the physical condition and projected useful life of the existing school facilities, the publication states.

Additional factors include social issues like vandalism, physical security, and equity, or federal mandates like asbestos, lead abatement or energy conservation.

Agency officials said facility managers rarely consider the risks to school buildings from natural disasters such as earthquakes or windstorms.

School administrations have recently started to bring on risk managers, who contribute to facility planning by analyzing risks.

Currently, identified risks in schools are divided into risks to students, such as school bus accidents, sport activity or playground accidents, and food service hazards, and risks to staff, such as work-related disability and general health, according to the agency.

“Rarely do risk managers consider the risks to school facilities in general, and the risks to facilities and their occupants from natural disasters in particular,” the publication states. “Rather, they tend to assume that facility risks are addressed by building codes and similar regulations.”

Facility planning is also dealt with through financial managers, who manage maintenance budgets, capital improvement budgets and insurance budgets for the demands presented by facility and risk managers.

“The costs and benefits of various options of facility risk management are rarely explicitly addressed,” the publication states. “Addressing the problem of earthquake risk reduction requires the establishment of active communication among the three management functions and the coordination of activities into an integrated planning and management effort.”

The agency provides information on addressing various building types that can be adopted for use in schools due to their similar characteristics, according to the agency. Most school districts do not need to consider mid-rise and high-rise buildings, for example.

Weathering the Storm

While no legislation exists on the federal level, according to the agency, state education codes across the country mandate various emergency preparedness and auditing measures to protect schools from earthquakes, storms and other natural disasters.

A number of tornadoes, some deadly, hit the Southern and Midwest regions of the country in the past few months, destroying and damaging homes and schools.

Elementary school principal Mahlon Carothers of Mapleton, Iowa, said their school suffered $1 million in damage from the recent storm.

Preliminary damage at Mapleton Elementary School was to the playgrounds, lights, and ceilings rained in at the school, he said. The school also lost its sports storage place and bleacher, along with damages to the floor.

A few classrooms also require reconstruction, as well as rebuilding fences and scoreboards.

At the time the storm hit, a play was being held at the school. Actors and the audience were guided to the basement.

The total population of the adjacent elementary and high school is about 940, he said.

Another building, Anton, a kindergarten through eighth grade school, didn’t receive any damage.

Carothers said the town was well-prepared and the sheriff’s department and spotters had a good handle on the situation.

The town had a 15 to 20 minute warning — enough time for officials to blow sirens to alert residents to take cover.

The high school was built seven years ago and the elementary school in the 1930s, with an addition in the late 1950s. Rebuilding work on the two brick campuses will be paid for through insurance.

The spotters are trained through classes to identify where they think the storm might hit, watch it as it develops and stay up to date with the weather service’s information.

"Training is important, most of our staff is a few trained police officers," he said. "Our fire department is all volunteer, we’re a rural small community.”

Carothers said there was a strong response from local citizens and schools from hundreds of miles away after the storm.

Though the school won’t be fixed up for months, the principal said in two days volunteers had the streets cleaned.

"All of that, that’s what makes Iowa, Iowa," he said. "People all join in and help, they don’t wait for someone else to do it — they just come in and fix it."

The state also pitched in, providing big trucks to help in the effort, he said.

"All that training before and training to respond right away and be proactive basically is why we probably didn’t lose any lives," he said.

In response to the storms, the National Science Foundation Rapid Response Grant for Exploratory Research commissioned a group of researchers to study the structures of the areas hit by the April 27 Alabama storms to better understand the forces generated by large tornadoes and make recommendations for design code improvements and general safety guidelines.

David Prevatt, assistant professor in the Civil and Coastal Engineering department at the University of Florida, is serving as the principal investigator researching the post-storm areas.

Prevatt said many of the residential buildings he studied in the area are older, more vulnerable structures not brought up to code, and are primarily composed of wood structures, in addition to some built masonry blocks and concrete blocks.

Prevatt said various the materials, like wood, concrete or masonry, can all be equally built to withstand wind, hurricane or earthquake forces.

“It is very important for us to understand that simply the material by itself does not make a building stronger — it’s how you put it together, how you tie the basic elements of the material together,” he said. “The main input to making a building robust is going to be how each element in that structure is connected to each other.”

Likening building materials to links in a chain, Prevatt said the members themselves have to be strong but the connections between them must be equally as strong.

Building systems built whole might offer a better solution, he said.

Bill Coulbourne, who also served on the research team and is the director of Wind and Flood Hazard Mitigation at the Applied Technology Council, said there are two primary points schools should consider for rebuilding.

“One would be figuring out some space in the middle of the school somewhere, to be treated as a safe space or safe room,” he said. “Certainly for tornadoes, it should be secure enough and large enough to hold the population of the school.”

Coulbourne said that while most administrators think hallways are the safest places, damage observed after the tornadoes shows failures in parts of the structure that would have collapsed into the hallways.

“Thank goodness, a lot of times people aren’t in school so no one’s been hurt or killed,” he said.

Instead, Coulbourne recommended schools build shelter spaces specifically designed for safety.

As a consultant with his own firm, Coulbourne works on disaster response teams for state and local governments for any critical facilities where large amounts of people congregate to try to resist damage in future disasters. He also worked to put together guidelines for shelter spaces for the federal emergency management association, which can be referenced in FEMA document 361.

Coulbourne said masonry and concrete blocks were frequently used in lots of school buildings in many schools across the country was masonry. Depending on the region, in the late 1970s and early 1980s a lot of the masonry construction was not reinforced with steel to secure it, he said.

“The roof systems are not very well tied down so in major tornadoes or major wind events you tend to get an uplift because the wind is actually sucking up the roof,” he said. “The roof comes off, then the walls collapse.”

Coulbourne recommended schools that are going to rebuild to look for ways to reinforce masonry walls, put mortar in the cells and tie down the roof.

In terms of recent building trends, while nothing in a green building by itself would help resist damage from a natural disaster, any building that can continue to stand is more sustainable, he said.

While newer building codes in place since 2000 or 2003 have required more disaster resistance and property protection techniques based on previous damage, the center of the country is still building at lower wind speed rates, he said.

“They still have the concept that they’re not going to be hit by anything major,” he said. “And yet, when a tornado hits, it usually causes devastating type of stuff.”

Using the federal agency guidelines to build spaces would help schools make sure they can resist the high speeds of an EF4 or EF5 storm, he said.

“One of the things most helpful to a community is being able to have schools in service so parents can concentrate on clean up and jobs,” he said. “If kids can’t go back to school (parents have) got multiple issues to deal with — having places like schools continue to be able to put in service is most important.”

John van de Lindt, professor and Garry Neil Drummond Endowed Chair in Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering at the University of Alabama, worked with Prevatt and Coulbourne on the team to study homes and schools in the Tuscaloosa area.

The team studied a range of wood structures with varying ages.

Van de Lindt said the metal pieces that connect roofs to walls and walls to ground in more recent structures were historically not used.

“Depending on the wind speed, depending on where it was on the tornado path, we didn’t see those providing that much help when it was EF4 or EF5,” he said. “When those become of benefit were the EF0, EF1 and EF2.”

Seeing the roof of a gymnasium ripped off was not surprising given the wind pressure of the tornado, he said.

“I’m a very, very strong supporter of safe rooms or at the very least a basement with concrete walls or something over the top,” he said. “For these very large tornadoes that we’re seeing form in the southeast, or supercells, as a society we really need to figure out a way to make sure someone has somewhere safe to go.”

Van de Lindt said for engineers, it means really encouraging people to build shelters and explaining the risks.

“Historically people have said, well the probability is so low — that may be the case for the entire country. I teach reliability and probability so I definitely have a feel for probability,” he said. “When (a tornado) hits 10 to 20 miles away it feels close.”

While clean-up is in the works, it is still very early in the rebuilding process, according to Wes Brooker, market development manager at American Buildings Company.

The Eufaula, Ala.,-based company has set up a hotline where any business owner whose property was destroyed by the tornado can call in to connect with builders and contractors it is working with throughout the storm-ridden and flooded areas.

While some local builders have received about 15 to 20 orders to replace metal roof panels, current efforts are mostly focused on clean-up efforts, he said.

Brooker noted Tuscaloosa has instated a temporary moratorium on replacing buildings to prevent temporary buildings.

“They want the right buildings on the right structure,” he said. “Temporary structures are hard to get in and out.”

Brooker said the situation reminded him very much of the Katrina hurricane aftermath. While it took more than a year to start rebuilding after Katrina, Brooker said he expects the post-storm rebuilding to happen faster.

Brooker said while in high impact tornadoes there isn’t much one can do to keep buildings standing other than have concrete bunkers, metal buildings traditionally tend to do well. In the Northridge earthquake in 1994, the company’s metal buildings sustained minimal damage, and in the Haiti earthquake in 2010, their metal building was unscathed.

The building strength is due to the fact that the company designs and manufactures the entire building system to work together, while traditional conventional construction has many different parties working on different parts.

“As a result, not everything works together,” he said. “I do know that our structures tend to hold up extremely well, every bit of that structure, everything is designed to meet local codes.”

The post Disaster Preparedness for Existing School Structures appeared first on School Construction News.

UCSF Embraces Creative Design in Earthquake Country

At 660 feet long, perched 40 to 70 feet off the ground, the University of California, San Francisco’s new $23 million Ray and Dagmar Dolby Regeneration Medicine Building is as unique in its serpentine design as it is in its use.

Completed last November and located on a steep hillside on the university’s Parnassus campus in San Francisco, the “cliffhanger” building houses the Eli and Edyth Broad Center of Regeneration Medicine and Stem Cell Research and is a huge milestone in the history of UCSF’s stem cell research program.

“This building is the first significant green field project on the UCSF Parnassus campus in the past 20 years,” says UCSF Chancellor Dr. Susan Desmond-Hellman. “The contracted design/build team was able to create the extraordinary building that is now home to 25 of the top stem cell laboratories in the United States. This new facility not only attracts the world’s best and brightest scientific minds to the city of San Francisco, but will serve as a center for collaboration with private industry.”

With its schematic architectural design provided by Rafael Viñoly Architects of New York in 2006, the project captivated the interest of Ray and Dagmar Dolby as well as the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, both of which contributed funding for the facility, along with other private donations. Four research laboratories were planned for the building — each working with different aspects of stem cell technology.

Approximately 270 positions have been created with this project.

In 2008, UCSF selected DPR as general contractor and SmithGroup as architect of record, which then teamed together to make this project a reality. The companies started working together in June of that year with construction beginning two months later in August.

“The building contours itself to the road and recognizes the completely different environments that surround it through orientation of function and window placement,” explains Marianne O’Brien, a principal at SmithGroup. “The north wall of the building, which faces mostly the service side of buildings, is primarily windowless except at the west side where it opens up to a fantastic vista stretching from the Pacific Ocean across Golden Gate Park to the Bay. Inside, the labs feel light and airy, yet very grounded by green back dropped by the eucalyptus hill rising behind the building.”

Challenges Include Lack of Access

While it might seem that designing the building on a 60-degree slope was the toughest part of the project, O’Brien says it was actually the easier half of the equation.

“Solving all of the technical and construction challenges was extremely complex,” she says. “The sliver of land on which it is constructed was the only viable site on the Parnassus campus that placed the new research building in proximity to the existing research center and the core facilities needed to support the research.”

The challenge in the initial design, she adds, was to moderate between the slope of the road to the south, the existing floor elevations at the Health Sciences complex, and floor-to-floor height dimensions within the building to support the flow and function.

“The execution of the design required intense conversation between the soils engineer to solve stabilization issues, the civil engineers, structural engineers and the entire architectural design team. Even the initial challenges of surveying such a difficult site proved to have an impact on the design. The elevator tower had to be quickly relocated 20 feet to the east, and fully redesigned to preserve campus infrastructure when the initial survey was found to be inaccurate.”

For Michael Saks, DPR project manager, the biggest challenge for this team was the lack of access to the building.

“Rafael Viñoly Architects’ bridging document design was based on constructing the building from Medical Center Way. But during the two-month proposal phase, our superintendent realized that we needed an access road for major equipment. An access road design based on a cantilevered soldier pile retaining wall on the downhill side of the access road was then incorporated into our design and pricing.”

However, Malcolm Drilling, the retaining wall and drilled pier subcontractor, said it did not think it could meet the schedule with just one access road and that the downhill cantilevered design posed safety concerns. The drilling company then developed a revised design based on two access roads with uphill soil nailing retaining walls. DPR lowered the original access road below the seismic slip plane to improve the performance of the building foundation.

“We went with the two-access road design based on the safety concerns and improved foundation design,” says Saks. “The design and approval of the revised retaining wall design delayed the start of the grading work at the building by three months and cost us an additional $500,000.”

Michael Toporkoff, UCSF associate director of capital programs, says the steep site needed to be “benched” with a provision of roads to accommodate drilling equipment for the 75-foot to 85-foot deep piles — four at each concrete column. Activities needed to be planned to avoid activity interference on the dead end roads.

“That is, one way in, one way out,” he says. “It was too steep to ‘daylight’ [connect to an existing road] at the west end so a ‘pull schedule’ [reverse schedule – starting with the end date and working backwards to identify each significant milestone] was established with commitments from each subcontractor for each activity. The schedule was revisited every week and the plan was implemented on the steep hillside. Foundation work took one year of the project schedule.”

With the hill being steeper at the west end and due to the geometry of the building, the

structural steel had to be set from east to west. Therefore the foundation had to be

completed before steel erection could begin.

CIRM — which provided partial funding for the project — also required that the project be completed in two years. To meet this schedule, the project was built with design/build delivery.

“Seven separate design packages were established,” says Toporkoff. “The team was designing the steel while the field was installing the foundations, and so on. The compact site, between campus research structures and Mt. Sutro did not allow much room for staging. Most of the material had to be ‘just-in-time’ delivery for erection and installation. This was especially evident with steel erection. The steel framing was completed on a fast-track, three-month period.”

LEED and Earthquake Friendly

Many sustainable design principles were also woven in the design. The performance goal was initially identified as LEED silver, but about a year into the project, UCSF decided to target LEED gold.

The building also exceeds Title 24 energy conservation requirements by 24 percent, and while UCSF had already implemented lab practices to reduce water flow, the design/build team proposed low flow lab water fittings and met with lab managers to determine viability and build support. As a result, the project ultimately incorporated low flow faucets in labs and waterless urinals throughout the building. Additionally, green roofs reduce the heat-island effect, minimize stormwater runoff and enhance the environment while native plants contribute to reduced irrigation requirements, As well, the base isolated design also provides substantial material savings over a traditional moment frame significantly reducing the carbon footprint of the building and enhancing the lifespan of the building.

Though it is impossible to make any structure completely earthquake proof, a key feature of this project is its base isolators that allow for 23 inches of lateral movement during an earthquake.

The structural design includes 42 friction pendulum seismic isolators, located between the foundation and the structure at each of the building’s anchor points, which allow the building to slide nearly two feet in any horizontal direction. This was achieved by earthquake isolation devices, some of which were custom designed by structural engineer Forell/Elsesser to withstand 100 tons of uplift forces each.

Seismic base isolation is considered to be one of the most optimal solutions to help protect life, building contents and structural integrity in an earthquake, says O’Brien. This is due to the isolators’ ability to reduce lateral accelerations. A base-isolated building can “ride out” an event, moving more slowly and shaking less violently than the ground underneath. The isolators are dished, which helps bring the building back to rest in a position close to the starting mark.

“UCSF understood the value of making the investment in base isolation, seeing it as an investment in the research,” she adds. “Not only do the isolators help protect the building, they help protect the contents and systems, which will help assure continuity of operation in an event. Even the glassware should suffer less damage than in a traditional building.”

The post UCSF Embraces Creative Design in Earthquake Country appeared first on School Construction News.