STRUCTURAL SURVEY OF THE SCHOOLS AFFECTED BY TSUNAMI AND EARTHQUAKE IN ACEH PROVINCE AND NIAS INDONESIA
- FINAL REPORT -
March 2005 – February 2006
Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
TABLE OF CONTENT:
Page
1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………….……. 3 2. OBJECTIVES AND EXPECTED OUTPUTS OF SCHOOLS SURVEY……………………………………………………………….…….. 3 2.1. METHODOLOGY OF WORKS………………………………..…….. 3 3. ACHIEVED OUTPUTS OF SCHOOLS SURVEY………………….…...... 4 4. OBSERVATIONS ON TECHNICAL ISSUES………………………….….... 5 4.1. EXISTING SCHOOLS (STANDARDS APPLIED)………………….... 5 4.2. STRUCTURAL TYPES OF THE BUILDINGS………………...... ….. 6 4.3. STRUCTURAL DAMAGES ON SCHOOL BUILDINGS……………. 7 4.4. COMMON STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCIES CONTRIBUTING MOST DAMAGES..…………………..……….….. 9 4.4.1. REINFORCEMENT RELATED DEFICIENCIES……………………. 9 4.4.2. CONCRETE RELATED DEFICIENCIES…………………..………… 10 4.4.3. WOODEN STRUCTURES DEFICIENCIES………………………….. 10 4.4.4. STRUCTURAL DETAILING DEFICIENCIES……………………..… 11 4.5. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RETROFITTING……………………… 12 4.5.1. REPAIR OF CRACKS…………………………………………………. 12 4.5.2. FIXING THE CROSS WALLS TO LONG WALLS……………….….. 12 4.5.3. REBUILDING OF DAMAGED PART OF THE WALL……………… 13 4.5.4. REPAIR OF DAMAGED RING BEAMS JUNCTIONS…………….… 13 4.5.5. REPAIR OF DAMAGED CONCRETE COLUMNS……………...... … 13 4.5.6. REPAIR OF DAMAGED WOODEN SEGMENTS..…………………. 14 4.6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SCHOOLS………………………………………………...…. 15 4.6.1. NEW CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS…………………………….... 15 4.6.2. PRACTICAL IMPROVEMENT OF STRUCTURAL SEGMENTS..… 16 4.6.3. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRE-CONSTRUCTION PHASE.…..… 17 4.6.4. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION PHASE.………..… 17 4.6.4.1. SUPERVISION OF WORKS………………………………………... 17 4.6.4.2. MATERIALS AND WORKMASHIP……………………………….. 17 4.6.4.3. CERTIFICATION AND TESTING OF MATERIALS……………… 18 5. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………...….. 19 5.1. LESSONS FROM RECENT DESTRUCTION……………………….. 19 6. ANNEXES…………………………………………………………………… 20 ANNEX 1: BUILDING STANDARDS FOR SEISMIC ZONES 4,5,6…...... 21 ANNEX 2: PHOTOS OF TYPICAL DAMAGES ON SCHOOLS……...…. 25 ANNEX 3: PHOTOS OF TYPICAL DEFICIENCIES ON SCHOOLS…..... 31 ANNEX 4: LIST OF SURVEYED SCHOOLS BY DISTRICTS………...... 34
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 2 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
1. INTRODUCTION
Earthquake and Tsunami that hit Aceh province in December 26th 2004 but also earthquake that hit Nias in March 28th 2005, caused unprecedented devastation of housing, social and communal infrastructure and huge human casualties. Hundreds of schools throughout Aceh Province and Nias were damaged or destroyed. Ministry of National Education (MoNE, figures from June 2005) estimates that 2.269 schools out of total 5.565 in Aceh Province were damaged. 309 SDN and MIN primary schools suffered light damages, further 494 were heavyly damaged, 235 were totally destroyed. In Nias heavy damages were reported on 413 SDN and MIN schools. The learning capacities were severely reduced, remaining learning facilities endangered. Together with material damages, there were huge casualties both among students and teachers. In new situation, approximately 177.000 students needed learning facilities. About 400.000 persons had to move to other locations as Internally Displaced Persons. In order to continue lectures, in many remaining schools classes were regrouped, more classes attended lessons in one class room etc. In order to plan and coordinate necessary actions towards ensuring safety for students in remaining schools, there was urgent need to survey all schools and provide figures about real state of facilities in new situation. Remaining schools had to be surveyed in order to identify potentially unsafe ones and determine those to be rehabilitated or reconstructed in order to enable continuation of education process. All figures necessary to plan further actions on provision of safe school spaces had to be compiled in short time. In co-ordination with Department of Education, short after disaster, UNICEF started the structural survey of the schools in Aceh Province through cooperation with UNOPS, whose team of structural engineers commenced survey in late March 2005.
2. OBJECTIVES AND EXPECTED OUTPUTS OF SCHOOLS SURVEY
2.1. METHODOLOGY OF WORK
• Field visit of schools • Visual observation with recording of photos • Detection of damages • Analysis of cause of damages • Assessment of safety condition in every class room and other school rooms • Warning of schools authorities on site in case of unsafe rooms • Recommending of necessary actions: rehabilitation/reconstruction • Reporting to UNICEF/UNOPS on survey findings: unsafe rooms and recommended activities
Many schools had already been surveyed by DoE, NGOs or other state institutions teams, however compiled reports about structural conditions and level of damage on these schools were confusing and not reliable and had to be checked again. Targeted category of schools to be surveyed were all SDN and MIN schools in use. Priority was to identify unsafe schools or rooms within the schools and to issue warning through UNICEF to school authorities and Department of Education. In case of condemning the schools, after approval by DoE,
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 3 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
students would be evacuated from unsafe school and the temporary schools (in the beginning tents, later prefabricated buildings) would be erected to enable continuation of lectures out of unsafe buildings until new permanent school is completed. Since the most affected areas by Tsunami and earthquakes were Banda Aceh, Aceh Barat, Aceh Besar, Aceh Jaya, Nagan Raja, Pidie and Nias, survey of the schools was focused on these districts. Together with structural survey of the schools aiming to identify unsafe learning spaces and those for rehabilitation or new construction, the intention was also to provide accurate findings about construction failures contributing severe damages. These findings would enable to determine corrective measures in rehabilitation and reconstruction of damaged schools also learn about failures in previous construction practices allowing destruction of the schools and which improvements are needed for construction of new ones. Beside schools damaged by Tsunami, also those deep inland, damaged by earthquake were to be surveyed.
3. ACHIEVED OUTPUTS OF SCHOOLS SURVEY
From March 2005 till February 2006, UNOPS Structural Engineers surveyed 428 schools. The structural survey of the schools was performed in districts Banda Aceh, Aceh Barat, Aceh Besar, Aceh Jaya, Nagan Raja, Pidie, Nias and Nias Selatan.These districts were the most affected and survey of the schools was focused on them. Together with SDN and MIN that were targeted category, 51 SMAN, SMPS and SMPN schools were surveyed. Out of 428 surveyed schools, 212 schools were found to need rehabilitation, 154 to need reconstruction, 56 to need both rehabilitation and reconstruction (schools with more buildings of different level of damages), only 6 schools needed no activity. These figures are presented in following table:
District Banda Aceh Aceh Aceh Nagan Nias Pidie Aceh Besar Barat Jaya Raya and Nias Selatan Surveyed 107 136 53 21 22 80 9 schools Rehabilitation 69 90 22 6 12 9 4 Reconstruction 31 29 24 12 5 51 2 Rehabilitation/ 7 11 7 3 5 20 3 Reconstruction No activity 0 6 0 0 0 0 0
Together with determining of activities that need to be undertaken, the safety conditions were inspected on each school. The schools were declared as UNSAFE, PARTS UNSAFE, GOOD, * GOOD, PARTS DESTROYED, DESTROYED, depending on scale and type of destruction and estimate that some class rooms or entire school can collapse. Out of total of 428 surveyed schools, 25 were declared as UNSAFE, meaning that classes were still ongoing in entirely unsafe buildings (close to collapse) in the time of structural survey. In such cases
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 4 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
the school authorities were warned immediately on site, Department of Education through UNICEF. This and other safety categories are presented in “Lists of surveyed schools by Districts”, given in ANNEX 4 of this report. Exact lists of the schools to be surveyed were composed in co-operation between UNICEF and Government (Department of Education and BRR). The survey performed was of “quick assessment” type, meaning visual inspection of the schools, with identification and defining the level of damage on site. Following intention to improve the general condition of schools where needed, besides structural safety of them, also other non-structural items (conditions of toilets, sanitation and water supply, capacities of teachers accommodation-houses in remote schools, roofs, eaves and ceilings conditions etc.) were inspected and findings included in reports. For each surveyed school, the numbers of photos were taken for reports and files. The findings of all 428 surveyed schools were presented in 24 reports, submitted to UNICEF. The list of surveyed schools with findings and recommendations is given in Annex to this report. ANNEX 1 to this report is matrix with new construction standards, ANNEX 2 is photo presentation of most common structural damages on schools, ANNEX 3 is photo presentation of most common deficiencies in construction, which contributed most damages. Summary of structural survey is presented as ANNEX 4 “Surveyed schools by districts”. .
4. OBSERVATIONS ON TECHNICAL ISSUES
4.1. EXISTING SCHOOLS (STANDARDS APPLIED)
In 1997 Department of Public Works issued a decree No 295/KPTS/CK/1997 about "Technical Guidelines for the Construction of Government Buildings". This guidelines considered buildings even up to 2 floors as simple, non engineered buildings. The most of schools buildings are up to that height and therefore belong to that category. The designs of school buildings, technical specifications and the administration procedures were described in those Guidelines. Typical model of schools buildings for elementary schools is ground floor building, masonry bearing wall, construction with RC columns, RC ring beam, timber roof trusses, and galvanized tin sheet roofing. The typical materials used in the model were: • K-175 reinforced concrete for columns and beams, • 1:6 mortar mix (the typical strengths of masonry: compressive stress 21kg/cm2, shear stress 3.9 kg/cm2, bending tensile stress 2.5 kg/cm2) for brick masonry walls, • U-24 reinforcing steel (fy =2400 kg/cm2), • wooden roof truss (2nd class, allowable stresses of wood: compressive stress // grain = 81 kg/cm2, bending tensile stress = 91.8 kg/cm2) • roof cover is light galvanized steel roof sheets.
Indonesian Loading code SNI-03-1727-1989 determined specification for earthquake loads. The earthquake is presented in the form of horizontal and vertical seismic coefficients based on seismic zones, importance of buildings, height of building and soil stiffness. These regulations did not apply for simple buildings with a maximum height of 5 m above the foundation. Most of the school buildings were in that category and remained non-engineered for earthquake resistance.
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 5 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
4.2. STRUCTURAL TYPES OF THE BUILDINGS
There are following structural types of the buildings: • Ground floor wall bearing buildings with RC columns intermediate and in walls crossings and within the wall thickness (size 10 x 10cm), clay bricks wall between, with RC ring beam (size 10 x 15cm) at roof level over all external and partition walls, on which the roof trusses are fixed. The walls are usually constructed of burnt clay bricks in cement plaster, with a total thickness of 12 cm with plaster. This is the most common structural type of the schools.
• The buildings with timber columns in wall thickness (size 10 x 10cm), compacted concrete or clay bricks masonry 80cm-180cm high between columns, wooden ring beam on which the roof trusses are fixed. At this type of structure, masonry has bracing function for wooden columns. The walls are usually constructed of burnt clay bricks, in some areas of compacted concrete, with a total thickness of 12 cm with plaster. This is very common structural type in Aceh Barat, Nagan Raya, Aceh Jaya and Nias.
• Ground floor non-bearing walls type of the structure, with larger RC columns in walls crossings and intermediate (size 20 x 20cm, out of wall thickness), non-bearing, infill brick walls between, RC ring beam at roof level over external and partition walls on which the roof trusses are fixed. This structural type is newer, structurally improved, it is common especially in urban areas. It is found as better version than older wall bearing structure.
• Ground floor with one or more floors buildings, non-bearing walls type, structure built of RC columns, RC beams supporting RC slabs, RC ring beams over all external and partition walls, carrying roof trusses. The infill walls are constructed of clay bricks in cement plaster, total thickness 12cm with plaster. This structural type is minority, found mostly in urban areas.
• Ground floor non-bearing walls type of the structure, with timber columns as bearing structure and infill of timber planks, as wall paneling, wooden ring beam over columns tops on which the roof trusses are fixed. This type is found mostly in remote rural areas in Aceh Barat, Nagan Raya and Nias.
The common building materials used for school buildings in Aceh Province and Nias are reinforced concrete, clay bricks, wood and cement mortar. Wood is very frequently used for structural parts such as columns, beams, roof trusses, as well as non structural purposes, as partition and external walls panels, ceiling panels, eaves, etc. School buildings have sloping roofs, structure mostly made of timber roof trusses, rafters and purlins, covered by roof galvanized steel sheets or cement asbestos sheets.
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 6 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
4.3. STRUCTURAL DAMAGES ON SCHOOL BUILDINGS
Common specific damages were found on the buildings during structural survey of the schools. Many of damages were visible on standing school buildings, the most of them still in use. The destroyed schools could also be inspected and primary damages leading to collapse of entire buildings could be identified. The cause of damage or collapse of the segments was identified by observing remaining structural segment in location of damage, where reinforcement is visible and diameter and positioning of bars, overlapping in extensions, clearance between stirrups can be determined. Also concrete could be checked, composition of gravel applied in concrete, presence of voids and honey combs, presence of other particles but aggregate, dirt, etc. However, all damages visible on standing or destroyed buildings were caused by the same common deficiencies in construction.
Foundations - Break or collapse of foundation beams The foundation beams (connecting foundations footings of columns and supporting walls above) are especially weak segments due to insufficient reinforcement built-in, sometimes not reinforced at all. Laying on “stone-in-cement” sub construction (which is not reinforced as well), often collapse, break and cause breaking of the masonry above. Common for many schools is occurrence of separation of the walls from columns above broken foundation beam in junction with column footing.
Columns - Break or collapse of columns Columns (reinforced columns) are affected by applying insufficient reinforcement (both main bars and stirrups) in terms of insufficient anchoring between footing and column and also column with ring beam above, too small diameter or too big clearance for stirrups, even grouping of main reinforcement bars in one corner of the column was frequently found. Many times reinforcement is visible on surface of column, not under protective coat of concrete. Break of column causes separation of the wall from the column, breaking or collapse of entire wall.
Beams (lintels and ring beams) - Break or collapse of beams Ring beams have function of “horizontal belt “, framing structure against horizontal forces during earthquake and ensuring connection of structural segments. They are affected especially in junctions of segments (column with ring beam, junctions above partition and external walls). The most common cause of break of ring beam is extending by overlapping of all bars in one location with too short overlapping. Common deficiencies found were insufficient reinforcement applied (both main bars and stirrups), insufficient anchoring in junction to other structural segments, wrong positioning by grouping of bars in one corner of beam. Break or collapse of ring beam causes break of wall below, if in junction then separation of the walls occurs. Lintels mostly do not exist as reinforced beam over door and window openings. Istead of lintels, there are masonry constructed over door or window frames. Such segments are weak against horizontal forces during earthquakes, easily break and collapse. If reinforced lintel is constructed, it still does not extend to columns on both sides of openings, but only above the openings.
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 7 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
Walls (brick masonry or cast concrete) – Cracks, gaps and collapse of walls Many walls were found with minor or major cracks, in parapet walls or above doors and windows openings (mostly where the reinforced concrete lintel is not constructed). This is caused either by collapse of foundation beam below wall, or collapse of ring beam above wall. Even in case that foundation and ring beams are not damaged, wall itself can be too long and too high comparing to small width of 12cm only, to withstand out-of-plane moving effects (best visible where diagonal cracks in the walls and from windows openings). This occurs especially when the columns are too distant and there is no beam in the walls except ring beam on the top of walls. Common damage is separation of walls in corners (actually separation of masonry from concrete column). The cause of this is weak junction of masonry to columns, the walls are too high and too long, the damages occur along perimeter of the wall. The gable walls are frequently affected, there are minor or major cracks in masonry or collapse of parts or entire walls. These walls can be too long and too high comparing to small width of 12cm only. Common deficiencies in gable walls constructed by brick masonry are missing concrete column or weak ones in a middle of wall (extended from foundation) and top beams over the wall. In the wooden structure type of buildings (wooden columns with masonry), the masonry of walls separates from columns, gaps occur in junctions. Worse case is collapse of masonry between columns in parts or entirely. In these buildings the walls have role to brace columns, but when the walls collapse, all structure could collapse as well. The gaps also occure between wooden column and masonry due to deterioration of wooden parts caused by moisture.
Wooden structure buildings with planks - Sloped walls, decomposition of junctions, collapse of buildings, exhausted buildings. The walls of many wooden buildings are sloped, in worst cases collapsed. This occurred by moving of columns out of supports bringing the walls in slope and finaly collapse of building. The cause for this is lack of timber bracing members between columns and top beams for all cross and external walls, the structure is not rigid enough against seismic horizontal forces. The junctions are made simply by nails for all coupled structural members. Second common cause is lack of maintenance (mostly no maintenance at all), the wooden structure members during construction were not protected against moisture nor insects, soon condition deteriorates and they become rotten, junctions decompose and finally building collapse. These damages are found on many school buildings in Aceh Barat, Nagan Raya and Nias.
School destroyed or damaged by Tsunami located close to ocean: The most of schools located close to ocean are destroyed entirely or in part. In some cases the parts of the schools are still standing but locations are flooded. Such schools need to be relocated.
Burnt schools: Some schools are located in former GAM area that after August 2005 Agreement between Government and GAM became accessable. The numbers of these schools were burnt between 2000 and 2002. Inhabitans of villages moved to other locations, with temporary schools solution for ID (internally displaced) students. The original locations of former schools are usually overgrown with heigh grass, bushes or plants. The villages are abandoned, residents moved, such schools need relocation.
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 8 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
4.4. COMMON STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCIES CONTRIBUTING MOST DAMAGES
The most damages and collapses of the schools buildings during earthquakes occurred as the result of improper construction methods, poor workmanship and application of bad materials. Thousands of elementary school buildings were constructed all over the country as the Presidential instruction was given twenty years ago to reduce the lack of elementary schools in Indonesia. The building standards were issued by government through Ministry of Public Works. The typical model for school buildings (ground floor building, masonry bearing wall, construction with RC columns, RC ring beam, timber roof trusses, and galvanized tin sheet roofing , see 4.1.) was accepted and widely constructed throughout Indonesia (thus in Aceh and Nias). Calculations and computer simulations proved that if constructed properly, with good materials, good workmanship and appropriate structural detailing in accordance with the design, that this model of building can withstand a earthquake of PGA of 0.22 g. However, failures and damages occurred frequently during construction before building was completed, most of schools were not constructed properly. Although the construction supervisors on behalf of Government should have been appointed during construction phase to ensure compliance with design and technical specification, they were frequently not engaged or they mostly failed in monitoring of construction phase. The construction did not comply with design and technical specifications. Even wrong construction methods were frequently applied as traditional ones, leaving everything to the contractor to complete the building. The quality of new schools was often poor. This affected the resistance of the buildings to seismic forces and made them more sensitive and weak to withstand earthquakes.
During structural survey, the damages were visually observed, analyzed and defined as the part of the “quick survey or rapid assessment” of the schools.
4.4.1. Reinforcement related deficiencies:
• Too small diameter used in concrete columns, lintels and beams, both for main longitudinal reinforcement (even Q 6mm instead of 10 mm for beams and 12mm minimum for columns) and stirrups (even 3mm instead of 8mm minimum). • The overlapping of bars of main longitudinal reinforcement for extensions is often in the middle of the span of the beam (where the tension is strongest). • Entire longitudinal reinforcement of beams or lintels is extended and overlapped in the same location, allowing breaking of segment. In other cases the overlapping is too short (few cm only instead of 40dia of bars) or even does not exist, the hooks of the bars simply extend to each other. • The stirrups clearance in the middle of segment or in the area of overlapping is too big (30 cm and more, clearance between should be half of clearance in normal segment, but not more than 15cm). It was often found that stirrups are not installed into junctions of segments (column with beam etc). • RC columns acting as vertical bracing and RC ring beam acting as horizontal belt (connecting long façade walls and cross walls), frequently have insufficient ties (reinforcement anchoring), allowing collapse of ties and moving of such walls
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 9 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
independently in case of earthquake. The result of this is separation of walls in the corners and junctions, often collapse of walls. • Bars of different diameter are sometimes found built-in into the structure segment, some smooth bars without hooks on ends. • Over the beams of ground floor ceiling (acting as upper floor slab supports), the longitudinal reinforcement of the slab has no upper component to prevent occurring of cracks due to tension in that area (negative bending moment) over supports-beams. • The reinforcement was often found visible, on surface of segment, rusty as result of bad installation with no spacers in formwork (no protective coat of concrete around). Such reinforcement is exposed to corrosion, decrease of diameter, deteriorates structural stability. • Grouping of all main reinforcement bars in one corner or in the middle of columns or beams cross section is found on few schools. The participating reinforcement is moved from tense area of cross section, cracks or collapse of segment occurs.
4.4.2. Concrete related deficiencies:
• Concrete used is of non-controlled quality, simple river gravel with non-adequate sand-gravel particles division for proper mixing rates. The concrete inside damaged segment varies in quality, can be scratched even by finger (too little cement, sand but no gravel particles inside, insufficient mixing, etc). • During the works ongoing on the schools under rehabilitation, it was seen that the concrete was mixed manually (by shovel, not in machine mixer), the concrete quality even required properly by design can not achieve needed level. • The pouring of concrete into formwork is mostly performed by shovel, no vibrators to allow compaction in the formwork. Honey combs and voids in concrete are common for most structures, create weak locations in structure by reducing compressive strength, disable common acting of concrete and reinforcement steel and allow corrosion. In junctions of segments and overlapping of reinforcement, disable compression share and cause crush of concrete and collapse of junction. • On some schools concrete is “white” in some segments, can be easily scratched into dust. After pouring of the concrete in strong sun, it was not covered nor cured by wetting next days.
4.4.3. Wooden structure deficiencies:
• There is no bracing between wooden structural members (column with beam) to ensure horizontal rigidity of building. Masonry is used as bracing for columns, frequently crackes or collapses, columns move from original supports, walls come into slope. • There is no proper connection between wooden columns and masonry. It is usually done by nails (as anchoring for plaster for masonry). This is location where gaps between masonry and columns occur. • The top beam over the walls is too weak to “frame” the structure, walls and columns become movable, cracks and gaps occur in masonry.
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 10 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
• Plaster was applied over wooden columns without wire mesh, it collapses in transition between different materials (wood-masonry) and insufficient adhearence over wood. Plaster cracks, collapses and wooden column becomes unprotected against moisture. • Roof wooden structure of the schools in general is often rotten in part, damaged by roof tin cover leakage, but also damaged by termites. In number of cases wooden roof members are insufficient in dimension or missing some bracing parts. • There is no maintenance of wooden segments. During construction of wooden structure, the protection against moisture and insects was not applied. Wooden segments are damaged, rotten. The damaged parts are rarely repaired or replaced, become weak, exhausted and collapse. The most of these schools were built 5-20 years ago. Some of these schools are in very bad condition, exhausted and it is not effective to rehabilitate them, only reconstruction of such schools is recommended to improve bad general condition.
4.4.4. Structural detailing deficiencies:
The main structural failures contributing damages were: • The walls are usually too long (7m between columns at cross walls and more) and too high (3,5m to ring beam and more) comparing to wall thickness (12 cm), allowing out-of-plane moving and overturning of walls as a common feature. RC columns in walls crossings and intermediate in wall thickness (at wall bearing type only 10x10cm) have no capacity to ensure resistance to horizontal bending effect during earthquake. The result of this is occurring of many cracks in the walls, often the collapse of walls or entire building. • Very commonly the reinforced concrete lintel is not made above windows and doors openings, only masonry-bricks directly laid down onto window or door frame. The cracks occur, portions of masonry may collapse. • The masonry-brick walls, partition and parapet walls, at non-bearing wall building type with increased RC columns are built after concrete columns are built. The anchors on junctions are not used, the cracks in junctions of masonry with RC columns occur because of insufficient ties, the masonry separates from the column or collapse. • Gable walls are especially weak segments, no top RC beam, only one vertical intermediate RC column in thickness of the wall (10x10cm) extended to the top (small dimension, insufficient reinforcement), often collapse.
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 11 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
4.5. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RETROFITTING
Retrofitting is activity applied on damaged structural parts in order to bring the building into original state. However, the buildings surveyed in this structural survey declared for rehabilitation will be rehabilitated only if proved that remainder of the building complies with latest construction standards. Othewise the building will be reconstructed.
4.5.1 REPAIR OF CRACKS
If minor or major cracks occur in plaster and masonry, they should be repaired to obtain original integrity of walls. In case the cracks are wide enough, cement - sand mortar grout of 1:6 ratio (better effect if prefabricated mixture of expanding mortar Sika, ROFIX or similar is used) can be applied : • Remove the plaster over a width of 20 cm on each side of the crack from both inside and outside surface of the wall, clean the crack area with air pressure. • Wet the cracks by sprinkling water • Seal the cracks on opposite side, fill the grout into the cracks starting with the lowest end and moving up the height of the wall.
In case grout can not be filled into the cracks, use the following method: • Remove the plaster over a width of 20 cm on each side of the crack from inside as well as outside the walls, clean the crack with air pressure. • Use galvanized wire mesh 40 cm wide and nail it to the wall over whole length of the crack about 20 cm for each side. • Wet the wall by sprinkling water • Sprinkle neat cement slurry on the surface and apply 1:4 cement sand plaster to cover the total width of 20 cm each side of the crack, flatten whole new surface. Prior to this repair, first check that other structural segments are not broken. Otherwise, firstly structural segments must be repaired.
4.5.2. FIXING THE CROSS WALLS TO LONG WALLS
The cross walls are usually built after façade walls, do not have good connection with the facade walls, junctions of masonry are done only by cement plaster, junctions of ring beams are not good enough (insufficient reinforcement or weak concrete). These locations are among first ones where damages occur in form of separation of walls. To repair connection, it is recommended as follows: • Remove plaster on both sides from corner 50 cm in whole height of wall • Make dia 6mm holes in walls to be connected in every 30cm vertically and horizontally in the plaster between bricks • Apply reinforcement net (with bars dia 6mm with openings 15cm) over whole height of the walls (starting from wall foundation beam below and over ring beam above) • Insert dia 6mm connecting pieces into holes in the walls and bend ends to hold net on both sides of the walls • Fix galvanized wire mesh over net installed
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 12 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
• Apply cement sand-plaster 1:4 ratio in thickness of 25 mm all over the mesh Prior to this repair, first check that other structural segments are not broken. Otherwise, firstly structural segments must be repaired.
4.5.3. REBUILDING OF DAMAGED PART OF THE WALL
If part of the wall is badly cracked or collapsed, such part of the wall should be demolished and reconstructed by using clay bricks and 1:6 cement sand mortar. The structure above (if any) should be supported until the wall is complete again. • All weak and unstable pieces of masonry (damaged plaster, cracked bricks) must be removed • Clean the contact surfaces by air pressure • Wet the contact surfaces to achieve better adherence of new mortar to old one • Build the missing part of the wall • Apply 1:6 cement-sand plaster coat over both sides of new part of wall, flatten whole new surface of plaster. Prior to this repair, first check that other structural segments are not broken. Otherwise, firstly structural segments must be repaired.
4.5.4. REPAIR OF DAMAGED RING BEAM JUNCTIONS
The common weak locations in structures are ring beams in junctions of internal cross walls with façade walls, due to insufficient reinforcement built in, incorrectly anchored and insufficiently overlapped. This causes separation of walls below. In order to strengthen or repair cracked junction, following method is suggested:
• Demolish concrete in junction from all beams in length of 40cm for each (preserve existing reinforcement). • Clean area from remaining unstable pieces of concrete, also by air pressure • Insert previously bent and hooked additional reinforcement (4 pcs of main bars dia 12mm starting with cross wall beam) into existing reinforcement of external wall ring beam, ensure overlapping is minimum 40cm for each direction and install stirrups dia 8mm with clearances in overlapping not more than 8cm. • Assemble and install formwork for concrete pouring (height and width as rest of the beam) • Pour concrete with proper compaction for entire parts length of new beams • Wet new concrete next 7 days This method often requires fixing of separated walls described under 4.5.2.
4.5.5. REPAIR OF DAMAGED CONCRETE COLUMNS
Applying insufficient reinforcement in RC columns and in junctions of coupled segments (foundation with RC column, RC column with RC ring beam, etc), allows the out-of-plane acting of walls, cracking or collapse in case of earthquake.
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 13 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
In order to repair broken column or strengthen weak one, following is recommended: For lightly damaged columns: This method requires less demolishment of existing structure: • Remove plaster on both sides from coupled walls (both walls 80 cm from corner) in whole height • Make holes dia 6mm in walls plaster between bricks in vertical and horizontal distance 30cm in zig-zag line • Apply reinforcement nets bent over corner (with bars dia 6mm with openings 15cm), on both sides and over whole height of the walls (starting from wall foundation beam below and over ring beam above) • Insert dia 6mm connecting pieces into holes in the walls and bend ends to hold nets on both sides of the walls • Apply cement sand-plaster 1:4 ratio in thickness of 25 mm all over the nets (preferably using pressure plastering machine)
For heavily damaged columns (rebuilding of new ones): This method requires more demolishment of existing structure: • Support the structure above column and ring beam to be repaired (roof truss, etc), also stabilize masonry around column to be repaired • Remove plaster, demolish concrete and all reinforcement from the column • Demolish concrete from ring beam above (40 cm to each side from column top) and foundation beam below (deep as needed to obtain 40 cm overlapping of new concrete and existing foundation reinforcement), preserve all existing reinforcement of ring beam and foundation • Clean all contact surfaces to receive new concrete, especially masonry around • Install new column reinforcement in needed height to get into foundation and ring beam 40cm in each direction ( 4 pcs dia 12mm main bars and stirrups dia 8mm with clearance 15 cm, in overlapping with ring beam and foundation bars to be 10cm) • Assemble and install formwork for new column (20x20cm) • Mix in mixer and pour concrete fc=20 MPa into formwork all from foundation to ring beam, compaction by vibrator to prevent voids occurence • Wet new concrete next 7 days
All above repair suggestions are related to simple one storey buildings. The similar methods but with items properties according to calculations can be applied for two storey buildings.
4.5.6. REPAIR OF DAMAGED WOODEN SEGMENTS
• Damaged wooden segments must be replaced in order to bring structure capacity into original state. Other structural segments to be temporarily supported • Wooden segments damaged by termits or rotten are not of original capacity must be replaced as well • The endangered junctions must be dismantled and new segments coupled. Prior to installation, they must be protected against moisture and termites.
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 14 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
4.6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF SCHOOLS
4.6.1. NEW CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS
Given by new regulations by Ministry of Public Works issued in late 2005, districts Aceh Besar, Aceh Barat, Aceh Jaya, Nagan Raya, Banda Aceh of Aceh Province now belong to seismic zone 5 and Nias and Nias Selatan to zone 6. Furher improvement comparing to previous standards is seicmic strengthening also of “ground floor” buildings, which was not practice before. The buildings must be designed as “Engineered structures”, meaning taking in account importance and type of building, seismic zone and geological conditions on locality. The zonation is further specified by possible Tsunamy occurrence, as follows: Upon distance from the coastline: 5km
Seismic zone 2 (North-east part of Aceh Province)
Seismic zone 3 (East part of Aceh Province and north coast) Seismic zone 4 Major part of Aceh Besar and central area of Aceh province) Seismic zone 5 (Banda Aceh, Aceh Barat, Aceh Jaya, Nagan Raya, coastal part of Aceh Besar) Seismic zone 6 (Nias and Nias Selatan)
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 15 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
4.6.2. PRACTICAL IMPROVEMENTS OF STRUCTURAL SEGMENTS
Following measures to be applied for reconstruction of school buildings:
• Limit the free length of the walls to 3-4m (currently 8m to 10 m), in order to decrease out-of-plane bending effects of horizontal earthquake forces. This can be done by constructing intermediate RC columns of proper dimension (min.30x30cm), with proper reinforcement (min. 4pcs dia 12mm for main bars and min. 8mm for stirrups with maximal clearance 15cm. for ground floor buildings). All RC columns must be fully anchored into RC foundations and RC ring beams by applying appropriate overlapping of reinforcement (40dia of reinforcement bars) to ensure integrity and horizontal bending forces resistance. • Limit the free height of the walls to 2,5m (currently up to 4 m) by constructing horizontal RC beams in all walls of the rooms at the door and window top level (min. 4pcs of dia 12mm for main bars and min. 8mm for stirrups with maximal clearance 15cm), all to be attached to RC columns by appropriate reinforcement overlapping. • Gable walls must have central RC column extended from foundations (min. 4pcs of dia 12mm for main bars and min. 8mm for stirrups with maximal clearance 15cm) and sloped top RC beam all over masonry. • The ring beams on top of the walls need to be properly reinforced (hb≥lb/12, bb≥30cm, min. 4 pcs of dia 12mm for main bars and min.8mm for stirrups with maximal clearance 15cm) and fully attached with the vertical columns, using reinforcement overlapping 40dia in the joints. • Foundation footing for columns and foundation beams must be properly reinforced and calculated for specific soil conditions on location of school. Single footings must be mutually connected by foundation beams by applying sufficient reinforcement in junctions. • Walls foundation beams must be reinforced (hb≥lb/16, min. 4pcs of dia 12mm for main bars and min. 8mm for stirrups with maximal clearance 15cm). • Two storey buildings must have RC slab reinforced both in lower and upper zone in area above slab support (reinforcing welded nets or bars, according to calculation, to receive tension in upper zone due to of negative bending moment in slab over all supports). • The roof trusses must be fully anchored into the supporting RC ring beams. • The roof trusses must have horizontal cross bracing at the ceiling level as well as in the planes of the rafters.
Reinforcement to be used should be smooth bars fy=240/360 MPa with hooks on ends or ribbed bars fy=400/500 MPa with no hooks on ends. For multistory buildings reinforcement nets should be applied with fy=500/560 MPa for stairways, galleries and ceiling slabs because of easy and accurate installation. Concrete compressive strength should be fc>20 MPa for columns, stairways, beams, lintels, slabs. Concrete for pavements and floors can be of lower category. Based on schools structural survey findings, it can be concluded that most of damages caused by earthquakes occurred because of failure in applying appropriate building methods. Beside
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 16 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
technical properties for all materials to be used, determined in Technical Specification for each school reconstruction, following items should be especially considered:
4.6.3. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRE-CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Design must comply with latest construction standards. Especially following items must be clearly determined and designed:
• Geological conditions on location of the school • Seismic and other structural calculations for the school • Reinforcement main bars and stirrups, positioning, diameters and clearances, • Details of reinforcement overlapping in junctions of structural members, • Details of reinforcement anchoring, • Dimensions of structural members (columns, beams, slabs, foundations, etc), • Concrete category for structural segments (compressive strength), • Schedule of works by phases, • Works Method Statement to be included for more complex works operations
4.6.4. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION PHASE:
4.6.4.1. SUPERVISION OF WORKS
Supervision of works as crucial activity that ensures compliance with design and required standards must provide following:
• Building diary is requested (daily input of all operations, tests and results, signed by Contractor and Supervisor, weekly by Project Manager). • All phases of the works to be covered or back filled must be first checked and approved by supervisor in written. • Check dimensions and levels of excavated foundation pits prior to next operation. • Check that all reinforcement bars or nets applied are as per design in terms of dimensions, type, etc. prior to concrete pouring. • Check that all reinforcement bars or nets are properly positioned by spacers. (wooden once not allowed), supervisor needs to approve positioned reinforcement and check stability of formwork before concrete pouring. • Check vertical and horizontal position of structural elements (formwork) before and after concrete works (using appropriate devices). • Supervision of all other operations as stated in Technical Specifications.
4.6.4.2. MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP
Materials and construction practices stated in design must be applied during construction, following measures to be performed:
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 17 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
• All levels of foundations, beams, slabs, vertical and horizontal positions of structural elements and formwork must be obtained as per design. • Reinforcement in dimensions, quality and quantity as per design, to be properly positioned in formwork. Reinforcement to be clean from dirt, rust and grease. • Reinforcement overlapping and anchoring in junctions of structural members to be done as per design. • Formwork must be oiled to prevent adhearance and damages of concrete during dismantling. • Concrete needs to be properly mixed at least in 50 lit. mixer machine, not manually. • Structural segments to be constructed as one operation if possible. If not, preparation for continuation of concrete pouring to be done. • Vibrators must be used for compaction of concrete in the formwork after pouring, to ensure consolidation and prevent voids occurrence. • Wetting of concrete next 7 days after pouring, protect against direct sun. • Gravel from river or sea is not allowed to be mixed into concrete for structural segments such as beams, columns, lintels, stairways, slabs etc. (can be allowed only for ground floor slab, outdoor pavements, access roads etc.). • Other items as per Technical Specifications.
4.6.4.3. CERTIFICATION AND TESTING OF MATERIALS
In order to ensure that applied materials and construction practices complies with design and required standards, following measures to be performed:
• All materials should be approved before installation (reinforcement steel, stone for concrete, bricks, wooden segments, roof sheeting, etc), need to have manufacturers attest or certificate of technical properties and origin. • Concrete cubs 20x20x20cm in required number (or other dimensions samples, to be defined in Technical Specification) to be taken on site of making concrete to allow testing of concrete category after 28 days. Slump test of fresh concrete to be performed on site. • All test results of completed works operations (soil compaction for foundations, depths of excavations, formwork positioning, etc) must be provided and filed. • Other specific tests can be performed additionally if necessary, after completion of building or parts, assisted by authorized institution (Faculty for Civil Engineering, etc). • Other items as per Technical Specifications.
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 18 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
5. CONCLUSION
5.1. LESSONS FROM RECENT DESTRUCTION
The level of destruction on schools would have been much lower if the construction failures described under 4.3. had not occurred. The damages of school buildings in past Tsunami and earthquakes in Aceh Province and Nias were caused in part by design deficiencies but primarily by poor quality control, resulting in poor workmanship, the use of materials of poor quality, and improper and inadequate detailing. Further major contribution to the damages of buildings is the lack of maintenance, resulting in deterioration and reduced structural resistance. • Quality of workmanship must be improved because even with best materials applied the construction quality will be poor after improper detailing. Such building will be more affected by earthquake and easily damaged or collapse. Structure must be “framed”, junctions of structural members must be firm, improved structural integrity will ensure better seismic resistance. • Poor quality control is the result of insufficient awareness of for this crucial activity. This still happens despite experience from past earthquakes, whole construction cycle relies on knowledge of contractor on site. Although design has been improved to compy with latest standards, the wrong construction practices are applied again. This should be improved by proper quality control.
During the inspection of damaged schools, new ones under reconstruction were found with same failures as old ones. These were constructed by funds of NGO or DoE. Obviously, the lessons from recent events have not been entirely learnt.
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 19 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
ANNEXES
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 20 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
ANNEX 1:
NEW CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 21 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 22 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 23 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 24 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
ANNEX 2:
PHOTOS OF TYPICAL DAMAGES ON SCHOOLS
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 25 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
SD Lhok Simelu SDN 070983 Sihareo Foundation beams junction insufficiently Foundation beam insufficiently reinforced, reinforced, junction of beams and masonry above beam and masonry above broken. broken.
SDN 071002 Lolowua SDN 074050 Sawo Foundation beam junction insufficiently reinforced, Ring beam junction with column insufficiently junction broken, masonry separated from column. reinforced, junction broken, masonry separated from column (column broken in lower section).
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 26 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
SDN 83 Banda Aceh SDN 070983 Sihareo Wall collapsed due to weak RC column, main Collapse of masonry above window, no reinforced reinforcement dia 6mm only and insufficient concrete lintel was constructed. stirrups installed.
SDN 076720 Maluo Ring beam insufficiently reinforced, broken, masonry broken and separated from column.
MIN UPT II Lamie Partition wall broken, too long and too high (8m/3,5m), there is no RC column in the middle nor RC lintel above opening.
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 27 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
SDN 071223 Orahili Gomo SDN 076070 Tugala Lauru Cross wall broken, too long and too high Cross wall collapsed due to out-of plane bending (8m/3,5m), central RC column broken, unable to effect, due to collapse of central RC column prevent out-of plane bending effect of wall. together with ring beam above.
SDN 078012 Mida SMAN 7 Banda Aceh Gable wall collapsed, there is no top RC beam over Gable wall collapsed, there is no top RC beam over masonry nor RC column in the middle to frame the masonry nor RC column in the middle to frame the wall. wall. .
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 28 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
SDN 1 Tuwi Kareung SDN 071008 Gada Wooden structure with masonry, gaps in junctions Collapse of masonry, wooden columns moved from with columns, masonry cracked. supports.
SDN 075022 Mazingo Tabaloho Wooden column moved from support and sloped, masonry collapsed.
SDN 074056 Dahana Humene Wooden columns on rear facade moved from supports, weak bracing of columns to ring beam, building sloped.
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 29 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
SDN 075083 Sihene'asi SDN 174052 Tulumbaho Wooden columns on front facade moved from Wooden column moved from support and sloped, supports, few columns broken, building sloped. masonry broken.
SDN 077295 Baruzo Bobozioli Wooden columns sloped due to deteriorated condition of wooden segments and junctions (rotten, no maintenance). Weak bracing, building exhausted close to collapse.
SDN 071078 Hiliweto Wooden column moved from supports, entire wall sloped.
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 30 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
ANNEX 3:
PHOTOS OF TYPICAL DEFICIENCIES IN CONSTRUCTION
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 31 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
SDN 075087 Muzoi SDN 075090 Sirombu Too small main reinforcement diameter and too big Too small main reinforcement diameter and too big clearance between stirrups in bottom of column, clearance between stirrups in bottom of column, column collapsed. column collapsed.
SDN 071061Tetehosi Idanoi SDN Maluo Entire main reinforcement of column grouped in Incorrect extending of reinforcement of foundation one corner (reduced active cross section), column beam (no overlapping but “hook to hook” tie, collapsed. reinforcement out of concrete).
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 32 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
SDN 074050 Sawo SDN 071002 Lolowua Grouping of entire main reinforcement in the Reinforcement of beam in not anchored into middle of ring beam in overlapping of column, broken in junction with column. reinforcement, ring beam broken.
.
SDN 071180 Iraono Gaila SDS Muhammadiyah Collapsed beam with too small main reinforcement Column broken in bottom and sloped, weak ring (diameter 6mm) and stirrups diameter 3mm only. beam with insufficient reinforcement collapsed, resulting collapse of entire wall.
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 33 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
ANNEX 4
SURVEYED SCHOOLS BY DISTRICTS
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 34 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
District BANDA ACEH
No Name of school Address Sub-district Currently No of Safety Recommended in use students condition: activity Before Now 1 SDN 73 Labui Baiturrahman Yes 70 80 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 2 SDN 43 Labui Baiturrahman Yes 166 176 Good Rehabilitation 3 SDN 30 Labui Baiturrahman Yes 67 67 Parts unsafe Reconstruction 4 SDN 53 Lueng Bata Lueng Bata Yes 183 242 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 5 SDN 86 Lueng Bata Lueng Bata Yes 197 202 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 6 SDN 85 Lueng Bata Lueng Bata Yes 178 220 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 7 SDLB Banda Labui Baiturrahman Yes 94 65 Good Rehabilitation Aceh 8 SDN 64 Ateuk Jawo Baiturrahman Yes 90 109 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 9 SDN 15 Kuta Alam Kuta Alam Yes 240 279 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 10 SDN 4 Kuta Alam Kuta Alam Yes 242 363 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 11 SDN 44 Beurawe Kuta Alam Yes 129 128 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 12 SDN 42 Peuniti Baiturrahman Yes 214 162 Unsafe Reconstruction 13 SDN 3 Peuniti Baiturrahman Yes 236 208 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 14 SDN 14 Peuniti Baiturrahman Yes 111 92 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 15 SDN 13 Peuniti Baiturrahman Yes 104 63 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 16 SDN 33 Peuniti Baiturrahman In part 258 228 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 17 SDN 41 Peuniti Baiturrahman Yes 132 100 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 18 SDN 23 Peuniti Baiturrahman Yes 172 125 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 19 SDN 12 Peuniti Baiturrahman Yes 157 97 Good Rehabilitation 20 SDN 93 Lamtemen Meuraxa Yes 303 182 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation Timur 21 SDN 97 Lamtemen Meuraxa No 168 0 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation Timur 22 SDN 29 Blower Baiturrahman In part 300 230 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 23 SDN 50 Lamlagang Banda Raya In part 423 447 Unsafe Reconstruction 24 SDN 63 Lamlagang Banda Raya Yes 173 188 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 25 SD Katolik Karya Kampung Baiturrahman In part 209 53 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation Budi Baru 26 SDN 68 Lamgugob Syiah Kuala Yes 75 83 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 27 SLB Bukesra Doi Ulee Kareng Yes 50 30 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 28 SDN 76 Doi Ulee Kareng Yes 100 210 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 29 SMPN 5 Banda Cot Meuraxa No 0 Not for use Reconstruction Aceh Lamkewuh 30 SMPN 11 Banda Blang Oi Meuraxa No 0 Destroyed Reconstruction Aceh 31 SMPN 2 Banda Lamprit Kuta Alam In part 1.015 594 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation Aceh 32 SMPS Keumala Laniteumen Jaya Baru Yes 108 76 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation Bhayangkari Barat 33 SMPN 1 Banda Blang Meuraxa No 0 Not for use Reconstruction Aceh Padang 34 SMPN 6 Banda Lampineung Kuta Alam In part 900 750 Parts unsafe Reconstruction Aceh 35 SMPN 8 Banda Darussalam Syiah Kuala Yes 658 622 Good Rehabilitation Aceh
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 35 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
36 SMPN 14 Banda Alue Naga Syiah Kuala No 0 Destroyed Reconstruction Aceh 37 SMPS Islam Jambo Tape Kuta Alam In part 160 120 Good Rehabilitation 38 SMPS Metodist Kampong Kuta Alam In part 178 156 Good Rehabilitation Mulia 39 SMPN 4 Banda Peunayong Kuta Alam No 0 Not for use Reconstruction Aceh 40 SMPN 9 Banda Peunayong Kuta Alam No 0 Not for use Reconstruction Aceh 41 SMPN 16 Banda Kampung Kuta Alam No 0 Not for use Reconstruction Aceh Mulia 42 SMPN 12 Banda Gampong Kuta Raja No 0 Not for use Rehabilitation / Aceh Jawa Reconstruction 43 SMPS Lamprit Kuta Alam In part 300 75 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation Inshafuddin 44 SMPN 17 Banda Blang Baiturrahman In part 864 790 Good Rehabilitation Aceh Padang 45 SMPS Lampaseh Kuta Raja No 0 Not for use Reconstruction Muhammadiyah 46 SMPS Iskandar Lampaseh Kuta Raja No 0 Destroyed Reconstruction Muda 47 SMPN 15 Banda Lamjame Jaya Baru No 0 Destroyed Reconstruction Aceh 48 SMPLB YPAC Kampung Kuta Alam No 0 Not for use Rehabilitation / Mulia Reconstruction 49 SDN 31 Banda Punge Blang Meuraxa Yes 87 20 Good Rehabilitation Aceh Cot 50 SDN 2 Banda Punge Meuraxa No 0 Not for use Reconstruction Aceh Jurong 51 SDN 90 Banda Cot Lam Meuraxa No 116 0 Destroyed Reconstruction Aceh Keoh 52 SDN 92 Banda Dayah Baro Meuraxa No 125 0 Destroyed Reconstruction Aceh 53 SDN 25 Banda Lamprit Kuta Alam Yes 200 58 Good Rehabilitation Aceh 54 SDN 35 Banda Lamprit Kuta Alam Yes 152 50 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation Aceh 55 SDN 27 Banda Kampung Kuta Alam No 0 Destroyed Reconstruction Aceh Mulia 56 SDN 37 Banda Kampung Kuta Alam No 0 Destroyed Reconstruction Aceh Mulia 57 SDN 28 Banda Kampung Kuta Alam Yes 97 159 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation Aceh Kramat 58 SDN 36 Banda Kampung Kuta Alam Yes 216 145 Good Rehabilitation Aceh Laksana 59 SDN 24 Banda Lampineung Kuta Alam Yes 302 296 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation Aceh 60 SDN 34 Banda Lampineung Kuta Alam Yes 270 305 Good Rehabilitation Aceh 61 MIN Rukoh Rukoh Darussalam Yes 355 200 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 62 SDN 7 Banda Blang Kuta Raja No 0 Destroyed Reconstruction Aceh Padang 63 SDN 75 Banda Lamteumen Jaya Baru Yes 225 180 Good Rehabilitation Aceh Timur
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 36 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
64 MIN Teladan Lamteumen Jaya Baru In part 1340 813 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation Banda Aceh Barat 65 SMAN 7 Banda Geucu Inem Banda Jaya In part 1200 800 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation / Aceh Reconstruction 66 SMAN 1 Banda Punge Meuraxa In part 1132 920 Good Rehabilitation Aceh Jurong 67 SMAN 3 Banda Lamprit Kuta Alam In part 1600 1500 Good Rehabilitation Aceh 68 SMAN 4 Banda Lampineung Kuta Alam In part 1427 1261 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation Aceh 69 SMAN 8 Banda Lampineung Kuta Alam In part 883 718 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation Aceh 70 SMAN 5 Banda Darussalam Syiah Kuala In part 1132 970 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation / Aceh Reconstruction 71 MIN Banda Aceh Kampung Kuta Alam In part 1663 1300 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation Kramat 72 MIN Merduati Kampung Kuta Alam No 0 Not for use Reconstruction Kramat 73 SMAN 9 Banda Lhong Raya Banda Raya In part 480 480 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation / Aceh Reconstruction 74 SMAN 10 Banda Ateuk Jawo Baiturrahman Yes 164 153 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation Aceh 75 SMKN 3 Banda Lampineung Kuta Alam In part 563 230 Good Rehabilitation Aceh 76 SDN 6 Banda Keudah Kuta Raja No 0 Destroyed Reconstruction Aceh 77 SDN 102 Banda Lamdi Kuta Alam No 0 Destroyed Reconstruction Aceh 78 SDN 106 Banda Lamarh Syiah Kuala No 66 0 Destroyed Reconstruction Aceh Rukoh 79 SDN 83 Banda Rukoh Syiah Kuala No 180 0 Not for use Reconstruction Aceh 80 SDN 109 Banda Cot Lam Meuraxa No 0 Destroyed Reconstruction Aceh Keuh 81 SDN 95 Banda Gampong Meuraxa No 0 Destroyed Reconstruction Aceh Baro 82 SDN 59 Banda Betai Jaya Baru No 0 Destroyed Reconstruction Aceh 83 SMKN 1 Banda Lampineung Kuta Alam In part 880 431 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation Aceh 84 SMKN 2 Banda Lampineung Kuta Alam In part 1400 850 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation / Aceh Reconstruction 85 SDN 5 Setui Baiturrahman In part 205 218 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation / Reconstruction 86 SDN 16 Setui Baiturrahman Yes 222 230 Good Rehabilitation 87 SDN 51 Geucu Jaya Baru Yes 280 300 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation Meunara 88 SDN 22 Neusu Baiturrahman Yes 250 234 Good Rehabilitation 89 SDN 26 Neusu Baiturrahman Yes 224 233 Good Rehabilitation 90 SDN 77 Neusu Baiturrahman Yes 135 170 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 91 MIN Setui Setui Meuraxa Yes 304 265 Good Rehabilitation 92 SDN 32 Beurawe Kuta Alam Yes 213 248 Good Rehabilitation 93 SDN 56 Lam Ulee Kareng Yes 289 490 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation Glumpang 94 MIN Lambhuk Lambhuk Lambhuk Yes 490 473 Good Rehabilitation
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 37 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
95 SDN 104 Lamteh Ulee Kareng Yes 200 250 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 96 SDN 66 Ilie Ulee Kareng Yes 185 132 Good Rehabilitation 97 SDN 110 Lamlagang Banda Raya Yes 360 357 Parts unsafe Reconstruction Percontoh 98 SDN 108 Lhong Cut Banda Raya Yes 184 210 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 99 SDN 40 Neusu Jaya Baiturrahman Yes 172 191 Good Rehabilitation 100 SDN 96 Neusu Aceh Baiturrahman Yes 114 150 Unsafe Reconstruction 101 SDN 55 Kp. Pineung Syiah Kuala Yes 91 135 Good Rehabilitation 102 SDN 82 Rukoh Syiah Kuala Yes 400 549 Good Rehabilitation 103 SDN 105 Ceurih Ulee Kareng Yes 184 214 Good Rehabilitation 104 MIN Ulee Kareng Iemasen Ulee Kareng Yes 717 780 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 105 SDN 52 Banda Peunyerat Banda Raya In part 60 50 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation Aceh 106 SDN Persit 1 Bandar Baru Kuta Alam In part 615 535 Good Rehabilitation 107 SDN 18 Banda Punge Blang Jaya Baru No 200 0 Not for use Reconstruction Aceh Cot
District ACEH BESAR
No Name of school Address Sub-district Currently No of Safety Recommended in use students condition: activity Before Now 1 SDN Lampeneurut Darul Imarah In part 440 597 Parts unsafe Reconstruction Lampeneurut 2 MIN Jeumpet Jeumpet Darul Imarah Yes 100 120 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 3 MIN Keutapang II Lambheu Darul Imarah In part 230 250 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 4 SD Neusok Neusok Darul Kamal Yes 130 179 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation Teubaluy 5 SD Blang Kiree Blang Kiree Darul Kamal Yes 123 153 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 6 SDN Ladong Ladong Mesjid Raya In part 200 190 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 7 SD Perumnas Kompleks Mesjid Raya Yes 315 427 Good Rehabilitation Neuheun Perumnas Neuheun 8 SDN Cot Bambu Babah Kuta Baro Yes 108 115 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation Jurong 9 SD Ateuk Lampoh Kuta Baro Yes 139 161 Good Rehabilitation keude 10 MIN Bung Cala Lambrobileue Kuta Baro In part 700 757 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 11 SDN Lambrabo Beurangong Kuta Baro In part 60 110 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 12 SDN Buengcala Seupeu Kuta Baro Yes 251 113 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 13 SD Lamtamot Lamtamot Lembah In part 75 83 Parts unsafe Reconstruction Seulawah 14 MIN Lamteuba Lambada Seulimeum Yes 120 137 Good Rehabilitation 15 SD I Lamteuba Lamteuba Seulimeum Yes 483 527 Good Rehabilitation Dro 16 SD Meureu Mureu Baro Indrapuri Yes 265 247 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 17 MIN Meureu Mureu Lam Indrapuri Yes 300 330 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation Glumpang
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 38 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
18 SD Lam Birah Lam Birah Suka Yes 77 85 Unsafe Reconstruction Makmur 19 SD Bira Cot Bira Cot Montasik Yes 117 127 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 20 SD Lhok Simelu Kayee Montasik Yes 281 331 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation Kunyet 21 SD Rumpet Rumpet Krueng Yes 60 76 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation Barona Jaya 22 MIN Miruek Miruek Darussalam Yes 300 320 Good Rehabilitation Taman 23 SD Kulam Data Lam Ateuk Lhok Nga Yes 70 90 Good Rehabilitation 24 MIS Al-Istiqamah Kueh Lhok Nga Yes 90 167 Good Rehabilitation 25 SMP 2 Lhoong Tanah Ano Lhoong No 0 Destroyed Reconstruction 26 SMP 1 Lhoong Blang Me Lhoong No 0 Destroyed Reconstruction 27 SMP 3 Lhoong Gleu Bruk Lhoong No 0 Destroyed Reconstruction 28 SMP 1 Lhoknga Pasar Lhoknga No 0 Destroyed Reconstruction Lhoknga 29 SMP 2 Lhoknga Lampuuk Lhoknga No 0 Destroyed Reconstruction 30 SMP 1 Peukan Peukan Bada Peukan Bada No 0 Destroyed Reconstruction Bada 31 SMP 2 Peukan Peukan Bada Peukan Bada No 0 Destroyed Reconstruction Bada 32 SMP 3 Lhoknga Keude Bieng Lhoknga Yes 49 78 Good No activity 33 SMP 3 Ingin Jaya Siron Ingin Jaya In part 580 685 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation / Reconstruction 34 SMP 1 Kajhu Baitussalam No 0 Destroyed Reconstruction Baitussalam 35 SMP 2 Desa Ateuk Seulimeum In part 235 240 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation Seulimeum Lamteuba 36 SD Pertiwi Siron Ingin Jaya Yes 164 322 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation Lamgarot 37 SD Meunasah Meunasah Ingin Jaya Yes 135 208 Unsafe Reconstruction Tutong Tutong 38 SD Kayee Leeu Kayee Leeu Ingin Jaya Yes 78 145 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 39 SD Jeumpet Jeumpet Darul Imarah Yes 175 265 Good No activity 40 SD Capeung Capeung Seulimeum In part 155 161 Unsafe Rehabilitation / Reconstruction 41 SD Sibreh Sibreh Suka Yes 320 405 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation Keumudee Makmur 42 SDN Krueng Krueng Raba Lhoknga No 0 Destroyed Reconstruction Raba 43 SD Dham Cukok Dham Cukok Ingin Jaya Yes 142 150 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 44 SD Dham Lubok Lubok Ingin Jaya Yes 164 208 Good Rehabilitation 45 MIN Lamjampok Lamjampok Ingin Jaya Yes 126 250 Good Rehabilitation 46 SDN 1 Pagar Air Pagar Air Ingin Jaya Yes 140 203 Good Rehabilitation 47 SD 1 Lamcot Lamcot Darul Imarah In part 150 157 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 48 SDN 2 Lamcot Lamreung Darul Imarah Yes 110 116 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 49 SD Lam Sayeung Lam Ingin Jaya Yes 153 208 Good No activity Sayeung 50 SD Mesjid Leu Desa Lagang Darul Imarah Yes 150 175 Good Rehabilitation 51 MIN Cot Gue Lam Kawe Darul Imarah In part 360 385 Good Rehabilitation 52 SDN Kandang Desa Darul Imarah Yes 103 157 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation / Cut Kandang Reconstruction 53 SD Lamthen Deunong Darul Imarah Yes 115 145 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 39 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
54 SDN Lam Kunyet Lam Kunyet Darul Imarah Yes 270 302 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation / Reconstruction 55 MIN Biluy Desa Biluy Darul Imarah In part 230 255 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 56 SD Lamteungoh Lamteungoh Ingin Jaya Yes 214 220 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 57 SD Gani Bueng Ingin Jaya Yes 247 267 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation Ceukok 58 SD Cot Meuraja 1-Cot Ingin Jaya Yes 308 78 1-Good Rehabilitation Meuraja 2- Cot Karing 320 2-Unsafe Reconstruction 59 SD Ajee Rayek Ajee Rayek Ingin Jaya Yes 75 83 Good Rehabilitation 60 MIN Bukloh Bukloh Suka Yes 223 238 Parts unsafe Makmur Rehabilitation 61 SDN Blang Cot Mon Kuta Baro Yes 128 139 Good Rehabilitation Bintang Raya 62 SD Iam Jampok Lambada Ingin Jaya Yes 96 107 Good Rehabilitation 63 SD Seumet Seumet Montasik In part 112 120 Unsafe Reconstruction 64 MIN Jeurela I Lambaro Suka Yes 290 338 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation Sibreh Makmur 65 MIN Jeurela II Seumer Eung Yes 215 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation Suka 266 Tampok Makmur In part 60 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation Blang 66 SDN 1 Seulimum Pasar Seulimeum Yes 330 365 Good Rehabilitation Seulimum 67 SD Seunebok Seunebok Seulimeum Yes 137 240 Good Rehabilitation 68 SD 1 Tanoh Lampisang Seulimeum Yes 217 221 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation Abee 69 SD Banda Safa Banda Safa Kota Cot Glie Yes 166 172 Good Rehabilitation 70 MIN Tungkop Tungkop Darussalam Yes 866 905 school under No activity construction 71 SDN Lamklat Lieue Darussalam Yes 170 220 Good Rehabilitation 72 SDN Siem Lambiheue Darussalam Yes 215 265 Good Rehabilitation Siem 73 SDN Lambaro Lambada Darussalam Yes 100 120 Good Rehabilitation Angan Peukan 74 SD Data Gaseu Data Gaseu Seulimeum In part 138 138 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 75 SD 7 Jantho Bukit Mewara Kota Jantho Yes 110 220 Good Rehabilitation 76 SD 6 Kota Jantho Jantho Baru Kota Jantho In part 105 165 Good Rehabilitation 77 MIN Kota Jantho Jantho Kota Jantho Yes 203 255 Good Rehabilitation Makmur 78 SD 3 Kota Jantho Teurebah Kota Jantho Yes 68 120 Good Rehabilitation 79 SDN Tanjong Tanjong Darussalam Yes 77 100 Good Rehabilitation Selamat Selamat 80 SDN Kuta Tanjong Darussalam Yes 83 87 Good Rehabilitation Bakmee Deah 81 SD Cot Angan Cot Angan Darussalam Yes 85 124 Good Rehabilitation 82 SDN Garot Garot Darul Imarah Yes 104 132 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation Geuceu 83 SD 2 Jeumpet Lampasi Darul Imarah Yes 76 120 Good Rehabilitation Engking 84 SDN 1 Lambheu Lambheu Darul Imarah Yes 263 350 Parts unsafe Reconstruction 85 SDN 2 Lambheu Lambheu Darul Imarah Yes 186 223 Good Rehabilitation
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 40 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
86 SD Simpang Cot Rumpun Montasik Yes 78 78 Parts unsafe Reconstruction Kramat 87 MIN Montasik Lampaseh Montasik Yes 340 355 Good Rehabilitation Lhok 88 SD Montasik Lamnga Montasik Yes 113 169 Good Rehabilitation 89 SD Cot Cot Ingin Jaya Yes 80 85 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation Meuntiwan Meuntiwan 90 SDN Meulayo Cot Puklat Kuta Baro In part 94 140 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation / Reconstruction 91 SD 2 Mata Ie Mata Ie Darul Kamal Yes 160 220 Good Rehabilitation 92 MIN Punie Punie Darul Imarah Yes 150 162 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 93 SD 1 Mata Ie Ulee Tuy Darul Imarah Yes 122 146 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 94 SDN Gue Gajah Gue Gajah Darul Imarah Yes 120 330 Good Rehabilitation 95 SD Pulot Leupung Leupung No 0 Destroyed Reconstruction 96 SDN Layeun Layeun Leupung No 0 Destroyed Reconstruction 97 SD Keude Bing Lam Gaboh Lhok Nga Yes 160 273 Good Rehabilitation 98 MIN Lhoknga Lamkruet Lhoknga temp.school 369 137 Destroyed Reconstruction 99 SDN 2 Tanjong Nusa Lhok Nga Yes 106 140 Good Rehabilitation 100 SDLB Neg Kota Jantho Kota Jantho Yes 46 46 Unsafe Reconstruction Jantho Makmur 101 SD 4 Kota Jantho Blang Awek Kota Jantho In part 89 89 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 102 SD 1 Kota Jantho Jantho Kota Jantho In part 95 95 Parts Rehabilitation / destroyed Reconstruction 103 SD 2 Kota Jantho Jantho Kota Jantho Yes 229 281 Good Rehabilitation Makmur 104 SD 5 Kota Jantho Baroh Kota Jantho Yes 56 56 Good Rehabilitation 105 SD Ulee Kareeng Gue Gajah Kuta Baro Yes 72 87 Good No activity 106 SD Ateuk Anggok Ateuk Kuta Baro Yes 116 137 Good Rehabilitation Anggok 107 SD Gla Lampermai Krueng Yes 94 109 Good Rehabilitation Meunasah Baro Barona Jaya 108 SD Lamreung Ateuk Krueng Yes 356 420 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation / Anggok Barona Jaya Reconstruction 109 SD Lamnga Lamnga Mesjid Raya No 230 0 Destroyed Reconstruction 110 SD 1 Glee Bruek Glee Bruek Lhong No 0 Destroyed Reconstruction 111 MIN Lhong Keutapang Lhong Yes 220 208 Good Rehabilitation 112 SD Lamsujen Lamsujen Lhong Yes 65 55 Good No activity 113 SD Monmata Lamjuhang Lhong Yes 110 113 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 114 SD Cundien Lamsujen Lhong No 0 Destroyed Reconstruction 115 SDN Krueng Kala Tunong- Lhong No 0 Destroyed Reconstruction Krueng Kala 116 SD Abulyatama Lampoh Lampoh Yes 111 152 Unsafe Reconstruction Keude Keude 117 SDN Cot Preh Cot Preh Kuta Baro Yes 126 200 Good Rehabilitation 118 MIN Lamrabo Beurangong Kuta Baro Yes 248 262 Good Rehabilitation 119 MIN Indrapuri Pasar Lama Indrapuri Yes 250 261 Good Rehabilitation Indrapuri 120 SDN 1 Indrapuri Pasar Indrapuri In part 156 156 Good Rehabilitation Indrapuri 121 SDN 2 Indrapuri Lheue Indrapuri Yes 53 53 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 122 SDN Sukadamai Sukadamai Lembah In part 125 129 Good Rehabilitation Seulawah
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 41 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
123 SDN Desa Desa Lembah In part 250 257 Good Rehabilitation Teuladan Teuladan Seulawah 124 SDN Bak Sukon Lam Leot Cuta Cot Glie Yes 135 135 Parts unsafe Reconstruction 125 SDN Ie Suuem Ie Suuem Mesjid Raya Yes 94 94 * Good Reconstruction 126 SDN Leupueng Cot Raya Kuta Baro Yes 320 360 Good Rehabilitation 26 127 SDN Lam Ujong Meunasah Krueng Yes 108 108 Parts unsafe Reconstruction Baet Barona Jaya 128 SDN Leungah Desa Seulimeum Yes 150 150 * Good Rehabilitation / Leungah Reconstruction 129 SDN Blang Blang Seulimeum In part 40 40 Good Rehabilitation Lambaro Lambaro 130 SDN 2 Lampaseh Alue Montasik Yes 109 102 Good Rehabilitation 131 SDN 1 Lampaseh Bampong Montasik Yes 120 105 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation / Baro Reconstruction 132 SDN Bung Simek Bung Simek Kuta Cot Glie Yes 112 123 Good Rehabilitation 133 SDN Siron Siron Kuta Cot Glie Yes 70 70 * Good Reconstruction 134 SDN 8 Jantho Suka Tani Kuta Jantho Yes 40 37 Good Rehabilitation 135 SDN Suhom Tunong- Lhoong Yes 86 103 Good Rehabilitation Krueng Kala 136 SDN Cot Jeumpa Cot Jeumpa Lhoong Yes 155 60 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation / Reconstruction
District ACEH BARAT
No Name of school Address Sub-district Currently No of Safety Recommended in use students condition: activity Before Now 1 MIN Putim Putim Kaway XVI Yes 97 107 Good Rehabilitation 2 SDN Cot Trueng Meunasah Kaway XVI Yes 106 120 Good Rehabilitation Rambut 3 SDN Pungkie Pungkie Kaway XVI In part 149 159 Good Rehabilitation 4 SDN Alue Peudeung Alue Kaway XVI Yes 120 123 * Good Reconstruction Peudeung 5 SDN Pasi Teungoh Pasi Kaway XVI Yes 118 132 Good Rehabilitation Teungoh 6 SDN Kuala Bubon Kuala Bubon Samatiga No 0 Destroyed Reconstruction 7 SDN Layung Beurawang Bubon Yes 135 142 * Good Reconstruction Beurawang 8 SDN Seumeuleng Kuala Pling Bubon In part 130 140 * Good Reconstruction 9 SDN Peulantee Peulantee Bubon In part 150 160 Good Rehabilitation 10 MIN Suak Siron Suak Siron Samatiga No 0 Destroyed Reconstruction 11 MIS Suak Trieng Suak Trieng Woyla Induk Yes 57 53 Good Rehabilitation 12 SDN Kuala Bhee Kuala Bhee Woyla Induk Yes 137 157 * Good Reconstruction 13 MIN Kuala Bhee Kuala Bhee Woyla Induk Yes 112 137 Good Rehabilitation 14 MIS Peulanteu Ujong Arongan In part 74 72 Part Reconstruction Lambalek Simpang Lambalek collapsed 15 SDN Drien Rampak Drien Arongan In part 100 120 Good Rehabilitation Rampak Lambalek
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 42 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
16 SDN Luengtanoh Tho Luengtanoh Woyla Induk Yes 260 285 * Good Reconstruction Tho 17 SDN Pasi Mali Pasi Mali Woyla Barat In part 200 170 Parts unsafe Reconstruction 18 SDN Keuleumbah Keuleumbah Woyla In part 150 160 Parts unsafe Reconstruction Tengah 19 SDN 1 Bubon Cot Samatiga Yes 90 200 Good Rehabilitation Seumeureng 20 SDN 18 Meulaboh Jl. Nasional Johan Yes 298 242 Good Rehabilitation Meulaboh Pahlawan 21 SDN 9 Meulaboh Jl. Nasional Johan Yes 255 170 Good Rehabilitation Meulaboh Pahlawan 22 SDN 15 Meulaboh Jl. Nasional Johan Yes 292 266 Part Reconstruction Meulaboh Pahlawan collapsed 23 SDN 13 Meulaboh Bakti Johan Yes 250 40 Good Rehabilitation Pemuda Pahlawan 24 SDN Alue Kuyun Alue Kuyun Woyla In part 129 110 Parts unsafe Reconstruction Timur 25 SDN Lancong Sarah Perlak Sungai Mas In part 139 156 * Good Reconstruction
26 SDN Tuwi Saya Geudong Sungai Mas Yes 34 60 Good Rehabilitation
27 SDN Paya II Paya Dua Woyla Induk In part 108 124 * Good Reconstruction
28 SDN Meunuwang Meunuwang Pante In part 156 130 * Good Reconstruction Kinco Kinco Cermin 29 SDN Alue Keumang Alue Pante In part 58 70 * Good Reconstruction Keumang Cermin 30 SDN LB Drien Johan In part 25 24 Good Rehabilitation Rampak Pahlawan 31 SDN Gampong Gampong Kaway XVI Yes 26 28 * Good Reconstruction Mesjid Mesjid 32 MIN Paya Lumpat Paya Lumpat Samatiga Yes 87 115 * Good Rehabilitation / Reconstruction 33 MIS Pribu Pribu Arongan In part 225 123 Unsafe Reconstruction Lam Balek 34 SDN Cot Buloh Cot Buloh Arongan Yes 124 167 Good Rehabilitation Lam Balek 35 SDN UPT II Cot Cot Lagan Woyla Barat In part 77 72 * Good Rehabilitation / Lagan Reconstruction 36 SDN UPT III Batee Alue Perman Woyla Barat Yes 65 92 Good Rehabilitation Puteh 37 SDN UPT I Krueng Krueng Woyla Barat No 120 0 Destroyed Reconstruction Hampa Hampa 38 SDN UPT IV Alue Alue Woyla Barat No 114 0 Good Rehabilitation Keumang Keumang 39 SDN Kajeung Kajeung Sungai Mas In part 160 151 Parts Rehabilitation / destroyed Reconstruction 40 SDN Tanoh Mirah Tanoh Mirah Sungai Mas In part 98 108 Parts Rehabilitation / destroyed Reconstruction 41 SDN Tungkop Tungkop Sungai Mas Yes 78 70 Good Rehabilitation 42 SDN Alue Lhee Alue Lhee Kaway XVI Yes 76 20 * Good Rehabilitation / Reconstruction 43 SDN UPT I Kutatuha Bukit Jaya Meurobo Yes 120 167 Good Rehabilitation
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 43 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
44 SDN UPT I Alue Bukit Jaya Meurobo No 92 0 Destroyed Reconstruction Peunyareng 45 SDN UPT II Sumber Sumber Batu Meurobo In part 103 60 * Good Rehabilitation / Batu Reconstruction 46 SDN UPT III Anoe Blang Meurobo Yes 117 42 * Good Reconstruction Puteh Genang 47 SDN Pasi Aceh Pasi Aceh Woyla Induk Yes 150 157 Good Rehabilitation 48 SDN Cot Punti Pasi Janeng Woyla Yes 135 125 Good Rehabilitation Timur 49 SDN Kampong Baro Gunong Mata Kaway XVI Yes 97 106 * Good Reconstruction Manggi Ie 50 SDN Blang Teungoh Blang Kaway XVI No 85 0 Destroyed Reconstruction Teungoh 51 SDN Gleng Gleng Sungai Mas Yes 99 110 Good Rehabilitation 52 SD Alue Peuniareng II Sumber Batu Meurobo No 118 0 Destroyed Reconstruction (SDN Transloak SP6) 53 SDN Reudeup Reudeup Meurobo Yes 100 150 Parts unsafe Reconstruction
District NAGAN RAYA
No Name of school Address Sub-district Currently No of Safety Recommended in use students condition: activity Before Now 1 SDN Sikabu Sikabu Seunagan Yes 128 116 Good Rehabilitation 2 MIN Blang Blang Seunagan Yes 130 180 * Good Reconstruction Teungoh Teungoh 3 MIN Parom Parom Seunagan In part 150 130 Good Rehabilitation 4 SDN Keude Keude Seunagan Yes 69 62 * Good Reconstruction Neulop Neulop 5 MIN Suka Raja Suka Raja Darul Makmur Yes 173 250 Unsafe Reconstruction 6 SDN Krueng Krueng Darul Makmur In part 190 197 Good Rehabilitation Seumayam Seumayam 7 MIN UPT II Lamie Rantao Kuala In part 130 103 Parts unsafe Reconstruction Selamat 8 SD Dayah Dayah Beutong Yes 146 162 * Good Reconstruction 9 SD 2 Nigan Nigan Seunagan Yes 245 245 Good Rehabilitation 10 SDN Krueng Baturaja Kuala No 220 0 Good Rehabilitation Buloh 1 11 SDN Krueng Baturaja Kuala No 253 0 Good Rehabilitation / Buloh 2 Reconstruction 12 SDN Gunong Gunong Kuala In part 63 79 Parts unsafe Reconstruction Geulugu Geulugu 13 SDN Tadu Ateuh Gunong Kuala Yes 60 50 * Good Reconstruction Sapek 14 SDN Karang Karang Darul Makmur Yes 302 327 Good Rehabilitation Anyar Anyar 15 SDN UPT IV Sumber Darul Makmur In part 308 308 Good Rehabilitation Seuneuam Bakti 16 SDN Panton Bayu Panton Darul Makmur Yes 150 177 Good Rehabilitation / Bayu Reconstruction
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 44 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
17 SDN Kuala Kuala Darul Makmur No 63 0 Reconstruction Rehabilitation Seymayam Seymayam ongoing 1GF 18 SDN Pulo Pulo Darul Makmur Yes 191 200 Good Rehabilitation Teungoh 1 Teungoh 19 SDN Gunong Alue Waki Darul Makmur Yes 177 172 Good Rehabilitation Kong 20 SDN Pulo Raga Pulo Raga Beutong Yes 96 106 Good Rehabilitation 21 SDN Blang Dalam Blang Beutong Yes 119 126 Good Rehabilitation Dalam 22 MIN Gunong Gunong Kuala Yes 125 95 * Good Reconstruction Reubo Reubo
District ACEH JAYA
No Name of school Address Sub-district Currently No of students Safety Recommended in use condition: activity Before Now 1 SDN Pasie Pasie Teunom Yes 79 85 Good Rehabilitation Timon Timon 2 SDN Pulo Tinggi Pulo Tinggi Teunom Yes 150 176 Good Rehabilitation 3 SDN Pasie Pasie Teunom In part 245 337 Parts unsafe Reconstruction Teubee Teubee 4 SDN Padang Padang Teunom In part 270 290 Parts unsafe Reconstruction Kleng Kleng 5 SDN Lhok Bot Lhok Bot Setia Bakti Yes 40 50 Parts unsafe Reconstruction 6 SDN Tuwi Lhok Guli Teunom No 210 196 Parts unsafe Reconstruction Kareung 1 7 SDN Bunta Bunta Krueng Yes 150 100 * Good Reconstruction Sabee 8 SDN Panggong Panggong Krueng No 80 0 Good Rehabilitation Sabee 9 SDN Rantau Rantau Krueng Yes 90 93 * Good Reconstruction Panjang Panjang Sabee 10 SDN Paya Paya Krueng No 206 182 * Good Reconstruction Seumantok Seumantok Sabee 11 MIS Tuwi Tuwi Teunom Yes 117 91 Parts Reconstruction Kareung Kareung destroyed 12 MIN Alue Jang Ceuracee Teunom Yes 125 90 * Good Reconstruction 13 MIN Panga Twi Kayee Panga Yes 200 180 Good Rehabilitation Pucok 14 MIN Tuwi Tuwi Panga Yes 150 160 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation / Eumpeuk Eumpeuk Reconstruction 15 SDS Panton Panton Panga In part 57 65 Parts not for Rehabilitation / Krueng Krueng use Reconstruction 16 SDN Gunong Gunong Setia Bakti Yes 100 50 Good Rehabilitation Meunasah Meunasah 17 SDN Padang Padang Setia Bakti In part 120 56 Parts not for Reconstruction Layeun use 18 SDN Sapek Sapek Setia Bakti In part 102 88 * Good Reconstruction 19 MIN Pante Pante Setia Bakti Yes 120 150 * Good Reconstruction Kuyun Kuyun 20 MIS Lam Lam Sampoiniet No 0 Parts unsafe Reconstruction Teungoh Teungoh 21 SDN UPT IV Krueng Sampoiniet In part 198 78 Good Rehabilitation Patek Ayun
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 45 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
District NIAS AND NIAS SELATAN
No Name of school Address Sub-district Currently No of Safety Recommended in use students condition: activity Before Now 1 SDN 074048 Luaha Gawu-Gawu Tuhemberua Yes 227 216 * Good Reconstruction Bouso Bouso 2 SDN 078435 Tetehosi Afia Tuhemberua In part 118 107 * Good Rehabilitation / Tetehosi Afia Reconstruction 3 SDN 071020 Awaai Hilimbosi Tuhemberua In part 198 177 Parts unsafe Reconstruction 4 SDN 074050 Sawo Sawo Tuhemberua In part 310 283 Unsafe Reconstruction 5 SDN 075030 Lasarasohu Tuhemberua Yes 111 111 * Good Reconstruction Ambukha 6 SDN 070999 Tarakhaini Hiliduho In part 110 97 Unsafe Reconstruction Tarakhaini 7 SDN 076674 Orahili Orahili Hiliduho Yes 156 133 * Good Reconstruction Tanoseo Tanoseo 8 SDN 074043 Botombano Hiliduho No 120 136 Destroyed Reconstruction Lolowua 9 SDN 075022 Mazingo Gunungsitoli In part 105 82 Unsafe Reconstruction Mazingo Tabaloho Tabaloho 10 SDN 075053 Fadoro Desa Fadoro Gido Yes 190 185 * Good Reconstruction Idanoi 11 SDN 074056 Desa Dahana Gido In part 138 140 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation / Dahana Humene Reconstruction 12 SDN 074055 Desa Humene Gido Yes 183 190 * Good Reconstruction Humene Satua 13 SDN 071078 Desa Hiliweto Gido In part 242 272 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation / Hiliweto Gido Reconstruction 14 SDN 071058 Desa Gido In part 230 232 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation / Sogaeadu Sogaeadu Reconstruction 15 SDN 071061 Desa Tetehosi Gido In part 279 303 Unsafe Reconstruction Tetehosi Idanoi 16 SDN 074053 Duria Desa Hilisebua Gido In part 300 285 Parts Reconstruction Hilisebua destroyed 17 SDN 075045 Somi Desa Somi Gido Yes 310 305 Good Rehabilitation 18 SDN 174052 Desa Gido No 306 305 Not for use Reconstruction Tulumbaho Tulumbaho 19 SDN 074038 Tohia Ilir Gunungsitoli No 535 512 Not for use Reconstruction 20 SDN 070975 Ilir Gunungsitoli In part 500 460 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation / Gunungsitoli Reconstruction 21 SDS Kel. Ilir Gunungsitoli In part 330 284 Parts Reconstruction Muhammadiyah destroyed 22 SDN 077779 Sisobahili Gunungsitoli Yes 119 119 * Good Reconstruction Sisobahili Tabaloho Dahana 23 MIN Gunungsitoli Kel. Pasar Gunungsitoli No 125 145 Destroyed Reconstruction Gunungsitoli 24 SDN 070976 Kel. Pasar Gunungsitoli Yes 239 259 Parts unsafe Reconstruction Gunungsitoli Gunungsitoli 25 SDN 07778 Hiligodu Hiligodu Ulu Gunungsitoli Yes 100 80 Parts unsafe Reconstruction Ulu 26 SDN 070983 Sihareo Gunungsitoli In part 246 255 Parts unsafe Reconstruction Sihareo Siwahili
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 46 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
27 SDN 071008 Gada Gada Gunungsitoli In part 99 95 Unsafe Reconstruction 28 SDN 078137 Maliwa'a Idano Gawo Yes 205 222 * Good Rehabilitation / Hiligogowaya Reconstruction 29 SDN 077295 Baruzo Bobozioli Idano Gawo Yes 200 197 Unsafe Reconstruction Bobozioli Loloana'a 30 SDN 071051 Bawanaoha Bawolato In part 198 208 Parts Rehabilitation / Bawanaoha destroyed Reconstruction 31 SDN 076700 Hiliganoita Bawolato No 305 305 Parts Reconstruction Hiliganoita destroyed 32 SDN 071053 Siefa Ewali Bawolato No 315 367 Not for use Reconstruction Bawalia 33 SDN 075054 Huno Lahemo Gido In part 181 170 Remainder Reconstruction Unsafe 34 SDN 075036 Hililawae Idano Gawo In part 96 96 Unsafe Reconstruction Tuhewaebu 35 SDN 075050 Hiliuso Hiliuso Moi Lolofitumoi In part 172 300 Unsafe Reconstruction Moi 36 SDN 071063 Soromaasi Lolofitumoi In part 300 320 Unsafe Reconstruction Soromaasi 37 SDN 078436 Duria Duria Lolofitumoi In part 369 407 Parts unsafe Reconstruction 38 SDN 071151 Kare Hilimbowo Alasa Yes 102 132 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation / Alasa Kare Reconstruction 39 SDN 076688 Hiligawoni Alasa No 140 155 Destroyed Reconstruction Hiligawoni 40 SDN 078012 Mida Laehuwa Alasa Yes 63 63 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 41 SDN 077305 Desa Tuwuna Mandrehe Yes 129 134 * Good Reconstruction Tuwuna 42 SDN 076715 Sianaa Desa Sianaa Mandrehe In part 241 266 Parts Reconstruction destroyed 43 SDN 076716 Desa Lolohia Mandrehe In part 281 281 Parts unsafe Reconstruction Lolohia 44 SDN 075062 Doli- Desa Doli-doli Mandrehe In part 372 301 Parts Rehabilitation / doli destroyed Reconstruction 45 SDN 075021 Ombolato Hiliduho Yes 74 86 * Good Reconstruction Ombolato Salo'o Salo'o 46 SDN 071021 Desa Maziaya Lotu Yes 271 271 Good Rehabilitation Hilindruria 47 SDN 078434 Desa Sirombu Yes 80 119 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation Sisobaoho Sisobaoho 48 SDN 071180 Iraono Desa Iraono Sirombu No 209 221 Destroyed Reconstruction Gaila Gaila 49 SDN 071183 Desa Gunung Sirombu In part 167 185 Parts Rehabilitation / Faondrato Cahaya destroyed Reconstruction 50 SDN 075090 Desa Sirombu Sirombu In part 131 90 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation / Sirombu Reconstruction 51 SDN 071196 Desa Sisarahili Lolowau Yes 500 550 * Good Rehabilitation / Soledua Oyo Reconstruction 52 SDN 071191 Desa Hiliadulo Lolowau No 187 197 Destroyed Reconstruction Hiliadulo 53 SDN 076720 Maluo Desa Maluo Lolowau In part 200 200 Parts unsafe Reconstruction 54 SDN 071187 Amuri Desa Sisarahili Lolowau In part 252 270 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation Ekholo 55 SDN 071186 Desa Lolowau In part 302 302 * Good Rehabilitation / Lolomaya Simandralo Reconstruction 56 SDN 075099 Desa Lolowau In part 259 270 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation Bawohilinamizohono Hilinamizohono
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 47 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
57 SDN 076678 Fadoro Desa Fadoro Lotu Yes 154 139 Good Rehabilitation Fululo Fululo 58 SDN 075087 Muzoi Desa Muzoi Lahewa In part 105 118 Parts unsafe Reconstruction 59 SDN 076070 Tugala Tugala Lauru Lahewa In part 205 155 Remainder Reconstruction Lauru unsafe 60 SDN 071141 Tefao Desa Tefao Lahewa Yes 265 302 Unsafe Reconstruction 61 SDN 075083 Desa Lahewa In part 152 133 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation / Siheneasi Siheneasi Reconstruction 62 SDN 076681 Desa Hiligeo Lotu In part 250 208 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation / Bahosea Afia Reconstruction 63 SDN 071145 Desa Lahewa In part 73 73 Parts unsafe Reconstruction Sohahau Lafau Siheneasi 64 SDS BNKP Lahewa Kelurahan Lahewa Yes 204 209 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation / Lahewa Reconstruction 65 SDN 071138 Kelurahan Lahewa No 226 224 Destroyed Reconstruction Lahewa Pasar Lahewa 66 SDN 071146 Iraono Desa Iraono Lahewa In part 140 140 Parts Reconstruction Lase Lase destroyed 67 SDN 071118 Desa Amandraya In part 340 290 Parts Reconstruction Sifaoroasi Sifaoroasi destroyed 68 SDN 075066 Desa Teluk Dalam In part 117 140 Parts Reconstruction Hilisimaetano Hilisimaetano destroyed 69 SDN 071102 Desa Teluk Dalam Yes 185 178 Parts unsafe Reconstruction Bawomataluo Bawomataluo 70 SDN 071122 Pasar Kelurahan Teluk Dalam In part 295 324 Parts Rehabilitation / Teluk Dalam Pasar Teluk destroyed Reconstruction Dalam 71 SDN 076103 Desa Teluk Dalam Yes 250 250 Good Rehabilitation Bawoza'ua Bawoza'ua 72 SDN 071108 Desa Hilisataro Teluk Dalam In part 479 479 Parts Rehabilitation / Hilisataro destroyed Reconstruction 73 SDN 076102 Soto'o Desa Soto'o Teluk Dalam In part 205 202 Parts Reconstruction Hilialawa Hilialawa destroyed 74 SDN 078143 Desa Bawo Teluk Dalam Yes 60 45 Good Rehabilitation Hilimagari Ganowo 75 SDN 071213 Desa Hiliana'a Gomo No 200 192 Destroyed Reconstruction Hiliana'a Gomo Gomo 76 SDN 071223 Orahili Desa Orahili Gomo Yes 200 200 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation / Gomo Gomo Reconstruction 77 SDN 071204 Desa Lahusa Lahusa In part 525 331 Unsafe Reconstruction Lahusa 78 SDN 071211 Desa Lahusa Yes 312 340 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation / Helezalulu Bawo'otalua Reconstruction 79 SDN 071202 Desa Lahusa Yes 316 330 Parts unsafe Reconstruction Helezalulu Bawo'otalua 80 SDN 071111 Desa Teluk Dalam In part 313 312 Parts Reconstruction Hilizalo'otano Hilizalo'otano destroyed
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 48 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer Final Report on Structural Survey of Schools: March 2005 - February 2006
District PIDIE
No Name of school Address Sub-district Currently No of Safety Recommended in use students condition: activity Before Now 1 SMPN 2 Matang Trienggadeng In part 240 240 Parts unsafe Reconstruction Trienggadeng 2 SMPN 4 Sigli 1-Tijue 1-Sigli In part 300 275 Parts unsafe Reconstruction 2-Blok 2-Kota Sigli Bengel 3 SMPN 1 Sigli Sigli Sigli In part 857 827 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation (Kota Sigli) 4 SMPN 1 Sigli Blang Sigli No 0 Not for use Reconstruction (Blang Paseh) Paseh
5 SMPN 3 Sigli Pasi Rawa Kota Sigli In part Parts unsafe Reconstruction
6 SDN 2 Kale Kale Muara Tiga Yes 283 288 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation 7 SDN Blang Blang Muara Tiga In part 307 120 Parts unsafe Rehabilitation Raya Raya 8 SMPN 2 Muara Ujong Pik Muara Tiga Yes 320 335 Good Rehabilitation Tiga 9 SDN Suka Jaya Suka Jaya Muara Tiga In part 170 190 Unsafe Reconstruction
NOTE:
Entire school unsafe (currently in use)
*Good - good structural condition but bad general conditions, exhausted building
Reconstruction/Rehabilitation – schools with more buildings with different levels of damages
Bojan Stajic UNOPS Construction Engineer Page: 49 Lamia Maglic UNOPS Construction Engineer