DISASTER PLANNING
is to objectify, (to express or deal with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion of personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations), an overall judgment that is subjective in nature and by clearly defining the selected aspects, or variables, of the hospital under evaluation, the weights assigned to each variable and their scale of values. It is intended that this method clearly evidences the evaluation criteria and the meaning of the weights and values assigned to get the overall value.
What is the specific context that could affect the hospital? These context variables cannot be modified by the designer or the evaluator, but should be taken in consideration: 1 Seismic hazard: Usually obtainable from reports on seismic zonation and microzoning based on local seismic activity, zone’s historic seismicity and seismology, soil dynamic properties, and other.
2 Local official classification of hospitals with regard to the capacity and preparedness and the type of service provided for attending sudden-onset massive emergencies. It could be according to the influence area, type of population to be attended, types of service provided, specialisation, location, and type of connection to the inter-hospital transfer network, within other relevant aspects.
3 Legislation, regulations, standards, codes of practice, guidelines in force, relating to: 3.1 Urban planning. 3.2 Seismic design. 3.3 Planning and design of hospitals. 3.4 Prevention and control of fire.
1. 2. 3. Structural design
• Structural system • Building configuration
Seismic risk, hospital n Seismic scenario n
Non-structural components
(furniture and fixtures)
Seismic scenario 2 Seismic scenario 1 Seismic scenarios
Seismic risk, hospital 1 Seismic risk, hospital 2
‘To develop a method for the evaluation of hospital’s seismic functionality is a difficult task because healthcare philosophy and services change rapidly due to research and innovative conception, not only in the medical science but also in disaster management.’
4 Seismic vulnerability of neighbouring buildings and proximity to dangerous facilities.
5 Seismic vulnerability of the existing urban infrastructure and other facilities that provide services to the hospital, for example, bridges, roads and highways; main; local, power, natural-gas and urban water systems; transportation and communications systems; fire stations.
What effects would a probable earthquake have on the hospital under evaluation in its current condition? In order to establish whether it is worthwhile undergoing a SF evaluation, it is important to know whether the hospital has undergone a seismic assessment of the structural and non- structural performance. If it has, find out the results. If not it would be recommended to the decision makers to evaluate the structural and non-structural performance in order to consider the suitability of undergoing the SF
evaluation process. What are the parameters required to
perform a SF evaluation on a hospital? The first step is to create an evaluation committee
to take control of the process and establish responsibilities to the members in the different phases. This committee has to establish the services that the hospital should provide in the event of the sudden onset of massive emergencies and the architectural provisions that are established to this type of hospital by the local official classification. If there are important discrepancies between the SF dispositions and those architectural requirements in local provisions, it is recommended that the evaluation committee send a well-augmented report to the decision makers explaining the discrepancy and the importance for the hospital to accomplish the SF remodelling or retrofitting proposal. Once the decision to undertake a SF
evaluation process has been reached, the application of evaluation techniques requires a well formulated process. The following evaluation methodological principles should be followed by the specialists and the committee in charge: • Establish the parameters that define ‘seismic functional vulnerability’ of the type of hospital under evaluation and define what the ideal model for
Functionality
• Distribution, location, flexibility, relationship between spaces
Figure 2: Combination of d-v and c-v for constructing seismic scenarios. IFHE DIGEST 2013 57 HOSPITAL’S SEISMIC RISK
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84