This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
DISASTER PLANNING


H (c-v)


Context variables Values for each possible location in which each class of hospital could be located


R (p-v)


(d-v) V


Design variables Values for each class of hospital


Performance variables Values for each combination of a specific hospital class, and the seismic context in which it could be located


H Zoning Z4 Z3 Z2


Z1


S1


S2


Type of soil


S3 S4 one-storey Z3 Z4 Z3 Z4 -S3 -S3 -S4 -S4


Figure 1: Interrelation between the three types of variables and an example of the different values of hazard (c-v): values of seismic zoning and of type of soil; for vulnerability (d-v), number of floors; for risk (p-v), the appropriateness of the seismic performance of buildings with different numbers of floors in different locations with specific seismic hazard.


Disasters in Health Facilities: Evaluation and Reduction of Physical and Functional Vulnerability’ (PAHO/WHO, 1993).


The evaluation process In this paper, ‘evaluation’ means an activity aiming to establish an overall judgement, on a hospital with specific characteristics that perform a series of activities within a set of interrelated particular contextual conditions. An overall judgement is considered as an addition of partial judgements that determine the manner in which the hospital fulfils or accomplishes a desired or pre- established condition. The evaluation method is based on the


• Context variables (c-v) – which are those factors affecting the object under study, but not under the control of the designers; examples include seismic zone, soils type, etc; for example, the values for seismic zone are Z1 type, S1, S2


• Performance variables (p-v) – that express desired characteristics of the object, in terms of what it ‘has to be like’ to perform satisfactorily in determined context according to pre-established


, S3 , S4 . 56 , Z2 , Z3 , Z4 , and for soil


relationship that exists between the seismic concepts of risk, hazard and vulnerability and the three types of variables that Rittel (1964-1990, and 1973) considers should be taken into account in a design process: • Design variables (d-v) – those under the control of the designer, in this case the architect or engineer, such as the number of floors, location of vertical services, elevators and stairs, and type of structural system and materials; the values of each of these variables are the different choices; for example, in the structural system’s materials, the values could be: R/C, steel, unreinforced masonry, reinforced masonry, etc.


criteria; these express the terms in which the building and its parts will be evaluated: quality, quantity, appropriateness, capability, cost, etc.


The Overall p-v for each hospital for this study is the ‘Capability of the evaluated hospital to withstand earthquakes without major damage.’ Thus, the vulnerability of hospitals is determined by the design variables, and the seismic hazard by the context variables. Performance is a function of d-v’s and c-v’s, P = f (D, C). Then the capability of a hospital to withstand earthquakes without major damage is a function of its vulnerability and of the local seismic hazard.


General seismic evaluation When evaluating a hospital’s SF there will normally be a large quantity of p-v to be considered. However, according to Rittel (1973) just having a list of these is not enough, because they are not all equally important and they are not independent. Rarely, if ever, it is possible to maximise all performance values at the same time because the improvement of the performance of one aspect usually reduces that of other. Ideally, the solution should perform well


in the eyes of those who have to take decisions on it. However, it is usual for different people to evaluate the same hospital from different points of view. Owners, policy makers, users, architects and different engineers – everyone will have something to say about the quality of a hospital. The investor wants to maximise their investment, while prospective medical staff probably want a functional hospital when an earthquake occurs.


(a) Identify the relevant performance variables to each of the participants to be


Therefore evaluators must:


(b) Find the relative importance of the various aspects of the various participants.


taken into account.


(c) Agree in regard to conflicting interests. For example, by assigning weights to the various participants influence.


R From multi-storey To high


V


(d) Build a global performance measure for evaluating alternative solutions. All these items have considerable difficulties. In particular, the last one is the most decisive.


The origin of the proposed method is based on the techniques originally developed in 1966 by Rittel, Sanoff and Fesseden to evaluate the overall performance of buildings and which later, in 1967, was applied by Musso and Rittel (1967) to assess qualitative and quantitative aspects of a pilot project in Saint Louis, Missouri. This evaluation method proposed using a variety of mathematical functions and value scales to quantify the qualitative and quantitative factors in every aspect and to reach to an overall judgment of the building being evaluated, classified into the aggregation functions and the transformation functions. This method has been adapted by the


author to the seismic evaluation of hospitals since 1995 and applied since then to the evaluation of SF of various hospitals. The tree construction process evaluation and assigning weights and values with their corresponding aggregation functions has been adapted by the author from 1995 to the qualitative assessment of the seismic functionality of hospitals, using qualitative scales. Because SF evaluation consists in the


association of several aspects, which may all influence the appropriate performance of a hospital to face massive emergencies, an aggregative evaluation method is needed. The main goal of this evaluation method


IFHE DIGEST 2013


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