DISASTER PLANNING
LEVEL 0
Overall performance.
LEVEL 1
1 Adequancy of structural design.
2 Seismic capability of non-structural components.
3 Seismic functionality.
LEVEL 2
11 Structural system. 12 Building configuration.
21 Non-intensionally structural.
22 Non-structural participative.
31 Functionality in relation with its environment.
32 Interior functionality. 33 Efficiency of contingency plan and evacuation process
Figure 3: First levels of disaggregation of the overall seismic performance of the hospital. evaluating this hospital is.
• Define the actual situation of the hospital according to those parameters. Locate all the possible information regarding the present architectural characteristics of the hospital. Corroborate that the information contained in reports and blueprints, match reality. All the spaces should be visited to verify the location, dimensions, proportions, equipment of the different services included in the medical program and the functional relationship between them.
• Interview the administrative, nursing and medical staff in charge of managing essential activities for massive emergencies in order to find out what the virtues and deficiencies could be. The development of pre-established questionnaires should be used to get the necessary information from the different levels of the staff.
• Design one or two seismic scenarios to paint a rational picture or simulation of the impact of possible earthquakes on the hospital.
• Analyse and evaluate the spatial organisation of internal and external functional aspects according to the scenarios and compare these with specific patterns. Discrepancies between the desired situation and the current situation should be defined.
• Elaborate conclusions and recommendations.
• Preparation of the technical report, which should contain a definition of the
evaluation patterns; the values obtained for each parameter; and recommendations to improve the functionality of those aspects that are deficient.
The evaluation parameters The first step is to elaborate the list of relevant property or condition (performance variables, p-v) that the experts and the members of the evaluation committee consider are necessary for the appropriate overall SF performance of the hospital. Each is related to the characteristics of a
space or activity (design variables, d-v) that should properly perform in a specific seismic context (context variables, c-v). The p-v shall define a condition of each to be evaluated, for example, quality, quantity, suitability, adequacy, etc., that have to be considered as being essential for an adequate performance of every part of the hospital. The p-v’s should be organised in the form
of a hierarchical tree, or evaluation tree to identify the relationship between them and the degree of relevance of each branched sub-aspect in relation to the others, according to hospital type and function to meet the massive emergency. It begins with the formulation of an
overall objective that constitutes the trunk of the tree or level 0. In each level each p-v should be logically independent from the other. It is important not to repeat any factor in other branches, to avoid redundancies that, inadvertently, could give more weight to it. These aspects and sub-aspects can be analysed from different degrees of detail
‘Presentation of scores and final reports, explaining the results and scoring is finally done. Then the decision makers can decide. There should be a clear explanation about who and how the final decisions will be taken.’
58
depending on the disaggregation process applied to each one and can be disaggregated onto other detailing levels, depending on the degree of specification that the specialists want to reach. Although the analysis of these aspects is merely focused on architectural design, their functionality could depend on the structural design and the performance of non-structural components. Figure 3 shows the first levels of disaggregation of the overall seismic
performance of the hospital into: (1) Adequacy of structural design. (2) Seismic capability of non-structural components.
(3) Seismic functionality.
Figure 4 shows in detail the latter, which is the topic of this paper; three sub-aspects are recommended: (3.1) hospital functionality in relation with its environment; (3.2) hospital internal functionality; and (3.3) efficiency of contingency plan and evacuation process. 3 Hospital’s general functionality for post- earthquake attention evaluates the hospital’s capability of relating to its environment, as part of the urban system; refers to the overall functionality performance obtained from the addition of the values of the following partial parameters.
3.1 Hospital functionality in relation with its environment: This evaluates the hospital’s capability of relating to its context, as a whole system. 3.1.1 Relationship with the urban lifeline utility infrastructure, evaluates whether all possible connections from the hospital to the urban infrastructure would work to ensure the provision of services to the hospital in a seismic emergency.
3.1.2 Access functionality, evaluates heliport availability; distance and vulnerability of roads to nearest airports; flow and parking of staff and visitors vehicles; pedestrian accessibility, fluid and safe circulation to reach the hospital, etc.
3.1.3 Seismic vulnerability of neighbouring structures; adjacent buildings; lifelines superficial structures; bridges; etc.
3.1.4 Efficiency of procedures for connecting to the local and regional emergency network.
3.2 Internal functionality: This group of proposed parameters evaluates the location and distribution of each of the different spaces of the hospital that house indispensable services, and the relationship between them to obtain an efficient attention service in the event of an earthquake. Each space shall be evaluated by itself and in relation to the rest and then aggregated by groups to obtain an overall value of functionality.
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