Simulation-based evaluation of bottleneck in a CBR protective facility
- 47 Downloads
As the possibility of a chemical, biological and radiological (CBR) attack increases, the importance of CBR protective facilities has been emphasized. When CBR warfare emerges, people outside the CBR protective facility should come into the facility through a decontaminating process in a Contamination Control Area (CCA) and Toxic Free Area (TFA). If a bottleneck occurs in the entering process, it may take a long time to enter the facility, which may result in casualties. However, the current design criteria of the CBR protective facility is only limited to the shielding, ventilation and filtration system and it does not consider the long time it takes to enter the facility. Thus, this research aims to propose the bottleneck evaluation model for entering procedures in a CBR protective facility based on discrete event simulation. To develop the simulation model, the procedures performed through CCA and TFA are defined and segmented. The actual time of the procedures are measured and adapted for the simulation model. After running the simulation model, two elements causing bottlenecks are selected for alternatives with adjustments. According to the simulation results, the number of airlocks is the most important element that affects the bottlenecks and the delay time is greatly decreased when increasing the number of airlocks. Finally, three new articles to complement the existing criteria are proposed. The evaluation model is expected to help in the consideration of time during the designing phase of a CBR protective facility and to help CBR protective facility managers in planning the operation of a facility in a more realistic approach.
Keywordsbottleneck CBR protective facility entering procedure discrete event simulation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Banks, J., Carson, J. S., Nelson, B. L., and Nicol, D. M. (2000). Discreteevent System Simulation, 3rd Ed, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.Google Scholar
- Department of Defense, United States (2008). Security Engineering: Procedures for Designing Airborne Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Protection for Buildings, Unified Facility Criteria, 4-024-01.Google Scholar
- Jeong, Y. S. (2010). “A Study on problems with the ROK’s bioterrorism response system and ways to improve it.” Korean Security Science Review, Vol. 22, pp. 113–144.Google Scholar
- Kim, K. M., Seo, H. B., Hwang, H. J., and Kim, K. J. (2007). “Application of discrete event simulation on tunnel muck hauling operations.” Journal of Korean Institute of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 141–149.Google Scholar
- Kim, Y. H. (2011). A Study on the Efficiency Improvement of Shelter Facilities Operations in Chemical, Biological and Radiological Warfare, Master thesis, Yonsei University.Google Scholar
- Ministry of National Defense, Republic of Korea (2012). National Defense Military Facility Design Criteria–Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Protective Facility Design Book.Google Scholar
- Nakano, V. M., Croisant, W. J., Jr., and Abraham, D. M. (2009). “Methodology to Assess Building Designs for Protection against Internal Chemical and Biological Threats.” Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 14–21, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE) 0887-3801(2009)23:1(14).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- National Emergency Management Agency, Republic of Korea (2009). The Criteria and Practical Use of Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Protective Facility.Google Scholar
- National Emergency Management Agency, Republic of Korea (2011). Standard Model of Emergency Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Protective Facility for Private Citizen.Google Scholar
- National Emergency Management Agency, Republic of Korea (2012). Manual of Civil Defense Equipment of Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Warfare.Google Scholar
- Sim, W. S. and Hwang, T. Y. (2003). “The air conditioning equipment system for chemical, biological, and radiological protective facility.” Air Cleaning Technology, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 49–60.Google Scholar