The previous bombing incidents in different parts of the globe show that even the building occupants near the blast site are not spared from the harms that an explosion could do. Attesting to it is the high number of fatalities and injuries due to structural failure.
This only shows that there's a pressing need for building owners and designers to take into account certain blast resistant requirements when designing or redesigning a building. While there is no perfect blast resistant design for buildings, having enough engineering and architectural knowledge (particularly on infrastructure protection) can help reduce the possibility of the building being a hazard in case of an explosion.
Usually, it is the owner of the building that decides whether to go for a blast resistant building or not. Although evacuation can be used as a mitigation strategy, blast resistance need to be considered for buildings because complete evacuation is impossible to do given the limited time and the number of occupants that need to be taken into a safer place.
Buildings that will be used for critical services should also have a blast resistant design. Examples of these are companies that handle or control a high-risk unit and need to shut down the entire operation first to minimize risks. A more specific example of this is the firefighting department. Their headquarter should be resistant to blasts since there are equipment inside that will be crucial in controlling the blast and in saving lives.
Though used interchangeably, there's a difference between the terms blast resistant and blast proof. Blast resistant is a term used for establishments that would be able to withstand some 3 psi overpressure. This term is therefore applied to lower exposure protected buildings. On the other hand, blast proof is applicable to buildings that could tolerate an overpressure wave from an explosion of 10 psi.
Indeed, in today's society when bombing can happen even in the most unexpected place and time, designing blast proof or blast resistant buildings is very important. Blast designs for buildings do not only help save lives due to the added physical security but these also prove more practical in the long run.
This only shows that there's a pressing need for building owners and designers to take into account certain blast resistant requirements when designing or redesigning a building. While there is no perfect blast resistant design for buildings, having enough engineering and architectural knowledge (particularly on infrastructure protection) can help reduce the possibility of the building being a hazard in case of an explosion.
Usually, it is the owner of the building that decides whether to go for a blast resistant building or not. Although evacuation can be used as a mitigation strategy, blast resistance need to be considered for buildings because complete evacuation is impossible to do given the limited time and the number of occupants that need to be taken into a safer place.
Buildings that will be used for critical services should also have a blast resistant design. Examples of these are companies that handle or control a high-risk unit and need to shut down the entire operation first to minimize risks. A more specific example of this is the firefighting department. Their headquarter should be resistant to blasts since there are equipment inside that will be crucial in controlling the blast and in saving lives.
Though used interchangeably, there's a difference between the terms blast resistant and blast proof. Blast resistant is a term used for establishments that would be able to withstand some 3 psi overpressure. This term is therefore applied to lower exposure protected buildings. On the other hand, blast proof is applicable to buildings that could tolerate an overpressure wave from an explosion of 10 psi.
Indeed, in today's society when bombing can happen even in the most unexpected place and time, designing blast proof or blast resistant buildings is very important. Blast designs for buildings do not only help save lives due to the added physical security but these also prove more practical in the long run.
No comments:
Post a Comment