Building Simulation

, Volume 2, Issue 1, pp 41–51 | Cite as

A systems approach to the design of safe-rooms for shelter-in-place

Research Article/Indoor/Outdoor Airflow and Air Quality

Abstract

The protection of building occupants from hazardous outdoor releases can involve many strategies of varying cost and complexity. One method is known as “shelter-in-place,” in which a space within the building is isolated to a practical degree from ambient and the remaining building air. The design of such a space involves decisions about size and level of permeability. An obvious issue is the comfort and health of occupants during the event. Because a design cannot satisfy all needs entirely, engineering the space becomes an optimization problem. This research provides an analytical framework for considering the effects of safe-room volume; ambient, building, and safe-room concentrations; ambient/building and building/safe-room air exchange rates; contaminant generation rate within the safe-room; contaminant toxicity; building volume and time. Intuition suggests that the room should be as large as possible to keep the balance of oxygen and carbon dioxide at safe levels. However, the current work quantifies the optimal balance, using a systems analysis of a three-compartment building model, consisting of ambient, building, and safe-room zones. In an example calculation involving an outdoor release of chlorine gas and a safe-room release of carbon dioxide from occupant respiration, safe-room contaminant concentration was plotted vs the safe-room air exchange rate, β. It was found that the intersection of the decreasing carbon dioxide curve and the increasing chlorine curve occurred at a β of 0.70 h−1. This permeability was interpreted as optimal, since it resulted in the lowest total exposure, relative to hazardous levels of these toxicologically independent agents. The analysis can be used to rank the importance of the variables affecting safe-room concentration, so that control efforts can be efficiently applied. This information would be helpful in choosing among existing rooms to use for shelter, for making room modifications or designing a new space, and for making decisions as an incident unfolds.

Keywords

shelter-in-place toxicity safe-room model air-exchange 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ACGIH (2007). Industrial Ventilation: A Manual for Recommended Practice for Design, 26th edn. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. pp. 14-5–14-19.Google Scholar
  2. ATSDR (2008). Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Medical Management Guidelines for Hydrogen Cyanide, Retrieved November, 2008 from http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/MHMI/mmg8.html.
  3. Awbi HB (1991). Ventilation of Buildings. London: E. and F.N Spon. p. 36.Google Scholar
  4. Blewett WK (2004). Chemical and biological threats: The nature and risk. Heating/Piping/Air Conditioning Engineering, September.Google Scholar
  5. Griez EJ, Colasanti A, van Diest R, Salamon E, Schruers K (2007). Carbon dioxide inhalation induces dose-dependent and age-related negative affectivity. PLoS ONE, 2(10): e987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kaye J, Buchanan F, Kendrick A, Johnson P, Lowry C, Bailey J, Nutt D, Lightman S (2004). Acute carbon dioxide exposure in healthy adults: Evaluation of a novel means of investigating the stress response. Journal of Neuroendocrinology, 16(3): 256–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Klaassen CD, Doull J (1980). Evaluation of safety: Toxicological evaluation. In: Doull J, Klaassen CD, Amdur MO (eds), Casarett and Doull’s Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons, 2nd edn. New York: Macmillan. p. 17.Google Scholar
  8. Levin BC, Paabo M, Gurman JL, Harris SE (1987). Effects of exposure to single or multiple combinations of the predominant toxic gases and low oxygen atmospheres produced in fires. Fundamental and Applied Toxicology, 9: 236–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Li Y (2008). Ventilation and health in the built environment. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Building Energy and Environment (COBEE 2008), Dalian, China.Google Scholar
  10. Nazaroff WW (2008). Understanding exposure to air pollutants in the built environment. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Building Energy and Environment (COBEE 2008), Dalian, China.Google Scholar
  11. Nicas M, Miller SL (1999). A multi-zone model evaluation of the efficacy of upper-room air ultraviolet germicidal irradiation. Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 14(5): 317–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. NIOSH (2004). NIOSH pocket guide to chemical hazards. U.S. DHHS, CDC, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 97 — 140. p. xi.Google Scholar
  13. NRC (1996). Spacecraft Maximum Allowable Concentrations for Selected Airborne Contaminants, Vol 2. Committee on Toxicology. Washington DC: National Research Council National Academy Press. pp. 105–188.Google Scholar
  14. NRC (2000). Subcommittee on Spacecraft Water Exposure Guidelines. National Research Council. Washington DC: National Academy Press. pp. 84–86.Google Scholar
  15. NRC (2002). Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Selected Airborne Chemicals, Vol 2. National Research Council. Washington DC: National Academy Press. pp. 247.Google Scholar
  16. NRC (2004). Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Selected Airborne Chemicals, Vol 4. National Research Council. Washington DC: National Academy Press. pp. 14–17.Google Scholar
  17. NRC (2007). Emergency and Continuous Exposure Guidance Levels for Selected Submarine Contaminants. National Research Council. Washington DC: National Academy Press. pp. 44–66.Google Scholar
  18. NRC (2008). Combined Exposures to Hydrogen Cyanide and Carbon Monoxide in Army Operations: Initial Report. National Research Council. Washington DC: National Academy Press. pp. 7,8.Google Scholar
  19. Senior TBA (1986). Mathematical Methods in Electrical Engineering. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 13–48, 65–66, 82–89.MATHGoogle Scholar
  20. ten Berge WF, Vis van Heemst M (1983). Validity and accuracy of a commonly used toxicity-assessment model in risk analysis. IChemE Symposium Series No. 80: I1–I12.Google Scholar
  21. ten Berge WF, Zwart A, Appleman LM (1986). Concentration-time mortality response relationship of irritant and systemically acting vapors and gases. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 13: 301–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2003). FEMA 426: Reference Manual to Mitigate Potential Terrorist Attacks against Buildings. Washington DC: Government Printing Office. pp. 3–40.Google Scholar
  23. Ward M, Siegel JA, Corsi RL (2005). The effectiveness of stand alone air cleaners for shelter-in-place. Indoor Air, 15: 127–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Tsinghua University Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health (NIOSH), Division of Applied Research & Technology (DART)Engineering and Physical Hazards Branch (EPHB)CincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations