Analysis tools and guidance documents for evaluating and reducing vulnerability of buildings to airborne threats - Part 2

Comparison of tools

T Agami Reddy, Steven Snyder, Justin Bem, William Bahnfleth

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Abstract

Assessing and reducing vulnerability of building occupants to intentional indoor airborne releases of chemical and biological agents has acquired some importance in the past two decades. This paper reports on the evaluation and comparison of a set of available tools (described in the companion paper) that have been developed for practical and pragmatic use by building security professionals, consulting engineers, building owners, and maintenance personnel to evaluate the vulnerability of a building and determine the effect of implementing specific countermeasures. These tools have been applied to a few carefully selected buildings so that their responses can be evaluated both in terms of the risk assessment aspect as well as a portion dealing with evaluation of resiliency measures. The ease in using the tools, the quantity and specificity of the suggestions they provide, and the extent to which the responses differ between tools are issues that have been investigated and are presented in this paper. Also articulated are suggestions for future modifications to these tools in order to make them more user-friendly while enhancing their capabilities (such as being able to tailor the tools to a specific building rather than to a generic type, compute risk explicitly, compute the consequences of the event, etc.).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationASHRAE Transactions
Pages826-834
Number of pages9
Volume117
EditionPART 1
StatePublished - 2011
Event2011 ASHRAE Winter Conference - Las Vegas, NV, United States
Duration: Jan 29 2011Feb 2 2011

Other

Other2011 ASHRAE Winter Conference
CountryUnited States
CityLas Vegas, NV
Period1/29/112/2/11

Fingerprint

Risk assessment
Personnel
Engineers

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Mechanical Engineering
  • Building and Construction

Cite this

Reddy, T. A., Snyder, S., Bem, J., & Bahnfleth, W. (2011). Analysis tools and guidance documents for evaluating and reducing vulnerability of buildings to airborne threats - Part 2: Comparison of tools. In ASHRAE Transactions (PART 1 ed., Vol. 117, pp. 826-834)

Analysis tools and guidance documents for evaluating and reducing vulnerability of buildings to airborne threats - Part 2 : Comparison of tools. / Reddy, T Agami; Snyder, Steven; Bem, Justin; Bahnfleth, William.

ASHRAE Transactions. Vol. 117 PART 1. ed. 2011. p. 826-834.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Reddy, TA, Snyder, S, Bem, J & Bahnfleth, W 2011, Analysis tools and guidance documents for evaluating and reducing vulnerability of buildings to airborne threats - Part 2: Comparison of tools. in ASHRAE Transactions. PART 1 edn, vol. 117, pp. 826-834, 2011 ASHRAE Winter Conference, Las Vegas, NV, United States, 1/29/11.
Reddy, T Agami ; Snyder, Steven ; Bem, Justin ; Bahnfleth, William. / Analysis tools and guidance documents for evaluating and reducing vulnerability of buildings to airborne threats - Part 2 : Comparison of tools. ASHRAE Transactions. Vol. 117 PART 1. ed. 2011. pp. 826-834
@inproceedings{d8d27d73400a497f9405984459b38a02,
title = "Analysis tools and guidance documents for evaluating and reducing vulnerability of buildings to airborne threats - Part 2: Comparison of tools",
abstract = "Assessing and reducing vulnerability of building occupants to intentional indoor airborne releases of chemical and biological agents has acquired some importance in the past two decades. This paper reports on the evaluation and comparison of a set of available tools (described in the companion paper) that have been developed for practical and pragmatic use by building security professionals, consulting engineers, building owners, and maintenance personnel to evaluate the vulnerability of a building and determine the effect of implementing specific countermeasures. These tools have been applied to a few carefully selected buildings so that their responses can be evaluated both in terms of the risk assessment aspect as well as a portion dealing with evaluation of resiliency measures. The ease in using the tools, the quantity and specificity of the suggestions they provide, and the extent to which the responses differ between tools are issues that have been investigated and are presented in this paper. Also articulated are suggestions for future modifications to these tools in order to make them more user-friendly while enhancing their capabilities (such as being able to tailor the tools to a specific building rather than to a generic type, compute risk explicitly, compute the consequences of the event, etc.).",
author = "Reddy, {T Agami} and Steven Snyder and Justin Bem and William Bahnfleth",
year = "2011",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "117",
pages = "826--834",
booktitle = "ASHRAE Transactions",
edition = "PART 1",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - Analysis tools and guidance documents for evaluating and reducing vulnerability of buildings to airborne threats - Part 2

T2 - Comparison of tools

AU - Reddy, T Agami

AU - Snyder, Steven

AU - Bem, Justin

AU - Bahnfleth, William

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - Assessing and reducing vulnerability of building occupants to intentional indoor airborne releases of chemical and biological agents has acquired some importance in the past two decades. This paper reports on the evaluation and comparison of a set of available tools (described in the companion paper) that have been developed for practical and pragmatic use by building security professionals, consulting engineers, building owners, and maintenance personnel to evaluate the vulnerability of a building and determine the effect of implementing specific countermeasures. These tools have been applied to a few carefully selected buildings so that their responses can be evaluated both in terms of the risk assessment aspect as well as a portion dealing with evaluation of resiliency measures. The ease in using the tools, the quantity and specificity of the suggestions they provide, and the extent to which the responses differ between tools are issues that have been investigated and are presented in this paper. Also articulated are suggestions for future modifications to these tools in order to make them more user-friendly while enhancing their capabilities (such as being able to tailor the tools to a specific building rather than to a generic type, compute risk explicitly, compute the consequences of the event, etc.).

AB - Assessing and reducing vulnerability of building occupants to intentional indoor airborne releases of chemical and biological agents has acquired some importance in the past two decades. This paper reports on the evaluation and comparison of a set of available tools (described in the companion paper) that have been developed for practical and pragmatic use by building security professionals, consulting engineers, building owners, and maintenance personnel to evaluate the vulnerability of a building and determine the effect of implementing specific countermeasures. These tools have been applied to a few carefully selected buildings so that their responses can be evaluated both in terms of the risk assessment aspect as well as a portion dealing with evaluation of resiliency measures. The ease in using the tools, the quantity and specificity of the suggestions they provide, and the extent to which the responses differ between tools are issues that have been investigated and are presented in this paper. Also articulated are suggestions for future modifications to these tools in order to make them more user-friendly while enhancing their capabilities (such as being able to tailor the tools to a specific building rather than to a generic type, compute risk explicitly, compute the consequences of the event, etc.).

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=82055196787&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=82055196787&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Conference contribution

VL - 117

SP - 826

EP - 834

BT - ASHRAE Transactions

ER -