Model Design for Evaluation of Educational Buildings in terms of Emergency Situations and Increasing their Reliability Levels

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 1, 19 - 26, 20.02.2021

Saim Demirel , Sevil Cengiz

https://doi.org/10.23834/isrjournal.842001

Öz

Educational institutions are also affected by emergencies and education and training can be paused. Making educational institutions safe in emergencies is important both for individuals and for continuing education. The purpose of my study is to eliminate the deficiencies of educational institutions and make them safer because of the deficiencies observed as a result of the studies.
In this thesis, researches, regulations, and laws on the same national and international issues are examined by using the method of examination to make educational buildings more secure. As a result of the review, 8 main headings were created in the guideline designed as follows: Structural and non-structural, security, environmental, fire, evacuation, health, electricity, and the general form are formed. A total of 120 questions were evaluated. As an example, guidance was applied to the selected school. Only 100 criteria were used in the evaluation. As a result of the study, 52 criteria were evaluated as positive and 48 criteria as negative. This evaluation guide, it is aimed to make the institutions more secure. In the next phase, it is expected to guide the studies on the same subject.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Acil Durum, Acil Durum Yönetimi, Eğitim Binaları

Kaynakça

• 1. Akpınar, Burhan and Köksalan, Bahadır (2003), Emergency Situations and School. Fırat University Journal of Social Sciences, 13 (1), 151-158.
• 2. Barnes Jill M. (2013). ‘‘School Disaster Needs For Students With Disabilities: Voices From The Field’’ University Of California, Los Angeles.
• 3. Fox Michael H., Whıte Glen W., Rooney Catherine, and Rowland Jennifer (2007). ‘‘Disaster Preparedness and Response For Persons With Mobility İmpairments: Results From The University Of Kansas Nobody Left Behind Study’’, Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 17(4), 196-205.
• 4. İMO, (2011), 19 May 2011 Simav Earthquake and Structural Damage Report, Chamber of Civil Engineers, Disaster Response Preparedness Board.
• 5. Kişioğlu Ahmet N., Demirel Reha ve Öztürk Mustafa (2005), Assessing The Indoor Environment Of Primary Schools in The Southwest of Turkey. Indoor Built Environment, 14(2), 141-145.
• 6. Koçkan, Çağdaş, (2015). Risk Management in Natural Disasters. 3. Turkey Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, 1-8, Izmir.
• 7. Lenon Tom and Moore David (2003), The Natural Fire Safety Concept-Fullscale Tests At Cardington. Fire Safety Journal, 38,623–643.
• 8. Marrıon Christopher, Mılke James and Kodur Venkatesh (2004), ‘‘A Overview Of Fire Protection in Buildings”. World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Federal Emergency Management Agency the USA.
• 9. Özmen, Bulent; (2000), Damage Status of 17 August 1999 Izmit Gulf Earthquake (with Numerical Data). TDV / D 010-53, Turkey Earthquake Foundation, 132 pages.
• 10. Peruman Chaney Suzanne and Lındsay M. Sutton (2013), Students and Perceived School Safety: The Impact of School Security Measures. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 570-588.
• 11. TMMOB, (2003). ‘Chamber of Civil Engineers May 1, 2003, Bingöl Earthquake Evaluation Report, Technical Power, Issue: 127.