Journal of the Korea Institute of Building Construction (한국건축시공학회지)

The Korean Institute of Building Construction (한국건축시공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on the Method for Judging the Required Protection Capacity through Decision Making

의사결정론을 통한 방호요구수준 판단방안 제시에 관한 연구

  • Received : 2018.11.21
  • Accepted : 2019.02.07
  • Published : 2019.04.20
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Protective facilities are the last means of ensuring the survivability of personnel and assets, and there is a greater amount of matters to consider than those of general buildings. However, the Defense Military Facilities Criteria and the Ministry of the Interior and Safety, Ordinance No. 20, are only considering the expected enemy threats. In this study, we use objective and statistical methods to refine the consideration of the required capacity of protection based on the opinions of the experts. Specifically, the study adopts the Delphi technique associating the experts related to 30 defense military facilities criteria. The first-round questions were open-ended, and it compiled the points to consider related to the bulletproof and explosion - proof design. The second questionnaire was applied as closed questionnaire with 7 points scale methods. As a result of the factor analysis on the opinions of the experts, it was confirmed that the protection requirement level was due to METT + TC.

방호시설은 인원과 자산의 생존성을 보장할 수 있는 최후의 수단으로서 일반 건축물보다 고려해야 할 사항이 많다. 하지만 국방 군사 시설기준 및 행정안전부 훈령에서 군 관의 방호기준은 적 위협만을 고려하고 있다. 본 연구에서는 전문가 집단의 의견을 통해 객관적이고 통계적 방법을 사용하여 방호요구수준의 고려사항을 재선정하고자 한다. 연구방법은 델파이기법을 사용하였으며, 21명의 국방 군사 시설기준과 관련 있는 전문가들을 선정하였다. 1차 설문은 개방형 질문으로 방탄 방폭 설계시 방호요구수준의 고려사항을 종합하였고, 2차 설문은 폐쇄형 질문으로 7점 척도법을 적용하였다. 채택된 전문가의 의견에 대해 요인분석을 실시한 결과, 방호요구수준의 고려사항이 METT+TC에 기인한다는 것을 확인하였다.

Keywords

GCSGBX_2019_v19n2_167_f0001.png 이미지

Figure 1. The need for reset required capacity of protection

GCSGBX_2019_v19n2_167_f0002.png 이미지

Figure 2. Delphi technique process

GCSGBX_2019_v19n2_167_f0003.png 이미지

Figure 3. Results of second survey on factors considered for protective criteria

GCSGBX_2019_v19n2_167_f0004.png 이미지

Figure 4. Scree plot for 13 accepted codes

Table 2. Degree of agreement in seven points scale method

GCSGBX_2019_v19n2_167_t0002.png 이미지

Table 4. Statistical analysis on results of third survey

GCSGBX_2019_v19n2_167_t0004.png 이미지

Table 5. Statistical analysis on results of forth survey

GCSGBX_2019_v19n2_167_t0005.png 이미지

Table 6. Varimax rotation results on major factors

GCSGBX_2019_v19n2_167_t0006.png 이미지

Table 8. Common factors according to factor analysis results

GCSGBX_2019_v19n2_167_t0008.png 이미지

Table 1. Factors considered for protective criteria

GCSGBX_2019_v19n2_167_t0009.png 이미지

Table 3. Statistical analysis on results of second survey

GCSGBX_2019_v19n2_167_t0010.png 이미지

Table 7. Explanation by each factors

GCSGBX_2019_v19n2_167_t0011.png 이미지

References

  1. Defense Installations Agency. Department Military Facilities Criteria 2-20-10. Design Criteria for explosion-proof and bullet-proof facilities. 2014.
  2. Ministry of the Interior and Safety. Ordinance No. 20. Regulations on the Establishment of Emergency Evacuation Facilities of Government Offices. 2017.
  3. Lee JC, Park YJ, Kim KS, Lim TS, Park YK. A basic study on upgrading of the evaluation factors of the protective capacity in military protective facilities. Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea. 2006 Jan;22(1):31-8.
  4. Park BH. A study on protective criteria and explosion safety evaluation of shelter against external explosion [dissertation]. [Gumi (Korea)]: Kum-oh National University of Technology; 2007. p. 62-78.
  5. Cruz AM, Okada N. Consideration of natural hazards in the design and risk management of industrial facilities. Natural hazards. 2008 Feb;44(2):213-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-007-9118-1
  6. Bahr NJ. System safety engineering and risk assessment: a practical approach. 2nd ed. USA, Boca Raton;CRC Press; 2014. 272 p.
  7. Marshall HE, Chapman RE, Leng CJ. Risk mitigation plan for optimizing protection of constructed facilities. Cost engineering. 2004;46(8):26-33.
  8. FEMA. Risk Assessment; A how-to guide to mitigate potential terrorist attacks against buildings. Washington: DC;FEMA; 2005. 248 p.
  9. O'connor BP. SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer's MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers. 2000 Sep;32(3):396-402. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200807
  10. Thompson B. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Applied Psychological Measurement. 2007 May;31(3):245-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621606290168
  11. Cattell RB. The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 1966 Apr;1(2):245-76. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10
  12. Kaiser HF. The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1958 Sep;23(3):187-200. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289233