코로나19 방역대책으로 인한 공공도서관 피난구의 개폐여부와 피난구 재배치에 따른 피난안전성 평가

Assessment of Evacuation Safety According to Opening and Closing of Public Library Evacuation Exits due to COVID-19 Quarantine Measures and Relocation of Evacuation Exits

이 연구는 코로나19 현실을 반영하여 피난구 통제로 피난구 개폐에 따른 피난안전성, 승강기 부근 재난 발생으로 승강기 이용이 불가능한 상황의 피난안전성 및 피난구 재배치를 통해 피난안전성을 분석하였다. 분석 결과는 피난구 2개를 개방하여 피난하는 경우와 기존에 설치된 피난구 2개에 피난구 1개를 추가하는 경우는 피난안전성에 문제가 없는 것으로 나타났다. 2개의 피난구 중 1개의 피난구가 폐쇄되는 경우와 1개의 피난구를 추후 개방하는 경우는 피난안전성에 문제가 발생하는 결과가 나타났다. 피난구 재배치에 따른 분석 결과는 첫째, 피난구까지 이동 거리가 짧은 건축 평면 상⋅하 중앙에 피난구를 설치한 경우, 둘째, 상부 중앙과 우측 중앙에 피난구를 설치하는 경우, 셋째, 좌측 중앙과 하부 중앙에 피난구를 설치하는 경우는 피난 안전성에 문제가 없는 것으로 나타났다. 그러나 피난구까지의 이동 거리가 긴 건축 평면 좌⋅우측 중앙에 피난구를 설치하거나, 상부에 피난구를 2개, 하부에 피난구 2개를 각각 설치하는 경우는 피난안전성에 문제가 발생하는 결과가 나타났다. 개선방안으로 통제되는 피난구에 잠금장치 사용 제한, 피난구의 재배치를 통한 피난시간의 단축 방안을 제안하였다.

This study analyzed the safety of evacuation according to the opening and the closing of different evacuation exits in a controlled manner due to COVID-19 measures. In addition, the evacuation safety was analyzed considering situations where it was impossible to use the elevator, and when the evacuation exit was relocated. Based on this analysis, it was found that the evacuation was safe when two evacuation exits were opened or when an third evacuation exit was added. However, when one of the two evacuation exits was closed, the evacuation safety was observed to have been compromised. In addition, if the two evacuation exits were opened one after the another, the evacuation remained unsafe. The analysis of the evacuation exit arrangement revealed the following. First, the evacuation was safe when the distance to the evacuation exit was short and the evacuation exit was at the midpoint between the top and the bottom of the building plane. Second, the evacuation was safe even when an evacuation exit was provided at the upper center and right center. Third, the evacuation was safe when an evacuation exit was provided at the left center and lower center. However, when the evacuation exit was provided at the center of the left and the right sides of the building plane, it resulted in long distance to the evacuation exit, rendering the evacuation unsafe. In addition, when two evacuation exits were provided at the top and bottom each, the evacuation was again unsafe. As improvement measures, limiting the use of locks in the controlled evacuation exits and reducing the evacuation time by relocating the evacuation exits were proposed.