MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH CLINIC LAS MERCEDES, HONDURAS Preliminary Design (30%) January 27, 2009 Janelle Barth, Stephanie Chang, Walter Li, Greer Mackebee
Jan 19, 2016
MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH CLINICLAS MERCEDES, HONDURASPreliminary Design (30%)January 27, 2009Janelle Barth, Stephanie Chang, Walter Li, Greer Mackebee
road: church side
field side
STRUCTURAL DESIGN
Weighting Criteria
Constructability: Is it easy to build? Will we need more materials? Bricks, wood, or tin? Is it easy to access/install the solar panel?
Access to water source: How much piping (and labor) will be needed to obtain fresh water
Access to sewage disposal: How much piping (and labor) will be needed to dispose of sewage properly? Will it even be possible to dispose of it properly from location of kitchen?
Ventilation: Can air flow easily in AND out of the building? Are there obstructions?
Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs) in the Las Mercedes Primary school
Adobe bricks
Structural Design Decision Matrix0.2 0.3 0.35 0.15 1
Option ConstructabilityAccess to
water source
Access to sewage disposal
Ventilation Weighted Total
1) kitchen on side,
gable7 8 8 5 7.35
2) kitchen in back,
gable7 10 5 10 7.65
3) kitchen on side, single pitch
9 8 8 5 7.75
4) kitchen in back, single pitch
9 10 5 10 8.05
Decisions Made So Far
Optimal location: lowest area on site slope change is minimal needs for clinic limit our choices of location (because
of size) Optimal size, dimensions: 30’x70’
fits necessary lodging, kitchen, medical needs rectangle allows for more sunlight, ventilation fits topographical lines more appropriately
Farmer’s crops right next to clinic site
Next Steps
Ventilation system to prevent spread of airborne disease: Wind tunnel? Fans in windows Screen in windows
Next Steps
Internal structure (layout of rooms) Preferably at least one large room for serving as a
community meeting-place or treating large groups of people
Bedroom for full-year nurse staffer Office with laptops for keeping records, refrigerator for
short-term storage of vaccines/medications Smaller exam rooms (1-2?) for private treatment or
curtain/other dividers for the large room Dormitory for volunteers (8 bunk beds?) Waiting room (?) Simple “kitchen” with smoke-diverting wood-burning stove
(?)
WATER SYSTEMS
Water from stream (in the
tank)
Water from stream (in the
tank)Physical FilterPhysical Filter Disinfection /
TreatmentDisinfection /
Treatment
Back into the EnvironmentBack into the Environment
Waste Removal System
Waste Removal System
Clinic UseClinic Use
Water Path
Latrine WasteLatrine Waste
Graywater
Blackwater
Two Areas of Interest
1. Water Purification Needs to be effective
Filter particles Treat water for diseases
Should be low cost Should be possible to construct with locally available materials Needs to be easy to maintain
2. Waste Management Must effectively contain harmful materials Should be low maintenance Cannot require any unavailable technologies Soil permeability can be found through percolation
Water Purification System
Ultraviolet Disinfection
Equipment: UV bulb, quartz sleeve Effectiveness: 1-log reduction of Giardia, 4-log
reduction of viruses, effective for Cryptosporidium Cost: US$ 80-300 Lifetime: bulb lasts 10 to 12 months Maintenance: replace bulbs; check quartz sleeve
every 6 months; monitor for scaling and overall effectiveness
Ultraviolet Disinfection
Pros: Capable of disinfecting
water faster than chlorine No cumbersome retention
tanks or potentially harmful materials
Cost effective No residual effect (change
in water taste, odor, pH, or conductivity)
“Operator friendly”
Cons: Doesn’t remove dissolved organics,
inorganic compounds, or particles in the water
Needs electricity Bulb needs to be replaced every 10-
12 months; old bulbs need proper disposal
Replacement of parts Bulbs – every 10-12 months (need
proper disposal) Ballast – 10 years Quartz sleeve – 5 years
More difficult equipment repair and regular cleaning required
UV Disinfection
Factors that reduce UV disinfection effectiveness include: Iron manganese Total dissolved solids (TDS) Turbidity (inability of light to travel through water) Suspended solids
May need to be used in conjunction with another filtration system (possibly a membrane or sand-gravel system)
Chlorine
Pros: Can be cheap (only need
tablets, pump, tank for water storage, filter)
Very effective at fighting E. coli
Somewhat easy to maintain
Electricity not necessarily required
Upstream treatment possible for school and Regino’s house because of residual
Cons: Chemical dosing hard to
regulate Possible to overdose the
water Would require another
type of purification to remove excess chlorine
Pressures must be dealt with (might require a separate pump system)
Unreliable in fighting Giardia
Undesirable taste Requires purchase of
chlorine
Evaluation of Treatment Options
0.4 0.1 0.3 0.2 1
Technology Effectiveness Low CostEase of Maint.
Locally Avail. Weighted Total
UV disinfection 10 2 7 1 6.5
Chlorination 8 5 5 2 5.6
Waste System
Percolation
Percolation
Septic Tank / Aqua Privy
Pros: Most efficient Water tight Very sanitary if
functioning properly
Cons: Sludge from tank must
be emptied mechanically every 1 to 5 years
Needs lots of area to function
Uses a high volume of water per flush
Regular maintenance unavailable
Offset Single Pit Toilet Pros:
Versatile Inexpensive to construct and
maintain (only has to be cleaned daily with some water and disinfectant)
Sludge can be used as fertilizer after being buried
Cons: If not cleaned properly, risk
of disease and groundwater contamination
Must be reconstructed annually in a different location
Possible for the pipe (U-trap) to become blocked, rendering the whole system unusable
Toilet paper and other bulky materials cannot be used
Must be 6 meters away from building; cannot be indoor
Offset Double Pit Toilet
Pros: Very versatile Safer pit sludge Inexpensive (US$ 75-
212) Sludge can be used as a
fertilizer No need for yearly
reconstruction (while one pit is full and decomposing, the other pit is in use)
Water Seal
Cons: Similar to those for
single pit
Offset Double Pit Toilet
Compost Latrine
Pros: Produces fertilizer Vaults don’t have to
be moved (like in the Offset Double Pit Latrine)
Capable of decomposing most household waste, also
Easy to install
Cons: More expensive than
Pour-Flush systems Grass, weeds, or
sawdust must be added daily to reduce odor
Must be dosed with disinfectant daily
Floor must be scrubbed daily
Simple Pit Latrine
Pros: Very cheap Very easy to build
Cons: Not sustainable (must
be moved to a new site after a year)
Bad odor Uncomfortable No seal
Evaluation of Waste Disposal Options
0.15 0.05 0.25 0.09 0.23 0.23 1
Technology Effectiveness Low Cost Ease of Maint. Locally Avail. Installation Sustainability Weighted Total
Septic System 9 3 2 7 4 8 5.39
Compost Latrine 6 6 4 10 9 6 6.55
Aqua Privy 8 3 2 7 5 8 5.47
Offset Double Pit Toilet 8 8 6 10 8 6 7.22
Offset Single Pit Toilet 6 9 5 10 9 5 6.72
Simple Pit Latrine 5 9 5 10 9 2 5.88
Moving Forward: Concerns
Location? The waste removal system needs enough water to keep
“things” moving Proximity to agriculture / water Amount of power necessary for the UV filtration system Reasons for pit latrine failure:
Soil incapable of absorbing water High water table Pit collapse No water available Housing structure damaged Improper maintenance
PHOTOVOLTAIC ENERGY SYSTEM
Determining System Capacity
Depends on appliance load Known appliances
Electric lighting 2-3 laptops Refrigerator (?) for vaccines, medicines Electric fan (?) Possibly UV water purification system
Be prepared for extra appliances (medical equipment?)
Appliance Evaluation Criteria
Cost – how expensive? Performance – can it reliably maintain a proper
temperature for vaccine/medication/diagnostic sample storage?
Power consumption – how much power does it draw?
Availability – can we get how much will it from in-country or regionally at about the same cost?
Durability – how long will it last? (may not be an important criterion)
Cost Performance Power consumption Weighted Total
Refrigeration 0.2 0.3 0.5 1
Electrolux 50 DC fridge5 6 2 3.8
BP Solar VR 50 (38liters/5 liters)
2 9 6 6.1
SunFrost 51/343 8 8 7
SunDanzer 51 liters9 3 9 7.2
GE Small Fridge 48liters10 3 3 4.4
Computer0.2 ? 0.8 1
Inveneo5 ? 7 6.6
Netbook9 ? 10 9.8
Next Steps
Rate appliances on other criteria; reevaluate decisions
Add other appliance types Lighting UV purification Fan
Next Steps
1. Confirming necessary/desired appliances with Dr. Clements (by 2/3)
2. Calculate system component specifications (by 2/10) Crystalline silicon PV panels (cheapest, but not necessarily most
efficient) Charge controller Deep-cycle battery Inverter (conversion from DC to AC for laptops) Check calculations with Dr. Paul Klenk of the ECE department
3. Preliminary mounting design (by 2/17)4. Identify parts and suppliers (by 2/24)
Work out transportation/shipping logistics (by 3/10)5. Estimate costs (by 2/24)6. Final system design and possible prototype/testing (by 3/31)