similarity model presentation
TRANSCRIPT
Politecnico di Milano Scuola di Ingegneria Civile, Ambientale e Territoriale
CERM
A Similarity Model for Earthquake Scenarios Comparison
Supervisors Prof.ssa Scira Menoni Prof.Pierluigi PlebaniIng. Maria Pia Boni By
AbdelAziz Mehaseb Elganzory Mohamed ElHusseiny AbdelHameed
Research Problem 2
“We need a Model supports emergency Preparedness”
Consequences?
Did we face similar Scenarios before?
What Decisions for response?
Model Description 3
Earthquake Disaster
Impacts and Challenges
Emergency Control Room
Decisions
Response Actions
Similarity Function
RankScenarios
Data for Most
Similar Scenario
Knowledgebase
Scenario1
Scenario2 Scenario3
Scenario n
New
Dat
a
The complete damage
scenario Earthquake shake with its
corresponding magnitude
and epicenter
Consider the presence of
any amplification and
geophysical factors
Define physical
vulnerabilities for buildings,
infrastructures ,and strategic
facilities
4Knowledge base: Complete Event Scenarios
SHAKING SCENARIO
LOCAL EFFECTS
DETAILED SHAKING
SCENARIO
PHYSICAL VULNERABILITY
DAMAGE SCENARIO
Response Scenario
Stakeholders Responsibilities
Resources
Actions
Response Scenario
5Knowledge base (cont.) 5
Output data for damage scenarios: Physical damage to buildings
Damage to infrastructures
Damage to critical facilities
Affected population
Data for response scenarios: Organizational structure for emergency control room (Participants, responsibilities,
…etc.)
Actions taken for different emergency management processes (SAR, Evacuation,
…etc.).
Needed resources for each process (personnel ,equipments, documents, …etc.)
Similarity Function
Data used for similarity evaluation should be clear and exact.
We should consider the existance of important facility in a certain zone
Reliability Factor (R.F.) that represents the degree of confidence in the data used
.Value from (0-1)
The Zone Importance (I) that considers the existence of a special strategic
facility, infrastructure, or high population inside a specific zone. Value from (0-1)
The final value Y to be used for the comparison will be:
The comparison criteria will be based on the average damage for each
scenario
6
IFRYY c *..*
Similarity Function (cont.)
Similarity function defined in three cases
1. Comparing between two scenarios for the same city that has the same city
divisions and the number of divisions are equal
2. Comparing between two scenarios for different cities where the city division is
different
7
1 1
11
2
3 4
2
3 4
2 3
2
3 4
Similarity Function (cont.)
3. Comparing two scenarios for the same city but the city division has
been changed
The final values of the similarity function will be sorted from the smallest
to largest
The smallest value indicates the more similar is the seismic scenario
8
1 2
3 4
1 220
21
3 4
Similarity Model
Applying the Similarity Model
9
Data for Occurring EQ
Read New EQ Data
Data for Damage
Similarity Model (cont.) 10
Read Data for All Scenarios
Comparison &Sorting
Most Similar Scenario
Damage Scenario
ResponseScenario
Case Study: Salò
11
The city is divided into 38 sections
We built 8 seismic scenarios based on real
three seismic inputs
Changing the earthquake magnitude
Changing the buildings vulnerability
The data used for buildings vulnerability
values was taken from a vulnerability
assessment report for Salo
Case Study: Damage Scenario 12
Developing the damage scenario
Case Study: Different Damage Scenarios
13
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
Scenario4
Rapid Dama
ge Assessme
nt
ResponsibilitiesResources
Men Vehicle Computers Communication
Inspection Team
s
Preliminary assessment of damage.
Providing information for definitive damage assessment
Determination of the unsafe buildings
4 teams
2 person/
team
2 vehicles 4
4 Cell Phone4 Walki Talkie
CamerasUsability Forms
Police and
Firefighting
Ensure access and exit for all emergency services.
Check streets for dangers and block the roads using road map .
3 men 1 -2
Megaphone
Logistics
Process, organize, and deal with data received from different departments.
4 men - 44
cell phones
ResponsibilitiesResources
Men Vehicle Computer Communication
Scenario4Detailed
Damage
Assessment
COM Director
Monitor the ongoing activities
Coordinate between different COM sections
Request sheltering plans for homeless people
Decide Evacuation Plans
1 - 1 Cell Phone
Usability Assessment Chief
Make sure of the available resources
Assign tasks for the inspection teams defining the working zones using the priority map
Coordinate with other departments for required support
Check and approve the final assessment report
1 - 1Cell PhoneWalki Talkie
Case Study: Response Scenario 14
We considered only the buildings damage assessment as a part of the response
scenario
Case Study: Knowledge base 15
Building The Knowledge base
Case Study Salò: Testing the Model
It’s necessary to test the model to check all the functions used
We have chosen the First Scenario as an occuring scenario to test the model
The data for sections damage was used as an input for the similarity function
The Value of the Similarity function was zero
16
Sections
Damage
Similarity
Function
Sort Scenari
os
Data for
First Scenar
io
We changed the number of sections in the occuring scenario to test the other similarity functions
Changing the reliability factor and importance factor affected the final value of the similarity function
Testing the Model(Cont.) 17
Conclusion
Advantages:
• Preparing the knowledge base is supporting emergency preparedness process
• The model if correctly developed can be trustful support for decision making
• It can be used at different stages of the disaster when the input data is changed
Future Improvements:
Developing and storing complete contingency plans for different scenarios in the
knowledge base
Can be integrated also with other applications to produce maps, charts, ..etc.
Can be improved by using real data from different real scenarios
Using the model as a web application shall increase coordination during the crisis
18
THANK YOU
19