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