Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Decision Support System to Manage Critical Civil Infrastructure Systems for Disaster Resilience (Sylvana Croope, DelDOT)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Decision Support System to Manage Critical Civil Infrastructure Systems for Disaster Resilience (Sylvana Croope, DelDOT)


Published on

Published in: Technology

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide
  • Elevation 8 – 30 feet
  • Step 1 – getting local infrastructure information, initializing the system
    Step 2 – getting system performance measures
    Steps 3 and 4 – degrading system performance due to a disaster
    Step 5 to 7 – improving system performance
    Step 8 – assessing performance.
  • Transcript

    • 1. Silvana V Croope, PhD Dig DUG Delaware User Group Meeting 11/03/2010
    • 2. Case Study: Delaware Flooding – June 2006 Visiting Existing Decision Support Systems Critical Infrastructure Resilience Decision Support System (CIR-DSS) Spatial Decision Support System (SDSS) SDSS: GIS + HAZUS-MH analyses SDSS Benefits and Limitations Complementary Systems for CIR-DSS Integrating SDSS analyses results to other systems Case Study results summary Conclusion
    • 3. (USGS) Federal Disaster Declarations 1965-2003: Sussex County – DE 1 FDD 2 FDD 4 or more FDD 3 FDD
    • 4. Keenan (2004) Bush et all (2007) de la Garza et all (1998)
    • 5. Objective: To improve the resilience of critical infrastructure systems Decision variables – To undertake mitigation Other variables Resilience metrics: capacity, pavement condition Net present value of costs and costs avoided
    • 6. What if scenario (e.g.)
    • 7.  Geographic: hydrology, elevation  Hazard: weather, disaster history records and trends  Infrastructure: roads, bridges  Financial: cost of infrastructure  Institutional/cultural: decision- makers, policies and funding  Infrastructure life-cycle  Expected infrastructure life-cycle with mitigation  Vulnerability, Risk/Impact and Damage Analysis  Pre-, During and Post-Event Assessment – infrastructure condition and performance  Mitigation Strategies (definition)  Pre-, During and Post-Event Resilience Assessment  Cost-Benefit Analysis  Recovery and Mitigation Strategies Comparison  Scenarios Test/Evaluation ANALYSES/ASSESSMENTS
    • 8. Decision Support Systems – CIR-DSS Macro Environment Large number of variables Focus on resilience of system problem solutions
    • 9. MAIN DATA SOURCES  DelDOT Transportation Management Center: pictures, traffic and detours reports (DelDOT Officials)  DelDOT Bridge Management: bridge data (GIS), reports of local damaged bridges, digital maps (pdf) (DelDOT Officials)  DelDOT (others): roads , State boundaries  Spat Lab (U.D.): Elevation Data  DataMIL: roads, rivers, hydrology, municipal boundaries  Delaware Environmental Observing System (DEOS): radar derived rainfall  HAZUS-MH MR3 inventory  Literature TOOLS  GIS ArcInfo and extensions  Spatial Analyst  Network Analyst  Excel  HAZUS-MH MR3  Flood Model  Analysis Level 1  STELLA®
    • 10. Vulnerability:Vulnerability: exposureexposure loss/damageloss/damage Rain Fall 06/25/2010 Study Area Elevation
    • 11. Location of Damaged Infrastructure in the Seaford Flooded Area Seaford Road Network and Detours Analysis (2006)
    • 12. Organizing principle and analytical capability
    • 13. “What if” Levee Protection Scenario “What if” Flow Regulation Scenario Floodwater Velocity Estimation Scenario Damage related to US13 in Sussex County
    • 14. Seaford Area Annual Losses Map of Depth 10-year- flood-map
    • 15. Addresses issues at specific locations – spatial data and local infrastructure Helps structure complex problems to support decision-making processes Does not replace users’ decision-making Facilitates sharing/integration of data and information on further analyses Analysis outputs are used to support decisions for infrastructure repair, improvement and mitigation of future floods
    • 16. Limitations (HAZUS-MH) •Analysis focuses on limited area •Limited tools to analyze transportation infrastructure (T.I.) - Road segmentation not official - Vehicle exposure does not consider flow, just Census - Exposure same as vulnerability? - No dynamic modeling – T.I. resilience changes - No financial trade-off tools for solutions evaluation
    • 17. Many rich data sources to support decision making Tools HAZUS-MH MR3 Useful Limited Non-trivial Complementary GIS Helps communication Provides insight Analyses results/data integration with Management Information SystemAnalyses results/data integration with Management Information System • transportation inventory (roads – segments values)transportation inventory (roads – segments values) • transportation exposure/vulnerability valuetransportation exposure/vulnerability value • warning system value (10%)warning system value (10%) • connectivity mitigation insightconnectivity mitigation insight
    • 19. STELLA Software: system dynamics - way to represent complex problems sequence of events, relationship among infrastructure and organizations, types of policies that enables certain actions STELLA tool for modeling and simulation STELLA = skills + language + representations +STELLA = skills + language + representations + programming = thinking + communicating +programming = thinking + communicating + learninglearning
    • 20. Eight scenarios assessing impacts (costs) uses: Infrastructure Projects  Recovery only  Recovery and Mitigation Probability of a 100-year storm event in the case study area 1% 4% 8% Time required for disaster response  2 days  4 days Scenarios Explored
    • 21. Variables 2 days Disaster Response 4 days Disaster Response Recovery NPV 148,081 512,958 Mitigation NPV 157,890 600,629 Result from mitigation investment -9,809 -87,671 Loss of function for recovery (benefit) -1,463 -2,479 Loss of function for mitigation (benefit) 719,299 1,218,060 1% probability of 100-year storm (study area)
    • 22. • Complex system modeling required many assumptions and models to capture changes over time • SDSS plays major role in setting the stage for problem analysis, diagnosis and mitigation insights using data from many sources • SDSS results are important inputs into the model • SDSS can be better customized to include better analysis tools for infrastructure • Comprehensive development offers insights into trade-offs and opportunities to capture damage and costs in the context of resiliency • Refinements are needed to operationalize this approach
    • 23. DelDOT (supporter/employer) University of Delaware University Transportation Center (support for research) Sue McNeil (adviser)