1. 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 Plebani
Ing. Maria Pia Boni
By
AbdelAziz Mehaseb Elganzory Mohamed ElHusseiny AbdelHameed

2. Research Problem 2
“We need a Model supports
emergency Preparedness”
Consequences?
Did we face similar
Scenarios before?
What Decisions for response?

3. Model Description 3
Earthquake
Disaster
Impacts and
Challenges
Emergency
Control Room
Decisions
Response
Actions
Similarity
Function
Rank
Scenarios
Data for
Most
Similar
Scenario
Knowledge
base
Scenario1
Scenario2 Scenario3
Scenario n
NewData

4.  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

5. 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.)

6. 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 *..*

7. 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

8. 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 2
20
21
3 4

9. Similarity Model
Applying the Similarity Model
9
Data for
Occurring EQ
Read New EQ
Data
Data for
Damage

10. Similarity Model (cont.) 10
Read Data for
All Scenarios
Comparison &
Sorting
Most Similar
Scenario
Damage
Scenario
Response
Scenario

11. 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

12. Case Study: Damage Scenario 12
 Developing the damage scenario

13. Case Study: Different Damage Scenarios 13
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8

14. Scenario4
RapidDamageAssessment
Responsibilities
Resources
Men Vehicle Computers Communication
InspectionTeams
 Preliminary assessment of
damage.
 Providing information for
definitive damage
assessment
 Determination of the unsafe
buildings
4teams
2person/team
2 vehicles 4
4 Cell Phone
4 Walki Talkie
Cameras
Usability Forms
Policeand
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
Logisti
cs
 Process, organize, and deal
with data received from
different departments.
4 men - 4
4
cell phones
Responsibilities
Resources
Men Vehicle Computer Communication
Scenario4
DetailedDamageAssessment
COMDirector
 Monitor the ongoing
activities
 Coordinate between
different COM sections
 Request sheltering plans
for homeless people
 Decide Evacuation Plans
1 - 1 Cell Phone
UsabilityAssessmentChief
 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 - 1
Cell Phone
Walki Talkie
Case Study: Response Scenario 14
 We considered only the buildings damage assessment as a part of the response
scenario

15. Case Study: Knowledge base 15
 Building The Knowledge base

16. 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
Scenarios
Data for
First
Scenario
 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

17. Testing the Model(Cont.) 17

18. 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

19. THANK YOU
19