seismic risk mitigation for port systemsa seismic risk mitigation framework that uses the...

The George E. Brown, Jr. Network for

Earthquake Engineering Simulation Glenn J. Rix

Reginald DesRochesAnn BostromAlan EreraGeorgia Institute of Technology

Stuart WernerSeismic Systems & Engineering Consu

Glenn J. RixReginald DesRochesAnn BostromAlan EreraGeorgia Institute of Technology

Stuart WernerSeismic Systems & Engineering Consu

Seismic Risk Mitigation for Port Systems

Seismic Risk Mitigation for Port Systems

2

SeattleSeattle

OaklandOakland

Los AngelesLos AngelesLong BeachLong Beach

New OrleansNew Orleans

HoustonHouston SavannahSavannahCharlestonCharleston

NorfolkNorfolkBaltimoreBaltimore

New YorkNew York

Seismic HazardSeismic Hazard

3

Current PracticeCurrent Practice

•Vaguely defined performance requirements

–e.g., “minimal” damage and “no downtime” for ground motions with 50% probability of exceedance in 50 years; “repairable/controllable”damage and “acceptable downtime” for ground motions with 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years

•No direct consideration of business interruption losses

•Vaguely defined performance requirements

–e.g., “minimal” damage and “no downtime” for ground motions with 50% probability of exceedance in 50 years; “repairable/controllable”damage and “acceptable downtime” for ground motions with 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years

•No direct consideration of business interruption losses

i i

4

This NEESR Grand Challenge project integrates civil engineering, logistics, risk analysis, and behavioral decision disciplines to develop a seismic risk mitigation framework that uses the performance of the port system rather than its individual components as the basis of h i i k iti ti

This NEESR Grand Challenge project integrates civil engineering, logistics, risk analysis, and behavioral decision disciplines to develop a seismic risk mitigation framework that uses the performance of the port system rather than its individual components as the basis of h i i k iti ti

VisionVision

5

NEES ResourcesNEES Resources• Experimental facilities

– Centrifuges

– Large-scale tests

– Shake tables

– Mobile field equipment

– Tsunami wave basin

• Cyberinfrastructure

– Curated, central data repository

– Tele-presence capabilities

– Computational

• Experimental facilities

– Centrifuges

– Large-scale tests

– Shake tables

– Mobile field equipment

– Tsunami wave basin

• Cyberinfrastructure

– Curated, central data repository

– Tele-presence capabilities

– Computational

NEES Equipment SitesNEES Equipment Sites

6

Civil EngineeringCivil Engineering

LogisticsLogistics

Decision and Risk AnalysisDecision and Risk Analysis

University of WashingtonUniversity of Washington

Decision Research, Inc.Decision Research, Inc.

University of California - DavisUniversity of California - Davis

Seismic Systems & EngineeringConsultants, Inc.Seismic Systems & EngineeringConsultants, Inc.

University ofSouthern CaliforniaUniversity ofSouthern CaliforniaUniversity of

TexasUniversity ofTexas

Georgia TechGeorgia Tech

University ofIllinoisUniversity ofIllinois Drexel

UniversityDrexelUniversity

MITMIT

Project TeamProject Team

7

Structured, Decision-Aiding Evaluation of

Risks

Structured, Decision-Aiding Evaluation of

Risks1. Define the port system including

stakeholders, physical infrastructure, and operational data

2. Define fundamental stakeholder objectives,alternative means of achieving them, and appropriate metrics

1. Define the port system including stakeholders, physical infrastructure, and operational data

2. Define fundamental stakeholder objectives,alternative means of achieving them, and appropriate metrics

8

Means-Ends NetworkMeans-Ends Network

FundamentalStakeholder Objectives

(Hypothetical)

FundamentalStakeholder Objectives

(Hypothetical)

•Minimize total, construction,retrofit, and repair costs

•Create long-term economic growth

•Assure a continuous supply chain

•Minimize adverse effects on community

•Assure life safety

•Make transparent, opendecisions

•Minimize fear, uncertainty,and doubt

Create Financial Reserves

Create Financial Reserves

Transfer Risk via Insurance

Transfer Risk via Insurance

Plan for Effective Emergency

Response and Recovery

Plan for Effective Emergency

Response and Recovery

Minimize Damage to

Port Facilities

Minimize Damage to

Port Facilities

Restore Operational Capacity Rapidly

Restore Operational Capacity Rapidly

Develop Parametric

Port Performance

Models

Develop Parametric

Port Performance

Models

Develop Liquefaction Remediation Techniques

Develop Liquefaction Remediation Techniques

Improve Seismic

Performance of Soil-Structure Systems

Improve Seismic

Performance of Soil-Structure Systems

Develop Structural Design and

Retrofitting Techniques

Develop Structural Design and

Retrofitting Techniques

Develop Real-Time

Operational Decision Support Models

Develop Real-Time

Operational Decision Support Models

9

Structured, Decision-Aiding Evaluation of

Risks

Structured, Decision-Aiding Evaluation of

Risks1. Define the port system including stakeholders,

physical infrastructure, and operational data

2. Define fundamental stakeholder objectives,alternative means of achieving them, and appropriate metrics

3. Evaluate component and systems-level performance of each alternative including uncertainties

1. Define the port system including stakeholders, physical infrastructure, and operational data

2. Define fundamental stakeholder objectives,alternative means of achieving them, and appropriate metrics

3. Evaluate component and systems-level performance of each alternative including uncertainties

10

Component PerformanceComponent Performance

Liquefiable soilLiquefiable soil

Pile-deck connectionPile-deck connection

Crane responseCrane response

11

Component PerformanceComponent Performance

12

System PerformanceSystem Performance

Berthallocation

Berthallocation

Cranescheduling

Cranescheduling

ContainerlocationContainerlocation

13

System PerformanceSystem Performance

• Develop functional relationships between port performance metrics (such as container throughput) and the state of operational components

– Approximate port performance given parametric representation of a damage state

– Rapid evaluation

– Potential integration within risk-based decision framework

• Why not just simulate?

– Always an option, but usually difficult to integrate into risk decision models

– Requires enumerating a potentially large space of possible damage states and

• Develop functional relationships between port performance metrics (such as container throughput) and the state of operational components

– Approximate port performance given parametric representation of a damage state

– Rapid evaluation

– Potential integration within risk-based decision framework

• Why not just simulate?

– Always an option, but usually difficult to integrate into risk decision models

– Requires enumerating a potentially large space of possible damage states and

14

System PerformanceSystem Performance

• Develop real-time operational decision support tools to improve port system performance given a (potentially restricted) state of port operational resources

– Existing port operational models are not equipped to:

– Handle dynamic and stochastic information

– Integrate decisions for multiple port components

– Solve large-scale problems faced by modern ports

– Real-time systems optimization has the potential to dramatically improve decisions

• Develop real-time operational decision support tools to improve port system performance given a (potentially restricted) state of port operational resources

– Existing port operational models are not equipped to:

– Handle dynamic and stochastic information

– Integrate decisions for multiple port components

– Solve large-scale problems faced by modern ports

– Real-time systems optimization has the potential to dramatically improve decisions

15

Structured, Decision-Aiding Evaluation of

Risks

Structured, Decision-Aiding Evaluation of

Risks1. Define the port system including stakeholders,

physical infrastructure, and operational data

2. Define fundamental stakeholder objectives,alternative means of achieving them, and appropriate metrics

3. Evaluate component and systems-level performance of each alternative including uncertainties

4. Present results in a manner to enhance stakeholder comprehension, clarify underlying choices, and explicitly address tradeoffs

1. Define the port system including stakeholders, physical infrastructure, and operational data

2. Define fundamental stakeholder objectives,alternative means of achieving them, and appropriate metrics

3. Evaluate component and systems-level performance of each alternative including uncertainties

4. Present results in a manner to enhance stakeholder comprehension, clarify underlying choices, and explicitly address tradeoffs

16

Consequence MatrixConsequence Matrix

• Consequence matrices help to develop an understanding of how stakeholders respond to each alternative mitigation strategy and inform the decision-making process

• Consequence matrices help to develop an understanding of how stakeholders respond to each alternative mitigation strategy and inform the decision-making process

✔✖✖3

✔✔✔2

✔✔✖1

CBA

AlternativesAlternatives

Objectives

Objectives

17

Structured, Decision-Aiding Evaluation of

Risks

Structured, Decision-Aiding Evaluation of

Risks1. Define the port system including stakeholders,

physical infrastructure, and operational data

2. Define fundamental stakeholder objectives,alternative means of achieving them, and appropriate metrics

3. Evaluate component and systems-level performance of each alternative including uncertainties

4. Present results in a manner to enhance stakeholder comprehension, clarify underlying choices, and explicitly address tradeoffs

5. Learn and iterate

1. Define the port system including stakeholders, physical infrastructure, and operational data

2. Define fundamental stakeholder objectives,alternative means of achieving them, and appropriate metrics

3. Evaluate component and systems-level performance of each alternative including uncertainties

4. Present results in a manner to enhance stakeholder comprehension, clarify underlying choices, and explicitly address tradeoffs

5. Learn and iterate

18

EngineeringEngineering

•Develop soil remediation techniques, pile and pile-deck connection configurations, and crane design and retrofitting techniques that improve seismic performance

•Develop fragility relationships to discern and communicate the effects of engineering-based mitigation options

•Develop soil remediation techniques, pile and pile-deck connection configurations, and crane design and retrofitting techniques that improve seismic performance

•Develop fragility relationships to discern and communicate the effects of engineering-based mitigation options

19

Port Operations and Logistics

Port Operations and Logistics

•Develop parametric approximation models to predict port system performance metrics as a function of the time-dependent functionality of port components

•Develop real-time decision-support tools to optimize vessel berthing, crane scheduling, and containerlocation following a disruptive event

•Develop parametric approximation models to predict port system performance metrics as a function of the time-dependent functionality of port components

•Develop real-time decision-support tools to optimize vessel berthing, crane scheduling, and containerlocation following a disruptive event

20

Decision Researchand Risk AnalysisDecision Researchand Risk Analysis

•Integrate value-focused, behavioral decision research, research on mental models of seismic risks, enterprise risk criteria, and formal port stakeholder participation to develop:

–a means-ends network with alternative risk mitigation actions and their effect on performance objectives for ports.

–consequence-by-alternatives matrices illustrating the tradeoffs port stakeholders are willing to make

•Integrate value-focused, behavioral decision research, research on mental models of seismic risks, enterprise risk criteria, and formal port stakeholder participation to develop:

–a means-ends network with alternative risk mitigation actions and their effect on performance objectives for ports.

–consequence-by-alternatives matrices illustrating the tradeoffs port stakeholders are willing to make

21

SummarySummary

•The overall goal is to develop a seismic risk mitigation framework that uses the performance of the port system rather than its individual components as the basis for choosing among risk mitigation options

•We believe that such a framework will have applications to other civil infrastructure systems and other natural and man-made hazards

•The overall goal is to develop a seismic risk mitigation framework that uses the performance of the port system rather than its individual components as the basis for choosing among risk mitigation options

•We believe that such a framework will have applications to other civil infrastructure systems and other natural and man-made hazards