Hazus Tsunami Model Release 4.0

Part 2: Analysis and Casualties Hazus Annual Conference, Charleston, South Carolina November 7, 2016 Doug Bausch and Suman Biswas, NiyamIT

2

Release Contents R4.0 Data – Tsunami inventory data for high risk territories/counties

o Provide new tsunami GBS aggregation capability for all coastal counties (72) in the NTHMP Very High Risk States (AK, CA, HI, OR and WA) and High Risk Territories (AS, GU, MP, PR, and VI).

Analysis – Combined with Earthquake Losses for Near Source Tsunamis o Provide General Building Stock – Damage and Economic Losses o Provide User Defined Facility – Damage and Economic Losses o Provide Tsunami Casualty Losses

Combine earthquake and flood inventory attributes, aggregate and analyze at Census

Block, rather than Tract level GUI – Develop UI for displaying Inventory, integrating external Hazard inputs and

providing results data Integrate combined losses Reports – Develop approximately 15 Tsunami reports Update Setup package (new Hazard data structure)

Part 2: Analysis and Casualties

3

Tsunami Damage Analysis Methodology – Tsunami Fragility Curves Based on Earthquake Approach Damage State

Probabilities Fragility

Curves Based on Medians and Betas

Incorporates uncertainty

Facilitates combination with earthquake damage.

X

Momentum Flux (ft3/s2) Depth (ft)

X

4

Tsunami Damage Analysis Methodology Content and Non Structural Losses Based on Depth (HF – feet)

5

Tsunami Damage Analysis Methodology Structural Losses Based on Momentum Flux (feet3/sec2) • Earthquake Building Type

(28) • Seismic Design Level (8) Note: Complete Structural = Complete Non Structural and Content

6

Tsunami Damage Analysis Methodology – Leverage SQL Tables Implemented Spreadsheet Approach Developed DepthID and FluxID with precacluated damage states (~130K rows) Supports case study testing Recalculated if medians or betas are changed

Slight Median

Slight BetaModerate

MedianModerate

BetaExtensive Median

Extensive Beta

Complete Median

Complete Beta

W1 494 0.74 494 0.74 494 0.74 494 0.74High Code Seismic Design

Flux_ (ft3/sec2)

Probability of Exceeding

Slight

Probability of Exceeding

Moderate

Probability of Exceeding

Extensive

Probability of Exceeding

Complete

Probabilty of No Damage

Probability of Slight Damage

Probability of Moderate

Damage

Probability of Extensive

Damage

Probability of Complete

Damage50 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00100 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02150 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05200 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11250 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.179 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18300 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25350 0.321 0.321 0.321 0.321 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32400 0.388 0.388 0.388 0.388 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39450 0.450 0.450 0.450 0.450 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45500 0.507 0.507 0.507 0.507 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51550 0.558 0.558 0.558 0.558 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.56600 0.604 0.604 0.604 0.604 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60650 0.645 0.645 0.645 0.645 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64700 0.681 0.681 0.681 0.681 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68750 0.714 0.714 0.714 0.714 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.71800 0.743 0.743 0.743 0.743 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.74850 0.768 0.768 0.768 0.768 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.77900 0.791 0.791 0.791 0.791 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.79950 0.812 0.812 0.812 0.812 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.81

1000 0.830 0.830 0.830 0.830 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83

Structural Damage

Exceeding Damage State Probabilities Discrete Damage State Probabilities

W-High Code Seismic Design W-High Code Seismic Design

7

Follows Earthquake Methodology: • Equations combine damage

states with structure and content value from NSI

• Results in detailed categories for each point (structural, non structural, content, inventory, etc.) summarized by Census Block

Economic Losses

8

• NSI points join with eqTract damage by building type and design level: P[CSTR|EQ+TS] = P[CSTR|EQ] + P[CSTR|TS] -

P[CSTR|EQ] P[CSTR|TS] + (P[≥ESTR|EQ] - P[CSTR|EQ]) (P[≥ESTR|TS] - P[CSTR|TS])

Hazus Tsunami – Combined TSU – EQ Losses (UDF and GBS) • Done at Damage State Probability

Levels with Boolean Equations • Economic Losses Recalculated

9

• Recalculate Economic Losses at the Tract Level – Structural, Non-Structural, Content

Hazus Tsunami – Combined TSU – EQ Losses (UDF and GBS)

• StructureEconLoss (K$) = ReplacementCost (K$)* [(pdsModerate * moderateStructureRepairRatio + pdsExtensive * extensiveStructureRepairRatio + pdsComplete * completeStructureRepairRatio)]

10

Hazus Tsunami – Combined TSU – EQ Losses (UDF and GBS)

Combined General Building Stock

Combined User Defined

Facilities

Earthquake results for this study region are not up to date. Switch to earthquake hazard and run analysis based on the same earthquake scenario that generated the current tsunami hazard.

11

Hazus Tsunami – GBS Prototype Crescent City, CA

• Extract Depth and Flux to NSI points (~2min) • Direct Damage State Probabilities (~12sec) • Direct Economic Losses (~16sec)

12

Tsunami Casualty Model

2 Steps: 1. Evacuation Travel Time Ttravel from USGS Pedestrian

Evacuation Analyst 2. Probability of Casualties – Rfatality Rcasualty FEMA (2013),

Yeh (2014) – based on Community Preparedness Levels

13

Casualty Model – USGS Pedestrian Evacuation Analyst • Released 2014 • GIS based methodology

14

Hazus Evacuation Travel Time Analysis • Level 1: Use USGS Code and Road Network

Only • Level 2: Import Travel Time Map from

Complete USGS Tool Analysis

Level 2 – Import to Hazus

15

Hazus Evacuation Travel Time Analysis – Level 1

Level 1: Safe but conservative approach 1. Add road network: ftp://ftp2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TIGER2016/ 2. Determine Safe Zones (area of study region not inundated, >0-

2m and >2m)

16

Hazus Evacuation Travel Time Analysis – Level 2

Level 2: Analysis performed using USGS tool

Level 2 – Import to Hazus

17

Hazus Evacuation Travel Time Analysis

Allows rapid Level 1 approach or more detailed Level 2 when required.

18

Value Description Ttravel_U65 Time to safe zone in minutes based on under

65 walking speed

T*travel_U65 Time to partial safe zone (<2 meters depth) in minutes based on under 65 walking speed

Ttravel_O65 Time to safe zone in minutes based on over 65 walking speed

T*travel_O65 Time to partial safe zone (<2 meters depth) in minutes based on under 65 walking speed

Provides travel time to safety and partial safety at Census Block Combined with Over and Under 65 Population Allows walking speed adjustment factors

Hazus Evacuation Travel Time Analysis

19

Population Model Flexibility Cruise Ship Populations: 4 to 6K persons

20

Pedestrian Travel Time Reporting Population Count by Time to Safety (minutes) 2 stacked bar graphs: 1. Under 65 and 65&Over Day –

Safety 2. Under 65 and 65&Over Night

– Safety

Under 65 65 & Over

Population Pedestrian Travel Time to Safety

21

Casualty Model – Probability Step 2 Need to compute the probability that population is in these zones • Rfatality • Rcasualty

Rcasualty = probability in this zone

Rfatality = probability in this zone

Zone = 99% fatality, 1% injury

Zone = 50% fatality, 50% injury

22

Casualty Analysis – User Parameters Casualty Parameter Description Ttravel Provided by USGS Pedestrian Evacuation Analyst tool based on under

and over age 65 walking speeds

T*travel Provided by USGS Pedestrian Evacuation Analyst tool based on under

and over age 65 walking speeds to the area of partial safety (depth 0-2 meter)

TO (arrival time) Hours and Minutes Estimated from Tsunami Travel Time map for distant tsunamis, and estimated by user for local tsunamis

TMAX (time to max runup) Hours and Minutes

Estimated by user, default is TO + 5 minutes

TW (warning time) Hours and Minutes

Estimated by user

CPREP User Selected Community Preparedness Level (Good, Fair or Poor)

TPREP Based on CPREP(TO – TW) Tcrit Difference between the time it takes to evacuate and the time available to

evacuate. Calculated from above parameters, 50% of population reaches safety at Tcrit = 0.

Day or Night Defines the starting population distribution as peak day or night.

23

Casualty Analysis – Estimate Travel Times

24

Casualty Model – Probability Step 2

Good

Fair Poor

Good

Fair Poor

Casualty Probability: • Incorporates

community preparedness level

• Uncertainty incorporated throughout.

Probability Density Functions (PDF) created from user parameters. • Median = half reach safety

25

Casualty Model – Probability Step 2

Examples: Good 0.2(30-10) = 4 min Fair 0.6 (30-10) = 12 min Poor 1.0(30-10) = 20 min

Community Preparedness

Parameter to determine evacuation initiation time Cprep (8.9)

Parameter for the deviation of evacuation initiation Cstd, which determines the spread (8.8)

Good 0.2 0.1

Fair 0.6 0.3

Poor 1 0.5

Community Preparedness (Reaction Time): Make editable Analysis Parameter Table Community Preparedness Median: CPREP(TO – TW)

26

Casualty Model – Probability Step 2 How it works (TCRIT): Difference between the time to reach safety and the time available.

• TCRIT = 0 = 50% reach safe area • TCRIT < 0 = more than half harmed • TCRIT > 0 = less than half harmed

27

Casualty Model – Probability Step 2 • How it

works: Where Tmed = Median value of reaction time time based on community preparedness Example: Tmed = 10 min, Tcrit = 2 min

Therefore, Rsurvive = 12 min (55%) and Rcasualty is 45%

½ react ½ reach safety

0.55

12 min

28

Example RSURVIVE Probabilities – Near Source

RSURVIVE = NORMDIST(LN(TPREP + TCRIT),LN(TPREP),(CSTD), 1

29

Example RSURVIVE Probabilities – Far Source

RSURVIVE = NORMDIST(LN(TPREP + TCRIT),LN(TPREP),(CSTD), 1

30

RSURVIVE Probabilities • Estimated for

each Census Block

• Under and Over 65

• Day and Night Population

31

Casualty Methodology Gaps • Incorporating earthquake damages—, (walking

speed reductions) • Subtracting EQ casualties, from starting population. • EQ casualties (Severity 1-3) should increase

tsunami casualties. • Transient (visitor) population—beach, cruise ships,

(users adjust population total in summary table)

32

Analysis • Damage and loss follows earthquake

methodology • Leverages very fast SQL indexing • Combined EQ and TS losses

compute new damage state probabilities

Casualties • Leverages USGS Evacuation

Analyst (Level 1 and 2) • Probabilities based on Community

Preparedness Levels

Methodology Summary

33

Strategies

Goal 1 Effective IT Governance

Goal 2 Mission-Enabling

IT Solutions

Goal 3 Managed Data,

Available Information

Goal 4

IT Guiding Principles

• Consider Customer and User Needs First IT investments should provide clear benefit to customers and/or users

• Manage Data as Our Asset Our business is dependent on the ability to create quality data and make it accessible to anyone that needs it

• Buy before Build Custom IT solutions should be avoided when possible; COTS customization should be minimal

• Integrate, don’t Duplicate Solutions should not introduce duplicate data sets or information systems

• Design for Compliance

Strategies Strategies Strategies 1.1 Define and execute approach for selecting IT projects that meet business need (i.e. - IT Governance Framework) 1.2 Define and implement approach for executing and controlling IT investments (ex: SELC, agile development)

4.1 Define and implement approach for communicating IT processes, plans, progress, and performance

Measures Version 0.11 April 2012

IT Mission To provide the IT infrastructure needed to manage projects, deliver products and services, create quality data, and make our programs’ information accessible to our customers.

IT Vision Making it easy to create, analyze, share, and understand our programs’ data.

To deliver quality data that increases public awareness and leads to action that reduces risk to life and property. Risk MAP Vision

FEMA Mission To support our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a nation we work together to build, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards.

2.1 Align IT solutions to Risk MAP production processes

3.3 Facilitate information sharing across enterprise

3.1 Define FEMA Risk MAP data management policies and standards 3.2 Implement IT solutions to align with data management policies and standards

IT solutions should further our alignment with federal mandates and standards 1.3 Implement mechanisms to

ensure compliance with Federal Standards (i.e. - Security, Data, etc)

Activities

2.2 Enhance program reporting

Service-Focused, Efficient IT Operations

4.2 Adjust IT Services and Service Level Agreements (SLAs) based on customer feedback and program constraints 4.3 Identify and implement IT operational and cost efficiencies

2.3 Upgrade system/tools to align with geospatial specifications

34

Hazus Tool – Software Engineering Thought Process

• With the commencement of Risk MAP CDS Contract in 2012, our goal was to bring Hazus under a disciplined Software Engineering Process

• A Framework centric design (as opposed to write code as you need) • A Software design that can evolve • An uniformity across all components of the software

• Hazus has two parts to consider here a) Collection of academic/engineering models b) Underlying software & technology

• Software/Technology changes more rapidly than academic standards for hazard

engineering

• As the methodologies of Hazus still hold their ground, CDS is trying hard to keep the software/technology as relevant as possible without disrupting the engineering part

35

Hazus Tsunami – Paving The Way for New Model Three things to consider: Need to abstract out • Models/Science • Data sets • Application • Currently, models are tightly coupled with HAZUS application and data Models

should evolve in such a way that they would not require any knowledge of how they are persisted, where the input parameters are coming from, or how/where the results are stored/viewed, thus enabling the possibility of exposing models (and datasets) as API

• Gradually, exposing core HAZUS functions as SDK APIs will allow HAZUS to evolve

as a hosting/integration platform for models, its data sets and so on • The application platform should become as model-agnostic as possible so that

models can be added with minimal impact/efforts

36

Hazus Modernization – Some Key Architectural Decisions

• Interoperability between .NET and legacy code, where necessary, is provided via COM architecture

• Replaced legacy ADO-based data access code with MS Enterprise Library Data Access Application Block, DAAB

• Where applicable, components are refactored to ensure that responsibilities are assigned to the correct application layers to minimize the impact of changes in one layer on rest of the application

• GIS-related functionalities, that depend on ESRI ArcGIS API, are encapsulated in separate

components – minimizing impact of ArcGIS version upgrade • Lower-level API (ArcObjects) calls are replaced with higher level GeoProcessing Tools API -

moving to GPTools API further shields Hazus from future ArcGIS changes

• Resolving “Circular Dependencies” (circular dependency is a scenario where two components depend on each other)

• Focus on “Loose Coupling” – dependencies among classes are virtualized

37

Architectural Decisions – Separation of Concerns

Before After

Business Logic Layer

Data Access Layer

38

Hazus Tsunami – Core Technology Stack

Tsunami module will be developed using the following core Hazus technology stack.

Windows 7 64-bit, Windows 8 and Windows 10 shall be supported Note: Hazus binaries are compiled as 32-bit components. Hazus will run in a 32-bit emulation mode on a 64-bit windows machine.

39

Doug Bausch - dbausch@niyamit.com Nikolay Todorov - ntodorov@niyamit.com Suman Biswas - sbiswas@niyamit.com