Optimization of Disaster Debris Removal

IE 490 Disaster Waste Management

Prepared by:

Benjamin Box

ABSTRACT
This paper outlines an optimization strategy related to post disaster debris removal processes; specifically, an algorithmic approach to finding optimal material processing locations. This approach borrows the common industrial practice of Concurrent Design. In large-scale disasters, debris is often moved to temporary sites before it is moved to long-term sites. Currently, these temporary sites are generally designated by one criterion: Benjamin, I seached the grammar rule on capitalization following a colon. Basically, in lists, even a one item list, the first word should not be capitalized. You should change Immediate to a lower case i. Immediate availability. However, this approach does not guarantee the most expedient or economical solution. The suggested alternative, detailed in this document, would provide a more comprehensive and effective approach. This site selection process can be achieved by a computerautomated process which calculates and compares the associated times and costs of possible sites. Geographical Information System (GIS) software can facilitate input and output for this tool. In conjunction with already existing software, this tool could also be used predictively. As such, it can be used as a powerful disaster preparation tool. In more structured countries, this would allow responsible entities to establish a disaster waste management plan and allocate space and resources.

PROBLEM DISCRIPTION

Disasters can generate millions of tons of debris [7]. This poses a significant problem to rescue operations, structural and economic recovery, environmental impact, and inhabitant health [9]. Structural and Economic Recovery Intuitively, the debris must be removed to facilitate a full recovery. Materials must be cleared from roads and building sites. Environmental Impacts Unlike other areas, the environment is affected in a less obvious way. This is because it is not seen immediately. However, this does not minimize the severity. The longterm effects, if overlooked, pose a more serious consequence to infrastructure. Health Risks Waste accumulation has several inherit factors that are detrimental to human health. First, storage of hazardous materials such as asbestos, oils, and pesticides are compromised. Consequently, inhabitants can unintentionally come into direct contact with these materials. Secondly, waste encourages growth in disease carrying populations such as flies.

CURRENT PRACTICE

The current approach looks at large scale disasters by dividing the process into three timeframes. Each has unique objectives and responses. PHASE I: IMEDIANTE (0-72hrs) This period can be characterized by two main elements: throughways and data collection. Rapid removal of debris from

The most important element in all emergency responses is life safety. Priority is placed on protecting and minimizing risks to victims and rescuers health. Consequently, debris removal crews initial response is to remove debris that obstructs and presents danger to rescue operators. This most often manifests itself as clearing streets. This is achieved eventually by removal; however, for the sake of immediacy, debris is most often brushed to the sides of the street. Meanwhile, debris waste managers utilize this time period to collect data and develop a picture of the situation. A general estimation of debris generated is calculated along with the type of waste and its distribution. This information will drive the next steps in the response. PHASE II: SHORT TERM Although the activities from the prior phase continue to occur, material handling will progress from street clearing to removal. Temporary sites are designated to handle debris. This is done in order to decrease the populaces exposure to waste. These temporary sites are quickly chosen primarily by location and availability. Although these sites do not have the functionality of the long-term sites, they often will provide more than just storage locations. Materials will often be sorted by type and may be processed (Example: vegetation waste may be burned). PHASE III: LONG TERM As the temporary sites are chosen quickly on limited criteria, they do not prove conducive for a long-term solution. For one, as they are chosen on proximity to debris, they are often too close to inhabitants to remain for long periods of time. Additionally, soil and topography conditions might lead to long-term environmental effects if unaddressed. Finally, leaving the waste in temporary sites would limit future infrastructure growth. Consequently, debris is moved to more suitable and sustainable locations. These locations are thoughtfully selected to meet requirements. Here, the material goes through significant processing. Materials are recycled, handled to reduce their associated volume, and treated to reduce negative effects.

CRITICISM

The current system approaches the problem methodically in steps. Although this allows managers to achieve the different objectives of each stage, it means each step is frequently looked at in isolation. In phase two, temporary sites are designated without serious thought of long-term site location. Consequently, efficacy is handicapped.

Lets imagine an overly simple example. Assume there are two perfectly suitable possible temporary sites (A & B) and one possible long term location (Z). CURRENT METHOD
The orange line is the equal distant that would govern waste routing. Material on the left of the line would go to temp side A, while the material on the right would go to B.

OPTIMIZED SOLUTION
Since the debris final location is Z, The orange line has been adjusted to be the line of equal cost. Debris on the left side of the line would go to site A, conversely the right would go to B.

A B

A B

Although this is almost a painfully simple solution, the real life problem is exponentially harder as it considers hundreds of possible locations. In recent manufacturing, companies have modified this traditional approach with much success. Concurrent engineering is a work methodology based on the parallelization of tasks (i.e. performing tasks concurrently). It refers to an approach used in product development, design engineering, manufacturing engineering and other functions are integrated to reduce the elapsed time [and cost ] required to bring a new product to the market. [wiki] Disaster Management is inherently a complicated and unpredictable environment. concurrent design models can be implemented with the aid of computing systems. However,

PROPOSED SOLUTION
The proposed solution is to identify temporary debris sites in light of Phase I waste distribution and Phase III long-term site location(s). To achieve this objective; we want to minimize two factors: time & money. Even though there is a positive correlation between these quantities (Example: less transit time generally means less transit cost), they are distinctly different. Thus, to compare, we need a way of equating these values so that we can compare them as apples to apples. Multi-objective linear programming can allow us to do this. Essentially, the problem scales the relative importance of each variable by adding a coefficient (sigma) to different parts of the objective function. Using a diagram to see the results of varying sigma,(omit comma) allows an individual to clearly see the trade-off of these variables

FORMULATING A LINEAR PROGRAM

Fortunately, there is already some litature on a more general case (replace with incidence) of this problem. This related problem is called Transshipment Transportation Problem. To provide us a starting point, we will quickly reverence one such problem. The following work is and/needs to be an example of a transshipment by Purdue professor Brandon Pope:

JJJ

(Transportation, 2013) In the above problem: i = Starting locations, j = Final locations c = Cost between two points
DECISION VARIABLES

k = Transshipment nodes x = decision variables representing how much goes where.

In framing our own problem we will start by looking at our decision variables. Ultimately, we are trying to find the best material flow for C&D ( you did not define this acronym previously in the paper) debris. In its most simple form we are asking this, Does material go here? However, this has several subparts: "Should a site location be used?, "How much material goes there?" and, if appropriate, "Where does the debris go next?" Consequently, we truly are

solving for the percentage of material that leaves one defined location for another defined location. The figures below illustrate this concept. Moving Debris to Temp Sites In the figure seen on the right, there are four sites. Sites X & Y are long term locations, while sites A & B are temporary locations. Note that although sites X and Y are long term sites; (this needs to be a comma) they can still receive waste directly. The black dot in the left corner is a magnified view initial collection location. In this grid area, a quantified amount of waste needs to be removed. The highlighted red route is the best route between locations.

4 1 2 3

It is clear that Route 4 would be the most efficient route as it is the shortest and leads directly to the long term siteno need for relocating the material later. Thus, Route 4 would receive one hundred percent of that raster locations debris assuming all the corresponding constraints are met. Consequently, routes 1, 2, and 3 would each receive zero percent. This process is conducted for all points containing waste in the inputted area. Although the prior example was trivial, the process is not. Moving Debris to Long-Term Sites To the left there are again four sites. Sites X & Y are long term locations, while sites A & B are temporary locations. Highlighted in red is the best route between locations.

6 8

1 7

The percentage of waste is not readily apparent this time, as the capacities are not given. However, it is important to understand each route will have a percentage dictated by a corresponding decision variable.

OBJECTIVE FUNCTION INTRO

We have defined an overal (misspelling ; overall) objective: minimizing costs. However we must determine the elements that make up this function in order to start on our linear program. To do this we must understand the costs associated with the sites. Below is a diagram detailing the cost of debris removal

COST ASSOCIATED WITH SITES DISTANCE RELATED COSTS o Maintenance/mile o Fuel consumption

TIME RELATED COSTS o Labor/hour driving o Equipment/hour driving o Labor/hour loading o Cost of leaving debris/Time Environmental Health Structural

FUNCTION OF ROUTING

COST AS A PERCENTAGE OF SITE USED o Price of Property o Converting into land into acceptable Waste management facilitie

DETERMINING COSTS

User input will dictate rates as variability exists between countries and countractors. Ideally users can reference tables for general estimates. Additionaly (misspelled additionally) , help information should be provided for each input. Below is the table of needed inputs
Variable Name OC fuel_load fuel_empty LLC Description Vehicle Operator Labor Rate Vehicle MPG loaded Vehicle MPG unloaded Loading/Unloading Operation Cost Unit $/hr $/mile $/mile $/hr hr hr hr miles meters^3 meters^3 meters^3 $/$/mile $/hr

TLI TLU Broute_time Broute_dist Debris Cap_site Cap_k EU T_OP

Time to unload truck Time to load truck Best Route between two locations (Time) Best Route between locations (Distance) Waste Est. damage (at single location) Site Capacity Capacity of Vehicle Maintenance Costs for Vehicles Time before site is operational

costs

Priority CS CC

Cost to expedite removal/sigma Cost Site Property Cost of Conversion

$/hr $ $

Thus, we can build the following equation to represent cost of transporting from (node a) to (node b).

Where: Is the coefficient that determines the expresions relative weight to time Represents the labor cost associated with loading and unloading for a single trip. Represents the fuel and usage cost traveling there and back Represents the cost of the vehical operators time for a single trip. The number of trips nessasary to haul the debris Cost of purchasing part of the property However, this is only the total travel cost associated with a single site. We must consider all possibilities between sites (a and b). Consequently, if there are (M#) final nodes and (L#) start nodes, this is epressed mathmaticaly as

This expresses the cost of all the routes L# of (a) sites to M# of (b) sites. However we know that not all routes are required to be taken. Instead one route may be used multiple times. This situation can be framed by the decision variables and constraints.

Decsion varaibales (Misspelling Decision Variables also omit Where) are constrained by the following equation:

However, this is only half of the problem. After all, we are considering both cost and time. The total time can be represented by the following equation:

The following section needs work. I dont understand the structure of the paragrapg or questions. Where: Is the coefficient that determines the expresions relative weight to cost Is the amount of time for site b to become available to revieving debris Is the a term that represents the priority of moving the debris: How much are you willing to pay to get it out more quickly? Sigma*Priority=Cost to expedite removal

Represents time of trip (there and back).

These two equations can come together and become the following expression

Combined expression =

OBJECTIVE FUNCTION EXPRESSION

Combining these equations for all (L) number of temp sites, (M) number of longterm sites, and (N) number of debris locations, we get the following objective function. Where (a) represents the debris starting location sites, (b) represents the temp sites, and (c) is the longterm locations. Objective Function =

LINEAR PROGRAM CRITERIA

The last part of forming the linear program is developing the criteria. By definition all of the material must leave the temp sites. Thus, the total waste in the long term sites must be equal to the estimated amount. Second, all of the material at a location must not exceed the location maximum capacity. A minimum economy of scale limit should be place placed on the size of both temperary and long term sites. The sum of all material flowing from a location must be represented by the sum of the quantity relocatied by all the modes. All decision variables must be equal or greater to zero and have a value equal or less than one.
ANAYLISIS

As a proof of concept, this algorithm was applied to a randomly generated debris field. The result was compared to the outcome of the current proximity based selection of temporary sites. The process and results are detailed below...

PROCESS

First, the geographical scope and locations were selected. The New Madrid Fault was selected as it poses the most significant earthquake hazard to the Midwest United States. For the sake of simplicity, a seven-mile radius from (I dont know what word you were aiming for, but probably not from) was established as the scope of focus. This scope essentially models the appropriate response of the local townships to a significant earthquake. Debris quantitates/ quantities were randomly generated from a function that considered the level of development, proximity to epicenter, and nearby waterways.

The map to the right represents the data. Seen to the right is map generated from the data: Orange thumb-tacks represent locations that were recorded by disaster assessment personal (wrong homonym- you want personnel). As in real disaster, these (omit) personal change to personnel estimate the extent of damage associated with the locations. Purple tacks represent locations that meet the criteria for temporary material processing sights. Red tacks represent locations that are potential longterm material processing sights.

GEOGRAPHICAL DATA REPRESENTATION

Possible locations for temporary material processing sights

Possible locations for long-term material processing sights

Next, the information used in the algorithm was collected for each of these sites and recorded. An important element of this was gathering the best route distance and time for every node. This data was obtained by Googles map directions function (it should be noted that the quickest route was always selected). This information was recorded between all nodes.

Example of a Best Route between possible temporary and long-term locations ->>

RESULTS

I have more to right (you mean write) here

TOTAL DEBRIS (m^3) TOTAL CAPACITY (m^3) NUMBER OF SITES DEBRIS TEMP LONG-TERM PROXIMITY METHOD: CASH TIME LINEAR PROGRAM: CASH TIME

1542744 7431314 110 65 10 11,149,325.58 XXXX XXXX XXXX

CONTINUED WORK

PLATFORM

The solutions user environment is extreemly important in achieving a useful tool. In Phase I, data is collected. This information will have to be imputed (the word you want is inputted, not imputed) into the computer. As input and feedback are geographical in nature. (change to a ,) GIS software is recommended as the user interface.
GIS SOFTWARE

Geographical information systems (GIS) software dislpays ( you mean displays) and stores information tied to specific latitudes and longitudes. This is extreemly important as it allows the users to input and review information in way that is intuative. There are many companies that offer GIS products. However, for the sake of simplification, this paper is tailored

to ESRIs ArcGIS as it is the industrys leading software and Femas prediction software, HAZUS as it is based on this platform (on what platform, maybe you sould judt omit the highlighted part.). ArcGIS 10.1 is a cloud based software that supports mobile and traditional formats. Furthermore, it allows SQL queries of its database and python scripts to automate processes. For more information please see the product website : http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis

DATA ENTRY

The solution demands the apropriate information be gathered and entered into the program. The user has a high degree of freedom in this process. The required relevent information must be entered for the appropriate cordinates and desired range: (when using bullet points and a colon, you can capitalize the words just be consistent throughout) Topography Geology Urban distribuiton Street information Waste distribution information Land composition information

Although there are many ways to enter these layers, as long as the data is in an ArcGis understood format then the solution is achievable. Consiquently (misspelled consequently), it wont matter if waste distribuition (misspelled- distribution) was sourced from, ( get rid of ,) field measurments, HAZUS, or a different method. This allows more flexibility as it provides agencies freedom to use the tools available to them. However, it should be noted that the solution will only be as good as the information imputed ( this is the wrong word; it means to attribute a bad action to someboy use supplied or inputted instead). Consequently, when the proposed optimization program is implemented, it should verifiy the presence of required data and provide visual feedback at different points for user validation.
DATA FILTERING

Both temperary and longterm sites must meet requirements. Thus, to make the process simpler, the GIS database will be filtered by these conditions. The result will yield all the possible locations for debris processing locations. This information should then be presented to the user for validation. Working with these filtered results, the users efforts will be useful and timesaving as only valid sites will be identified.

REQUIREMENTS FOR SITES

Ideally users should be able to adjust the requirements to meet the individual cases needs. Diferent change to different countries have different standards. The goal is to selectivly change to selectively sort through the geographical information to find acceptable locations. The U.S has many stipulations for material processing locations. With criterai change to criteria for suibable change to suitable ranging from distance from change to to population to soil type.

BEST ROUTE

By now, it is readily apparent that a significant part of this problem is a function of finding the optimal route. Fortunately, there are many already developed solutions to this problem, many of which are free to use as source code. One unique difference from most direction/routing problems is the need for dynamic modeling to represent the post-disaster throughways. As many of the streets remain unusable after the disaster, the routing must take into consider the change to their closings change to closing and their projected reopenings change to reopening. Again, there is already software that can handle this type of problem. An ArcGIS compatible script for such a task already exists and can be used with minor modification. To view please see the Bibliography and Reference section.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
[2] Artificial-intelligence-based 0ptimization of the management of snow removal assets and resources. (2002, October). Unpublished working paper, Midwest Transportation Consortium, Ames, IA. [2] Debris management plan. (2008, March). Retrieved March 15, 2013, from Los Angeles Board of Public Works website: http://bpw.lacity.org/Debris%20Management%20Plan.pdf [3] Disaster waste management mechanism: a practical guide for construction and demolition wastes in Indonesia [White paper]. (2008). Retrieved March 15, 2013, from UNEP website: http://www.unep.or.jp/Ietc/Publications/DEBRI/DEBRI_8_Disaster_Waste_Management_Me chanism.pdf [4] Disaster waste managment [White paper]. (2011, September 9). Retrieved March 15, 2013, from http://www.washcluster.info/?q=content/wash-technical-paper-disaster-waste-management [5] Environmental policy, Managing disaster debris: overview of regulatory requirements, agency roles, and selected challenges, Doc. No. 112-7-5700, at 10 (2011). [6] Karunasena, G., Amaratunga, D., & Haigh, R. (n.d.). Capacity building for sustainable post disaster waste management: construction & demolition waste. Unpublished working paper, University of Salford. [7] Karunasena, G., Amaratunga, D., & Haigh, R. (n.d.). Waste management strategies during post disaster phase: a case of Sri Lanka. Unpublished working paper, University of Salford. [8] Quick guide to HAZUS-MH MR1 [White paper]. (2006, June). Retrieved March 15, 2013, from ESRI website: http://www.esri.com/library/whitepapers/pdfs/quick-guide-hazusmhmr1.pdf [9] U.N. OCHA & UNEP. (2011, January). Disaster waste management guidlines (A. B. Soder & R. Muller, Authors). Geneva, Switzerland: UNEP/OCHA Environment Unit. http://ochanet.unocha.org/p/Documents/DWG%20Annex%20XII.Disaster%20waste%20mana gement%20contingency%20planning.pdf

APPENDIX

http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis/smartphones