tesi asp presentation
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
CONTENTS
1. Team specific objectives and stakeholders
2. General risk analysis and mitigation strategies
3. Risk analysis and mitigation solutions related to the pipeline
4. Seismic risk analysis and emergency plan
5. Conclusion
1.1TEAM SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
Risk Assessment in El Fortin main natural and technological risks.
Risks related to the pipeline
Risk Mitigation strategy
Structural and non structural
Short term and long term
Comparison of mitigation solutions: economically and socially
Proposal of emergency plan
1.2 THE STAKEHOLDERS
Barrio’s Inhabitants Local organizations Guayaquil Municipality Firemen Emergency services Hospitals Water Management Company (Interagua) Local cooperative transport, Garbage collection cooperative
(Vachagnon) Schools in the Barrio (schools of Father
Felice Prinelli, Father Tiziano “Parrocchia La Consolata”..)
2.1 WHAT IS RISK?
Risk = hazard * vulnerability Risk: expected damage Hazard: intrinsic characteristics of the dangerous event Vulnerability: exposure propensity to be damage
2.2 RISK ANALYSIS: MAIN HAZARDS
Electric lineInvaded
Landslide• Soil erosion
•Land use
Hygienic -sanitary
•Drinking water• Sewage•Waste
Flood • Precipitation• Predictable• Drainage
Earthquake •High prone•Unpredictable•Lack of awareness
Pipeline Rupture Fire
2.3 SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS
Preventive actions to reduce the risk of rupture
Action to face an emergency situation
3.1 THE PIPELINE – GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Length 128 km (1.5 km in the Barrio)
Diameter 10 in. 0.254 m
Maximum capacity Daily 21600 bls/day 3142 m3/day
Hour 900 bls/hr 142.2 m3/day
Full volume 42.300 bls 6683 m3
Average speed of the fluid 0.0779 m/s
Nominal pressure 5.5 bar
Hydrocarbons transported Diesel fuel (most important), Super gasoline, Furnace oil, Jet fuel
Poliducto “Libertad-Pasquales”,
EarthquakeSoil erosionExternal actions
Pipeline exposure & rupture
Fuel leakage Fire
Probability ? Probability ? Rupture scenarios
3.2 THE PIPELINE: RUPTURE SCENARIO
Objective: consequences of pipeline leakage. Two scenarios:
1. Small leakage (blue)• <15% nominal capacity• Long-time detected
2. Important leakage (red) • >15% nominal capacity• quickly detected
Worst case: ruptures in 4 minimal points
Simulation-Volume escaped VS. Hole diameter
Possible location of fuel paths in minimum points
1 2 3 4
3.3 THE PIPELINE– RUPTURE SCENARIO
Fuel will flow along the paths in which rainwater usually flows.
Preventive actions are necessary to reduce the risk.
Diameter of the area will be fuel-flooded due to leakage
Map of the area interested by oil leakage.
1
2
3
4
3.4 RELOCATION
Relocation costs1. Based on results of rupturing scenarios2. Compensation to settlers: loss of terrain and house.
3. Average terrain and building costs in the barrio.
ZoneNo. Lot
North
No. Lot
Center
No. Lot
SouthNo. Lot Total
Lot costs
$
Total costs
$Red 48 45 44 137 164400 1397400
Yellow 219 141 218 578 693600 5895600
Best hypothesis: relocation costs > 150,000$ - huge for Ecuador
Relocation: not a feasible option.
3.5 NATURALISTIC ENGINEERING INTERVENTION
Low effectiveness Expensive
High effectiveness Expensive
Medium effectiveness Expensive
Medium, growing effectiveness Not expensive
Erosion controlling
plant
• Controlling erosion over the pipeline
Gradient demonstration Gradient of the terrain over the pipeline
• Area of intervention 24900 m2
Vetiver grass
• Simplicity, low delivery cost, time saving, low effectiveness. • Survival rate 20-30%• Total cost: 3,750 $
• Rather complex, high cost, high effectiveness• Survival rate >90%• Total cost: 9,744 $
The suggested solution is to use Vetiver tillers.
3.6 NATURALISTIC ENGINEERING INTERVENTION• Vetiver grass: "living
soil nail”: improve shear strength of soil: 30-40%, reduce erosion up to 90%, reduce and conserve rainfall runoff by 70%. Example of erosion control by Vetiver after 2 years
3.7 COMPARISION BETWEEN SOLUTION
Relocation Vetiver grass plantation
Costs > 1,000,000$ 10,000$
Feasibility • Complicated: Lots of actors• consensus of inhabitants involved
• Limited political, material and human resources. • Possibility of participation from inhabitants
Timing Long time frame:• Planning, implementation: • Construction of new residential area, relocating people
Short term:• Plantation: 6-8 weeks,• Performing erosion control effect: after fews years.
Effectiveness Almost eliminates the exposure Partially reduces the hazard directly reduce the pipeline exposure caused by erosion
• Naturalistic engineering: short term, relocation: long term.• Optimum solution: best meets the needs of the stakeholders and their participation is critical for implementation
4.1 THE EMERGENCY PLAN
Comunication system, Actors,
Actions, Evacuation
Earthquake
Facing an emergency situation:Leadership, Planning, Organization and Coordination, Control
Priority of contingency
, Risk, Area,
Population
4.2 SEISMIC RISK ANALYSIS
• Risk assessment• Building typologies and diffusion • Vulnerability index and expected
damage in case of earthquake
• Population and Area involved• 58,500 inhabitants• 56,000 mq
• Priority of contingency Seismic hazard• Seismic events history• Determination of the hazard
4.3 SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT 1. Acceleration Worst earthquake: 0.1825g
2. Vulnerability index for type of house
3. Damage index = % Area damaged
Typology
Area
Fuxia Beige MixedTypology vulnerability
Typology damage
Reinforced Concrete %10 %25 %15 65 1Block %30 %55 %45 44 0.67Bamboo %60 %20 %40 48 0.55Area vulnerability 48.5 50.05 48.75Area damage 0.631 0.7285 0.6715
44
4.4 CREATION OF A SCENARIO
• Population involved:1. Area damaged2. Population Density3. Population involved:
• Victims (50% inhabitants of damaged area) 20,300 (34.8%) death• Injured (30% inhabitants of damaged area) 12,200 (20.9%) injured• To be evacuated (30% inhabitants of damaged area + inhabitants non damaged area) 26,000 (44.9%)
Probability MediumType of risk EarthquakeMaximum historical event
9.9 MM
Effect and area involved
Destruction of buildings, streets, lifelines; All the Barrio is involved.
Community involvement
Evacuation of the whole area, organization of welcome areas and collaboration with the local authorities.
Final evaluation
The seismicity of the area and the typology of buildings and infrastructures determine a medium criticality of the area.
• New facilities planned::• Medical centers• New road system• Schools
• External assistence:• Ambulances • Hospital • Fireman
4.5 DEFINITION OF THE EMERGENCY PLAN
Mayor of Guayaquil
Vice-Mayor of the Barrio
9 Responsible of zone
Civil Protection
5 groups of Alarm Volunteer
10 groups of Evacuation Volunteer
Prefecture and Regional
AdministrationUnity of Local
Crises
•Alarm system Sirens & Alarm volunteers
•Evacuation and Primary Assistance
•First Aid AreaOEMP•Waiting Area•Welcome Area:
BUILDING: 8,700mq•Schools•Medical Centers
TENT CAMP EMERGENCYSEETLEMENT
•The actors
4.6 EVACUATION
•New road system•Suddivision of the Barrio in 9 zones
Evacuation of the whole Barrio in the Red Area using the new road systemTraining program for the population
Meeting area:•Good accessability•Good connection with Fedeer road
• Risks: not really high, related to natural event and wrong behaviour of the population.
• Most important risks: earthquake, flood, pipeline.
• The pipeline could be dangerous for exposure, rupture, leakage and fire.Short term solution: covering areas subjected to erosion with Vetiver .Long term solution: eventually relocation of inhabitants of most exposed areas
• Creating an Emergency Plan to face emergency situations:Upgrading of the Barrio to make the EP really effectiveDirect involvment of the population
• Information campaign to the population is necessary.
5. CONCLUSION
Thanks for the attention