AHPS 2

Information about AHPS 2

Published on February 13, 2008

Author: Rainero

Source: authorstream.com

Content

Dike Decisions Based on the Advanced Hydrological Prediction Service (AHPS):  Dike Decisions Based on the Advanced Hydrological Prediction Service (AHPS) Contact: Lee Anderson, Meteorologist in Charge National Weather Service Grand Forks, North Dakota Phone: (701) 772-0720 (ext 642) E-mail: [email protected] Author: John Erjavec, Professor & Chair Department of Chemical Engineering University of North Dakota Phone: (701) 777- 4244 E-mail: [email protected] Introduction:  Introduction The purpose of this material is to help city managers, city engineers, hydrologists and others to use the river crest predictions from the new Advanced Hydrological Prediction Service (AHPS). The methodology presented helps calculate the economic benefits from a dike that may prevent flooding of a city. Economics is only one factor in this decision making process, but it is clearly an important factor. ISSUE::  All river crest predictions, even those using the AHPS, are inherently uncertain. CONCLUSION: Dike decisions must take degree of certainty of predictions into account. ISSUE: Decision Making when dealing with Uncertainty:  Decision Making when dealing with Uncertainty Situation: Exact outcome is NOT known Possible outcomes ARE known The probability that a particular outcome will occur is known or can be estimated for each outcome Economics is an important factor in the decision making process Example 1: Investment Opportunity:  Example 1: Investment Opportunity Investment (i.e. COST) is $10,000 Return is uncertain: Return may be $100,000 There may be no return Summary of 2 Alternatives: Alternative 1: Do not invest Cost = $0, Benefits = $0 Alternative 2: Invest Cost = $10k, Benefits = uncertain Decision to be made: Should one invest? We Need a Decision Making Criterion Slide6:  TYPICAL CRITERIA: One Alternative : Benefit / Cost Ratio > 1 Multiple Alternatives: Incremental Benefit Incremental Cost > 1 Slide7:  TYPICAL CRITERIA (continued): PROBLEM: Since the outcomes can not be predicted with certainty, the actual Benefits are unknown. SOLUTION: Use EXPECTED benefits (i.e., use average benefits) Slide8:  DEFINITION The Expected Benefit, E(B), for a course of action (alternative) is the weighted average of the benefits from the possible outcomes for that alternative. Each benefit value for a particular outcome is weighted by the probability of that outcome actually happening. Mathematically, if the outcomes are denoted by O1, O2, etc., then E(B) = BenefitO1x P(O1) + BenefitO2 x P(O2) + … where BenefitO1 is the benefit of Outcome1 , etc. and P(O1) is the probability of Outcome1 , etc. Slide9:  CRITERION*: Examine ratio of Incremental Expected Benefit, DE(B), to Incremental Cost, DC Is DE(B) / DC > 1 ? If ratio is >1, choose higher cost alternative. If ratio is <1, choose lower cost alternative. *Remember, our situation is that we have two alternatives. Example 1 (Continued):  Example 1 (Continued) Summary of 2 Alternatives: Alternative 1: Do not invest Cost = $0, Benefits = $0 Alternative 2: Invest Cost = $10k, Benefits = uncertain Outcomes for Alternative 2: Outcome A = Investment pays off BenefitA = $100,000 P(A) = 0.05 (that is, 5 times out of 100 it pays off) Outcome B = Investment does not pay off BenefitB = $0 P(B) = 0.95 (that is, 95 times out of 100 it does not pay off) Expected Value of Benefits = (0.05)x($100,0000) + (0.95)x($0) = $5,000 Example 1 (Continued):  Example 1 (Continued) Apply Criterion: Incremental Expected Benefit = $5,000 (On average, we would get $5k per investment.) Incremental Cost = $10,000 Since:  E (B) /  C = $5k/$10k = 0.5 <1 Do NOT Invest Note: We would never actually get a $5,000 return; either we would get $100,000 or nothing. The expected benefit of $5,000 is the return that one would get “on average” from numerous $10,000 investments such as this. Example 2 (Fire Insurance for $250k House):  Example 2 (Fire Insurance for $250k House) Outcomes (from fire rating bureau): O1 : No fire loss P(O1) = 0.985 O2 : $15k fire loss P(O2) = 0.010 O3 : $50k fire loss P(O3) = 0.004 O4 : $200k fire loss P(O4) = 0.001 Expected value of fire loss in any year: Expected Loss = ($0)(0.985) + ($15k)(0.010) + ($50k)(0.004) + ($200k)(0.001) = $550 Example 2 (Continued):  Example 2 (Continued) Expected Value of fire loss = $550/yr Fire insurance (no deductible) = $750/yr Summary of Costs and Expected Benefits: Alt 1, No Insurance: Cost = $0/yr, Expected “Benefits” = -$550/yr (fire loss) Alt 2, Buy Insurance: Cost = $750/yr, Expected “Benefits” = $0/yr (No fire loss) Incremental Benefits = $0/yr – (-$550/yr) = $550/yr Incremental Costs = $750/yr - $0/yr = $750/yr Example 2 (Continued):  Example 2 (Continued) Apply Criterion:  E (B) /  C = $550/$750 = 0.73 <1 Conclusion: The insurance is more costly (on average) than a fire. (This is the expected result, since we know that insurance companies make money). Decision: Should you buy insurance? Our criterion says that the less expensive alternative (no insurance) is the one that is the best. But we probably ought to buy the insurance anyway (assuming it is affordable), because being self-insured only makes sense if the worst outcome is not catastrophic. General Approach:  General Approach List all reasonable alternative courses of action. “Do nothing” is usually included on the list. Determine the cost (investment) of each alternative on your list. List all outcomes for each alternative Determine the probability of each outcome Assign a value (benefit, which may be negative if it is a loss) to each outcome. Determine the Expected Value of the benefits for each alternative (course of action). Example 3 Why Use Incremental Approach? (Why Not Maximize Benefit/Cost Ratio?):  Example 3 Why Use Incremental Approach? (Why Not Maximize Benefit/Cost Ratio?) Alt. Cost Benefit B/C 0 $0 $0 --- 1 $100 $200 2.00 2 $200 $350 1.75 3 $300 $475 1.58 4 $400 $575 1.42 5 $500 $650 1.30 All alternatives are good. They all have B/C ratios > 1 Alternative 1 has the highest B/C ratio, but it is not the best. Alternative 3 is the best. It keeps returning more in extra (incremental) benefits than the extra (incremental) costs. Increment D C D B DB/DC > Alt.1-Alt.0 $100 $200 2.00 > Alt.2-Alt.1 $100 $150 1.50 > Alt.3-Alt.2 $100 $125 1.25 > Alt.4-Alt.3 $100 $100 1.00 > Alt.5-Alt.4 $100 $75 0.75 General Approach (Continued):  General Approach (Continued) Order the alternatives from least expensive to most expensive. Compare the alternatives pair-wise, starting with the least expensive, examining incremental benefits and incremental costs If B/C > 1, keep the more expensive alternative In this case, the increased benefits outweigh the increased costs of the more expensive alternative. If B/C < 1, keep the less expensive alternative The alternative that is kept is compared to the next alternative on the list, and the procedure is repeated until all alternatives have been examined, and only one remains. That alternative is the “winner” (final decision). Review the decision to make sure that the risk is not too great. (Being self insured only makes sense if the worst outcome(s) is not catastrophic.) General Approach Applied to Dike Decisions:  General Approach Applied to Dike Decisions List all reasonable alternative dike levels. Start with the existing permanent dike level and end with the highest dike that could be built in the time allowed. Determine the cost of each dike level on your list. By difference, calculate the incremental cost of adding to the dike to get to the next level of protection. Determine the loss which would be incurred to the city if a river crest exceeded the level of the dike (by half of the interval between dike heights) for each dike height on your list. From AHPS, determine the probability of the river crest exceeding each dike height on your list. Determine the probability that the river crest will fall in each dike level range on your list by difference. General Approach Applied to Dike Decisions (Continued):  General Approach Applied to Dike Decisions (Continued) Determine the Expected Loss for each increment of the dike, by multiplying the Loss to the city for flooding in a specific range times the probability that the river crest will fall in that range. Calculate the Incremental Expected Benefit / Incremental Cost ratio for each extra dike level under consideration. This is done by dividing the Expected Loss of Flooding which will be avoided by adding to the dike, by the incremental cost of building the dike higher (to the next level). If the ratio, E(B) / C, is greater than 1, the increment is worth adding. If the ratio, E(B) / C, is less than 1, the increment is not worth adding. Review the decision to make sure that the risk is not too great. (Being self insured only makes sense if the worst outcome(s) is not catastrophic.) General Approach Applied to Dike Decisions (Continued):  General Approach Applied to Dike Decisions (Continued) Suggestions: Determine the cost of each dike level that is being evaluated. By difference, calculate the cost of adding to the dike to bring it to the next higher level, and put the information in a spreadsheet Determine the damage to the city that would be incurred if the city were not protected by a dike and the river crest hit a level halfway between the dike levels being considered. Include that information in the spreadsheet. Add the AHPS probability data to the spreadsheet (as per Examples 4-7). Calculate Expected benefits and Incremental E(B)/C ratios for each dike level. Use ratios to help guide dike level decision. Examples 4-7 (GF/EGF Flood Control):  Examples 4-7 (GF/EGF Flood Control) Alternatives to Consider: 1: Do Nothing 2: 49’ Dike 3: 51’ Dike 4: 53’ Dike 5: 55’ Dike 6: 57’ Dike Examine incremental benefit / incremental cost Note: Incremental benefit is the EXPECTED flood loss which is avoided by building the dike higher.  Benefits = Probability of flooding x Cost of Flood Damage Incremental cost is the cost of adding to the dike to make it higher (see figure on next slide). Dikes of Heights L1 and L2: :  Dikes of Heights L1 and L2: Slide23:  Examples 4-7 (GF/EGF Flood Control) *This data only needs to be collected once, and updated whenever it is deemed to be necessary. Slide24:  Example 4: Very High Crest Predicted (Most likely crest of 43 feet) Slide25:  Example 4 AHPS Output (Actual Probabilistic Outlook for Red River at East Grand Forks, MN – 2001) Example 4 (Continued):  Example 4 (Continued) * These values were obtained by difference (see next slide) ** These values had to be obtained by extrapolation (see slide after next) Probability of Crest Between L1 and L2:  Probability of Crest Between L1 and L2 Probability of Probability of Probability of River Cresting = River Cresting - River Cresting Between L1 & L2 Higher than L1 Higher than L2 AHPS Exceedance Probabilities Extrapolating AHPS Probabilities:  Extrapolating AHPS Probabilities L 0.025 Assume predictions follow a Normal Distribution Mean, L 0.50 = Level for 50% Exceedance Probability Standard Deviation, s ~ (L 0.025 - L 0.50 )/2 where L 0.025 is the level which has a 2.5% chance of being exceeded. To find the probability of exceeding a level, L Calculate standard Normal deviate, z , which corresponds to how many standard deviations L is from the mean: z = (L – L 0.50)/s Look up probability for z using statistical tables of the Normal Dist. or use a spreadsheet (e.g. Excel NORMDIST function) L 0.50 Extrapolating AHPS Probabilities (For Example 4, Case: L = 55 ft):  Extrapolating AHPS Probabilities (For Example 4, Case: L = 55 ft) L0.025 = 53 ft To find the probability of exceeding level, L = 55 ft Assume predictions follow a Normal Distribution Mean = L 0.50 (obtained from AHPS Output) = 43 ft for this example L 0.025 (also from AHPS Output) used to get s = 53 ft for this example Standard Deviation, s = (L 0.025 - L 0.50 )/2 = (53-43)/2 = 5.0 Calculate standard Normal deviate, z: z = (L – L 0.50)/s = (55-43)/5.0 = 2.4 Look up probability for z: Prob(L > 55 ft) = Prob(z > 2.4) = 0.0081= 0.81% Mean = 43 ft L = 55 ft Slide30:  Example 4 (Continued) Slide31:  Example 5: High Crest Predicted (Most likely crest of 40 feet) Slide32:  Example 5 (Continued) * These probabilities were simulated assuming a Normal-distribution with a mean (L50%) = 40 ft, and a standard deviation, s = 5 ft. Slide33:  Example 5 (Continued) Slide34:  Example 6: Medium Crest Predicted (Most likely crest of 38 feet) Slide35:  Example 6 (Continued) * These probabilities were simulated assuming a Normal-distribution with a mean (L50%) = 38 ft, and a standard deviation, s = 5 ft. Slide36:  Example 6 (Continued) Slide37:  Example 7: Low Crest Predicted (Most likely crest of 36 feet) Slide38:  Example 7 (Continued) * These probabilities were simulated assuming a Normal-distribution with a mean (L50%) = 38 ft, and a standard deviation, s = 5 ft. Slide39:  Example 7 (Continued) SUMMARY:  SUMMARY The uncertainty of river level predictions is a key factor that must be taken into account in any dike decisions. The relative costs of building a dike versus the costs incurred by flood damage are also key factors in dike decisions. The appropriate economic criterion to use as part of the decision making process is the ratio of the incremental expected benefit (by avoiding flood damage) to the incremental cost of adding to the dike height. Even when the probability of a crest exceeding a high level is low (less than 1%, as in Example 3), it may still be worth building a dike to that level when the costs of damage are very high. This is true because the expected benefits are calculated as the (probability) x (potential damage).

Related presentations


Other presentations created by Rainero

Ch9 English Rstoration
03. 03. 2008
0 views

Ch9 English Rstoration

6cL opera Moz
15. 01. 2008
0 views

6cL opera Moz

PilgrimagetoOurLady
05. 02. 2008
0 views

PilgrimagetoOurLady

zweibel rice 2004 2g thin films
10. 01. 2008
0 views

zweibel rice 2004 2g thin films

pediatric ocular injuries
10. 01. 2008
0 views

pediatric ocular injuries

make home made soap
10. 01. 2008
0 views

make home made soap

where wear ware
11. 01. 2008
0 views

where wear ware

flower pol
12. 01. 2008
0 views

flower pol

Into the Vastness
13. 01. 2008
0 views

Into the Vastness

louise workshop
14. 01. 2008
0 views

louise workshop

Lord of the Flies
17. 01. 2008
0 views

Lord of the Flies

Super natural 07ClassTwo
20. 01. 2008
0 views

Super natural 07ClassTwo

3sept03 notes
22. 01. 2008
0 views

3sept03 notes

ClassDay6
22. 01. 2008
0 views

ClassDay6

DallasHistory
23. 01. 2008
0 views

DallasHistory

ncaa
24. 01. 2008
0 views

ncaa

Indonesia Yogyakarta
05. 02. 2008
0 views

Indonesia Yogyakarta

AG Int Badminton
07. 02. 2008
0 views

AG Int Badminton

March 08 Peter Stehlik
12. 02. 2008
0 views

March 08 Peter Stehlik

TechEdCiscoMar26
25. 01. 2008
0 views

TechEdCiscoMar26

L07 extrasolarplanets2
25. 01. 2008
0 views

L07 extrasolarplanets2

companions and the internet
28. 01. 2008
0 views

companions and the internet

StreamEcology
28. 01. 2008
0 views

StreamEcology

Minor Bodies
16. 01. 2008
0 views

Minor Bodies

web3d
30. 01. 2008
0 views

web3d

Advocacy Presentation DOH1
31. 01. 2008
0 views

Advocacy Presentation DOH1

online catalog
05. 02. 2008
0 views

online catalog

meadows
06. 02. 2008
0 views

meadows

1 Phosphorus Cycle
07. 02. 2008
0 views

1 Phosphorus Cycle

201 07popsystem
07. 02. 2008
0 views

201 07popsystem

Tsunami aav lecture
14. 02. 2008
0 views

Tsunami aav lecture

ChivalryintheMiddleA ges
15. 02. 2008
0 views

ChivalryintheMiddleA ges

WebDAV
21. 02. 2008
0 views

WebDAV

15718 2892892007104057
16. 01. 2008
0 views

15718 2892892007104057

powerpointjeavini
25. 02. 2008
0 views

powerpointjeavini

leuven2
28. 02. 2008
0 views

leuven2

Chris Wickens PP
05. 03. 2008
0 views

Chris Wickens PP

Millett AGEP 013107
12. 03. 2008
0 views

Millett AGEP 013107

outline19
07. 02. 2008
0 views

outline19

three gorges dam powerpoint
19. 03. 2008
0 views

three gorges dam powerpoint

hsa ix66
08. 04. 2008
0 views

hsa ix66

VenturingSpecific
16. 04. 2008
0 views

VenturingSpecific

LT1001N Lecture 8 2006 7
16. 04. 2008
0 views

LT1001N Lecture 8 2006 7

489 290
17. 04. 2008
0 views

489 290

Htourist
18. 04. 2008
0 views

Htourist

TKlachan
21. 04. 2008
0 views

TKlachan

BO1 EnricoI CCRM
22. 04. 2008
0 views

BO1 EnricoI CCRM

E260w2
24. 04. 2008
0 views

E260w2

tour
29. 02. 2008
0 views

tour

sc4wg2n0190 WTO FCC 433
08. 05. 2008
0 views

sc4wg2n0190 WTO FCC 433

Invisible Forces 2002
30. 04. 2008
0 views

Invisible Forces 2002

yurova
02. 05. 2008
0 views

yurova

IBsummary
22. 02. 2008
0 views

IBsummary

1 frday04
02. 05. 2008
0 views

1 frday04

HU CC FDM 07v1
24. 03. 2008
0 views

HU CC FDM 07v1

hermes 20 09 win
29. 01. 2008
0 views

hermes 20 09 win

ALI
14. 04. 2008
0 views

ALI

milbury
25. 01. 2008
0 views

milbury

Moira Chan Yeung FRE PPT
15. 01. 2008
0 views

Moira Chan Yeung FRE PPT

MENOPAUSElectureforW HAW
03. 03. 2008
0 views

MENOPAUSElectureforW HAW

capetocape intro
02. 04. 2008
0 views

capetocape intro

335 shrinked sfs 101 powerpoint
22. 01. 2008
0 views

335 shrinked sfs 101 powerpoint

ReuseDisp
22. 01. 2008
0 views

ReuseDisp

TWPC FINAL WEB
15. 04. 2008
0 views

TWPC FINAL WEB

taking forward seg profile
25. 02. 2008
0 views

taking forward seg profile

4th NSA GBM S06
11. 01. 2008
0 views

4th NSA GBM S06

calc prob Solv jeopardy
11. 03. 2008
0 views

calc prob Solv jeopardy

Pranay Sinha
04. 02. 2008
0 views

Pranay Sinha