Strategies for Cost-effective Mitigation

Abstract

Vehicle-borne improvised devices (VBIEDs) are a favored device. Davis [1] calls them “stealth of surprising power and destructive efficiency” – the “poor man’s air force” – and notes that over a period of 25 years, VBIED attacks have occurred in at least 58 countries. However, decision-making regarding blast protection for buildings is often undertaken using highly judgment-based risk processes. First, a design basis threat (that is, size of device) is specified, and a portfolio of mitigation measures is selected. The damages with the mitigation are then assessed and, if deemed to be reasonable, the cost is examined. If either the damages or the mitigation cost are deemed to be unreasonable, the portfolio of mitigation measures is reworked. As such, the attack probability tends to be treated as binary, with the benefits and costs of the mitigation examined somewhat separately of one another [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]. The need for more risk-informed methods for blast protection – including greater consideration of uncertainties – has been widely recognized [6,9,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18].

Background

Decision-making regarding implementing measures to protect buildings from vehicle attacks is often undertaken using highly judgment-based risk processes. This paper presents a quantitative risk-cost model for using vehicle barriers to create setback distance around a new office building. The model explicitly considers both the attack probability, and the damages in the event of an attack (both target building and collateral), as well as how both of these might change as mitigation measures are implemented. The attack damages are assessed using a new empirical blast model, which adapts the estimation methods used by the U.S. Geological Survey for earthquake damages, and is based on data from three well-studied vehicle attacks. Monte Carlo simulation is used to carry the uncertainty in the inputs through to the final results. The model outputs are the mitigation costs, the attack damages, the “breakeven” attack probability (at which the benefits of the mitigation justify its costs), and the cost per statistical life saved (assuming an attack). The results suggest that this mitigation option is cost-effective only when the attack probability (for the case without the mitigation measures present) is rather high.


Previous Work

Various works (e.g., [11,13,15,16]) examine protective design using a quantitative risk framework, but rely on highly simplified assumptions regarding the avoided damages and costs (e.g., 90% reduction in risk for a 10% increase in building construction costs). Foo et al. [14] offer a blast risk assessment method for buildings; however, their model does not account for progressive structural collapse, and many aspects of it are not overly transparent.


References
  1. Overlord
  2. MHS-MS
  3. Vehicle Barriers
  4. Earthquake Damage
  5. ECAT Tool (3)
  6. ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF CBP CENTERS
  7. Port-of-entry Wait Times
  8. Economic Consequences
  9. FCC Bulletin
  10. ARRL Scholarships
  11. FAR Scholarships
  12. Guide to Shenandoah National Park (1)
  13. Tony Barrett
  14. Border Security
  15. Global Catastrophic Risk Institute
  16. USC Academia
  17. Guide to Shenandoah National Park (2)
  18. Nat Heatwole LinkedIn
  19. AJH LinkedIn
  20. ResearchGate
  21. The Value of Non-Fatal Injuries
  22. Modeling the Economic Cost
  23. CREATE economics research program awarded $1 million
  24. Economic Consequences of Terrorism (2)
  25. Integrated Disaster Risk Management
  26. Reduced Form Economic Consequence Model
  27. Tower Talk
  28. USC CREATE
  29. US Air Force