Presentation on theme: "Captain D.J. Cote, USMC Major T.F. Dono, USMC With special thanks to Fire Captain Jim Brown of Monterey Fire Nov 3, 2011 OA4202 Final Project Monterey."— Presentation transcript:
Captain D.J. Cote, USMC Major T.F. Dono, USMC With special thanks to Fire Captain Jim Brown of Monterey Fire Nov 3, 2011 OA4202 Final Project Monterey Fire Network
Overview Background – Standards of Coverage Graph Depiction Research Questions / MOEs Modeling Assumptions Experiments -- Results Conclusions Further Research x
Backstory Monterey Fire Responsiveness on the Monterey Peninsula Road Network
What is the Standard? There is a response standard STILL on the books today The Insurance Services Office (ISO) FD Grading Schedule Fire Stations at 1.5 miles apart
Current Standard The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA , 2010) The FD shall establish a performance objective of…. Alarm processing time of 60 seconds (1 min turnover) 240 seconds for first arriving engine company (4 mins) 480 seconds for the full alarm assignment (8 mins) For the achievement of each turnout, not less than 90%.
Monterey Fire Dept. Standards of Coverage Initial apparatus in 6 min (5+1)/80% vs. 5/90%(NFPA) Concentrated Forces 8 min (7+1)/80% vs. 9/90%(NFPA) Time to target time is a better MOE than distance
Actual Sectors of Cover for Monterey Fire Dept.
A few logical questions… With the assets of the MFD and a given fire One primary Questions – What is the Response Time in minutes? What is the Allocation of Forces? What if some FSs were unavailable? How does interdiction impact response time? Can the system handle simultaneous fires? Can the Monterey Fire maintain time to target goals with multiple fires?
Measures of Effectiveness RESPONSE TIME Time required for concentrated forces Insight for reach within a target time ALLOCATION OF FORCES Distribution of assets for a given fire demand Insight on most strained Fire Stations
Monterey Fire Department Assets Pebble Beach Station1 1 Engine + 1 Ladder Pebble Beach Station2 1 Engine Pacific Grove Station 1 Engine Monterey Station1 1 Engine + 1 Ladder Monterey Station2 1 Engine Monterey Station3 1 Engine Seaside Station 2 Engine TOTAL 8 Engine + 2 Ladder
Modeling Assumptions NO distinction between vehicle types 8 Engine + 2 Ladder = 10 FireTrucks ALL calls are Structural Fires Demand of 5 FireTrucks (Close to reality) ONLY four fire locations CHOMP, Aquarium, Wharf, Airport
Graph Representation (Nodes) Node Selection Seven Fire Stations Major road intersections Center point of Residential Areas Highly populated fire locations
Graph Representation (Edges) Edge COST is the time to travel an edge Time = distance / MPH
Min Cost Max Flow Supply = -5 s FS1 FS2 (8, 0, ) (15, 0, ) (0, 5, ) (cost, 0, 2) (cost, 0, 1) Demand = 5 t
xxx FireTrucks at FS = 2 MFD Battlefield Setup
Modeling Interdiction Degrade the capability of a FS to respond Remove assets Less trucks available Prior tasking
Design of Experiments All Fire Stations full strength Fire Station interdiction – 1, 2, 3 Two simultaneous structural fires All FS full strength PLUS a new FS with 2 trucks
Allocation of Resources PB1PB2PGM1M2M3SSD Approx. Location Forest Lake Near CHOMP Pine AveCity HallCannery Row Near Fair- grounds Top of Broad- way Airport Aqua- rium CHOMP Wharf
Interdicting Fire Stations
Simultaneous Fires with New FS
Conclusions MFD has a great battlefield setup MFD can STILL achieve time goals with TWO simultaneous structural fires This study reinforces the strength of the current system Functional, resilient and efficient =
Model Improvements More nodes to better simulate reality Fire sites Intersections Multi-commodity Timing Exact fire demand, i.e. 4 Engines, 1 Ladder Fire demands other than structural Integration with other FSs, i.e. Carmel, Salinas