Yu Cheng Risk Assessment Report

A Report of Construction Sites Evaluation CEIE605-Risk and Uncertainty System Analysis
15 May 2023
Risk Assessment Report

15 May 2023
Yu Cheng G01405845
Mission Statement
The new customer call & fulfilment center will give people and warehouse activities a
consolidated location, enabling effective operations and cost savings. The facility will operate
24 hours a day, seven days a week, and will include strong security measures including
perimeter fencing, armed patrols, controlled vehicle gates, and illumination to protect people
and property. The efficient running of the facility depends on the availability of crucial utilities
including power, natural gas, high-speed internet connection, and public water and sewer. The
asset is essential to the business building it because it will support operations and yield an
8.5% return on investment. The building is anticipated to be crucial for the foreseeable future,
meeting the demands of the business and assisting in its growth. However, it is obvious that
the asset has to be situated in a location that can accommodate its operations and offer quick
access to essential services. Last but not least, if the facility cannot produce a sufficient return
on investment, it may cease to be economically viable.
Critical Assets
To construct the new customer call & fulfilment center appropriately, it is important to verify
the critical assets. First, the center requires employees to work on-site for the operation
24/7/365. In order to satisfy the need for accommodation and warehousing functions, the
land use of the building will go up to at least 500,000 sq. feet. Additionally, considering the
1
15 May 2023
safety of the center, Perimeter 8-ft chain link fencing with 3-wire outriggers, armed patrol
personnel, perimeter lighting and controlled gates are required. Moreover, basic
telecommunications equipment and utilities are necessarily vital. Therefore, utilities,
including electricity, AC, natural gas, public water & sewer, and high-speed internet access are
inevitable to target the demand. Last but not least, to achieve the goal of income, the use of
8.5% return on investment is necessary.
The Analysis Process of Natural Threats
1. Earthquakes
Figure 1. UBC Seismic Zone Map of US
Table1. Estimated Damage to Seismic Events
2
15 May 2023
Table 2. Seismic Damage Factors
Consequence
Determine the categories of the zone in Figiure1., the obtained zone will be applied to
determine the characteristics of the seismic information. Then, the Damage Factors will
be defined based on the types of the building.
➔ Consequence (C) = Repair/Replacement cost ($) x DF + Lost Revenues
Countermeasure Effectiveness Index

Countermeasure Range Value
1 Year constructed After 1988=5, Before =0
2 Reinforced concrete shear walls Yes=2, No=0
3 Shock absorption foundation Yes=2, No=0

isolators
4 Frame cross-bracing Use of ductile Yes=2, No=0
iron pipe
5 Flexible pipe joints Yes=2, No=0
6 Equipment tie-downs Yes=2, No=0
7 Secured building facades Yes=3, No=0
8 Shock resistant window glass Yes=4, No=0
9 Secured Window Frames Yes=2, No=0
Effectiveness Index
Sum the existing Seismic countermeasure indices for overall effectiveness
Table 3. Seismic Vulnerabilities
3
15 May 2023
Figure 2. Seismic Threat Likelihood
Vulnerability and Threat Likelihood
The countermeasure effectiveness index table will be applied to determine the columns
in Table 4. By incorporating the Zone and the Effectiveness Index, it will be able to
determine the amount of vulnerability. Lastly, the threat likelihood can be calculated by
the data from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) website.
R = C*V*T
Lost
Zone Cost(M) DF Consequences(C) V T Risk
Revenue(M)
Table 5. The Overall Risk

4
15 May 2023
Where:
R = C* V*T
2. Tornadoes
First, there are several amounts that will be assumed before the risk assessment for
tornadoes including the cost of the property, the revenue lost during the repair, the Value
of Statistical Life (VSL), and Value of Statistical Injuries (VSI).
Consequence
Consequence (C) = Repair/Replacement cost ($) x DF + Lost Revenues + Value of Statistical
Life (VSL) + Value of Statistical Injuries
The columns (with yellow color) including Number, Total Fatalities, and Total Injuries will
be obtained from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) website.
Avg. Fatalities Avg. Injuries

Number(N) Total Fatalities VSL Total Injuries VS Injuries
per Event per Event
EF1
EF2
EF3
EF4
EF5
Table 6. Calculation for Tornado VSL & VSI
Table 7. Tornadoes Damage Factors

5
15 May 2023
Index Range
1. Foundation Ties 0-2
2. Roof Ties 0-2
3. Frame Connector Reinforcements 0-2
4. Reinforced Windows & Doors 0-3
5. Minimized Large Openings 0-3
6. Underground Construction 0-8
(Fully = 8; Partially = 5; Very Little = 0)
CM Effectiveness Index →
Table 8. Tornado Countermeasure Effectiveness Index
Vulnerability
Table 9. The Vulnerability of Tornadoes
Threat Likelihood
Period Return Period Longest Length Widest Path Area of Tornado Threat Likelihood
Number (N)
(years) (N/R) (mi) (ft) Footprint (AAA) (sq. mi) (T)
EF1
EF2
EF3
EF4
EF5
Table 10. Threat Likelihood Calculation
T = (N/R) x (AAA)/(Ac)
Where:
N = No. tornados in the class
6
15 May 2023
R = Years of record
AAA = Average Affected Area
Ac = Area of the County
Consequences Vulnerability Threat Likelihood

Risk
(C) (V) (T)
EF1
EF2
EF3
EF4
EF5
Total Tornadoes Risk
R= C*V*T
3. Flooding
Firstly, the cost of the property, and the revenue lost during the repair will be defined.
Consequences
Consequence (C) = Repair/Replacement cost ($) x DF + Lost Revenues
Figure 3. Flood Zone from the FEMA Flood Maps
7
15 May 2023
Table 12. Flooding Depth Estimation
Damage Factor Considerations

Is the building / asset constructed using flood-resistant Yes, NO or Not Apply
materials (concrete, ceramic, pressure-treated timber)?
Are electrical system components (circuit breakers, meters, Yes, NO or Not Apply
outlets) raised off the floor at least above anticipated flood
depth?
Are all gas storage tanks and cylinders anchored? Yes, NO or Not Apply
Are all HVAC equipment located on an upper floor as Yes, NO or Not Apply
opposed to at the basement level?
Does the building / asset have alternative power sources Yes, NO or Not Apply
available if it loses power?
Are spare parts or critical equipment inventory available for Yes, NO or Not Apply
use in the event of an attack / hazard?
Table 13. Damage Factor Considerations and Determination
8
15 May 2023
CM Effectiveness V
Is the facility elevated above the flood zone? If yes, V =0
Is the facility located below the flood zone? If yes, V = 1
Do external flood barriers (dams) exist? If yes, V = 0.5
1 Is the building/asset constructed using flood-resistant Yes = 3, No = 0
2 Are all finished floor located above basement level? Yes = 2, No = 0
3 Are sewer back-flow valves installed on drainage pipes? Yes = 2, No = 0
4 Does facility have sump pumps with emergency power? Yes = 2, No = 0
5 Is the building/asset sealed so that water cannot enter Yes = 2, No = 0
(“dry flood-proof”)?
Total V
Table 14. Countermeasures Effectiveness
Vulnerability
Table 15. Vulnerability of Flood
Threat Likelihood
The threat likelihood will be calculated by the data from National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) website.
Figure 4. Spring Flood Outlook

R = C*V*T
9
15 May 2023
Threats Characterization for Each Site
1. Livingston, MT
Livingston is a place located near Yellowstone National Park; Also, it is situated in an area
that experiences seismic activity due to its proximity to the Rocky Mountains. Therefore,
earthquakes are considered one of the potential threats for the city of Livingston.
Additionally, The Yellowstone River goes through the middle of Livingston City, which
might engender a higher probability level of floods. Thus, taking into account of the flood
as one of the possible threats. However, although tornadoes are not the main contributor
to the natural disasters, it is still plausible that tornadoes are one of the possible pitfalls
based on the historical data. As a result of the valuable products in the center’s
warehouse, the threat of terrorist attack is potentially existed. Last but not least, for the
new center, losing employees is considered a dependency threat.
Direct Threat Assessment
⚫ A group of gunmen are trying to set up a bomb in the control room to shut down the
telecommunication system, their goal is to avoid killing people and successfully trigger
the bomb in the control room. This facility is replenished with a large number of valuable
company products in the warehouse on the last day of June and December each year;
Attackers want to steal valuable items from this facility by cutting off the communications
system. However, any of the reasons that causes the bomb to not be triggered is
10
15 May 2023
considered a failure for the attacker.
Consequence
The repair cost of the telecommunication system will be estimated at $1 million, and the loss
of the revenues is $0.5 million.

Countermeasure Range value
1 Perimeter 8-ft Chain Link Fencing with Yes = 2, No = 0 3
3-Wire Outriggers
2 Controlled Gates Yes = 3, No = 0 3
3 Monitoring System Yes = 2, No = 0 2
4 Armed patrol personnel Yes = 3, No = 0 2
Effectiveness Index (0-10) 10
Table 15. Countermeasure Effectiveness
Countermeasure Effectiveness Index Damage Factors (DFs)
3 1
6 0.7
8 0.5
10 0.3
Table 16. Damage Factors of Direct Threat

C = 1,000,000*0.3 + 500,000 = $800,000.
Vulnerability
CM#1 CM#2 CM#3 CM#4 Protected

Penetrate fence Enter the building Find the control room Set up and trigger the Asset
bomb
Figure 5. Vulnerability System

11
15 May 2023
The vulnerability of the system is 0.95*0.5*0.3*0.2 = 2.85%.
Threat likelihood
2/365 = 0.005
R=C*V*T
R = 800,000*0.0285*0.005 = $114
Indirect Threats Assessment
⚫ Earthquake

1 Year constructed After 1988=5, Before =0 5
2 Reinforced concrete shear walls Yes=2, No=0 2
3 Shock absorption foundation Yes=2, No=0 2
isolators
4 Frame cross-bracing Use of Yes=2, No=0 0
ductile iron pipe
5 Flexible pipe joints Yes=2, No=0 2
6 Equipment tie-downs Yes=2, No=0 2
7 Secured building facades Yes=3, No=0 3
8 Shock resistant window glass Yes=4, No=0 4
9 Secured Window Frames Yes=2, No=0 2
Effectiveness Index 22
•The center is worth $13 million.
• IBC Design for Seismic Zone 2B
• Moderate Richter: 5.5-5.9 (0.1g → 0.13g)
• Damage Factor: DF = 0.5
12
15 May 2023
• Vulnerability(V): 0.3
• Threat Likelihood (T)
For 1% chance in 50-years
Livingston, MT is in 0.15g → 0.2g (yellow) range.
From Safer-Simpson Scale → Zone 2B
0.01/50=0.0002
Lost
Zone Cost(M) DF Consequences(M) V T Risk
Revenue(M)
2B $13 0.5 1 7.5 0.3 0.0002 $450

⚫ Tornadoes
(a) the call center is worth $13 million, (b) revenue lost during repair is $1M, (c) VSL =
$12.5M/person, and (d) VS Injuries = 30% VSL
+ Value of Statistical Life (VSL)
+ Value of Statistical Injuries
Avg. Fatalities Avg. Injuries

Number(N) Total Fatalities VSL Total Injuries VS Injuries
per Event per Event
EF1 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0
EF2 1 0 0 $0 1 1 $3.75M
EF3 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0
EF4 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0
EF5 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0
13
15 May 2023
Countermeasures Effectiveness
Index Range
7. Foundation Ties 0
8. Roof Ties 2
9. Frame Connector Reinforcements 2
10. Reinforced Windows & Doors 3
11. Minimized Large Openings 3
12. Underground Construction 5
CM Effectiveness Index → 15
Threat Likelihood
Threat Likelihood (T) = (N/R) x (AAA)/(Ac)
Period Return Period Longest Length Widest Path Area of Tornado Threat Likelihood
Number (N)
(years) (N/R) (mi) (ft) Footprint (AAA) (sq. mi) (T)
EF1 73 0 0 0 0 0 0
EF2 73 1 0.014 2.09 150 0.06 0.000822
EF3 73 0 0 0 0 0 0
EF4 73 0 0 0 0 0 0
EF5 73 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table 20. Threat Likelihood Calculation

Consequences Vulnerability Threat Likelihood
Risk
(C) (V) (T)
EF1 $1M 0.2 0 $0.00
EF2 $9.95M 0.2 0.000822 $1,635.78
EF3 $7.5M 0.3 0 $0.00
EF4 $8.8M 0.4 0 $0.00
EF5 $10.1M 0.4 0 $0.00
⚫ Flooding
The call center is worth $13 million.
The loss of this center will result in lost revenues of $1 million until repaired.
14
15 May 2023
Consequences

Is the building / asset constructed using flood-resistant Yes
Are electrical system components (circuit breakers, meters, Yes
depth?
Are all gas storage tanks and cylinders anchored? Not apply
Are all HVAC equipment located on an upper floor as Yes
Does the building / asset have alternative power sources Yes
Are spare parts or critical equipment inventory available for Yes

15
15 May 2023
Vulnerability
CM Effectiveness V
Is the facility elevated above the flood zone? If yes, V =0 0
Is the facility located below the flood zone? If No, V = 1
Do external flood barriers (dams) exist? If yes, V = 0.5 0
1 Is the building/asset constructed using flood-resistant Yes = 3, No = 0 3
2 Are all finished floor located above basement level? Yes = 2, No = 0 0
3 Are sewer back-flow valves installed on drainage pipes? Yes = 2, No = 0 2
4 Does facility have sump pumps with emergency power? Yes = 2, No = 0 2
5 Is the building/asset sealed so that water cannot enter Yes = 2, No = 0 0
Total V 7
1. Locate the vault site on the FEMA Map: Zone AE
2. Determine Expected 100-year flood depth: 18 inches
3. Determine the Damage Factor (DF): 0.2
4. Calculate Consequences: 0.2 * 13,000,000 + 1,000,000 = $3,600,000
5. Vulnerability: 0.2
6. Frequency of 100-year flood: 4%
7. Calculate Risk: R = C*V*F= 3,600,000*0.2*0.04 = $28,800/year
Dependency Threats Assessment
⚫ Loss of employees
To recruit a new employee, it costs $3,000 to promote the recruitment process, the loss of the
revenue due to losing 1 employee is 10,000. We assume that the new call center’s retention
16
15 May 2023
rate will be 40%.

1 Salary arrears No
2 Unfriendly working environment Yes
3 Staff lunch is not provided Yes
4 Unclear job promotion system No
5 Pay lower than the market average No
6 Ignore conflict between colleagues Yes
Damage Factors
Most are 1
met or
don’t apply
Many are 0.7
met
Only a few 0.5
are met
Most are 0.3
not met
Table 24. Damage Factor Considerations
C = 3,000*0.5+10,000 = $11,500.
Vulnerability
According to the data analysis results in 2022, the average retention rate of call center in the
United States and the UK is 42% (DailyPay, 2023). Moreover, in general, the 30-45 percent
average yearly turnover rate for call centers has remained consistent over the previous few
years (Call Center Attrition, 2022).
The equation of retention rates
17
15 May 2023
EL
R= × 100
(OE + EE)/2
Where:
R = retention rates
EL = Employees who left
OE = Original # of employees
EE = # Employees at the end of year
Retention Rate Vulnerability

0~10% 0.3
11%~35% 0.5
36%~60% 0.7
>61% 1
Table 25. Vulnerability
V=0.7
Threat Likelihood
T = 40%.
Risk
R = C*V*T = 11500*0.7*0.4 = $3,220.
Brunswick, GA
To define the reasonable threats in Brunswick, Georgia, the historical hazards data was
analyzed. First, an area approximately 140 miles north of Brunswick city, North Charleston in
South Carolina, has frequent earthquakes. The reason of the frequent earthquakes is the
result of stresses transmitted inward from the boundaries of the North American plate.
18
15 May 2023
Therefore, Earthquakes are considered as a potentially destructive threat for Brunswick, GA.
Additionally, tornado is also one of the most reasonable threats in Brunswick. Due to the
location of Brunswick city, once the tornadoes appear, it might bring a large amount of
rainwater engendering the possibility of water damage. Moreover, because the East River and
the South Brunswick River both flow into the city of Brunswick, flooding is also regarded as
one of the indirect threats.
Furthermore, as a result of the valuable products in the center’s warehouse, the threat of
terrorist attack is potentially existed. Last but not least, for the new center, losing employees
is considered a reasonable threat.
Direct Threats Assessment
Consequence
19
15 May 2023

3-Wire Outriggers
3 1
6 0.7
8 0.5
10 0.3
C = 1,000,000*0.3 + 500,000 = $800,000.
Vulnerability

bomb
20
15 May 2023
Threat likelihood
2/365 = 0.005
Risk
R = C*V*T = 800,000*0.0285*0.005 = $114
⚫ Earthquake

isolators
ductile iron pipe
The calculation of earthquakes risk in Brunswick.
• IBC Design for Seismic Zone 1
21
15 May 2023
Brunswick, GA is in 0.05g → 0.1g (light blue) range.
From Safer-Simpson Scale → Zone 1
0.01/50=0.0002
Lost
Revenue(M)
1 $13 0.5 1 7.5 0.1 0.0002 $150

⚫ Flooding
Consequences
22
15 May 2023

depth?
Vulnerability
CM Effectiveness V
Total V 7
23
15 May 2023
⚫ Tornadoes
Avg. Avg.
Total
Number(N) Total Fatalities Fatalities VSL Injuries VS Injuries
Injuries
per Event per Event
EF1 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0
EF2 2 0 0 $0 0 0 0
EF3 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0
EF4 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0
EF5 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0
Index Range
14. Roof Ties 2
24
15 May 2023
Threat
Consequences Vulnerability
Likelihood Risk
(C) (V)
(T)
EF1 $1M 0.2 0 $0.00
EF2 $6.2M 0.2 0.046712 $57,922.88
EF3 $7.5M 0.3 0 $0.00
EF4 $8.8M 0.4 0 $0.00
EF5 $10.1M 0.4 0 $0.00
rate will be 40%.

1 Salary arrears No
Damage Factors
Most are 1
met or
don’t apply
Many are 0.7
met
Only a few 0.5
are met
Most are 0.3
not met
25
15 May 2023
C = 3,000*0.5+10,000 = $11,500.
Vulnerability
EL
R= × 100
(OE + EE)/2
Where:
R = retention rates

0~10% 0.3
11%~35% 0.5
36%~60% 0.7
>61% 1
V=0.7
Threat Likelihood
26
15 May 2023
T = 40%.
Risk
R = C*V*T = 11500*0.7*0.4 = $3,220.
Fort Smith, AK
To define the reasonable threats in Fort Smith, Arkansas, the historical hazards data was
analyzed. Although there is barely has historical earthquake data in Fort Smith city, the
surrounding east and west of Fort Smith city are the centers of Arkansas and Oklahoma, all of
which have large amounts of historical earthquake data. Therefore, this report considers that
Fort Smith city is an area that needs to be considered for earthquake threats. In addition, one
of the major branches of the Mississippi River in the United States, the Arkansas River, runs
through the city of Fort Smith. Therefore, the threat of flooding must be taken into account.
Moreover, according to the data of previous years, tornadoes have caused serious impacts in
Fort Smith; In order to take into account the lost which might be caused by tornadoes, this
assessment incorporates the tornadoes as one of the reasonable threats.
Furthermore, as a result of the valuable products in the center’s warehouse, the threat of
terrorist attack is potentially existed. Last but not least, for the new center, losing employees
is considered a threat which has a significant impact on the center.
Direct Threats Assessment
27
15 May 2023
Consequence

3-Wire Outriggers
3 1
6 0.7
8 0.5
10 0.3
C = 1,000,000*0.3 + 500,000 = $800,000.
28
15 May 2023
Vulnerability

bomb
Threat likelihood
2/365 = 0.005
Risk
R = C*V*T = 800,000*0.0285*0.005 = $114
⚫ Earthquake

isolators
ductile iron pipe
29
15 May 2023

• IBC Design for Seismic Zone 1
Fort Smith, AK is in the 0.05g → 0.1g (light blue) range.
From Safer-Simpson Scale → Zone 1
T= 0.01/50 = 0.0002
Lost
Revenue(M)
1 $13 0.5 1 7.5 0.1 0.0002 $150

⚫ Flooding
30
15 May 2023

depth?
Vulnerability
31
15 May 2023
CM Effectiveness V
Total V 7
⚫ Tornadoes
32
15 May 2023
Avg. Avg.
Total
Number(N) Total Fatalities Fatalities VSL Injuries VS Injuries
Injuries
per Event per Event
EF1 7 0 0 $0 0 0 0
EF2 5 2 0.4 $0 40 8 0
EF3 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0
EF4 1 14 14 $0 270 270 0
EF5 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0
Index Range
20. Roof Ties 2
Threat Likelihood (T) = (N/R) x (AAA)/(Ac)

Threat
Consequences Vulnerability
Likelihood Risk
(C) (V)
(T)
EF1 $1M 0.2 0 $0.00
EF2 $41.2M 0.2 0.116781 $962,275.44
EF3 $7.5M 0.3 0 $0.00
EF4 $1.1963B 0.4 0.001562 $747,448.24
EF5 $10.1M 0.4 0 $0.00
Total Tornadoes Risk $1,709,723.68
33
15 May 2023
rate will be 40%.

1 Salary arrears No
Damage Factors
Most are 1
met or
don’t apply
Many are 0.7
met
Only a few 0.5
are met
Most are 0.3
not met
C = 3,000*0.5+10,000 = $11,500.
Vulnerability
34
15 May 2023
EL
R= × 100
(OE + EE)/2
Where:
R = retention rates

0~10% 0.3
11%~35% 0.5
36%~60% 0.7
>61% 1
V=0.7
Threat Likelihood
T = 40%.
Risk
R = C*V*T = 11500*0.7*0.4 = $3,220.
35
15 May 2023
Risk Management
The new countermeasure’s Rate of Return (ROR) = 20%
Site 1 – Livingston, MT
Table 46. Risk Assessment
1. Terrorist Attack – New Countermeasure: Infrared thermal image system. $6,000
The expected life of the Infrared thermal image system is 10 years.
The Present Value (PV) for the cost of the Infrared thermal image system = $1431.14.
Figure 11. Mitigated Vulnerability System
36
15 May 2023
V= 0.6*0.95*0.5*0.3*0.2 = 0.0171
2. Earthquakes – New Countermeasure: Do not apply shock resistant window glass.
The Present Value (PV)= 0
V = 0.1
3. Tornadoes – New Countermeasure: Construction with Foundation Ties $ 20,000
The expected life of the Construction with Foundation Ties is 50 years.
The Present Value (PV) for the cost = $4,000.44
V = 0.1
4. Flooding – New Countermeasure:
Adjusting all floors located above basement level. $50,000
Let the building/asset is sealed so that water cannot enter. $50,000
The expected life of the Construction is 50 years.
The Present Value (PV) for the cost = $20,002.2
V = 0.01
5. Loss of employees – New Countermeasure:
Construct a new sport center for staff. $150,000
The expected life of the sport center is 50 years.
The Present Value (PV) for the cost = $30003.3
V=0.5
37
15 May 2023
Table 47. Level Assessment
Site 2 – Brunswick, GA

38
15 May 2023
The Present Value (PV) for the cost of the Infrared thermal image system = $1431.14
V= 0.6*0.95*0.5*0.3*0.2 = 0.0171
2. Earthquakes – New Countermeasure: Do nothing, the Zone 1 Vulnerability is low enough,
if we invest more on the construction, it will not bring a significant impact.
V=0.01
V = 0.1

39
15 May 2023
5. Loss of employees: New Countermeasure:
V=0.5
40
15 May 2023
Site 3 – Fort Smith, AK
The Present Value (PV) for the cost of the Infrared thermal image system = $1431.14
V= 0.6*0.95*0.5*0.3*0.2 = 0.0171
2. Earthquakes – New Countermeasure: Do nothing, the Zone 1 Vulnerability is low enough,

41
15 May 2023
if we invest more on the construction, it will not bring a significant impact.
V=0.01
V = 0.1
5. Loss of employees: New Countermeasure:
V=0.5
42
15 May 2023
Conclusion
Based on the Risk assessment results of the threats in each possible construction site, the
three sites proposed for consideration are Livingston, MT, Brunswick, GA, and Fort Smith, AK
in that order. First of all, Livingston is a perfect construction site for the call center, especially
since there are already existing a lot of industrial buildings, it might be helpful and with
enhanced efficiency while conducting the construction with experienced contractors. In
43
15 May 2023
addition, Brunswick is also recommended to become the site for the new center. Although the
risk is still a little different from Livingston, MT, due to the characteristic of the location near
the coast, it is a perfect option for the company if they have any demand for importing or
exporting products from the new center. Lastly, Fort Smith, AK has the highest risk compared
to the others. According to historical data, natural threats such as tornadoes have been
threatening the city and bringing significant impact. It is the worst option within three
construction sites.
Reference
DailyPay. (2023, February 13). Call Center Turnover Statistics In 2022. DailyPay.
https://www.dailypay.com/resource-center/blog/turnover-statistics-contact-centers/
Call Center Attrition: Mitigate Employee Turnover. (2022, February 20). TechSee.
https://techsee.me/blog/call-center-attrition-rate-problem-symptoms-cure/
Binning, D. (2023, April 10). Probability-based Risk Assessment.
Binning, D. (2023, April 17). Probability-based Risk Assessment (Random Threats).
Binning, D. (2023, May 1). Risk Management.
Human Face Measurement Monitoring Thermal Camera Body Temperature. (n.d.). EBay. Retrieved
May 15, 2023, from https://www.ebay.com/itm/193766641242
44

Yu Cheng Risk Assessment Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yu Cheng Risk Assessment Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Report of Construction Sites Evaluation CEIE605-Risk and Uncertainty System Analysis

Risk Assessment Report

on investment, it may cease to be economically viable.

telecommunications equipment and utilities are necessarily vital. Therefore, utilities,

8.5% return on investment is necessary.

The Analysis Process of Natural Threats

Figure 1. UBC Seismic Zone Map of US

Table1. Estimated Damage to Seismic Events

Table 2. Seismic Damage Factors

be defined based on the types of the building.

➔ Consequence (C) = Repair/Replacement cost ($) x DF + Lost Revenues

Countermeasure Effectiveness Index

1 Year constructed After 1988=5, Before =0

2 Reinforced concrete shear walls Yes=2, No=0

3 Shock absorption foundation Yes=2, No=0

4 Frame cross-bracing Use of ductile Yes=2, No=0

5 Flexible pipe joints Yes=2, No=0

6 Equipment tie-downs Yes=2, No=0

7 Secured building facades Yes=3, No=0

8 Shock resistant window glass Yes=4, No=0

9 Secured Window Frames Yes=2, No=0

Table 4. Seismic Vulnerabilities

Figure 2. Seismic Threat Likelihood

Vulnerability and Threat Likelihood

Table 5. The Overall Risk

of Statistical Life (VSL), and Value of Statistical Injuries (VSI).

Consequence (C) = Repair/Replacement cost ($) x DF + Lost Revenues + Value of Statistical

Life (VSL) + Value of Statistical Injuries

be obtained from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) website.

Avg. Fatalities Avg. Injuries

Table 7. Tornadoes Damage Factors

Table 9. The Vulnerability of Tornadoes

Table 10. Threat Likelihood Calculation

N = No. tornados in the class

AAA = Average Affected Area

Ac = Area of the County

Consequences Vulnerability Threat Likelihood

Consequence (C) = Repair/Replacement cost ($) x DF + Lost Revenues

Figure 3. Flood Zone from the FEMA Flood Maps

Table 12. Flooding Depth Estimation

Damage Factor Considerations

Table 13. Damage Factor Considerations and Determination

Table 15. Vulnerability of Flood

Administration (NOAA) website.

Figure 4. Spring Flood Outlook

Threats Characterization for Each Site

new center, losing employees is considered a dependency threat.

Direct Threat Assessment

considered a failure for the attacker.

of the revenues is $0.5 million.

Consequence (C) = Repair/Replacement cost ($) x DF + Lost Revenues

Countermeasure Effectiveness Index

Table 16. Damage Factors of Direct Threat

CM#1 CM#2 CM#3 CM#4 Protected

Figure 5. Vulnerability System

The vulnerability of the system is 0.95*0.5*0.3*0.2 = 2.85%.

Indirect Threats Assessment

Countermeasure Effectiveness Index

•The center is worth $13 million.

• IBC Design for Seismic Zone 2B

• Moderate Richter: 5.5-5.9 (0.1g → 0.13g)

• Damage Factor: DF = 0.5

The vulnerability of the system is 0.950.50.3*0.2 = 2.85%.

7. Calculate Risk: R = CVF= 3,600,0000.20.04 = $28,800/year

R = CVT = 115000.70.4 = $3,220.

The vulnerability of the system is 0.950.50.3*0.2 = 2.85%.

R = CVT = 800,0000.02850.005 = $114

7. Calculate Risk: R = CVF= 3,600,0000.20.05 = $36,000/year