Mobile Ad Hoc Network-Enabled Collaboration FrameworkSupporting Civil Engineering Emergency
Response Operations
Feniosky Peña-Mora1; Albert Y. Chen2; Zeeshan Aziz3; Lucio Soibelman4; Liang Y. Liu5; Khaled El-Rayes6;Carlos A. Arboleda7; Timothy S. Lantz Jr.8; Albert P. Plans9; Sanyogita Lakhera10; and Shobhit Mathur11
Abstract: This paper presents an information-technology-based collaboration framework that facilitates disaster response operations. Thecollaboration framework incorporates a web collaboration service, radio frequency identification �RFID� tags, a building blackbox system�BBS�, a geo-database, and a geographic information system �GIS�. Through the integration of these technologies, the framework providesa collaboration medium for first responders, including civil engineers, to cohesively respond to disasters. Access to critical buildinginformation, such as construction documents, through the BBS supports assessments of building integrity during disaster response.Building assessment information is stored on RFID tags, which are accessible to first responders through digital devices via a wireless adhoc network. With on-site assessment information shown on a digital map, decision makers locate, collect, and distribute critical resourcesthrough the GIS to first responders. In addition, the decision makers at distributed locations evaluate the incident through discussionsessions, hosted by the web collaboration environment, for integrated decision making. Test-bed simulations for the framework have beencarried out with encouraging results at the training ground of the Illinois Fire Service Institute.
DOI: 10.1061/�ASCE�CP.1943-5487.0000033
CE Database subject headings: Disasters; Emergency services; Damage; Assessment; Information systems; Information management;Geographic information systems; Computer networks.
Author keywords: Disasters; Emergency services; Damage assessment; Information systems; Information management; Ad hocnetworks; Geographic information systems.
Introduction
A lack of communication, coordination, and standardization be-tween different organizations and first responders continue to beobstacles to disaster response operations �Meissner et al. 2002;National Commission 2004; SBC 2006�. Obstacles faced duringrecent disaster response operations, such as the 9/11 terrorist at-tacks and Hurricane Katrina, have been discovered and studied
1Dean of The Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Sci-ence and Morris A. and Alma Schapiro Professor of Civil Engineeringand Engineering Mechanics, Earth and Environmental Engineering, andComputer Science, Columbia Univ., 510 S. W. Mudd Bldg., 500 W. 120thSt., New York, NY 10027. E-mail: [email protected]
2Ph.D. Student, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 205 N. Mathews Ave., Urbana,IL 61801 �corresponding author�. E-mail: [email protected]
3Lecturer, School of Built Environment, Univ. of Salford, The Cres-cent, Salford, Greater Manchester, UK M5 4WT. E-mail: [email protected]
4Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,Carnegie Mellon Univ., 118 N. Porter Hall, Pittsburgh, PA 15213. E-mail:[email protected]
5Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 205 N. Mathews Ave., Urbana,IL 61801. E-mail: [email protected]
6Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 205 N. Mathews Ave., Urbana,
�McGuigan 2002; McKinsey 2002; Foltz 2003; National Com-mission 2004; Meeds 2006; SBC 2006�. To address the obstacles,some researchers have focused on overcoming communicationissues with computer networks �Noda and Hatayama 2004�, tele-communication �Harbi 2002; Oh 2003�, and mobile communica-tion �Louhisuo et al. 2004; Choi et al. 2006�, while others haveproposed the utilization of infrastructure health monitoring sys-
7Visiting Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engi-neering, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 205 N. Mathews Ave.,Urbana, IL 61801. E-mail: [email protected]
8Student, Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801. E-mail: [email protected]
9Graduate Student, Dept. of Project Engineering, Univ. Politècnica deCatalunya–ETSEIAT, Barcelona 8034, Spain. E-mail: [email protected]
10Advanced Technology Associate, Citi Financial, Wall St., New York,NY 10005. E-mail:[email protected]
11Master Student, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 205 N. Mathews Ave., Urbana,IL 61801. E-mail: [email protected]
tems �Aktan et al. 2002� and geographic information systems�GIS� for emergency response operations �Nakatani et al. 2002;Lu 2004; Okada et al. 2004; Tobita and Fukuwa 2004; Kwan andLee 2005; Kristensen et al. 2006; Pradhan et al. 2007�. Access toa collaborative medium that allows efficient and effective disasterresponse is imperative. However, the integration of various tech-nologies through a single framework to improve collaborationin current disaster response operations is not yet adequatelyaddressed.
This paper presents research as part of the “collaborationframework to prepare against, respond to, and recover from di-sasters �CP2R�” project supported by the National Science Foun-dation �NSF�. Civil engineers, with the professional knowledgeand skills for precise and accurate infrastructure damage assess-ments, are not normally part of, or available to, the first responderteams. Thus, in addition to the usual triad of first responders�i.e., firefighters, police, and medical personnel�, civil engineersare envisioned to play a key role in the first response operations�Prieto 2002; Aldunate et al. 2006�. The goal of the CP2R projectis to develop an integrated framework through a combination ofvarious collaboration patterns supported by a robust and reliableinformation technology �IT� platform for decision makers andfirst responders, including civil engineers, to collectively mitigateimpact cause by disasters.
Motivation
Urban areas have been continuously vulnerable to extreme events�XEs� throughout the past few decades �Mileti 1999; Tierneyet al. 2001; Columbia/Wharton Roundtable �CWR� 2004;Godschalk 2003�. There are challenges that made disaster re-sponse operations extremely difficult. The 9/11 terrorist attacks�National Commission 2004� and Hurricane Katrina �Meeds2006; SBC 2006� revealed these critical obstacles. The followingsections present obstacles in communication and coordination,building assessment, and logistics management.
Communication and Coordination
Communication and coordination capabilities are critical but vul-nerable during XEs �Kevany 2005�. A lack of interorganizationaland intraorganizational coordination leads to the delay and dupli-cation of disaster response efforts. For example, during and afterHurricane Katrina, there were communication and coordinationdeficiencies within and between the three levels of government:local, state, and federal �SBC 2006�. The confusion over resourcedeliveries caused by remote officials diverting supply trucks with-out communicating with the incident command led to poor coor-dination �SBC 2006�. As a result, resource management was notunder control by the authorities. Furthermore, due to ineffectivecommunication between organizations, Federal Emergency Man-agement Agency �FEMA� officials claimed they were unaware ofthousands of people trapped in the New Orleans ConventionalCenter, while the media was showing the situation repeatedly tothe national audience �Meeds 2006�. Most importantly, inoper-ability issues had great influence on communication and situ-ational awareness that lead to inefficient coordination of firstresponse operations �Meeds 2006�.
Communication and coordination problems are also affectedby a lack of communication infrastructure. During XEs, first re-sponders communicate and coordinate among themselves through
radio systems, as infrastructure-based communication is usually
JOURNAL OF CO
J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 20
collapsed, unreliable, or overloaded �Aldunate et al. 2006; SBC2006�. However, radio systems are not sufficient for informationdissemination. To have an effective disaster response, first re-sponders depend on real-time critical information to make precisejudgments. During Hurricane Katrina, one of the methods emer-gency management agencies �EMAs� used to transmit textual in-formation was through daisy chains. This includes writing notesand running documents from officer to officer to send the infor-mation back to the incident command post �Jenkins 2006�. Yet, indynamic and chaotic situations such as XEs, the efficiency ofinformation dissemination influences critical decision making forexecution of live-saving operations. As a result, there is a need tointegrate information across different organizations and to have acommunication medium capable to transmit critical informationto facilitate decision making and augment situational awareness�NRC 1999�.
Building Assessment
The damage and collapse of critical infrastructures, such as build-ings and bridges, has become one of the most vital and challeng-ing issues in urban search and rescue �US&R� operations duringand after XEs �McGuigan 2002�. Civil engineers depend onbuilding information to make accurate structural integrity assess-ments to support US&R. However, access to building informationis often limited during disaster response �Tsai et al. 2008�. As aresult, the efficiency of US&R operations is influenced by thetime spent on retrieving critical information. The probability ofrescuing victims under a collapsed building decreases by 50% ormore after the first 24 h �Mizuno 2001�. The longer first respond-ers spend on accessing critical information for decision making,the higher the probability of having more casualties caused by adelay of response efforts. Therefore, efficient access to criticalbuilding information is vital to disaster response operations.
Building assessment results need to be visible to both decisionmakers in the incident command post and the first responders inthe disaster zone. The decision makers need to have thoroughinformation of the disaster in order to make critical decisions,while the first responders need to be aware of the condition of thesurrounding buildings to perform successful US&R safely. How-ever, the current mechanism of information transmission needsimprovement. Building assessment documents are sent back tothe incident command post via paper format, which can easilytake up to 24 h. In addition, the results of building assessmentsare currently marked on the buildings with the international or-ange spray paint for on-site situational awareness. However, cur-rent building markings have several shortcomings. There areoverlaps, differences, and priorities in the building marking sys-tems used by different levels of government. This leads to confu-sion and result in remarking and reworking of the buildingassessments whenever higher level governments join the responseoperations. Furthermore, smoke and debris within the disasterarea delay US&R operations as the building markings may not bevisible to first responders.
Logistics Management
Logistics are required for US&R and the functional restore ofinfrastructures. However, insufficient communication and datasharing among different organizations hampers the awareness andcoordination of available resources. For example, during Hurri-cane Katrina, the ability of the authorities to deploy the right
people and equipment at the right place and time was influenced
by shortcomings in the interoperability, functional damage, andinefficient mechanisms of communication �Meeds 2006�.
During XEs, limited resources must be allocated to the firstresponders. However, logistics management is a major obstacle toresponse operations in recent XEs �Halton 2006�. There werechallenges in collection, prioritization, and delivery of resourcesduring Hurricane Katrina �Kevany 2005�. School buses wereavailable for evacuation in New Orleans before the landfall, whileno suitable bus drivers were standing by for deployment �SBC2006�. After the landfall, buses were soaked in the flood andthousands of people were trapped. During the 9/11 terrorist at-tacks, the authorities were not fully aware of available resources,which led to ineffective deployment �National Commission2004�. EMAs discovered that resource management is extremelyimportant to disaster response: “Throughout the government,nothing has been harder for officials than to set priorities, makinghard choices in allocating limited resources” �National Commis-sion 2004�.
Objective
In the previous sections, the challenges discovered in recent XEsare highlighted. This paper presents an IT-based collaborationframework that addresses these challenges. The framework inte-grates research areas in real-time communication and coordina-tion, digitized building assessment and its document retrieval, andautomated resource management.
Problem Statement
To achieve the objective, system requirements are discovered,understood, and implemented for the IT-based collaborationframework. The requirements have been discovered based onconversations and regular meetings held with domain experts in-cluding decision makers �Champaign County EMA�, fire fighters�Illinois Fire Service Institute�, structural specialists �U.S. ArmyConstruction Engineering Research Laboratory�, and FEMAUS&R first responders �Massachusetts Task Force I�. These do-main experts have been deployed to disasters such as the 9/11
Fig. 1. �a� Use-case for building assessment; �
terrorist attacks, Hurricane Katrina, and Hurricane Rita. Within
these meetings, system requirements in the form of use-cases andgraphical user interfaces �GUI� are established based on the ex-perience of these domain experts. The following requirements areidentified and summarized for the collaboration framework:1. A unified communication medium to coordinate geographi-
cally distributed response units and decision makers with ac-cess from generic digital devices.
2. On-site access of real-time digital building informationthrough digital devices. Building information is preservedelectronically to be accessible to first responders.
3. On-site building assessment through digital devices. Elec-tronic assessment information is propagated to first respond-ers and decision makers.
4. Instant access of critical resource information. Available re-sources are shown on a map with attributes to facilitate ro-bust resource assignment.
5. Automated resource management decision making, which in-cludes digital requests, real-time shortest path finding, andresource prioritization and scheduling.
Requirements are documented for developers and stakeholdersto work closely throughout the development and testing phases�Kroll and Kruchten 2003�. Artifacts, such as use-cases and se-quence diagrams, are commonly used to document functional re-quirements of IT systems. Through these artifacts, developersrecognize the requirements and stakeholders understand the capa-bilities of the developing software. Use-cases and sequence dia-grams are used during the inception phase of the CP2R systemdevelopment. Use-cases visualize the tasks that users can performthrough the IT system. For example, a use-case for building as-sessment is shown in Fig. 1�a� with available tasks such as “createnew evaluation” and “get critical information.” On the other hand,the sequence diagrams illustrate the procedures that the IT systemexecutes for specific functionalities. A sequence diagram is shownin Fig. 1�b� for information retrieval such as request for buildinginformation.
Collaboration Framework
This section presents a collaboration framework composed of fivesubsystems. Each subsystem has its own assignment to improve
ence diagram for critical information retrieval
b� sequ
current disaster response operations. As a whole, they form a
UNE 2010
10.24:302-312.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
KA
NSA
S ST
AT
E U
NIV
LIB
RA
RIE
S on
07/
19/1
4. C
opyr
ight
ASC
E. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly;
all
righ
ts r
eser
ved.
collaboration framework that supports cohesive collaboration andcoordination, robust on-site building assessment, and effective re-source deployment.
Fig. 2 depicts an overview of the collaboration framework�Chen et al. 2007�. The framework is composed of a central col-laboration medium layer, an on-site building assessment operationlayer, and a resource management layer. The following sectionsdiscuss the system components and their integration into a whole.
Collaboration Medium
inMeeting �Peña-Mora and Dwivedi 2002� is the core componentof the integrated collaboration framework. The distributed clientserver architecture of inMeeting provides critical functionalitiesto augment communication and coordination among the first re-sponders and decision makers. inMeeting enables the first re-sponders, distributed throughout the disaster zone, to coordinateand share critical information through its generic device accessand conferencing, polling, and application sharing capabilities.
Fig. 2. Collab
Fig. 3. inMeeting architecture
JOURNAL OF CO
J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 20
The system architecture and user interface of inMeeting areshown in Fig. 3. The system consists of three components: client,server, and third-party resources �Peña-Mora and Dwivedi 2002�.Limited computational power and hardware specifications arerequired for the client application. Thus, a variety of lightweightdigital devices such as personal digital assistants �PDAs� andcellphones are capable of running the client application. The in-Meeting server provides an efficient web conferencing environ-ment, which serves different client devices through the genericdevice access interface. Various meeting protocols, such as free-style, lecture, chalk passing, chairman, and side conversations,have been implemented. These meeting styles are control strate-gies that are the same as those in actual meetings. The controlstrategies provide meeting participants an environment for effec-tive discussions to facilitate decision making. The third-partysoftware interacts with the inMeeting server through a genericsoftware component interface. The server provides an image bit-map of third-party applications for client access. Third-party ap-
plications, such as AutoCAD �2009� and ArcGIS �2009�, whichusually require heavy computational power and specific hardwareand software support, are accessible to client devices. Addition-ally, the inMeeting server provides a generic interface to effort-lessly add and remove third-party applications as independentmodules.
In summary, the decision makers and first responders can holdweb meetings and access third-party software and critical infor-mation with a variety of devices through inMeeting. The firstresponders can access off-site construction documents when as-sessing building integrity on-site. This greatly reduces the timeoverhead of accessing off-site information. As a result, disasterresponse operations can be expedited through the flexible com-munication and simple software access provided by inMeeting.
On-Site Assessment Operations
Two system components are presented in this section: buildingassessment system �BAS� and building blackbox system �BBS�.The BAS provides on-site first responders an interface to assessdamaged buildings through digital devices. BBS offers the firstresponders electronic access to critical building information. To-gether, the BAS and BBS make on-site building assessment op-erations more efficient and robust.
Building Assessment System
The BAS automates on-site building assessment operations dur-ing XEs. The BAS is based on the Applied Technology Council’s�ATC� procedures for postearthquake building safety assessment.First responders assess the building integrity in a standard ATCbuilding evaluation form and store the results on radio frequencyidentification �RFID� tags through the BAS �Peña-Mora et al.2008�.
The BAS has a five-tier architecture �Fig. 4�, which providesflexibility for system extension and software swapping �Azizet al. 2009�. The BAS is developed in C# with the .NET Frame-
Fig. 4. System architect
work 2.0 and Compact Framework 2.0. The networking protocol
of the BAS utilizes user datagram protocol �UDP� and transmis-sion control protocol �TCP� through standard 802.11 networks inthe ad hoc mode. The BAS communicates with RFID tagsthrough i-CARD III with the application programming interface�API� developed by IDENTEC �2008�. Data persistence and ex-change within the BAS are encoded in extensible markup lan-guage �XML� format.
During disaster response, first responders are equipped withRFID tags and 802.11 networking enabled mobile devices such asPDAs or tablet PCs. Within the disaster zone, the first respondersset up a wireless ad hoc network with these mobile devices. Thead hoc network provides computer network communication with-out any infrastructure-based communication such as cellular net-work and internet. When the first responders arrive at a particularbuilding, they place a RFID tag on the building. A GUI withstandard ATC building assessment forms is provided by the BAS.The building assessment is performed and the result is stored onthe RFID tag. Afterward, a reduced format of the building assess-ment information is distributed throughout the network with acolor-coded marker shown on the map representing the locationof the building. Markers are color coded with green, yellow, orred according to the building conditions: safe, restricted, or dan-gerous, respectively �Fig. 4�. With the building assessment infor-mation visible on digital devices, the situational awareness of thefirst responders is enhanced. Detailed building evaluation infor-mation can be retrieved, through the networking protocol, byclicking on the marker on the digital map. Fig. 4 shows the sys-tem architecture of the BAS and its GUI with color-coded loca-tions of the RFID tags. The square markers �yellow and red� onthe map of the GUI represent two damaged buildings alreadyassessed at the moment.
The BAS solves several existing difficulties of building assess-ment. No overlaps and differences in the building marking sys-tems used by different levels of government will preserve.Whenever a higher level of government joins the disaster re-sponse operations, the BAS is used to view and edit previousassessments. This reduces remarking and reworking. Instead ofusing the orange spray paint on walls or columns, the on-site
d user interface of BAS
ure an
building assessment information is stored electronically through
UNE 2010
10.24:302-312.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
KA
NSA
S ST
AT
E U
NIV
LIB
RA
RIE
S on
07/
19/1
4. C
opyr
ight
ASC
E. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly;
all
righ
ts r
eser
ved.
digital devices. Smoke and debris no longer affect the visibilityof on-site building assessment information. Furthermore, thebuilding assessment information is disseminated to the incidentcommand post electronically via the wireless ad hoc network.Therefore, the time overhead is reduced without having officers topass hardcopy documents back to the command post.
Building Blackbox System
The BBS provides the first responders with building informationduring disasters �Tsai et al. 2007, 2008�. Building blackboxes arepreinstalled in buildings with digital building design documents.Once an XE occurs, an ad hoc network is established between theblackbox and digital devices for the first responders to accessinformation. The integration of existing building sensing and con-trol systems into the BBS is envisioned to provide abundantbuilding information to the first responders for successful US&Roperations. In addition, the BBS is designed to be disaster surviv-able. High temperature resistant and high strength geo-polymermaterials are used for its physical protection to ensure informa-tion availability after the impact of XEs.
The BBS incorporates the mobile ad hoc space for colla-boration �MASC� as the basis of the communication network�Aldunate et al. 2006�. The MASC is a distributed system thatsupports collaboration in first response operations. Collaborationcapabilities of the MASC, such as ad hoc distributed sharedmemory and data replication, provide high availability and trans-parency of information and resource during disaster response.
In Fig. 5, the process of information request for the BBS isshown from a user’s point of view. The first responders requestbuilding information through the GUI and the application sendsthe request to the building blackbox through HTTP protocol. TheBBS queries its database and responds to the request. Finally, theGUI shows the received document to the first responders. Fromthe system’s point of view, BBS serves as a central informationservice containing on-site critical building information. An inter-face is provided to integrate building information components andestablishes a wireless ad hoc network for communication. Dataredundancy mechanisms at backup database servers are estab-
Fig. 5. BBS information requ
lished to ensure the availability of critical building information. A
JOURNAL OF CO
J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 20
proposed concept of the BBS, still under development, is to inte-grate neighboring BBSs, embedded structural sensors, and build-ing control systems. In addition, a plug-in interface for structuralanalysis tools is envisioned to provide the first responders precisestructural health conditions. Real-time structural analysis andbuilding control systems such as building security, electricity, andelevator systems will be accessible through the BBS. As a result,the BBS offers the first responders with various functionalities foron-site building information access and building system control.
Resource Management
In this section, two system components for resource managementare presented. The emergency resource repository portal �E2RP�is a web-based geo-database service that gives access of resourceinformation to on-site and off-site decision makers. The auto-mated resource management system �ARMS� alternatively pro-vides an automated route finding service for resource allocation tosupport disaster response operations.
Emergency Resource Repository Portal
Resources such as construction equipment and professionalpersonnel are urgently needed in disaster response operations. Lo-gistical information serves an important role in decision makingfor resource allocation. The E2RP is a web-based geo-database�Fig. 6� implemented with an open-source GIS Web service,MapServer �2009�, and a database, PostgreSQL/PostGIS �2009�,with geospatial extensions �Chen et al. 2008�.
Through a client-server architecture �Fig. 6�, the E2RP re-quires low hardware specifications for clients; the server performsthe heavy computational analysis. The clients simply view andquery the content on the server through a web browser. The userinterface of the E2RP �Fig. 6� provides predefined dropdown listsand checkboxes for common data queries. Advanced users canquery the database with complex structured query language�SQL�. Different from relational databases, spatial queries areavailable with geo-databases. Decision makers not only acquireresource information more efficiently through the database, but
dapted from Tsai et al. 2008�
est �a
also perform geospatial analysis such as the distance, union, and
intersections of different spatial entities. For example, the deci-sion makers can query for available resources within a specificradius from any location on the map. This narrows down candi-date resources to expedite decision making.
The E2RP provides information such as National IncidentManagement System �NIMS� resource types �NIMS 2007�, spa-tial locations, and quantities of available resources. EMAs useNIMS as standard types, which categorize resource functionalityand capacity. Through the E2RP, first responders search for re-sources that suit their needs based on the NIMS standard types.Future expansions of the E2RP include real-time update and syn-chronization of the database with inventory systems and locationtracking systems for resource update and redeployment. In sum-mary, the E2RP provides the decision makers and first responderswith resource information and access to spatial analysis to expe-dite logistics management for disaster response operations.
Automated Resource Management System
During XEs, the first responders need to immediately reach thedisaster zone with the required equipment for instant responses.However, the efficiency of disaster response operations is ham-pered due to the high probability of vehicle rerouting �Kwan andLee 2005�. The ARMS is a GIS-based system that generates fast-est routes to the disaster sites from multiple resource locations�Chen et al. 2008�. The ARMS utilizes the network analyst exten-sion of ArcGIS �2009� as an engine to generate the fastest routesusing a two-way Dijkstra’s algorithm �ESRI 2009�.
Before any geospatial analysis can be carried out, geospatialdata must be collected and processed. Rather than building a newroad network from scratch, the ARMS updates existing road net-work data with traffic conditions using full blockages �FBs� andpartial blockages �PBs�. While FBs terminate the traffic flow ofroad sections, PBs, not part of the ArcGIS network analyst exten-sion, diminish the traffic flow by a certain amount of value ac-cording to the reported traffic condition. FBs and PBs are the
Fig. 6. System architectu
mechanisms for the ARMS to control the edge values of the road
network. As a result, FBs and PBs enable the ARMS to present arealistic road network for fastest route analysis.
The execution of the network analyst requires complex andtime-consuming preparation steps in the network analyst toolboxof ArcGIS. To address this challenge, the ARMS automatesthe preparation and analysis procedure of the network analystthrough an add-on application. The application is implementedwith ArcObjects �ESRI 2009� in Visual Basic for Applications�VBA�. Users select the target location from the GUI to activatethe network analyst and the fastest routes are automatically pro-duced. Fig. 7 shows the GUI of the ARMS running an exampleroute simulation provided with the road network data from theChampaign County GIS Consortium, with the Illinois Fire Ser-vice Institute �IFSI� as the destination for resource deployment.
The ARMS improves the current process of resource deploy-ment in disaster response operations. A route-finding analysis isautomated by the ARMS for resource distribution. On-site firstresponders, including civil engineers, can request equipment fromthe ARMS through PDAs. The ARMS has a client-server archi-tecture �Fig. 7�. Requests are sent to the ARMS through XMLformat and the ARMS performs the path-finding analysis. Theresource request format follows the NIMS standardized resourcetypes �NIMS 2007�. Fig. 7 shows a TCP/IP network connectionthat streams a resource request from a client application to theARMS service. Potential expansions of the ARMS include deci-sion making for resource assignment, resource redeployment, andautomated traffic condition tracking.
Integration of inMeeting, BAS, BBS, ARMS,and E2RP
In the previous sections, the system components of the CP2Rcollaboration framework are presented. The integration of thesesubsystems into one collaboration framework provides users witha unified interface for communication and coordination, buildingassessment, and logistics management. A single ad hoc network
user interface of E2RP
re and
established in the disaster zone integrates the communication me-
UNE 2010
10.24:302-312.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
KA
NSA
S ST
AT
E U
NIV
LIB
RA
RIE
S on
07/
19/1
4. C
opyr
ight
ASC
E. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly;
all
righ
ts r
eser
ved.
dium of inMeeting, BAS, and BBS, while the E2RP and ARMSoperate and show resource information to meeting participantsthrough the software component interface of inMeeting.
The integration of the BAS, BBS, and inMeeting with a singleframework provides the first responders a unified system to oper-ate. The BAS, BBS, and inMeeting synchronize communicationthrough a single ad hoc network. The BAS is currently underintegration with the BBS and inMeeting through the bottom twotiers of the BAS system architecture �Fig. 4� as plug-ins �Azizet al. 2009�, providing a unified user interface in the BAS toretrieve information from the BBS and run meeting sessions oninMeeting. Cross-referenced information from these systemsstrengthens the on-site situational awareness of the first respond-ers and supports assessment operations with critical buildingdocuments.
Challenges have been discovered for the system integrations.Unpredictable network partitions and multipurpose entities on thead hoc space make communication unstable. Currently, a periodicgossiping mechanism is used to inform neighboring devices of theexistence of network connections. The network attempts to cometo a stable state by exchanging information between peers. Whilethe connectivity of the network is not guaranteed at any givenpoint, information can be propagated from one partition to an-other by as little as one connection. However, if several subgraphsof the network stay partitioned over a long period of time, theshort range of 802.11 wireless signals limits the ability to spreadinformation to a geographically separated portion of the groupeffectively. The capacities of ad hoc networks greatly depend onthe topology of the networks �Li et al. 2001�. Yet there is noguarantee of the network topology in a dynamic and chaotic situ-ation such as XEs, while no communication protocol is useful inthe face of long standing network partitions. Additionally, stream-ing a large amount of packets across the ad hoc network congeststhe network and exhausts the battery life of digital devicesquickly.
The integration of inMeeting, ARMS, and E2RP facilitates de-cision making for resource allocation. Although the ARMS pro-vides the resource allocation route finding with road network
Fig. 7. System architectu
condition update, the collection of resource information has not
JOURNAL OF CO
J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 20
been implemented. The E2RP, on the other hand, provides de-tailed resource information. With the ARMS querying resourceinformation from the E2RP through activeX data objects �ADO�connections, the collection of the resource information and deter-mination of the fastest path to allocate these resources is accom-plished and automated. Meeting participants of inMeeting areable to visualize and make decisions for resource allocation basedon the resource queries and route analysis. As a result, the inte-gration of inMeeting, ARMS, and E2RP achieves the goal ofimplementing IT systems to support decision making for resourcedistribution in disaster response.
The integration of inMeeting, BAS, BBS, E2RP, and ARMShas great benefit to disaster collaboration and coordination. Anoverview of the integrated collaboration framework is shown inFig. 2. The E2RP and ARMS form the resource managementlayer, while the BAS and BBS form the on-site assessment op-eration layer. With inMeeting hosting the web meeting environ-ment in the collaboration medium layer, a unified communicationinterface for overall coordination is established. When a web col-laboration forum is engaged by distributed first responders anddecision makers, inMeeting offers an interface to share applica-tions, such as the BAS, ARMS, and E2RP, to meeting partici-pants. For example, the ARMS provides a visualization interfaceto present the geospatial condition of the disaster and resourceavailabilities through a GIS interface. The meeting participantswill not only see the geographically distributed resource in theARMS but also building damaged information retrieved from theBAS through their digital devices. The decision makers can holddiscussions based on the situation and give professional assess-ments and suggestions through the meeting environment. The col-laboration framework expedites the process of critical decisionmaking through the application sharing and varies meeting con-trols. inMeeting provides to enhance communication and coordi-nation among various meeting participants. With functionalitiesprovided by these subsystems, the CP2R collaboration frameworkas a whole addresses the aforementioned challenges in communi-cation and coordination, building assessment, and logistics man-
The framework is demonstrated to domain experts through regu-lar meetings in the laboratory and adjustments are made accord-ing to feedbacks from the experts. Field tests are performed onceevery six to eight months based on the progress of system devel-opment. Once the target requirements are implemented and sys-tem adjustments are completed and agreed with domain experts, afield testing is carried out at the IFSI. On June 16 and September25, 2006, the CP2R collaboration framework was tested at theIFSI training ground surrounded with simulated fire and smokewith firefighters being trained alongside. Graduate students per-formed tests such as operation of the BAS with full firefightinggear and measurement of the transmission range of digital de-vices. Firefighter trainers along with a dozen firefighters gavefeedback on user interface layout and functional requirements. InAugust 2006 and August 2007, the writers hosted educationalsessions at the IFSI for the annual Girls Adventures in Mathemat-ics, Engineering, and Science �GAMES 2009� Program, orga-nized by the college of engineering at UIUC. During thesesessions, the CP2R collaboration framework was demonstrated.The girls were given the opportunity to explore the five sub-systems. The demonstration provided a highly valuable source ofinsight and perspective for the research and identified varioussystem refinements including exception handling for unexpecteduser input. A survey of system improvements was collected from60 middle school girls and four firefighter trainers. On March 1,2008, the framework was tested by 10 graduate students in par-allel with a technical rescue and hazardous material exercise atthe IFSI conducted by the Illinois Army National Guard. Threepartially and totally collapsed buildings were assessed through theBAS with RFID tags. A required resource was requested throughthe ARMS interface and a simulation resource allocation routeanalysis was performed. Fig. 8 shows pictures of field tests at theIFSI with the training of first response units alongside. Tests andresults can be found in papers published from the same researchgroup �Chen et al. 2008; Peña-Mora et al. 2008; Tsai et al. 2008;Aziz et al. 2009�.
A key objective of the aforementioned field tests is to compareprocess improvement using tools discussed in this paper with ex-isting procedures. To ensure effective comparisons “the Charrettetest method” was used �Clayton et al. 1998; Peña-Mora et al.2008�, which is intended to increase the reliability and validity forexploratory research in comparison with other commonly usedresearch methods. The field tests serve as technology demonstra-tors that identify requirements difficult to discover in a laboratoryenvironment.
During the field tests, keen interest toward the CP2R collabo-ration framework was shown by the professionals. Many barriers
Fig. 8. IFSI exercises on Sept
such as cost, technology adoption, and usability issues were iden-
tified. The issues highlight the importance of satisfying the con-straints introduced by technological complexity, cost, useracceptability, and organizational and group dynamics. The dis-covered challenges are addressed as part of the continuing CP2Rresearch initiative.
In summary, the field tests at the IFSI and the GAMES pro-gram helped to better analyze the requirements for the collabora-tion framework. Future tests are planned to iteratively improvethe system in collaboration with different levels of public EMAs.
Conclusions and Future Work
In this paper, the CP2R collaboration framework is presented tosupport disaster response operations. The framework is expectedto overcome challenges discovered in recent XEs. Expansions andrefinements to the subsystems and overall framework are still inprogress for future deployment to disasters.
The framework improves current disaster relief efforts in manyaspects. A unified communication interface for the overall re-sponse coordination and collaborative decision making is pro-vided. The framework employs a visualization interface to presentgeospatial conditions of the disaster and resource availabilitiesthrough a GIS interface. On a digital map, not only availableresources but also building damage assessment information isshown to meeting participants. Based on the information, decisionmakers hold web meetings, through the framework, to discuss andgive professional assessments for critical decision making. As aresult, the collaboration framework expedites decision makingthrough application sharing and varies meeting controls. In addi-tion, situational awareness is enhanced through the informationthat the framework provides to the on-site first responders. Func-tionalities provided by the CP2R collaboration framework addresschallenges such as �1� interorganizational and intraorganizationalcoordination; �2� a lack of communication infrastructure; �3� un-available building document retrieval; �4� ineffective propagationof building assessment information; �5� inconsistent building as-sessment markings; �6� unavailable resource inventory; and �7�inefficient resource deployment. Thus, the efficiency of executinglife-saving operations, such as US&R, could potentially be im-proved by the framework.
Future implementations of the CP2R collaboration frameworkare to solve barriers discovered from field testing. Research willcontinue to focus on further expansion of subsystems and furthervalidation of the framework through the interaction with EMAssuch as the IFSI, Champaign County EMA, and MassachusettsTask Force I.
Acknowledgments
Many people and organizations have contributed to this work.
25, 2006 and March 1, 2008
ember
The writers would like to thank NSF for their support of Award
UNE 2010
10.24:302-312.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
KA
NSA
S ST
AT
E U
NIV
LIB
RA
RIE
S on
07/
19/1
4. C
opyr
ight
ASC
E. F
or p
erso
nal u
se o
nly;
all
righ
ts r
eser
ved.
No. 0427089, Richard Jaehne �Director of IFSI�, Brian Brauer�Assistant Director of IFSI�, Gavin Horn �Research Program Di-rector of IFSI�, Eric Goldstein �Assistant Fire Fighting ProgramDirector of IFSI�, and Tad Schroeder �IFSI Fire Factor Commit-tee� for their help and guidance in the exercise at the IFSI, MarkToalson and Leanne Brehob-Riley �Managers of ChampaignCounty GIS Consortium�, Bill Keller �Director of ChampaignCounty EMA�, Chad Council �Specialist, Massachusetts TaskForce I�, Stuart Foltz �Structural Engineer, Construction Engi-neering Research Lab, Champaign IL�, and the anonymous re-viewers for their invaluable comments.
References
Aktan, A. E., Catbas, F. N., Grimmelsman, K. A., Pervizpour, M., Curt-ies, J. M., Shen, K., and Qin, X. �2002�. “Health monitoring for ef-fective management of infrastructure.” Proc., SPIE, Smart Structuresand Materials 2002: Smart Systems for Bridges, Structures, and High-ways, Vol. 4696, SPIE, San Diego, 17–29.
Aldunate, R., Ochoa, S. F., Peña-Mora, F., and Nussbaum, M. �2006�.“Robust mobile ad hoc space for collaboration to support disasterrelief efforts involving critical physical infrastructure.” J. Comput.Civ. Eng., 20, 13–27.
AutoCAD. �2009�. �http://autocad.com� �June 6, 2009�.Aziz, Z., Peña-Mora, F., Chen, A. Y., and Lantz, T. �2009�. “Supporting
urban emergency response and recovery using RFID-based buildingassessment.” Disaster Prevention and Management: An InternationalJournal, 18�1�, 35–48.
Chen, A. Y., Peña-Mora, F., Ouyang, Y., and Aziz, Z. �2008�. “Resourceallocation using collaborative GIS to support civil engineeringemergency response operations.” 12th Int. Conf. on Computing andBuilding Engineering, Int. Conf. on Information Technology in Con-struction (ICCCBE-XII), Tsinghua Univ., Beijing.
Chen, A. Y., Tsai, M. H., Lantz, T. S., Jr., Plans, A. P., Mathur, S.,Lakhera, S., Kaushik, N., and Peña-Mora, F. �2007�. “A collaborativeframework for supporting civil engineering emergency response withmobile ad hoc networks.” Proc., 2007 ASCE Int. Workshop on Com-puting in Civil Engineering, ASCE, Pittsburgh.
Choi, Y. B., Blackburn, J. M., and Seo, H. �2006�. “A connection-orientedtelecommunications disaster management model using mobile GIS.”Int. J. Mobile Communications, 4, 63–81.
Clayton, M., Kunz, J., and Fisher, M. �1998�. “The Charrette testmethod.” Technical Rep. No. 120, CIFE, Stanford Univ., Stanford,Calif.
Columbia/Wharton Roundtable �CWR�. �2004�. “Risk management strat-egies in an uncertain world.” IBM Palisades Executive ConferenceCenter, �www.ldeo.columbia.edu/CHRR/Roundtable� �Feb. 2004�.
Environmental Systems Research Institute �ESRI�. �2009�. “Algorithmsused by network analayst.” �http://www.webhelp.esri.com/arcgisdesktop/9.3/index.cfm?tocVisable�0&1D�4441&TopicName�Algorithms%20used%20by%20Network%20Analyst&pid�4426��June 6, 2009�.
Foltz, S. �2003�. “September 11, 2001: Civil engineering aspects of theaftermath—What do we know?” Construction Engineering ResearchLaboratory, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Invited Talk.
Jenkins, W. �2006�. “Hurricane Katrina: Lessons, observations from thecatastrophe.” Proc., Cyclone Summit: Living with Cyclones—Queens-land Prepared, Premier of Queensland, Queensland, Australia, �http://www.thepremier.qld.gov.au/library/pdf/CycloneSummit7Dec06.pdf��Oct. 9, 2007�.
Kevany, M. J. �2005�. “Geo-information for disaster management: Les-sons from 9/11.” Geo-information for disaster management, Springer,Berlin, 443–464.
Kristensen, M., Kyng, M., and Palen, L. �2006�. “Participatory design inemergency medical service: Designing for future practice.” Proc.,SIGCHI Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, Mon-treal, Quebec, Canada, 161–170.
Kroll, P., and Kruchten, P. �2003�. “The spirit of RUP: Guidelines forsuccess.” The rational unified process made easy, Addison-Wesley,Pearson Education, Reading, Mass., 27–34.
Kwan, M. P., and Lee, J. �2005�. “Emergency response after 9/11: Thepotential of real-time 3D GIS for quick emergency response in micro-spatial environments.” Comput. Environ. Urban Syst., 29, 93–113.
Li, J., Blake, C., Couto, D., Lee, H., and Morris, R. �2001�. “Capacity ofad hoc wireless networks.” ACM Proc., 7th Annual Int. Conf. onMobile Computing and Networking, ACM, Rome, Italy, 61–69.
Louhisuo, M., Rauste, Y., Andersson, K., Hame, T., Ahola, J., and Mori-hoshi, T. �2004�. “Use of SAR data for natural disaster mitigation inthe mobile environment.” Proc., 2004 Envisat & ERS Symp., H.Lacoste, ed., L. ESA Publications, Ouwehand, Salzburg, Austria.
Lu, X. �2004�. “A web-GIS based urgent medical rescue CSCW systemfor SARS disease prevention.” LCNS, grid and cooperative comput-ing, lecture notes in computing science, Springer Berlin, Heidelberg.
MapServer. �2009�. �http://mapserver.org/� �June 9, 2009�.McGuigan, D. M. �2002�. “Urban search and rescue and the role of the
engineer.” MS thesis, Univ. of Canterbury, New Zealand.McKinsey and Company. �2002�. Improving NYPD emergency prepared-
ness and response and increasing FDNY’s preparedness, New YorkCity Fire Department, New York, �http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/mck_report/toc.html�.
Meeds, H. K. �2006�. “Communication challenges during incidents ofnational significance: A lesson from Hurricane Katrina.” Strategy Re-search Project Rep., U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pa.
Meissner, A., Luckenbach, T., Risse, T., Kirste, T., and Kirchner, H.�2002�. “Design challenges for an integrated disaster managementcommunication and information system.” 1st IEEE Workshop on Di-saster Recovery Networks (DIREN 2002), IEEE, New York.
Mileti, D. S. �1999�. D. disasters by design: A reassessment of naturalhazards in United States, Joseph Henry Press, Washington, D.C.
Mizuno, Y. �2001�. “Collaborative environments for disaster relief.” MSthesis, Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering, MIT, Cambridge,Mass.
Nakatani, M., Yamasaki, S., Takahashi, K., Hikikata Y., and Nashida, S.�2002�. “Communication support system for emergency manage-ment.” 41st SICE Annual conf., Part 3, SICE, Japan, 1647–1650.
National Commission. �2004�. National Commission on terrorist attacksupon the United States, Government Printing Office, Washington,D.C.
National Research Council �NRC�. �1999�. Reducing disaster lossesthrough better information, National Academic Press, Washington,D.C.
Noda, I., and Hatayama, M. �2004�. “Common framework of networkingand information-sharing for advance rescue systems.” IEEE Int. Conf.on Robotics and Biomimetics, Robio, IEEE, Shengyang, China, 245–249.
Oh, E. S. �2003�. “Information and communication technology in the
service of disaster mitigation and humanitarian relief.” 9th Asia-Pacific Conf. on Communications (APCC), Vol. 2, M. Ismail et al.,eds., IEEE, Penang, Malaysia, 730–733.
Okada, K., Shigeno, H., Kato, J., Shiba, S., Inoue, A., and Sumiya, T.�2004�. “A CSCW system for distributed search/collection tasks usingwearable computers.” Mobile Computing Systems and Applications,WMCSA 2004, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, D.C.
Peña-Mora, F., and Dwivedi, G. H. �2002�. “Multiple device collabora-tion and real time analysis system for project management in civilengineering.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 16, 23–38.
Peña-Mora, F., Aziz, Z., Chen, A. Y., Plans, A., and Foltz, S. �2008�.“Building assessment during disaster response and recovery.” Institu-tion of Civil Engineers, Urban Design and Planning, 161�4�, 183–195.
Pradhan, A. R., Laefer, D., and Rasdorf, W. J. �2007�. “Infrastructuremanagement information system frameworks for disasters.” J. Com-put. Civ. Eng., 21�2�, 90–101.
Select Bipartisan Committee �SBC�. �2006�. “A failure of initiatives.”Final Rep. of the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate thePreparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina, U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Tierney, K., Perry, R., and Lindell, M. �2001�. Facing the unexpected:Disaster preparedness and response in the United States, JosephHenry Press, Washington, D.C.
Tobita, J., and Fukuwa, N. �2004�. “Systems and programs for commu-nity disaster mitigation activities.” 13 WCEE: 13th World Conf. onEarthquake Engineering Conf. Proc., IAEE, Vancouver, Canada.
Tsai, M. H., Liu, L. Y., and Peña-Mora, F. �2007�. “A building blackboxfor urban disaster response and relief.” ASCE Workshop on Comput-ing in Civil Engineering.
Tsai, M. H., Liu, L. Y., Peña-Mora, F., and Arboleda, C. �2008�. “Apreliminary design of disaster-survivable building blackbox systemfor urban disaster response.” Special issue sensors in construction andinfrastructure management J. Inf. Tech. Constr., 13, 179–192.
