Table 7 provides the descriptions of six defined scenarios. Based on the results provided in Figure 4, the effect of implementing these scenarios to improve the resiliency of Rockaway, as an example which has the lowest resiliency value among the considered WWTPs, is investigated.
Table 7
Scenarios proposed for resiliency improvement of Rockaway WWTP
| Scenario no. | Description | Previous value of resiliency | Improved resiliency | Percent of increase in resiliency | Cost of each scenario (m $) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 30% increase in Ra3, Rs1, Ro4a and building dewatering facilities (Rs2) | 43.42 | 46.87 | 7.94 | 144.278a |
| 2 | 100% increase in Rs1 | 45.76 | 5.38 | 1.763 | |
| 3 | 100% increase in Rs1 and building dewatering facilities (Rs2) | 47.61 | 9.64 | 8.763 | |
| 4 | 30% increase in Ro4 | 44.88 | 3.36 | 1.750 | |
| 5 | 30% increase in Ro4 and building dewatering facilities(Rs2) | 45.73 | 5.32 | 8.750 | |
| 6 | 30% increase in Ra3, Rs1, Ro4 and Rd3 | 45.03 | 3.70 | 137.351 | |
| 7 | 30% increase in Ra3 + Rs1 + Ro4 + Rd3 + building dewatering facilities | 46.88 | 7.95 | 144.351 |
| Scenario no. | Description | Previous value of resiliency | Improved resiliency | Percent of increase in resiliency | Cost of each scenario (m $) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 30% increase in Ra3, Rs1, Ro4a and building dewatering facilities (Rs2) | 43.42 | 46.87 | 7.94 | 144.278a |
| 2 | 100% increase in Rs1 | 45.76 | 5.38 | 1.763 | |
| 3 | 100% increase in Rs1 and building dewatering facilities (Rs2) | 47.61 | 9.64 | 8.763 | |
| 4 | 30% increase in Ro4 | 44.88 | 3.36 | 1.750 | |
| 5 | 30% increase in Ro4 and building dewatering facilities(Rs2) | 45.73 | 5.32 | 8.750 | |
| 6 | 30% increase in Ra3, Rs1, Ro4 and Rd3 | 45.03 | 3.70 | 137.351 | |
| 7 | 30% increase in Ra3 + Rs1 + Ro4 + Rd3 + building dewatering facilities | 46.88 | 7.95 | 144.351 |
a.