Advertisement

A new methodology to assess indirect losses in bridges subjected to multiple hazards

  • Davide ForcelliniEmail author
Technical Paper
  • 187 Downloads

Abstract

Modern society and economy rely heavily on bridges, as fundamental links for movement of goods and people. They are extremely vulnerable to multiple hazards that can compromise their functionality, which in turn impacts emergency response and ultimately the socioeconomic recovery of extended regions. In this regard, bridge resilience is a key issue in order to ensure their functionality and the possibility to recover as effectively as possible after damages. Decision-making methodologies have attracted increased attention recently with the aim to facilitate and enhance pre-hazard and post-hazard event mitigation and emergency response strategies of transportation systems and entire communities. Multiple hazards cause direct losses (loss of life and physical loss of the assets) and indirect losses (costs due to required repair actions or to the loss of functionality of the transportation network). The present models generally take into account direct losses only (neglecting indirect losses). In this background, this paper aims to develop a new framework that extends the existing restoration methodologies by considering indirect losses, which is particularly important in order to assess the organizational and social aspects related to the entire community.

Keywords

Direct costs Indirect losses New methodology Multiple hazards Bridge 

References

  1. 1.
    Adey B, Hajdin R, Brudwile E (2004) Effect of common cause failures on indirect costs. J Bridge Eng 9(2):200–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alipour A, Shafei B, Shinozuka M (2013) Reliability-based calibration of load and resistance factors for design of RC bridges under multiple extreme vents: sour and earthquake. J Bridge Eng 18(5):362–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andric JM, Lu D (2016) Risk assessment of bridges under multiple hazards in operation period. Saf Sci 83:80–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Billah AHM, Alam MS (2015) Seismic fragility assessment of highway bridges: a state-of-the-art review. Struct Infrastruct Eng 11(6):804–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brookshire DS, Chang SE, Cochrane H, Olson RA, Rose A, Steenson J (1997) Direct and indirect economic losses from earthquake damage. Earthq Spectra 14(4):683–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bruneau M, Chang S, Eguchi R, Lee G, O’Rourke T, Reinhorn AM, Shinozuka M, Tierney K, Wallace W, Winterfelt D (2003) A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities. Earthq Spectra 19(4):733–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chang SE, Svekla WD, Shinozuka M (2002) Linking infrastructure and urban economy: simulation of water-disruption impacts in earthquakes. Environ Plan B 29(2):281–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chang SE, Shinozuka M (2004) Measuring improvements in the disaster resilience of communities. Eng Struct 20(2):739–755Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (2015) Deficient Bridges by State and Highway System. US Department of Transportation. ASCE (2017) Infrastructure Report CardGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Forcellini D (2018) Seismic assessment of a benchmark based isolated ordinary building with soil structure interaction. Bull Earthq Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0268-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Forcellini D (2017) Cost assessment of isolation technique applied to a benchmark bridge with soil structure interaction. Bull Earthq Eng 15:51–69.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-9953-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Forcellini D (2016) A direct–indirect cost decision making assessment methodology for seismic isolation on bridges. J Math Syst Sci 4(03–04):85–95.  https://doi.org/10.17265/2328-224X/2015.0304.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Forcellini D, Kelly JM (2014) The analysis of the large deformation stability of elastomeric bearings. J Eng Mech ASCE 140:04014036.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000729 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gardoni P, LaFave JM (2016) Multi-hazard approaches to civil infrastructure engineering: mitigating risks and promoting resilience. In: Gardoni P, LaFave JM (eds) Multi-hazard approaches to Civil Infrastructure Engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp 3–12Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gautam D, Dong Y (2018) Multi-hazard vulnerability of structures and lifelines due to the 2015 Gorkha earthquake and 2017 central Nepal flash flood. J Build Eng 17:196–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gelh P, D’Ayala D (2016) Development of a Bayesian Networks for the multi-hazard fragility assessment of bridge systems. Struct Saf 60:37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gidaris I, Padgett JE, Barbosa AR, Chen S (2017) Multiple-hazard fragility and restoration models of highway bridges for regional risk and resilience assessment in the United States: state-of-the-art review. J Struct Eng 143(3):04016188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lu J, Mackie KR, Elgamal A, Almutairi A (2018) BridgePBEE: OpenSees 3D Pushover and Earthquake Analysis of Single-Column 2-span Bridges, User Manual, Beta 1.2. https://apps.peer.berkeley.edu/bridgepbee/wpcontent/uploads/2018/03/BridgePBEE_UserManual_updated2018.pdf
  19. 19.
    Karamlou A, Bocchini P (2015) Computation of bridge seismic fragility by large-scale simulation for probabilistic resilience analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 44:1959–1978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kelly JM (1997) Earthquake-resistant design with rubber, 2nd edn. Springer, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Karamlou A, Bocchini P (2017) Functionality-fragility surfaces. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 46:1687–1709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mackie KR, Lu J, Elgamal A (2010) User interface for performance-based earthquake engineering: a single bent bridge pilot investigation. In: 9th US National and 10th Canadian conference on earthquake engineering: reaching beyond borders, Toronto, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Miles SB, Chang SE (2003) Urban disaster recovery: a framework and simulation model. MCEER-07-0014 (PB2004-104388, CD-A07)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pitilakis K, Argyroudis S, Kakderi K, Selva J (2016) Systemic vulnerability and risk assessment of transportation systems under natural hazards towards more resilient and robust infrastructures. Transp Res Procedia 14(2016):1335–1344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Quang C, Shen JJ, Zhou M, Lee GC (2015) Force-based and displacement-based reliability assessment approaches for highway bridges under multiple hazard actions. J Traffic Transp Eng 2(4):223–232Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Renschler C, Frazier A, Arendt L, Cimellaro GP, Reinhorn AM, Bruneau M (2010) Framework for defining and measuring resilience at the community scale: the PEOPLES resilience framework. Technical report MCEER-10-006 (2010), University at Buffalo, NYGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tierney KJ (1995) Impacts of recent US disasters on businesses: the 1993 midwest floods and the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. Preliminary paper no. 270, University of Delaware Disaster Research CenterGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wardhana K, Hadipriono F (2003) Analysis of recent bridge failures in the United States. J Perform Constr Facil 17(3):144–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wasileski G, Rodríguez H, Diaz W (2011) Business closure and relocation: a comparative analysis of the Loma Prieta earthquake and Hurricane Andrew. Disasters 35(1):102–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Webb GR, Tierney KJ, Dahlhamer JM (2002) Predicting long-term business recovery from disaster: a comparison of the Loma Prieta earthquake and Hurricane Andrew. Global Environ Change Part B: Environ Hazards 4(2):45–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of San MarinoSan MarinoRepublic of San Marino

Personalised recommendations