Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering

2015 Edition
| Editors: Michael Beer, Ioannis A. Kougioumtzoglou, Edoardo Patelli, Siu-Kui Au

Seismic Vulnerability Assessment: Lifelines

  • Kyriazis PitilakisEmail author
  • Sotiris Argyroudis
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35344-4_255
  • 240 Downloads

Synonyms

Fragility curves; Infrastructures; Seismic risk assessment; Transportation networks (railway, roadway, harbor, airports); Utilities (gas, oil, water, wastewater, energy supply)

Introduction

Main Features of Lifelines

Lifelines refer to the complex system and network assets of connected components, usually interacting with other components and systems, which are performing vital functions that are essential to sustain the life and the growth of a community, such as producing, transporting, and distributing goods or services. Their global value for the society and economy is permanently increased in our modern, technologically advanced, highly demanding, and fragile world. They constitute by themselves a set of critical facilities for the proper and safe functioning of the societies. In case of a strong earthquake motion, their physical damages and the consequent disruption of the services they provide may contribute seriously to the global economic loss. At the same time, their...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. American Lifelines Alliance [ALA] (2001) Seismic fragility formulations for water systems. Part 1 – guideline. ASCE-FEMA, Washington, DC, 104 ppGoogle Scholar
  2. Argyroudis S, Kaynia AM (2014) Fragility functions of highway and railway infrastructure. In: Pitilakis K, Crowley H, Kaynia AM (eds) SYNER-G: typology definition and fragility functions for physical elements at seismic risk, vol 27, Geotechnical, geological and earthquake engineering. Springer, Dordrecht. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7872-6_10Google Scholar
  3. Argyroudis S, Pitilakis K (2012) Seismic fragility curves of shallow tunnels in alluvial deposits. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 35:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Basöz N, Kiremidjian AS (1998) Evaluation of bridge damage data from the Loma Prieta and Northridge, California earthquake. Technical report MCEER-98-0004. State University of New York, BuffaloGoogle Scholar
  5. Cardona OD, Ordaz MG, Reinoso E, Yamín LE, Barbar AH (2012) CAPRA – comprehensive approach to probabilistic risk assessment: international initiative for risk management effectiveness. In: Proceedings of the 15th world conference of earthquake engineering, Lisbon, 24–28 Sept 2012Google Scholar
  6. Cavalieri F et al (2013) Application and validation study to an electric power network in Italy. In: Pitilakis K, Argyroudis S (eds) Systemic seismic vulnerability and loss assessment: validation studies SYNER-G. Reference report 6, Publications Office of the European Union, doi: 10.2788/16706Google Scholar
  7. Cavalieri F, Franchin P, Pinto PE (2014) Application to selected transportation and electric networks in Italy. In: Pitilakis K et al (eds) SYNER-G: systemic seismic vulnerability and risk assessment of complex urban, utility, lifeline systems and critical facilities. Methodology and applications. Springer, Dordrecht. ISBN 978-94-017-8834-2Google Scholar
  8. Daniell J, Vervaeck A (2013) CATDAT Damaging earthquakes in 2012 – the year in review. http://earthquake-report.com/2013/01/07/damaging-earthquakes-2012-database-report-the-year-in-review/
  9. Douglas J, Seyedi DM, Ulrich T, Modaressi H, Foerster E, Pitilakis K, Pitilakis D, Karatzetzou A, Gazetas G, Garini E, Loli M (2014) Evaluation of seismic hazard for the assessment of historical elements at risk: description of input and selection of intensity measures. Bull Earthquake Eng. doi:10.1007/s10518-014-9606-0Google Scholar
  10. Dueñas-Osorio L, Craig JI, Goodno BJ (2007) Seismic response of critical interdependent net-works. Earthq Eng Struct 36(2):285–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elnashai A, Hampton S, Lee JS, McLaren T, Myers JD, Navarro C, Spencer B, Tolbert N (2008) Architectural overview of MAEviz-HAZTURK. J Earthq Eng 12(S2):92–99. doi:10.1080/13632460802013610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Faccioli E (ed) (2007) Prediction of ground motion and loss scenarios for selected infrastructure systems in European urban environments: LESSLOSS report No. 2007/08, ISBN: 978-88-6198-012-9. IUSS Press, PaviaGoogle Scholar
  13. Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] (2003) Multi hazard loss estimation methodology: earthquake model – HAZUS-MH MR3 technical manual. FEMA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. Kakderi K, Pitilakis K (2010) Seismic analysis and fragility curves of gravity waterfront structures. In: Fifth international conference on recent advances in geotechnical. Earthquak Engineering and Soil Dynamics and Symposium in Honour of Prof. I. M. Idriss, 6.04a, San Diego, CA, May 24–29Google Scholar
  15. Mackie K, Stojadinovic B (2003) Seismic demands for performance-based design of bridges. PEER Report 2003/16. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  16. Modaressi H, Desramaut N, Gehl P (2014) Specification of the vulnerability of physical systems. In: Pitilakis K et al (eds) SYNER-G: systemic seismic vulnerability and risk assessment of complex urban, utility, lifeline systems and critical facilities. Methodology and applications. Springer, Dordrecht. ISBN 978-94-017-8834-2Google Scholar
  17. Mouroux P, Le Brun B (2006) Risk-UE project: an advanced approach to earthquake risk scenarios with application to different European towns. In: Oliveira CS, Roca A, Goula X (eds) Assessing and managing earthquake risk. Springer, Netherlands, pp 479–508. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-3608-8_23Google Scholar
  18. NCEER (1995) The Hanshin-Awaji earthquake of January 17, 1995: performance of lifelines, technical report NCEER-95-0015 (ed: Shinozuka M), State University of New York, BuffaloGoogle Scholar
  19. O’Rourke TD, Jeon SS, Toprak S, Cubrinovski M, Jung JK (2012) Underground lifeline system performance during the Canterbury earthquake sequence. In: Proceedings of the 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, LisbonGoogle Scholar
  20. Pinto P (2014) Modeling and propagation of uncertainties. In: Pitilakis K, Crowley H, Kaynia AM (eds) SYNER-G: typology definition and fragility functions for physical elements at seismic risk, vol 27, Geotechnical, geological and earthquake engineering. Springer, Dordrecht. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7872-6_2Google Scholar
  21. Pitilakis K, Crowley E, Kaynia A (eds) (2014a) SYNER-G: typology definition and fragility functions for physical elements at seismic risk, vol 27, Geotechnical, geological and earthquake engineering. Springer, Heidelberg. ISBN 978-94-007-7872-6Google Scholar
  22. Pitilakis K, Franchin P, Khazai B, Wenzel H (eds) (2014b) SYNER-G: systemic seismic vulnerability and risk assessment of complex urban, utility, lifeline systems and critical facilities. Methodology and applications, Geotechnical, geological and earthquake engineering. Springer, Heidelberg. ISBN 978-94-017-8834-2Google Scholar
  23. Rinaldi SM, Peerenboom JP, Kelly TK (2001) Identifying, understanding, and analyzing critical infrastructure interdependencies. IEEE Contr Syst Mag 21(6):11–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Satumtira G, Duenas-Osorio L (2010) Synthesis of modeling and simulation methods on critical infrastructure interdependencies research. In: Gopalakrishnan K, Peeta S (eds) Sustainable and resilient critical infrastructure systems. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-11405-2Google Scholar
  25. Seyedi DM, Gehl P, Douglas J, Davenne L, Mezher N, Ghavamian S (2010) Development of seismic fragility surfaces for reinforced concrete buildings by means of nonlinear time-history analysis. Earthq Eng Struct 39:91–108Google Scholar
  26. Tang C, Zhu J, Qi X (2011) Landslide hazard assessment of the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake: a case study in Beichuan. Can Geotech J 48:128–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Weatherill G, Esposito S, Iervolino I, Franchin P, Cavalieri F (2014) Framework for seismic hazard analysis of spatially distributed systems. In: Pitilakis K et al (eds) SYNER-G: systemic seismic vulnerability and risk assessment of complex urban, utility, lifeline systems and critical facilities. Methodology and applications. Springer, Dordrecht. ISBN 978-94-017-8834-2Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringAristotle UniversityThessalonikiGreece