Considerable attention has been paid to the vulnerability of critical infrastructures because of the increasing occurrence of disruptive events, such as man-made or natural disasters. Even small disruptions could eventually affect the normal function of infrastructure systems. Enhancing the reliability of these systems and their robustness to disruptions is necessary and urgent. High-speed rail is a critical infrastructure that is subject to various disruptions, including component aging, malicious attacks, natural disasters, and demand surges. In this study, we analyze the topological centrality indicators of China Railway High-speed network using network theory and take real train flow information for assessing the importance of network components in terms of vulnerability to disruption. By Monte Carlo simulation, we analyze the risk of the China Railway High-speed network under random attacks and spatially localized failures. The significance of taking pre-actions for protecting critical infrastructures by mitigating its vulnerability to disruptions is emphasized.
ParkJSeagerTPRaoPS, et al. Integrating risk and resilience approaches to catastrophe management in engineering systems. Risk Anal2013; 33: 356–367.
3.
PursiainenC.The challenges for European critical infrastructure protection. J Eur Integr2009; 31: 721–739.
4.
YustaJMCorreaGJLacal-AránteguiR.Methodologies and applications for critical infrastructure protection: state-of-the-art. Energ Policy2011; 39: 6100–6119.
5.
MarroneSNardoneRTedescoA, et al. Vulnerability modeling and analysis for critical infrastructure protection applications. Int J Crit Infr Prot2013; 6: 217–227.
6.
FangYPPedroniNZioE.Resilience-based component importance measures for critical infrastructure network systems. IEEE T Reliab2016; 65: 502–512.
7.
ZioE.Challenges in the vulnerability and risk analysis of critical infrastructures. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2016; 152: 137–150.
8.
JohanssonJHasselHZioE.Reliability and vulnerability analyses of critical infrastructures: comparing two approaches in the context of power systems. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2013; 120: 27–38.
9.
OuyangM.Review on modeling and simulation of interdependent critical infrastructure systems. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2014; 121: 43–60.
10.
BerdicaK.An introduction to road vulnerability: what has been done, is done and should be done. Transp Policy2002; 9: 117–127.
11.
JeneliusEPetersenTMattssonLG.Importance and exposure in road network vulnerability analysis. Transport Res A-Pol2006; 40: 537–560.
12.
JeneliusE.Network structure and travel patterns: explaining the geographical disparities of road network vulnerability. J Transp Geogr2009; 17: 234–244.
LiWCaiX.Empirical analysis of a scale-free railway network in China. Physica A2007; 382: 693–703.
15.
JohanssonJHasselH.An approach for modelling interdependent infrastructures in the context of vulnerability analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2010; 95: 1335–1344.
16.
OuyangMPanZZHongL, et al. Vulnerability analysis of complementary transportation systems with applications to railway and airline systems in China. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2015; 142: 248–257.
17.
BocchiniPFrangopolDMUmmenhoferT, et al. Resilience and sustainability of civil infrastructure: toward a unified approach. J Infrastruct Syst2014; 20: 04014004.
18.
ChangSENojimaN.Measuring post-disaster transportation system performance: the 1995 Kobe earthquake in comparative perspective. Transport Res A-Pol2001; 35: 475–494.
19.
LeeEEIIMitchellJEWallaceWA.Restoration of services in interdependent infrastructure systems: a network flows approach. IEEE T Syst Man Cy C2007; 37: 1303–1317.
20.
NurreSGCavdarogluBMitchellJE, et al. Restoring infrastructure systems: an integrated network design and scheduling (INDS) problem. Eur J Oper Res2012; 223: 794–806.
21.
CavdarogluBHammelEMitchellJE, et al. Integrating restoration and scheduling decisions for disrupted interdependent infrastructure systems. Ann Oper Res2013; 203: 279–294.
22.
ZhuYGoverdeRM.Railway timetable rescheduling with flexible stopping and flexible short-turning during disruptions. Transport Res B-Meth2019; 123: 149–181.
23.
JeneliusEMattssonL-G.Road network vulnerability analysis of area-covering disruptions: a grid-based approach with case study. Transport Res A-Pol2012; 46: 746–760.
24.
WangSHongLChenX.Vulnerability analysis of interdependent infrastructure systems: a methodological framework. Physica A2012; 391: 3323–3335.
25.
NicholsonCDBarkerKRamirez-MarquezJE.Flow-based vulnerability measures for network component importance: experimentation with preparedness planning. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2016; 145: 62–73.
26.
ChenX.A sustainability analysis on the Wuhan-Guangzhou high-speed railway in China. Int J Sustain Transp2014; 9: 348–363.
27.
BanisterDGivoniM.High-speed rail in the EU27: trends, time, accessibility and principles. Built Environ2013; 39(3): 324–338.
28.
“Yearbook.”China’s yearbook on transportation and communications. Beijing, China: Year Book House of China Transportation & Communications, 2017.
29.
CaoJLiuXCWangY, et al. Accessibility impacts of China’s high-speed rail network. J Transp Geogr2013; 28: 12–21.
30.
JiaoJWangJJinF, et al. Impacts on accessibility of China’s present and future HSR network. J Transp Geogr2014; 40: 123–132.
31.
RongfangL.The role of state: high speed rail development in China. Adv Manag2015; 8(3): 1–16.
32.
OuyangM.Critical location identification and vulnerability analysis of interdependent infrastructure systems under spatially localized attacks. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2016; 154: 106–116.
33.
OuyangM.A mathematical framework to optimize resilience of interdependent critical infrastructure systems under spatially localized attacks. Eur J Oper Res2017; 262: 1072–1084.
MacchiaMCentroneDFumagalliL, et al. Maintenance management of railway infrastructures based on reliability analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2012; 104: 71–83.
36.
PeetaSSalmanFSGunnecD, et al. Pre-disaster investment decisions for strengthening a highway network. Comput Oper Res2010; 37: 1708–1719.
37.
FangYPedroniNZioE.Optimization of cascade-resilient electrical infrastructures and its validation by power flow modeling. Risk Anal2015; 35: 594–607.
38.
FangYPPedroniNZioE.Comparing network-centric and power flow models for the optimal allocation of link capacities in a cascade-resilient power transmission network. IEEE Syst J2017; 11: 1632–1643.
39.
OuyangMTianHWangZ, et al. Critical infrastructure vulnerability to spatially localized failures with applications to Chinese railway system. Risk Anal2019; 39: 180–194.
40.
AvenT.On some recent definitions and analysis frameworks for risk, vulnerability, and resilience. Risk Anal2011; 31: 515–522.
41.
AvenT.Risk assessment and risk management: review of recent advances on their foundation. Eur J Oper Res2016; 253: 1–13.
42.
AvenTZioE. Quality of risk assessment: definition and verification. Knowledge in Risk Assessment and Management2018; 143–164.
43.
FlageRAvenTZioE, et al. Concerns, challenges, and directions of development for the issue of representing uncertainty in risk assessment. Risk Anal2014; 34: 1196–1207.
