A transportation network is the economic backbone of a developed country. For that reason, it is important that the network maintain functionality after catastrophic natural events and minimize downtime to reduce adverse effects on society and the economy. A holistic framework that integrates seismic risk, vulnerability of system components, and a traffic model is developed. This framework is used to evaluate the direct and indirect costs associated with extreme seismic events. The combined effect of ground motion and liquefaction is considered to estimate the seismic risk of the system. Bridges are considered the most vulnerable network components. The concept of fragility curves is used to combine the probability of bridge failure with the postevent functionality of the network. An integrated traffic model is used to predict route choices after an earthquake. Finally, the developed framework is used to estimate the earthquake risk of the test bed transportation network in the San Francisco Bay Area of California. The direct and indirect costs associated with several earthquake scenarios in the region are estimated, and annual risk curves are developed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
MussonR.Intensity-Based Seismic Risk Assessment.Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 20, No. 5-8, 2001, pp. 353–360.
2.
MurrayA. T., MatisziwT. C., and GrubesicT. H.A Methodological Overview of Network Vulnerability Analysis.Growth and Change, Vol. 39, No. 4, 2008, pp. 573–592.
3.
ShirakiN., ShinozukaM., MooreJ. E., ChangS. E., KamedaH., and TanakaS.System Risk Curves: Probabilistic Performance Scenarios for Highway Networks Subject to Earthquake Damage.Journal of Infrastructure Systems, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2007, pp. 43–54.
4.
AlipourA.Life-Cycle Performance Assessment of Highway Bridges Under Multi-Hazard Conditions and Environmental Stressors. PhD dissertation. University of California, Irvine, 2010.
5.
AlipourA., ShafeiB., and ShinozukaM.Performance Evaluation of Deteriorating Highway Bridges in High Seismic Areas.Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 16, No. 5, 2011, pp. 597–611.
6.
AlipourA., ShafeiB., and ShinozukaM.Reliability-Based Calibration of Load and Resistance Factors for Design of RC Bridges Under Multiple Extreme Events: Scour and Earthquake.Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 18, No. 5, 2013, pp. 362–371.
7.
AlipourA., ShafeiB., and ShinozukaM.Capacity Loss Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Bridges Located in Extreme Chloride-Laden Environments.Journal of Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2013, pp. 8–27.
8.
ShafeiB., AlipourA., and ShinozukaM.A Stochastic Computational Framework to Investigate the Initial Stage of Corrosion in Reinforced Concrete Superstructures.Journal of Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, Vol. 28, No. 7, 2013, pp. 482–494.
9.
ShafeiB., AlipourA., and ShinozukaM.Prediction of Corrosion Initiation in Reinforced Concrete Members Subjected to Environmental Stressors: A Finite-Element Framework.Journal of Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 42, No. 2, 2012, pp. 365–376.
10.
RossiR., GastaldiM., CarturanF., PellegrinoC., and ModenaC.Planning and Management of Actions on Transportation System to Address Extraordinary Events in Post-emergency Situations. A Multidisciplinary Approach.European Transport, Vol. 51, 2012.
11.
MeharyS. T., and DusickaP.Seismic Hazard Assessment of Oregon Highway Truck Routes. OTREC-RR-11-22. Oregon Transportation Research and Education Consortium, Portland, 2012.
12.
ChangL., PengF., OuyangY., ElnashaiA., and SpencerB.Jr.Bridge Seismic Retrofit Program Planning to Maximize Postearthquake Transportation Network Capacity.Journal of Infrastructure Systems, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2012, pp. 75–88.
13.
KramerS. L.Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering.Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J., 1996.
14.
PetersenM. D., FrankelA. D., HarmsenS. C., MuellerC. S., HallerK. M., WheelerR. L., WessonR. L., ZengY., BoydO. S., PerkinsD. M., LucoN., FieldE. H., WillsC. J., and RukstalesK. S.Documentation for the 2008 Update of the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008–1128.U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Va., 2008.
15.
ShinozukaM., FengM., LeeJ., and NaganumaT.Statistical Analysis of Curves.Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 126, No. 12, 2000, pp. 1224–1231.
16.
Federal Emergency Management Agency.Hazus-MH 2.1 Earthquake Model Technical Manual.U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C., 2012.
17.
DijkstraE. W.A Note on Two Problems in Connexion with Graphs.Numerische Mathematik, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1959, pp. 269–271.
18.
ShinozukaM., ZhouY., KimS., MurachiY., BanerjeeS., and ChoS.Socio-economic Effect of Seismic Retrofit Implemented on Bridges in the Los Angeles Highway Network.Division of Research and Innovation, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, 2008.
19.
KiremidjianA., MooreJ., FanY. Y., YazlaliO., BasozN., and WilliamsM.Seismic Risk Assessment of Transportation Network Systems.Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 11, 2007, pp. 371–382.
20.
PadgettJ. E., and DesRochesR.Bridge Functionality Relationships for Improved Seismic Risk Assessment of Transportation Networks.Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 23, No. 1, 2007, pp. 115–130.
21.
PlafkerG., and GallowayJ. P. (eds.). U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1045: Lessons Learned from the Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989.U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989.
22.
WellsD. L., and CoppersmithK. J.New Empirical Relationships Among Magnitude, Rupture Length, Rupture Width, Rupture Area, and Surface Displacement.Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 11, No. 4, 1994, pp. 974–1002.
23.
CampbellK. W.Empirical Near-Source Attenuation Relationships for Horizontal and Vertical Components of Peak Ground Acceleration, Peak Ground Velocity, and Pseudo-Absolute Acceleration Response Spectra.Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, 1997, pp. 154–179.
Travel Forecasts Data Summary: Transportation 2035 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area.Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, Calif., 2008.
26.
SallE., BentE., KoehlerJ., CharltonB., and ErhardtG.Evaluating Regional Pricing Strategies in San Francisco—Application of the SFCTA Activity-Based Regional Pricing Model. Presented at 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2010.
27.
Preliminary Maps of Quaternary Deposits and Liquefaction Susceptibility, Nine-County San Francisco Bay Region, California: A Digital Database. Open file report 00–444. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Va., 2000. http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of00–444/.
