Seismic risk and hierarchy importance of interdependent lifelines

Alexoudi, M.; Kakderi, Kalliopi; Pitilakis, Kyriazis

doi:10.1201/b11332-275

Cited by 2 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Düzce is affected by two of the fourteen seismic sources (zones 1 and 2) for Turkey, as described by Erdik et al (1985), Yaltirak et al (1998) and Kayabali and Akin (2002). Seismic hazard analysis of Düzce has been conducted applying a poissonian probabilistic approach, using CRISIS 99 code (Ordaz 1999), for mean return periods of 100, 475 and 1000 years in a grid of 1 km × 1 km for the city of Düzce (Alexoudi 2005). The main assumption for the seismic source used is that earthquakes occur only along faults (Kayabali and Akin 2002).…”

Section: Düzcementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular we made the vulnerability assessment for the waste water and roadway system in Grevena, and for the potable and waste water system in Düzce. To this end appropriate inventory has been performed and appropriate fragility curves have been selected (Pitilakis et al 2006, Alexoudi 2005, NIBS 2004).…”

Section: Vulnerability Assessment and Loss Scenariosmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…50.6 km are pipes-conduits with circular shape, while the rest 3.4 km has different shapes (rectangular, oval, and orthogonal). The main material used for the pipes-conduits is lightly reinforced concrete, which is considered as brittle material (Alexoudi 2005, Alexoudi et al 2008. Detailed information about the dimension, the shapes and the material for the rest of the network is not available, so our study is limited to the principle network.…”

Section: Description Of the Utility Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The anticipated damages due to ground failure (ground settlements or permanent ground displacements due to seismically induced landslides), are assessed using the American Lifeline Alliance fragility relation (ALA 2002). Prior to their application, these empirical vulnerability functions have been validated with recorded damages in Düzce 1999 earthquake and in Lefkas-Greece 2003 earthquake (Alexoudi 2005, Pitilakis et al 2005. Appropriate fragility curves for large diameter conduits (pipes with diameter larger than 900 mm) are also used (Argyroudis et al 2006), taking into consideration local soil conditions.…”

Section: Description Of the Utility Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Development of comprehensive earthquake loss scenarios for a Greek and a Turkish city: seismic hazard, geotechnical and lifeline aspects

Pitilakis¹,

Anastasiadis²,

Kakderi³

et al. 2011

Earthquakes and Structures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The development of reliable earthquake mitigation plans and seismic risk management procedures can only be based on the establishment of comprehensive earthquake hazard and loss scenarios. Two cities, Grevena (Greece) and Düzce (Turkey), were used as case studies in order to apply a comprehensive methodology for the vulnerability and loss assessment of lifelines. The methodology has the following distinctive phases: detailed inventory, identification of the typology of each component and system, evaluation of the probabilistic seismic hazard, geotechnical zonation, ground response analysis and estimation of the spatial distribution of seismic motion for different seismic scenarios, vulnerability analysis of the exposed elements at risk. Estimating adequate earthquake scenarios for different mean return periods, and selecting appropriate vulnerability functions, expected damages of the water and waste water systems in Düzce and of the roadway network and waste water system of Grevena are estimated and discussed; comparisons with observed earthquake damages are also made in the case of Düzce, proving the reliability and the efficiency of the proposed methodology. The results of the present study constitute a sound basis for the development of efficient loss scenarios for lifelines and infrastructure facilities in seismic prone areas. The first part of this paper, concerning the estimation of the seismic ground motions, has been utilized in the companion paper by Kappos et al. (2010) in the same journal.

show abstract

Section: Düzcementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Vulnerability Assessment and Loss Scenariosmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Description Of the Utility Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Description Of the Utility Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Development of comprehensive earthquake loss scenarios for a Greek and a Turkish city: seismic hazard, geotechnical and lifeline aspects

Pitilakis¹,

Anastasiadis²,

Kakderi³

et al. 2011

Earthquakes and Structures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For this reason, several articles in this field have been published in the last years. Duen˜as-Osorio et al (2007a,b) proposed a combined lifelines analysis with interactions based on geographical proximity; Peeta and Zhang (2009) proposed a computational framework featuring a multilayer superposition of the various infrastructure networks; Alexoudi et al (2009) applied fuzzy logic to the assessment of importance ranking of interdependent lifelines; Kim et al (2009b) used the already mentioned matrix-based system reliability method for the seismic analysis of several interacting infrastructures and Herna´ndez-Fajardo and Duen˜as-Osorio (2009) performed the seismic analysis of two coupled lifelines.…”

Section: Network Of Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bridge network performance, maintenance and optimisation under uncertainty: accomplishments and challenges

Frangopol

Bocchini

2012

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents a critical review of the state-of-the-art in the field of bridge network performance analysis, reliability assessment, maintenance management and optimisation. Previous accomplishments and results are summarised while stressing the aspects of the analysis of a transportation network, which are more challenging for a structural engineer. For instance, the bridge network is described as a spatially distributed system at a scale that is much larger than any individual structure. This requires a different perspective in the modelling of natural extreme events and involves models for the interaction between the individual components (i.e. bridges) and the overall network. Then, the time domain is investigated, and the problem of structural deterioration and its effects on the network performance are addressed. The most important differences between a transportation network and other lifelines are considered next, and techniques for the transportation network analysis and performance assessment are summarised. Finally, a set of selected problems and applications is considered and additional challenges are identified and suggested for future developments.

show abstract

Seismic risk and hierarchy importance of interdependent lifelines

Cited by 2 publications

References 1 publication

Development of comprehensive earthquake loss scenarios for a Greek and a Turkish city: seismic hazard, geotechnical and lifeline aspects

Development of comprehensive earthquake loss scenarios for a Greek and a Turkish city: seismic hazard, geotechnical and lifeline aspects

Bridge network performance, maintenance and optimisation under uncertainty: accomplishments and challenges

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About