Stress Tests for Critical Transport Infrastructure due to Natural Hazards a Case Study in Bologna, Italy, Julie Ann CLARKE

1. 6th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2016 ‘Integrative Risk Management – Towards Resilient Cities‘ • 28 Aug – 1 Sept 2016 • Davos • Switzerland www.grforum.org Stress Tests for Critical Transport Infrastructure due to Natural Hazards: a Case Study in Bologna, Italy Julie Clarke, Robert Corbally, Mark Tucker, Roughan & O’Donovan Innovative Solutions, Ireland.
2. 6th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2016 ‘Integrative Risk Management – Towards Resilient Cities‘ • 28 Aug – 1 Sept 2016 • Davos • Switzerland www.grforum.org Extreme Natural Hazard Events Transport Infrastructure • Physical damage • Travel disruption • Economic loss
3. 6th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2016 ‘Integrative Risk Management – Towards Resilient Cities‘ • 28 Aug – 1 Sept 2016 • Davos • Switzerland www.grforum.org Novel indicators for identifying critical INFRAstructure at RISK from natural hazards • EU 7th framework • 11 consortium partners • Project coordinators • Case studies
4. 6th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2016 ‘Integrative Risk Management – Towards Resilient Cities‘ • 28 Aug – 1 Sept 2016 • Davos • Switzerland www.grforum.org Novel indicators for identifying critical INFRAstructure at RISK from natural hazards • Stress testing methodology low probability, high consequence natural hazard events • European road and rail infrastructure • Earthquakes, floods and landslides • Risk quantification physical damage, transport delays, economic loss
5. 6th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2016 ‘Integrative Risk Management – Towards Resilient Cities‘ • 28 Aug – 1 Sept 2016 • Davos • Switzerland www.grforum.org Case Study – Italian Road Network • Bologna, Italy  Important business centre  > 600,000 road passenger trips per day  >13% Italian road freight transport per year • Scandinavian-Mediterranean TEN-T corridor
6. 6th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2016 ‘Integrative Risk Management – Towards Resilient Cities‘ • 28 Aug – 1 Sept 2016 • Davos • Switzerland www.grforum.org Case Study – Italian Road Network • 990 km2 in Bologna region, Italy • 3410 km roadway
7. 6th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2016 ‘Integrative Risk Management – Towards Resilient Cities‘ • 28 Aug – 1 Sept 2016 • Davos • Switzerland www.grforum.org Case Study – Italian Road Network • 990 km2 in Bologna region, Italy • 3410 km roads • Seismically active region
8. 6th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2016 ‘Integrative Risk Management – Towards Resilient Cities‘ • 28 Aug – 1 Sept 2016 • Davos • Switzerland www.grforum.org Case Study – Italian Road Network • 990 km2 in Bologna region, Italy • 3410 km roads • Seismically active region • Susceptible to landslides
9. 6th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2016 ‘Integrative Risk Management – Towards Resilient Cities‘ • 28 Aug – 1 Sept 2016 • Davos • Switzerland www.grforum.org Stress Tests • Used to determine the losses due to an adverse scenario • May be defined in terms of the hazards and/or the consequences • Specified using expert judgement • Performed according to overarching risk assessment methodology developed in INFRARISK
10. 6th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2016 ‘Integrative Risk Management – Towards Resilient Cities‘ • 28 Aug – 1 Sept 2016 • Davos • Switzerland www.grforum.org Stress Tests • Used to determine the losses due to an adverse scenario • May be defined in terms of the hazards and/or the consequences • Specified using expert judgement • Performed according to overarching risk assessment methodology developed in INFRARISK
11. 6th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2016 ‘Integrative Risk Management – Towards Resilient Cities‘ • 28 Aug – 1 Sept 2016 • Davos • Switzerland www.grforum.org System Representation: Seismic Hazard Seismic hazard model developed in INFRARISK • Low probability, extreme events
12. 6th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2016 ‘Integrative Risk Management – Towards Resilient Cities‘ • 28 Aug – 1 Sept 2016 • Davos • Switzerland www.grforum.org System Representation: Seismic Hazard Seismic hazard model developed in INFRARISK • Low probability, extreme events • Ground-motion field • Linked to critical network element  Betweenness centrality
13. 6th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2016 ‘Integrative Risk Management – Towards Resilient Cities‘ • 28 Aug – 1 Sept 2016 • Davos • Switzerland www.grforum.org System Representation: Cascading Landslide Hazard Rigid sliding block displacement approach (Saygili and Rathje, 2009) • Landslide yield acceleration (ky)  Represents horizontal acceleration at which sliding initiates
14. 6th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2016 ‘Integrative Risk Management – Towards Resilient Cities‘ • 28 Aug – 1 Sept 2016 • Davos • Switzerland www.grforum.org System Representation: Structural Vulnerability Seismic vulnerability: bridges and tunnels • 340 bridges & 30 tunnels along road network • Structural data gathered using Google Maps
15. 6th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2016 ‘Integrative Risk Management – Towards Resilient Cities‘ • 28 Aug – 1 Sept 2016 • Davos • Switzerland www.grforum.org System Representation: Structural Vulnerability Seismic vulnerability: bridges and tunnels • Fragility functions assigned based on structural characteristics • Existing database of fragility functions employed • Fragility functions defined in terms of four damage states
16. 6th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2016 ‘Integrative Risk Management – Towards Resilient Cities‘ • 28 Aug – 1 Sept 2016 • Davos • Switzerland www.grforum.org System Representation: Structural Vulnerability Vulnerability to landslides: roads • Road network analysed according to 10m sections • Fragility functions assigned based on ky and road type (Pitilakis, et al., 2011) • Fragility functions defined in terms of three damage states
17. 6th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2016 ‘Integrative Risk Management – Towards Resilient Cities‘ • 28 Aug – 1 Sept 2016 • Davos • Switzerland www.grforum.org System Representation: Infrastructure Events • Associated functional capacity loss and restoration information defined for each network element damage state, e.g. Bridge Functional capacity loss (% lane closure) Slight Damage 0 Moderate Damage 50 Extensive Damage 100 Complete Damage 100
18. 6th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2016 ‘Integrative Risk Management – Towards Resilient Cities‘ • 28 Aug – 1 Sept 2016 • Davos • Switzerland www.grforum.org System Representation: Infrastructure Events • Associated functional capacity loss and restoration information defined for each network element damage state, e.g. Bridge Functional capacity loss (% lane closure) Restoration duration (days) Restoration cost (€1000) Slight Damage 0 60 100 Moderate Damage 50 120 750 Extensive Damage 100 150 1000 Complete Damage 100 365 2000
19. 6th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2016 ‘Integrative Risk Management – Towards Resilient Cities‘ • 28 Aug – 1 Sept 2016 • Davos • Switzerland www.grforum.org System Representation: Network Use Events • Origin-Destination data used to define road traffic demand  Obtained for Bologna region from 2011 Italian census  Passenger trips relate to usual place of work or study  21 O-D zones considered • Traffic analysis performed using NEXTA (Network Explorer for Traffic Analysis)
20. 6th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2016 ‘Integrative Risk Management – Towards Resilient Cities‘ • 28 Aug – 1 Sept 2016 • Davos • Switzerland www.grforum.org Estimate Risk Network repair cost Network cumulative restoration time
21. 6th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2016 ‘Integrative Risk Management – Towards Resilient Cities‘ • 28 Aug – 1 Sept 2016 • Davos • Switzerland www.grforum.org Support for Infrastructure Managers / Owners • INFRARISK Decision Support Tool • Training course More Information: www.infrarisk-fp7.eu
22. 6th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2016 ‘Integrative Risk Management – Towards Resilient Cities‘ • 28 Aug – 1 Sept 2016 • Davos • Switzerland www.grforum.org Date: 29th September 2016 Location: Madrid, Spain Who should attend: Consulting Engineers, Researchers, Infrastructure Owners & Managers FREE Registration Contact: Dr. Maria Jose Jimenez mj.jimenez@csic.es Final Dissemination Conference
23. 6th International Disaster and Risk Conference IDRC 2016 ‘Integrative Risk Management – Towards Resilient Cities‘ • 28 Aug – 1 Sept 2016 • Davos • Switzerland www.grforum.org Novel indicators for indentifying critical INFRAstructure at RISK from natural hazards This project has been funded by the European Union’s Seventh Programme for research, technological development and demonstration according to grant agreement No. 603960.

Hinweis der Redaktion

Good evening ladies and gentlemen. My name is Julie Clarke and I’m here on behalf of Roughan and O’Donovan Innovative Solutions; a specialist consulting engineers with particular expertise in the field of risk-based asset management.

In this presentation, I’m going to discuss stress tests for critical transport infrastructure due to natural hazards. In particular, I’m going to focus on the application of a stress testing methodology to a case study that consists of a road network in Northern Italy.
Extreme natural hazard events, such as earthquakes, floods and landlsides can have potentially devastating consequences, as we are all too aware.

In addition to the tragic loss of human life, natural hazards events can cause significant damage to transport infrastructure, resulting in travel disruption and potential economic losses.

For example, the 6.8 magnitude Northridge earthquake that occurred in California in 1994 significantly impacted the regional transportation system in the area of Los Angeles and generated a year’s worth of highway repair work as a result of the single event.
The EU-funded INFRARISK project, entitled ‘Novel Indicators for Identifying Critical Infrastructure at Risk from Natural Hazards’, has developed a stress testing methodology to establish the resilience of critical transport infrastructure against extreme natural hazard events.

The project consortium consists of 11 partners from across Europe that include SMEs, research institutes & universities, and one large entreprise.

Roughan & O’Donovan Innovative Soltions are coordinators of the INFRARISK project and are also leading the case studies technical work package. I am going to introdcuce one of the INFRARISK case studies in this presentation. The objective of the case study is to demonstrate the systematic application of the methodologies and procedures that have been developed in the INFRARISK project.
This stress testing methodology being developed as part of the INFRARISK project is concerned with low probability, high consequence natural hazard events. Stress tests are commonly employed in the other sectors, such as the finance and nuclear power industries, to determine the impact of abnormal shocks on systems. Stress tests can be used to provide important insights in relation to critical transport infrastructure that can facilitate the decision making process with regard to the protection of these assets.

The INFRARISK project is focused on trans-European road and rail corridors. For Europe in particular, the singe market depends on an effective transport system to bring people together and to facilitate trade. It is estimated that road and rail networks account for 80% of passenger transport and 50% of goods transport throughout the EU.

The natural hazards that have been considered in the project include earthquakes, floods and landslides, and their cascading effects have also been considered, For example, earthquake-triggered landslides.

Stress tests enable the risk to be quantified in terms of the cost of physical infrastructure damage, the resulting delays for passenger and freight transport, and the associated economic losses due to the transport disruption.
The selected Italian road network case study is located in the province of Bologna, in the Emilia-Romanga region of Italy. The city of Bologna comprises a metropolitan area of approximately 1 million people and is one of the most important business centres in Italy.

There are over 600,000 work or study related passenger trips per day within the province of Bologna and the Emilia-Romagna region supports over 13% of Italy’s road freight transport per year.

The selected road network is located along the Scandinavian-Mediterranean TEN-T corridor; a crucial north-south axis for the European economy that provides an important transport link from the city of Bologna to the neighbouring Italian cities of Florence and Milan.
This slide shows the selected case study road network, which covers an area of nearly 1000km2 and consists of nearly 3500km of roadway. The motorway along the Scandinavian-Mediterranean TEN-T corridor is shown here in pink. The remaining roads are classified as either primary, secondary, tertiary, or local roads.
The province of Bologna is located in a seismically active region, as shown here according to the seismic hazard map that was developed as part of the European SHARE project.
Additionally, the province is moderately susceptible to landslides. Therefore, the stress tests were performed for the road network in terms of the seismic hazard and the associated earthquake-triggered landslide cascading effects.
The objective of the stress tests is to determine the losses associated with an adverse scenario. This scenario may be defined in terms of the hazards and/or the consequences, as will be shown for the Italian case study, and it is anticipated that the appropriate stress tests for transport infrastructure using this methodology in general will be specified using expert judgement.

The stress testing methdology developed in the INFRARISK project is performed according to a structured overarching risk assessment methodology, as shown in this diagram.
This methodology has been adopted for the Italian case study and a quantitative approach has been employed for the stress tests.
Initially, the system representation was specified in term of the hazards.

As previously mentioned, the INFRARISK project is focused on low probability, extreme natural hazard events. For earthquakes, ‘low probability’ refers to return periods that exceed those that are included in current design codes and an ‘event’ refers to a measure of ground motion intensity.
The ground motion field shown in this slide was specified using a seismic hazard model that was specifically developed within the project. The ground motion field is linked to a critical network element along the network – this element was identified using a method known as betweenness centrality, which is used to identify elements that, if removed, would effectively divide the network and cause significant transport disruption. In this case, the critical network element is a bridge along the TEN-T motorway.
The earthquake-triggered landslide cascading effects were considered by defining landslide yield acceleration values for the region. The landslide yield acceleration paraneter – ky - was specified using a rigid sliding block approach that determines the horizontal acceleration at which sliding initiates. Ky values were determined for the case study region based on slope values and geological information.
The system representation was also specified according to the structural vulnerability of the road network. In this case, the seismic vulnerability of the network bridges and tunnels was considered.

To do so, the location of the network bridges and tunnels was initially identified. In total, there are 340 road bridges and 30 road tunnels located along the selected case study network.

Structural characteristics were subsequently obtained for these bridges and tunnels according to a visual survey using Google maps. However, in many cases network managers will already have an existing database available.
Fragility functions were subsequently assigned to each structural element based on its structural characteristics. As shown here, fragility functions provide the probability of exceeding a defined damage state for a given level of loading due to the particular natural hazard being considered. For example, here the fragility functions indicate the probability of damage induced in a bridge as a result of ground shaking from an earthquake.

The fragility functions assigned to the bridges and tunnels along the Italian case study road network were obtained from existing databases that were developed in the European SYNER-G project and are defined in terms of four damage states: 1. Slight, 2. Moderate, 3. Extensive and 4. Complete damage.
In addition, the vulnerability of the roads to earthquake-triggered landslides was considered in the case study. To characterise the structural vulnerability of individual road sections to landslide-induced physical damage, the road network was initially divided up into road sections – 10m segments were considered in this case.

The fragility functions were defined in terms of three damage states: 1. Slight, 2. Moderate and 3. Complete damage and were subsequently assigned based on the value of ky and the road type using a method described by the reference shown here.
The system representation was also defined in terms of the infrastructure events, in other words, the potential funtionality loss of the road network.

This was characterised in terms of the defined damage states. For example, the following slide shows the functionality loss of the road in terms of % lane closure at the location of a bridge due to seismic-induced damage.
Additionally, the restoration duration and costs were defined for each damage state. Example durations and costs are shown here for a network bridge.
Finally, the system representation was defined in terms of the network use events; in other words the traffic demand for the road network.

To do so, origin-destination data was obtained for the Bologna region, which provided details of daily work- or study- related passenger trips and the associated origin and destination zones. For the selected case study region, 21 O-D zones were considered, as shown in this slide, and traffic modelling was performed using NEXTA software.

The traffic analysis consisted of a comparison of ‘normal’ network operations, in other words, no damage, to various post-hazard damage scenarios to quantify the associated impact in terms of journey delay times. Quantified travel time increases were subsequently used in conjunction with GDP values to determine the associated economic loss.
In this slide, example risk estimates are shown in terms of the total repair costs for the case study road network and the total cumulative restoration time. Of course, the actual duration of the restoration period will depend on the number of repair crews and the resources available.

The estimates are shown in terms of a probabilistic output as the uncertainty relating to the vulnerability of the network elements (the bridges, tunnels and road sections) was considered in the analysis (as characterised using fragility functions).

Evaluation of the risk will of course depend on the network manager or owner. However, such results can be used to assist in the decision-making process with regard to the prioritisation of intervention measures to improve the resiliance of critical infrastructure to extreme natural hazard events.
I hope this presentation has given you some insight into the methodologies and procedures that have been developed in the INFRARISK project.

It is worth noting that the project has also developed an online decision support tool to perform stress tests on road and rail networks.

In addition, the project is currently developing a training course for infrastructure managers/owners, decision makers, and others who may be interested in this subject matter.

More information can be found online – the website address is shown here.
I would like to briefly mention the final INFRARISK dissemintation conference, which will be held in Madrid at the end of next month. There is free registration for this event and those who are interested can contact our project partner CSIC at the address shown here or else you can contant myself.

Many thanks for listening and if anyone has any questions I’d be happy to answer them now.

Stress Tests for Critical Transport Infrastructure due to Natural Hazards a Case Study in Bologna, Italy, Julie Ann CLARKE

Du liest eine Vorschau.

Hier ansehen

Stress Tests for Critical Transport Infrastructure due to Natural Hazards a Case Study in Bologna, Italy, Julie Ann CLARKE

Weitere Verwandte Inhalte

Diashows für Sie (20)

Andere mochten auch (20)

Ähnlich wie Stress Tests for Critical Transport Infrastructure due to Natural Hazards a Case Study in Bologna, Italy, Julie Ann CLARKE (18)

Weitere von Global Risk Forum GRFDavos (20)

Stress Tests for Critical Transport Infrastructure due to Natural Hazards a Case Study in Bologna, Italy, Julie Ann CLARKE

Hinweis der Redaktion

Stress Tests for Critical Transport Infrastructure due to Natural Hazards a Case Study in Bologna, Italy, Julie Ann CLARKE

Du liest eine Vorschau.

Stress Tests for Critical Transport Infrastructure due to Natural Hazards a Case Study in Bologna, Italy, Julie Ann CLARKE

Empfohlen

Weitere Verwandte Inhalte

Diashows für Sie (20)

Andere mochten auch (20)

Ähnlich wie Stress Tests for Critical Transport Infrastructure due to Natural Hazards a Case Study in Bologna, Italy, Julie Ann CLARKE (18)

Weitere von Global Risk Forum GRFDavos (20)

Stress Tests for Critical Transport Infrastructure due to Natural Hazards a Case Study in Bologna, Italy, Julie Ann CLARKE

Hinweis der Redaktion