A probabilistic approach for the prediction of seismic resilience of bridges

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics

Volumn 42, Issue 10, 2013, Pages 1469-1487

  Decò, Alberto ^a   Bocchini, Paolo ^a   Frangopol, Dan M ^a  

^a Lehigh University   (United States)

Author keywords

Bridge; Cost; Decision analysis; Probabilistic resilience; Recovery; Seismic hazard

Indexed keywords

BRIDGES; COST ACCOUNTING; COSTS; DECISION MAKING; DECISION THEORY; MONTE CARLO METHODS; RECOVERY; SEISMOLOGY;

DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS; LATIN HYPERCUBE SAMPLING; PROBABILISTIC APPROACHES; PROBABILISTIC EVALUATION; PROBABILISTIC RESILIENCE; REHABILITATION ACTIVITIES; RESTORATION STRATEGIES; SEISMIC HAZARDS;

DAMAGE DETECTION;

BRIDGE; DECISION ANALYSIS; MONTE CARLO ANALYSIS; PREDICTION; PROBABILITY; SEISMIC HAZARD; SEISMIC RESPONSE; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

EID: 84880282428     PISSN: 00988847     EISSN: 10969845     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/eqe.2282     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Bruneau M, Chang SE, Eguchi RT, Lee GC, O'Rourke TD, Reinhorn AM, Shinozuka M, Tierney K, Wallace AW, von Winterfeldt D. A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities. Earthquake Spectra 2003; 19(4):733-752.
2. Frangopol DM, Bocchini P. Resilience as optimization criterion for the rehabilitation of bridges belonging to a transportation network subject to earthquake. Proceedings of the ASCE 2011 Structures Congress SEI 2011, Ames D, Droessler TL, Hoit M (eds). Las Vegas, NV, 2011; 2044-2055.
3. Bocchini P, Frangopol DM. Optimal resilience- and cost-based post-disaster intervention prioritization for bridges along a highway segment. Journal of Bridge Engineering 2012; 17(1):117-129.
4. Bruneau M, Reinhorn A. Exploring the concept of seismic resilience for acute care facilities. Earthquake Spectra 2007; 23(1):41-62.
5. Xu N, Guikema SD, Davidson RA, Nozick LK, Çaǧnan Z, Vaziri K. Optimizing scheduling of post-earthquake electric power restoration tasks. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2007; 36(2):265-284.
6. Cimellaro GP, Reinhorn AM, Bruneau M. Seismic resilience of a hospital system. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 2010; 6(1-2):127-144.
7. Shinozuka M, Zhou Y, Kim S-H, Murachi Y, Banerjee S, Cho S, Chung H. Socio-economic effect of seismic retrofit implemented on bridges in Los Angeles highway network. Final report to the California Department of Transportation, University of California, Irvine, CA, 2005.
8. ATC. Earthquake damage evaluation data for California. Technical Report ATC-13, Applied Technology Council (ATC), Redwood City, CA, 1985.
9. Bocchini P, Decò A, Frangopol DM. Probabilistic functionality recovery model for resilience analysis. In Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management, Resilience and Sustainability, Biondini F, Frangopol DM (eds). CRC Press, Taylor and Francis: UK, 2012; 1920-1927.
10. McKay MD, Conover WJ, Beckman RJ. A comparison of three methods for selecting values of output variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics 1979; 21(2):239-245.
11. Chang SE, Shinozuka M. Measuring improvements in the disaster resilience of communities. Earthquake Spectra 2004; 20(3):739-755.
12. Rose A. Defining and measuring economic resilience to disasters. Disaster Prevention and Management 2004; 13(4):307-314.
13. Park J, Nojima N, Reed D. Nisqually earthquake electric utility analysis. Earthquake Spectra 2006; 22(2):491-509.
14. Bocchini P, Frangopol DM. Resilience-driven disaster management of civil infrastructure. In Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Papadrakakis M, Fragiadakis M, Plevris V (eds). COMPDYN 2011: Corfu, Greece, 2011.
15. Franchin P, Pinto PE. Allowing traffic over mainshock-damaged bridges. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2009; 12(5):585-599.
16. Ghanem G, Spanos PD. Stochastic Finite Elements: A Spectral Approach. Springer-Verlag: New York, NY, 1991; 214.
17. Padgett JE, DesRoches R. Bridge functionality relationships for improved seismic risk assessment of transportation networks. Earthquake Spectra 2007; 23(1):115-130.
18. Stein SM, Young GK, Trent RE, Pearson DR. Prioritizing scour vulnerable bridges using risk. Journal of Infrastructure Systems 1999; 5(3):95-101.
19. Mackie KR, Stojadinović B. Post-earthquake functionality of highway overpass bridges. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2006; 35(1):77-93.
20. FEMA. HAZUS-MH MR4 - Earthquake Model User Manual. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): Washington, DC, 2009.
21. FEMA. HAZUS-MH MR4 - Earthquake Model Technical Manual. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): Washington, DC, 2009.
22. Bocchini P, Frangopol DM. Restoration of bridge networks after an earthquake: multi-criteria intervention optimization. Earthquake Spectra 2012; 28(2):426-455.
23. Miles SB, Chang SE. Modeling community recovery from earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra 2006; 22(2):439-458.
24. Engius. Case study: interstate 40 bridge reconstruction; Webbers Falls, Oklahoma. Engius, Stillwater, OK, 2002. (Available from: http://www.engius.com.)
25. FHWA. National Bridge Inventory (NBI) database. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington, DC, 2010. (Available from: www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi.htm.)
26. TRB. Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209. Transportation Research Board (TRB), National Research Council: Washington, DC, 2000.
27. Caltrans. California Life-Cycle Benefit/Cost Analysis Model (Cal-B/C) - Volume 3. California Department of Transportation: Sacramento, CA, 2009.
28. Bureau of Public Roads. Traffic Assignment Manual. U.S. Department of Commerce, Urban Planning Division: Washington DC, 1964.
29. The Mathworks Inc. Matlab Version 7.13-R2011b. Natick, MA, 2011.
30. Google Inc. Google Earth, Release 6.1.0.5001. Keyhole Inc. & Google Inc.: Menlo Park, CA, 2011.
31. AASHTO. A Manual of User Benefit Analysis for Highways (2nd edn). American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO): Washington, DC, 2003; 288.
32. DOT-FL. Transportation Costs Report. State of Florida - Department of Transportation: Tallahassee, FL, 2009.
33. Caltrans. Comparative Bridge Costs. California Department of Transportation: Sacramento, CA, 2010.
34. van Noortwijk JM, Frangopol DM. Two probabilistic life-cycle maintenance models for deteriorating civil infrastructures. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 2004; 19(4):345-359.
35. Decò A, Frangopol DM. Risk assessment of highway bridges under multiple hazards. Journal of Risk Research 2011; 14(9):1057-1089.
36. Frangopol DM. Life-cycle performance, management, and optimization of structural systems under uncertainty: accomplishments and challenges. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 2011; 7(6):389-413.
37. Akiyama M, Frangopol DM, Matsuzaki H. Life-cycle reliability of RC bridge piers under seismic and airborne chloride hazards. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2011; 40(15):1671-1687.
38. Decò A, Frangopol DM. Life-cycle risk assessment of spatially distributed aging bridges under seismic and traffic hazards. Earthquake Spectra 2013; 29(1):1-27.
39. Frangopol DM, Kong JS, Gharaibeh ES. Reliability-based life-cycle management of highway bridges. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 2001; 15(1):27-34.
40. Frangopol DM, Liu M. Maintenance and management of civil infrastructure based on condition, safety, optimization, and life-cycle cost. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 2007; 3(1):29-41.