Natural Hazards

, Volume 97, Issue 3, pp 1327–1356 | Cite as

Multi-peril risk assessment for business downtime of industrial facilities

  • Saurabh PrabhuEmail author
  • Mohammad Javanbarg
  • Marc Lehmann
  • Sez Atamturktur
Original Paper


The losses incurred by industrial facilities following catastrophic events can be broadly broken down into property damage and business interruption due to the ensuing downtime. This article describes a generalized probabilistic methodology for estimating facility downtime under multi-hazard scenarios. Since the vulnerability of each components of an industrial facility varies with the types of hazard, it is beneficial to adopt a system-of-systems approach for analyzing such complex facilities under multiple interdependent hazards. In this approach, the complex layout of the facility is first broken down into its constituent components. The component vulnerabilities to different hazards are combined using Boolean logic, assuming their repair time as a common basis for defining damage states of the component. This combination results in multi-hazard fragility functions for each component of the system, which give the probability of damage under combined occurrence of multiple perils. The time to repair a component is expressed probabilistically using restoration functions. Using fault tree analysis, the components’ fragility functions and restoration functions are propagated to calculate system-level downtime. We demonstrate the methodology on a case-study power plant to estimate downtime risk under combined earthquake and tsunami hazard.


Multi-hazard Business interruption Industrial facilities Fault tree analysis Earthquake Tsunami 



  1. Abe K (1995) Estimate of tsunami run-up heights from earthquake magnitudes. In: Tsunami: progress in prediction, disaster prevention and warning, Springer, pp 21–35Google Scholar
  2. Abrahamson N, Silva W, Kamai R (2014) Summary of the ASK14 ground motion relation for active crustal regions. Earthq Spectra 30(3):1025–1055Google Scholar
  3. Abrahamson N, Gregor N, Addo K (2016) BC hydro ground motion prediction equations for subduction earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 32(1):23–44Google Scholar
  4. Akkar S, Cagnan Z (2010) Local ground-motion predictive model for Turkey, and its comparison with other regional and global ground-motion models. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100(6):2978–2995Google Scholar
  5. Akkar S, Sandikkaya MA, Bommer JJ (2014) Empirical ground-motion models for point- and extended- source crustal earthquake scenarios in Europe and the Middle East. Bull Earthq Eng 12(1):359–387Google Scholar
  6. ALA (2001) Seismic fragility formulations for water systems. American Lifelines AllianceGoogle Scholar
  7. Alipour A, Shafei B, Shinozuka M (2010) Performance evaluation of deteriorating highway bridges located in high seismic areas. J Bridge Eng 16(5):597–611Google Scholar
  8. Alipour A, Shafei B, Shinozuka M (2012) Reliability-based calibration of load and resistance factors for design of RC bridges under multiple extreme events: scour and earthquake. J Bridge Eng 18(5):362–371Google Scholar
  9. Atkinson GM, Boore DM (2011) Modifications to existing ground-motion prediciton equations in light of new data. Bull Seismol Soc Am 101(3):1121–1135Google Scholar
  10. Barrientos S, Verab E, Alvaradoc P, Monfret T (2004) Crustal seismicity in Central Chile. J S Am Earth Sci 16:759–768Google Scholar
  11. Basco A, Salzano E (2016) The vulnerability of industrial equipment to tsunami. J Loss Prevent Process Ind 50:301–307Google Scholar
  12. Bindi D, Massa M, Luzi L, Ameri G, Pacor F, Puglia R, Augliera P (2014) Pan-European ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5 %-damped PSA at spectral periods up to 3.0 s using the RESORCE dataset. Bull Earthq Eng 12(1):391–430Google Scholar
  13. Boggess JM, Becker GW, Mitchell MK (2014) Storm and flood hardening of electrical substations. In: T&D conference and exposition, IEEE, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  14. Boore DM, Stewart JP, Seyhan E, Atkinson G (2014): NGA-West2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5 % damped PGA for shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 30(3):1057–1085Google Scholar
  15. Boudali H, Dugan JB (2005) A discrete-time Bayesian network reliability modeling and analysis framework. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 87(3):337–349Google Scholar
  16. Campbell KW, Bozorgnia Y (2014) NGA-West2 ground motion model for the average horizontal components of PGA, PGV, and 5 % damped linear acceleration response spectra. Earthq Spectra 30(3):1087–1115Google Scholar
  17. Cauzzi C, Faccioli E, Vanini M, Bianchini A (2014) Updated predictive equations for broadband (0.01–10 s) horizontal response spectra and peak ground motions, based on a global dataset of digital acceleration records. Bull Earthq Eng 13:1587–1612Google Scholar
  18. Chandler AM, Jones EJW, Patel MH (2001) Property loss estimation for wind and earthquake perils. Risk Anal 21(2):235–250Google Scholar
  19. Chiou BS-J, Youngs R (2014) Updated of the chiou and youngs NGA model for the average horizontal component of peak ground motion and response spectra. Earthq Spectra 30(3):1117–1153Google Scholar
  20. Choe DE, Gardoni P, Rosowsky D, Haukaas T (2009) Seismic fragility estimates for reinforced concrete bridges subject to corrosion. Struct Saf 31(4):275–283Google Scholar
  21. Comer RP (1980) Tsunami height and earthquake magnitude: theoretical basis of an empirical relation. Geophys Res Lett 7(6):445–448Google Scholar
  22. Cornell C (1968) Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 58(5):1583–1606Google Scholar
  23. Doguc O, Ramirez-Marquez JE (2009) A generic method for estimating system reliability using Bayesian networks. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 94(2):542–550Google Scholar
  24. Dong Y, Frangopol DM, Saydam D (2013) Time-variant sustainability assessment of seismically vulnerable bridges subjected to multiple hazards. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 42(10):1451–1467Google Scholar
  25. Douglas J (2003) Earthquake ground motion estimation using strong-motion records: a review of equations for the estimation of peak ground acceleration and response spectral ordinates. Earth Sci Rev 61(1):43–104Google Scholar
  26. Drouet S (2016) A stochastic GMPE for Brazil, unpublished manuscriptGoogle Scholar
  27. Drouet S, Montalva G, Dimate M, Castillo L, Fernandez G, Morales C, Bastias N, Pirchiner M, Singaucho J, Weathermill G (2017) Building a ground motion logic tree for South America within the GEM-SARA project framework. In: 16th world conference on earthquake engineering January 9–13, Santiago, ChileGoogle Scholar
  28. EPRI (2013) Seismic probabilistic risk assessment implementation guide. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  29. Faccioli E, Bianchini A, Villani M (2010) New ground motion prediction equations for T>1 s and their influence on seismic hazard assessment. In: Proceedings of the university of Tokyo symposium on long-period ground motion and urban disaster mitigation, Tokyo, JapanGoogle Scholar
  30. Field E, Jordan T, Cornell C (2003) OpenSHA—developing community modeling environment for seismic hazard analysis. Sesimol Res Lett 74:406–419Google Scholar
  31. Francis M (2006) Tsunami inundation scour of roadways, bridges and fundations—observations and technical guidance from the Great Sumatra Andaman Tsunami. EERIGoogle Scholar
  32. Gehl P, D’Ayala D (2016) Development of Bayesian networks for the multi-hazard fragility assessment of bridge systems. Struct Saf 60:37–46Google Scholar
  33. Geist EL (2012) Phenomenology of tsunamis II: scaling, event statistics, and inter-event triggering. Adv Geophy 53:35–92Google Scholar
  34. Geist EL, Parsons T (2016) Reconstruction of far-field tsunami amplitude distributions from earthquake sources. Pure appl Geophys 173(12):3703–3717Google Scholar
  35. GEM (2017) SARA wiki. Global earthquake model, 15 11 2016. Accessed 03 Aug 2017
  36. GEM (2017) Research topic 6 (RT6): A South American strong motion database and selection of ground motion prediction equations (GMPEs) for seismic hazard analysis in South America. Global Earthq Model, 12 8 2016. Accessed 5 Sep 2017
  37. Ghosh J, Padgett JE (2010) Aging considerations in the development of time-dependent seismic fragility curves. J Struct Eng 136(12):1497–1511Google Scholar
  38. Gill JC, Malamud BD (2014) Reviewing and visualizing the interactions of natural hazards. Rev Geophys 52(4):680–772Google Scholar
  39. Grünthal G, Thieken AH, Schwarz J, Radtke KS, Smolka A, Merz B (2006) Comparative risk assessments for the city of Cologne–storms, floods, earthquakes. Nat Hazards 38(1–2):21–44Google Scholar
  40. Haraguchi M, Kim S (2014) Critical infrastructure systems: a case-study of the interconnectedness of risks posed by Hurrican Sandy for New York City, UNISDRGoogle Scholar
  41. Hatayama K (2014) Damage to oil storage tanks due to tsunami of the Mw9.0 off the Pacific coast of Tohuku, Japan. In: Proceedings of tenth US national conference on earthquake engineering frontiers of earthquake engineering, pp 21–25Google Scholar
  42. Haugen KB, Løvholt F, Harbitz CB (2005) Fundamental mechanisms for tsunami generation by submarine mass flows in idealised geometries. Mar Pet Geol 22(1):209–217Google Scholar
  43. Horspool NA, Fraser S (2016) An analysis of tsunami impacts to lifelines, GNS Science Consultancy Report 2016/22. Available at Accessed 8 May 2019
  44. Iida K (1983) Some remarks on the occurence of Tsunamigenic earthquakes around the Pacific. In: Iida K, Iwasaki T (eds) Tsunamis-their science and engineering. Terra Scientific Publication Company, Tokyo, pp 61–76Google Scholar
  45. Javanbarg M, Scawthorn C, Kiyono J, Ono Y (2009) Multi-hazard reliability analysis of lifeline networks. In: Technical council on lifeline earthquake engineering conference (TCLEE) June 28–July 1, 2009, Oakland, California, United States, ASCE, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  46. Johnson G, Sheppard R, Quilici M, Eder S, Scawthorne C (1999) Seismic reliability assessment of critical facilities: a handbook, supporting documentation, and model code provisions. MCEER, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Kameshwar S, Padgett JE (2014) Multi-hazard risk assessment of highway bridges subjected to earthquake and hurricane hazards. Eng Struct 78(1):154–166Google Scholar
  48. Kappes MS, Keiler M, von Elverfeldt K, Glade T (2012) Challenges of analyzing multi-hazard risk: a review. Nat Hazards 64(2):1925–1958Google Scholar
  49. Kazama M, Noda T (2012) Damage statistics (summary of the 2011 off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku earthquake damage). Soils Found 52(5):780–792Google Scholar
  50. Koshimura S, Oie T, Yanagisawa H, Imamura F (2009) Developing fragility functions for tsunami damage estimation using numerical model and post-tsunami data from Banda Aceh, Indonesia. Coast Eng J 5(103):243–273Google Scholar
  51. Krausmann E, Cruz AM (2013) Impact of the 11 March 2011, Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami on the chemical industry. Nat Hazards 67(2):811–828Google Scholar
  52. Krawcyzk C (2003) Amphibious seismic survey images plate interface at 1960 Chile earthquake. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 84(32):301–305Google Scholar
  53. Kulikov E, Rabinovich A, Thomson R (2005) Estimation of tsunami risk for the coasts of Peru and northern Chile. Nat Hazards 35(2):185–209Google Scholar
  54. Kunz M, Mühr B, Kunz-Plapp T, Daniell JE, Khazai B, Wenzel F, Vannieuwenhuyse M, Comes T, Elmer F, Schroter K, Fohringer J, Munzberg TLC, Zschau J (2013) Investigation of superstorm Sandy 2012 in a multi-disciplinary approach. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci Discuss 1:625–679Google Scholar
  55. Landucci G, Necci A, Antonioni G, Tugnoli A, Cozzani V (2014) Release of hazardous substances in flood events: damage model for horizontal cylindrical vessels. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 132:125–145Google Scholar
  56. Li Y, Ellingwood B (2009) Framework for multihazard risk assessment and mitigation for wood-frame residential construction. J Struct Eng 135(2):159–168Google Scholar
  57. Li Y, Song R, Van De Lindt JW (2014) Collapse fragility of steel structures subjected to earthquake mainshock-aftershock sequences. J Struct Eng 140(2):04014095Google Scholar
  58. Macabuag J, Rossetto T, Ioannou I, Suppasri A, Sugawara D, Adriano B, Imamura F, Eames I, Koshimura S (2016) A proposed methodology for deriving tsunami fragility functions for buildings using optimum intensity measures. Nat Hazards 84(2):1257–1285Google Scholar
  59. Mackie K, B Stojadinovic (2004) Residual displacement and post-earthquake capacity of highway bridges. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  60. Malhotra PK, Wenk T, Wieland M (2000) Simple procedure for seismic analysis of liquid-storage tanks. Struct Eng Int 10(3):197–201Google Scholar
  61. Marzocchi W, Garcia-Aristizabal A, Gasparini P, Mastellone ML, Di Ruocco A (2012) Basic principles of multi-risk assessment: a case study in Italy. Nat Hazards 62(2):551–573Google Scholar
  62. Mignan A, Wiemer S, Giardini D (2014) The quantification of low-probability—high-consequences events: part I. A generic multi-risk approach. Nat Hazards 73(3):1999–2022Google Scholar
  63. Montalva GA, Bastías N, Rodriguez-Marek A (2016) Ground motion prediction equation for the Chilean subduction zone. Seismol Res Lett (Submitted)Google Scholar
  64. Murty TS (1977) Seismic sea waves tsunamis. Bull Fish Res Board Canada 198:337Google Scholar
  65. Nishi H (2012) Damage on hazardous materials facilities. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on engineering lessons learned from the 2011 Great East Japan EarthquakeGoogle Scholar
  66. Pagani M, Monelli D, Weatherill GA, Garcia J (2014) The OpenQuake-engine book: hazard technical report 2014–08. Global Earthquake Model (GEM)Google Scholar
  67. Park J, Cho J, Rose A (2011) Modeling a major source of economic resilience to disasters: recapturing lost production. Nat Hazards 58(1):163–182Google Scholar
  68. Petersen M, Harmsen S, Haller K, Mueller C, Luco N, Hayes G, Dewey J, Rukstales K (2010) Preliminary seismic hazard model for South America. In: Conferencia Internacional en Homenaje a Alberto Giesecke Matto, PeruGoogle Scholar
  69. Prasad G, Banerjee S (2013) The impact of flood-induced scour on seismic fragility characteristics of bridges. J Earthquake Eng 17(6):803–828Google Scholar
  70. Rose A, Huyck CK (2016) Improving catastrophe modeling for business interruption insurance needs. Risk Anal 36(10):1896–1915Google Scholar
  71. Ryu H, Luco N, Uma SR, Liel AB (2011) Developing fragilities for mainshock-damaged structures through incremental dynamic analysis. In: Ninth pacific conference on earthquake engineering, Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  72. Silgado E (1978) Recurrence of tsunamis in the western coast of South America. Mar Geodesy 1(4):347–354Google Scholar
  73. Silva W, Gregor N, Darragh R (2002) Development of regional hard rock attenuation relations for central and eastern North America. Pacific Engineering and Analysis, El Cerrito, CA. Available at
  74. Somoza R, Ghidella M (2005) Convergencia en el margen occidental de Ame´rica del Sur durante el Cenozoico: subduccio´n de las placas de Nazca Farallón y Aluk. Revista de la Asociacio´n Geolo´gica Argentina 60:797–809Google Scholar
  75. Stewart J, Douglas J, Javanbarg M, Di Alessandro C, Bozorgnia Y, Abrahamson N, Boore D, Campbell K, Delavaud E, Erdik M, Stafford P (2013) GEM-PEER task 3 project: selection of a global set of ground motion prediction equations. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  76. Suppasri A, Fukutani Y, Abe Y, Imamura F (2013) Relationship between earthquake magnitude and tsunami height along the Tohoku coast based on historical tsunami trace database and the 2011 Great East Japan Tsunami. Rep Tsunami Eng 30:37–49Google Scholar
  77. Suzuki K (2008) Earthquake damage to industrial facilities and development of seismic and vibration control technology. J Syst Des Dyn 2(1):2–11Google Scholar
  78. SwissRe (2013) Mind the risk: a global ranking of cities under threat from natural disasters. Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  79. Tavakoli B, Pezeshk S (2005) Empirical-stochastic ground-motion prediction for Eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 95(6):2283–2296Google Scholar
  80. Tinti S, Armigliato A, Pagnoni G, Zaniboni F (2005) Scenarios of giant tsunamis of tectonic origin in the Mediterranean. ISET J Earthq Technol 42(4):171–188Google Scholar
  81. USDOE (2013) Comparing the impacts of northeast Hurricanes on energy infrastructure. US Department of Energy, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  82. Wang Z, Song W, Li T (2012) Combined fragility surface analysis of earthquake and scour hazards for bridge. In: Proceedings of the 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, pp 24–28Google Scholar
  83. Yamashita T, Sato R (1974) Generation of tsunami by a fault model. J Phys Earth 22(4):415–440Google Scholar
  84. Youngs RR, Chiou BS.-J, Silva JR (1997) Strong ground motion attenuation relationships for subduction zone earthquakes. Seismol Res Lett 68(1):58–73Google Scholar
  85. Zhao JX, Zhang J, Asano A, Ohno Y, Oouchi T, Takahashi T, Ogawa H, Irikura K, Thio HK, Somerville PG, Fukushima Y (2006) Attenuation relations of strong ground motion in Japan using site classification based on predominant period. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:898–913Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.American International GroupNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Catastrophe Management Solutions, Americal International GroupLondonUK
  3. 3.Department of Architectural EngineeringThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations