Abstract
Most of the literature on resilience is devoted to its assessment. It seems time to move from analysis to design, to develop the tools needed to enhance resilience. Resilience enhancement, a close relative of the less fashionable risk mitigation, adds to the latter, at least in the general perception, a systemic dimension. Resilience is often paired with community, and the latter is a system. This chapter therefore discusses strategies to enhance resilience, endorses one of prevention rather than cure, and focuses in the remainder on the role played by systemic analysis, i.e. the analysis of the built environment modelled beyond a simple collection of physical assets, with due care to the associated interdependencies. Research needs are identified and include challenges in network modelling, the replacement of generic fragility curves for components, how to deal with evolving state of information.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The reader is warned that what follow are amateurish economic considerations.
- 2.
A system is a dynamic entity comprising a collection of interacting components assembled to perform an intended function. As such, a community can be described as a system, albeit an incredibly large and multi-faceted one. It is a complex dynamic system of people and organizations with relationships and interactions. Most of these relationships and interactions are physically supported by the community’s built environment, which plays a crucial role in enabling a community to successfully function: it provides the physical foundations for much of the economic and social activities that characterize a modern society. Natural and man-made hazards can damage the built environment, thus disrupting the security, economy, safety, health, and welfare of the public. In response, regulatory frameworks were developed and implemented to ensure minimum levels of performance for individual parts of the built environment.
- 3.
This chapter is not a state-of-the-art on either resilience or the assessment of infrastructural systems, but, rather, a point of view on some research gaps in the field. For this reason, only a subjective, partial selection of examples is given here, before focusing from the next section on the framework developed by the author and co-workers.
References
Bensi M, Der Kiureghian A, Straub D (2013) Efficient Bayesian network modelling of systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 112:200–213
Bocchini P, Frangopol DM, Ummenhofer T, Zinke T (2014) Resilience and sustainability of civil infrastructure: toward a unified approach. J Infrastruct Syst 20(2)
Bommer JJ, Crowley H (2006) The influence of ground-motion variability in earthquake loss modelling. Bull Earthq Eng 4(3):231–248
Borzi B, Ceresa P, Franchin P, Noto F, Calvi GM, Pinto PE (2015) Seismic vulnerability of the Italian roadway bridge stock. Earthquake Spectra 31(4):2137–2161
Bruneau M, Chang SE, Eguchi RT, Lee GC, O'Rourke TD, Reinhorn AM et al (2003) A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities. Earthquake Spectra 19(4):733–752
Calvi GM, Spaziante V (2009) Reconstruction between temporary and definitive: the CASE project. Progettazione Sismica, 03/English, 2009, pp 221–250
Carpentier J (1962) Contribution á l’étude du dispatching économique. Bulletin de la Société Française des Électriciens 3(8):431–447
Cavalieri F (2017) Steady-state flow computation in gas distribution networks with multiple pressure levels. Energy 121:781–791
Cavalieri F, Franchin P, Buriticá Cortés JA, Tesfamariam S (2014a) Models for seismic vulnerability analysis of power networks: comparative assessment. Comput Aided Civ Inf Eng 29(8):590–607
Cavalieri F, Franchin P, Pinto PE (2014) Chapter: Application to selected transportation and electric networks in Italy. In: Pitilakis K, Franchin P, Khazai B, Wenzel H (eds) SYNER-G: systemic seismic vulnerability and risk assessment of complex urban, utility, lifeline systems and critical facilities, vol 31. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 331–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8835-9_11. Online ISBN: 978-94-017-8835-9
Cavalieri F, Franchin P, Gehl P, Khazai B (2012) Quantitative assessment of social losses based on physical damage and interaction with infrastructural systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 41(11):1569–1589
Cavalieri F, Franchin P, Giovinazzi S (2016) Earthquake-altered flooding hazard induced by damage to storm water systems. Sustain Resilient Infrastruct 1(1–2):14–31
Cavalieri F, Franchin P, Gehl P, D’Ayala D (2017) Bayesian networks and infrastructure systems: computational and methodological challenges. In: Risk and reliability analysis: theory and applications. Springer, Cham, pp 385–415
Chang SE, Shinozuka M, Moore JE II (2000) Probabilistic earthquake scenarios: extending risk analysis methodologies to spatially distributed systems. Earthquake Spectra 16(3):557–572
Cho S, Gordon P, Moore JE II, Richardson HW, Shinozuka M, Chang S (2001) Integrating transportation network and regional economic models to estimate the cost of a large urban earthquake. J Reg Sci 41(1):39–65
Cho S, Murachi Y, Fan Y, Shinozuka M (2004) Transportation network simulation for dynamic origin-destination matrix under earthquake damage (Paper 1697). In: Proceedings of 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada
Cimellaro GP, Reinhorn AM, Bruneau M (2010) Framework for analytical quantification of disaster resilience. Eng Struct 32(11):3639–3649
Crowley H, Polidoro B, Pinho R, van Elk J (2017) Framework for developing fragility and consequence models for local personal risk. Earthquake Spectra 33(4):1325–1345
Davis C (2015) Overview on the multi-hazard earthquake-flooding project, and activities of the ASCE Infrastructure Resilience Division. Presentation at the 3rd UC Lifeline Week, Rome, Italy. https://sites.google.com/site/resilientinfrastructures/events/3rd-uc-lifeline-week/presentations/day-2
Dolce M (2017) Reduction of vulnerability (and risk), development of guidelines - optimised use of resources for the reduction of seismic risk while improving energy performance. Kick off meeting Italian Department of Civil Protection and EC Joint Research Centre, Rome, Italy, June 1st 2017
Dolce M (2018) The 2016–2017 Central Apennines seismic sequence: analogies and differences with recent Italian earthquakes. In: Pitilakis K (ed) Recent advances in earthquake engineering in Europe. Springer, Cham, pp 603–639
Dueñas-Osorio L, Craig JI, Goodno BJ (2007) Seismic response of critical interdependent networks. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36(2):285–306
Esposito E, Iervolino I, d’Onofrio A, Santo A, Cavalieri F, Franchin P (2014) Simulation-based seismic risk assessment of gas distribution networks. Comput Aided Civ Inf Eng 30(7):508–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/mice.12105
Fardis MN (2018) Practical modelling of RC structures for displacement-based evaluation: toward the second generation of EN-Eurocode 8 and beyond. In: Pitilakis K (ed) Recent advances in earthquake engineering in Europe. Springer, Cham, pp 101–123
Franchin P (2014) A computational framework for systemic seismic risk analysis of civil infrastructural systems. In: Pitilakis K, Franchin P, Khazai B (eds) SYNER-G: systemic seismic vulnerability and risk assessment of complex urban, utility, lifeline systems and critical facilities, vol 31. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 23–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8835-9_2
Franchin P, Cavalieri F (2013) Seismic vulnerability analysis of a complex interconnected civil infrastructure. In: Tesfamariam S, Goda K (eds) Handbook of seismic risk analysis and Management of civil infrastructure systems. Woodhead Publishing Ltd, Cambridge, pp 465–513. ISBN 0-85709-268-5
Franchin P, Cavalieri F (2015) Probabilistic assessment of civil infrastructure resilience to earthquakes. Comput Aided Civ Inf Eng 30(7):583–600
Franchin P, Lupoi A, Noto F, Tesfamariam S (2016) Seismic fragility of reinforced concrete girder bridges using Bayesian belief network. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 45(1):29–44
Franchin P, Petrini F, Mollaioli F (2017) Improved risk-targeted performance-based seismic design of reinforced concrete frame structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2936
Franchin P, Pinto PE (2009) Allowing traffic over mainshock-damaged bridges. J Earthq Eng 13(5):585–599
Gehl P, Cavalieri F, Franchin P, Negulescu C (2017) Robustness of a hybrid simulation-based/Bayesian approach for the risk assessment of a real-world road network. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on structural safety and reliability
Iervolino I (2018) What seismic risk we do design for when we design buildings? In: Pitilakis K (ed) Recent advances in earthquake engineering in Europe. Springer, Cham, pp 583–602
Iervolino I, Giorgio M, Polidoro B (2014) Sequence-based probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 104(2):1006–1012
Jayaram N, Baker JW (2009) Correlation model for spatially distributed ground-motion intensities. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38(15):1687–1708
Jayaram N, Baker JW (2010) Efficient sampling and data reduction techniques for probabilistic seismic lifeline risk assessment. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 39(10):1109–1131
Nielsen TD, Jensen FV (2009) Bayesian networks and decision graphs. Springer Science & Business Media, New York
Karaca E (2005) Regional earthquake loss estimation: role of transportation network, sensitivity and uncertainty, and risk mitigation. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Li J, Dueñas-Osorio L, Chen C, Shi C (2017) AC power flow importance measures considering multi-element failures. Reliab Eng Syst Saf, accepted. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2016.11.010
Lin P, Wang N, Ellingwood BR (2016) A risk de-aggregation framework that relates community resilience goals to building performance objectives. Sustain Resilient Infrastruct 1(1–2):1–13
Meadows D, Randers J, Meadows D (2004) Limits to growth: the 30-year update. Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction
Mieler MW, Stojadinovic B, Budnitz RJ, Mahin SA, Comerio MC (2013) Toward resilient communities: a performance-based engineering framework for design and evaluation of the built environment (PEER Report 2013/19). Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley
Mieler MW, Stojadinovic B, Budnitz R, Comerio M, Mahin S (2015) A framework for linking community-resilience goals to specific performance targets for the built environment. Earthquake Spectra 31(3):1267–1283
Newell J, Beaven S, Johnston DM (2012) Population movements following the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquakes: summary of research workshops November 2011 and current evidence, GNS Miscellaneous Series 44. 23 p + Appendix C
NIBS (National Institute of Building Sciences) (1999) Earthquake loss estimation methodology: HAZUS99 (SR2). Technical manual, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC. http://www.fema.gov/hazus
OOFIMS Object-oriented framework for infrastructure modelling and simulation. Aavailable at https://sites.google.com/a/uniroma1.it/oofims/
PCCIP (1997) Critical foundations: protecting America’s infrastructures. Report of the President’s Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection. Available from http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/pccip.pdf . Accessed 7 Sept 2011
Pitilakis K, Crowley H, Kaynia AM (2014a) SYNER-G: typology definition and fragility functions for physical elements at seismic risk, Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering, 27. Springer, Dordrecht
Pitilakis K, Franchin P, Khazai B, Wenzel H (eds) (2014b) SYNER-G: systemic seismic vulnerability and risk assessment of complex urban, utility, lifeline systems and critical facilities: methodology and applications, vol 31. Springer, Dordrech
Poljanšek K, Bono F, Gutiérrez E (2012) Seismic risk assessment of interdependent critical infrastructure systems: the case of European gas and electricity networks. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 41(1):61–79
Rinaldi SM (2004) Modelling and simulating critical infrastructures and their interdependencies. In: Proceedings of the thirty-seventh annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2004.1265180
Shinozuka M, Murachi Y, Dong X, Zhou Y, Orlikowski MJ (2003) Effect of seismic retrofit of bridges on transportation networks. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 2(2):169–179
Sun L, Didier M, Delé E, Stojadinovic B (2015) Probabilistic demand and supply resilience model for electric power supply system under seismic hazard. In: 12th international conference on applications of statistics and probability in civil engineering, ICASP12 Vancouver, Canada, July 12–15, 2015
Vamvatsikos D (2017) Performance-based seismic design in real life: the good, the bad and the ugly. Atti del XVII Convegno ANIDIS L’ingegneria Sismica in Italia, 17–24
Vamvatsikos D, Kazantzi AK, Aschheim MA (2015) Performance-based seismic design: avant-garde and code-compatible approaches. ASCE-ASME J Risk Uncertain Eng Syst Part A Civil Eng 2(2):C4015008
Vanzi I (1996) Seismic reliability of electric power networks: methodology and application. Struct Saf 18:311–327
Veneziano D, Casciati F, Faravelli L (1983) Method of seismic fragility for complicated systems. In: Proceeding of the 2nd Committee of Safety of Nuclear Installation (CNSI). Specialist meeting on probabilistic methods in seismic risk assessment for nuclear power plants, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, CA
Wang Y, Au S-K, Fu Q (2010) Seismic risk assessment and mitigation of water supply systems. Earthquake Spectra 26(1):257–274
Weatherill G, Esposito S, Iervolino I, Franchin P, Cavalieri F (2014) Framework for seismic hazard analysis of spatially distributed systems. In: SYNER-G: systemic seismic vulnerability and risk assessment of complex urban, utility, lifeline systems and critical facilities. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 57–88
Acknowledgements
Research from the author and co-workers is cited in this contribution extensively, to an extent that obviously does not reflect its relative weight in the field, but the intent of this contribution is to put forward some thoughts on research needs, rather than providing an exhaustive and balanced state of the art. This research was developed over a number of years with financial support of the European Commission, through the SYNER-G research project (grant number 244061), and the Italian Department of Civil Protection, through the RELUIS consortium (Special project RS6). This support is gratefully acknowledged. The author wishes also to especially acknowledge the long-lasting and fruitful collaboration with Dr. Francesco Cavalieri, who was, among other things, the main developer of the OOFIMS implementation of the systemic analysis framework. Finally, the views expressed in this chapter are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of the funding agencies or of the collaborators.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Franchin, P. (2018). Research Needs Towards a Resilient Community. In: Pitilakis, K. (eds) Recent Advances in Earthquake Engineering in Europe. ECEE 2018. Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering, vol 46. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75741-4_28
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75741-4_28
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-75740-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-75741-4
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)