Determining Acceptable Risk by Considering Consequential Damages Caused by Earthquake Incident in Lifeline (Road Transport)

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Road, Housing & Urban Development Research Center, Tehran, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Zanjan, Zanjan, Iran.‬‬‬‬‬‬‬

3 Associate Professor, Civil, Water and Environmental Engineering, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.

4 Assistant Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.

10.22034/tri.2021.257863.2836

Abstract

Consequential damages assessment is one of the main steps in determining the risk of road transport network against incident such as earthquakes. According to the increase of existing damages, we are present a solution to mitigate the damages. As the appropriate size of the damage is provided, the recovery's more accurate cost is evaluated. Determining the amount less than acceptable value will increase future damages, and on the other hand, determining an amount more than necessary increases safety, but it will increase maintenance cost. In this research, the authors argue what amount of damage can be acceptable concerning the amount of possible damage to a road and its infrastructures affected by the earthquake and its post-disaster consequences regarding in the terms of initial recovery time and final recovery time. In this regard, the authors provide a method for calculating acceptable Consequential damage based on two social and economic perspectives, including obtaining the expert’s opinions and authorities and investigating the damage to the transportation network. Earthquake intensity is considered in three categories: severe, moderate and mild, and the road performance is considered in four categories: freeway, highway, main and secondary roads.Besides, we used the validation methods for implementing our method were performed in 16 cases. The results of this research showed that within the four effective parameters which had a pleasing effect on the amount of damage are including topographic states, the existence of infrastructures, the presence or absence of alternative paths, and the significance of the origin-destination of the roads; Topographic states has the most effective among the parameters.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Aase, K.K., (2001), "On the St. Petersburg Paradox", Scandinavian Actuarial Journal, pp.69–78.
-Basőz, N., and Kiremidjian, A. S., (1996), “Risk assessment for highway systems”, Report No. 118, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
-C. Barkley, (2009), "lifelines: upgrading infrastructure to enhance san francisco’s earthquake resilience," spur Board of Directors, www.spur.org, San Francisco.
Canadian Standards Association (CSA), (1997), CAN/CSA-Q850-97, “Risk Management: Guideline for Decision-Makers”, Etobicoke (Toronto), Canada: Canadian Standards Association.
-Determining acceptable risk criteria in the road transport network against natural disasters, (2020), “Transportaion Research Institue, Road, Housing & Urban Development Research Center (BHRC).
2016, rules for classification  of ships  part 1 chapter 1 general regulations, //www.dnvgl.com is the officially binding version Ships part 1, chapter 1.
-Fischhoff B., Slovic P., Lichtenstein S., Read S. and Combs B., (1978), “How seife is safe enough? A psychometric study attitudes towards technological risks and benefits”, J. of policy science, 9, pp. 127-152.
-ISO 2394, (2015), “General principles on reliability for structures/ https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:2394:ed-4:v1:en.
-K. Nasserasadi, M. Ghafory-Ashtiany, (2005), “Using Seismic Risk Models As a Tool for Risk Management”, 250th Anniversary of the 1755 Lisbon Earthquake.
-Lemarie M.­, (2005), “Sructural Reliability”, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
-Multi-hazard Loss Estimation Methodology Earthquake Model HAZUS-MH MR3-Technical Manual, (2003), [Performance]. Department of Homeland Security Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate FEMA Mitigation Division.
Murphy C. and Gardoni P. (2008), “The acceptability and the tolerability of social risks: A capability-based approach”, J. of Scieance Engineering and Ethics, 14,
pp. 77-99.
-S Banerjee, M Shinozuka, (2009), “Uncertainties in seismic risk assessment of highway transportation systems”, TCLEE.
-UN/ISDR (United Nations/International Strategy for Disaster Reduction), (2017), Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Genf: United Nations, Google Scholar.
-UNDRO, (1980), “Natural disasters and vulnerability analysis”, Report of Experts Group Meeting of 9–12 July 1979. Geneva: UNDRO.Google Scholar.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics