Risk Assessment of Road Blockage after Earthquakes
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methodology
2.1. General Aspects and Objectives
2.2. Steps of the Procedure
- Definition of a starting point;
- Definition of an end point;
- Identification of the possible connections, which can include two or more alternative (and therefore redundant) paths and then discretization of the path in road segments between two nodes;
- Identification of interfering elements along each road segment, such as buildings, bridges, retaining walls, and slopes, each of which has its own fragility curve (the possible damage on the road itself is assumed to be negligible);
- Definition of the seismic hazard of each element, accounting for the local seismic site response;
- Calculation of the MAF of exceedance of the blockage LS due to each single element;
- Calculation of the MAF of exceedance of the blockage LS associated to the entire path.
- An upper limit of MAF for the road blockage LS (capacity);
- A MAF of an alternative road due to the following:
- (a)
- Reduction in the vulnerability of one or more elements along the path;
- (b)
- Modification of the layout of one or more road segments, for instance, bypassing some critical points.
3. Fragility and Risk Analysis
3.1. Fragility Curves for Buildings
3.2. Fragility Curves for Bridges
3.3. Fragility Curves for Retaining Walls
3.4. Fragility Curves for Slopes
3.5. MAF for Individual Structures along the Path
3.6. MAF for an Entire Path and for a Network of Paths with Same Start and End Points
4. Application of the Proposed Methodology to Amatrice (Italy)
4.1. Description of the Case Study
4.2. Analysis Steps and Selection of the Paths
- Identification of the starting point: Here, Saletta, one of the most populous settlements in the municipality and, in the meanwhile, quite far away from the end point (around 10 km), is assumed as the starting point;
- Identification of the end point: Here, the Amatrice settlement, where all the main public functions are concentrated, is assumed as the ending point;
- Identification of the possible paths connecting the starting and end points;
- Identification of some illustrative interfering elements along the road segments and their classification according to the typological classes defined in Section 3, each of which has its own fragility curve;
- Definition of the seismic demand relevant for each interfering element [28];
- Calculation of the MAF of exceedance of the blockage LS of the road for each single element;
- Calculation of the MAF of exceedance of the blockage LS of the entire path.
- Segment A: two unreinforced masonry buildings, a reinforced concrete bridge, and a retaining wall;
- Segment B: an unreinforced masonry bridge and a slope;
- Segment C: an unreinforced masonry building and a reinforced concrete building.
- The strengthening of an unreinforced masonry building and of a reinforced concrete building along the path, which reduces the associated seismic risk;
- An alternative path overriding some elements/hypothesizing to demolish them.
4.3. Path n.1—Segment A
- -
- = 1.33;
- -
- = 1.20 g, = 0.6 (GS);
- -
- 0.1 m, = 0.2 (GF);
- -
- = 1.
4.4. Path n.2—Segment B
4.5. Path n.1 or 2—Segment C
4.6. Reduction in Risk by Means of Seismic Strengthening or Bypass
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Hayes, J.L.; Biass, S.; Jenkins, S.F.; Meredith, E.S.; Williams, G.T. Integrating Criticality Concepts into Road Network Disruption Assessments for Volcanic Eruptions. J. Appl. Volcanol. 2022, 11, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Argyroudis, S.; Selva, J.; Gehl, P.; Pitilakis, K. Systemic Seismic Risk Assessment of Road Networks Considering Interactions with the Built Environment. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2015, 30, 524–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bíl, M.; Kubeček, J.; Andrášik, R. An Epidemiological Approach to Determining the Risk of Road Damage Due to Landslides. Nat. Hazards 2014, 73, 1323–1335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El-maissi, A.M.; Argyroudis, S.A.; Nazri, F.M. Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Methodologies for Roadway Assets and Networks: A State-of-the-Art Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anbazhagan, P.; Srinivas, S.; Chandran, D. Classification of Road Damage Due to Earthquakes. Nat. Hazards 2012, 60, 425–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, Y.C.; Gardoni, P. Predicting Road Blockage Due to Building Damage Following Earthquakes. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2021, 219, 108220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goretti, A.; Sarli, V. Road Network and Damaged Buildings in Urban Areas: Short and Long-Term Interaction. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2006, 4, 159–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Augusti, G.; Borri, A.; Ciampoli, M. Optimal Allocation of Resources in Reduction of the Seismic Risk of Highway Networks. Eng. Struct. 1994, 16, 485–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franchin, P.; Lupoi, A.; Pinto, P.E. On the Role of Road Networks in Reducing Human Losses after Earthquakes. J. Earthq. Eng. 2006, 10, 195–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zanini, M.A.; Faleschini, F.; Zampieri, P.; Pellegrino, C.; Gecchele, G.; Gastaldi, M.; Rossi, R. Post-Quake Urban Road Network Functionality Assessment for Seismic Emergency Management in Historical Centres. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2017, 13, 1117–1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andreotti, C.; Liberatore, D.; Sorrentino, L. Identifying Seismic Local Collapse Mechanisms in Unreinforced Masonry Buildings through 3D Laser Scanning. In Key Engineering Materials; Trans Tech Publications Ltd.: Baech, Switzerland, 2015; Volume 628, pp. 79–84. [Google Scholar]
- Costa, C.; Figueiredo, R.; Silva, V.; Bazzurro, P. Application of Open Tools and Datasets to Probabilistic Modeling of Road Traffic Disruptions Due to Earthquake Damage. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2020, 49, 1236–1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dhakal, S.; Cui, P.; Rijal, C.P.; Su, L.-J.; Zou, Q.; Mavrouli, O.; Wu, C.-H. Landslide Characteristics and Its Impact on Tourism for Two Roadside Towns along the Kathmandu Kyirong Highway. J. Mt. Sci. 2020, 17, 1840–1859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sasabe, M.; Fujii, K.; Kasahara, S. Road Network Risk Analysis Considering People Flow under Ordinary and Evacuation Situations. Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 2020, 47, 759–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Takabatake, T.; Chenxi, D.H.; Esteban, M.; Shibayama, T. Influence of Road Blockage on Tsunami Evacuation: A Comparative Study of Three Different Coastal Cities in Japan. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2022, 68, 102684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ito, E.; Kawase, H.; Matsushima, S.; Hatayama, M. Tsunami Evacuation Simulation Considering Road Blockage by Collapsed Buildings Evaluated from Predicted Strong Ground Motion. Nat. Hazards 2020, 101, 959–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- PrEN1998-1-1; Eurocode 8—Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance—Part 1-1: General Rules and Seismic Action (September 2022 Draft Version). The European Union: Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2022.
- PrEN1998-1-3; Eurocode 8—Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance—Part 1-3: Assessment and Retrofitting of Buildings and Bridges (July 2022 Draft Version). The European Union: Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2022.
- Santarelli, S.; Bernardini, G.; Quagliarini, E. Earthquake Building Debris Estimation in Historic City Centres: From Real World Data to Experimental-Based Criteria. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2018, 31, 281–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hirokawa, N.; Osaragi, T. Earthquake Disaster Simulation System: Integration of Models for Building Collapse, Road Blockage, and Fire Spread. J. Disaster Res. 2016, 11, 175–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moya, L.; Mas, E.; Yamazaki, F.; Liu, W.; Koshimura, S. Statistical Analysis of Earthquake Debris Extent from Wood-Frame Buildings and Its Use in Road Networks in Japan. Earthq. Spectra 2020, 36, 209–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lam, J.C.; Adey, B.T.; Heitzler, M.; Hackl, J.; Gehl, P.; van Erp, N.; D’Ayala, D.; van Gelder, P.; Hurni, L. Stress Tests for a Road Network Using Fragility Functions and Functional Capacity Loss Functions. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2018, 173, 78–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lo, I.T.; Lin, C.Y.; Yang, C.T.; Chuang, Y.J.; Lin, C.H. Assessing the Blockage Risk of Disaster-Relief Road for a Large-Scale Earthquake. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2020, 24, 3820–3834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anelli, A.; Mori, F.; Vona, M. Fragility Curves of the Urban Road Network Based on the Debris Distributions of Interfering Buildings. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CTMS Commissione Tecnica per La Microzonazione Sismica. Manuale per L’analisi Della Condizione Limite per l’Emergenza (CLE) Dell’insediamento Urbano; Dipartimento della Protezione Civile: Rome, Italy, 2014.
- Zucconi, M.; Ferlito, R.; Sorrentino, L. Typological Damage Fragility Curves for Unreinforced Masonry Buildings Affected by the 2009 L’Aquila, Italy Earthquake. Open Civ. Eng. J. 2021, 15, 117–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- del Gaudio, C.; di Ludovico, M.; Polese, M.; Manfredi, G.; Prota, A.; Ricci, P.; Verderame, G.M. Seismic Fragility for Italian RC Buildings Based on Damage Data of the Last 50 Years. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2020, 18, 2023–2059, Erratum in Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2020, 18, 4547–4548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Italian Ministry of Infrastructures and Transport. Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni. DM 14/01/2008, Rome, Italy. 2008. Available online: https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2008/02/04/08A00368/sg (accessed on 30 March 2024). (In Italian)
- di Ludovico, M.; Digrisolo, A.; Graziotti, F.; Moroni, C.; Belleri, A.; Caprili, S.; Carocci, C.; Dall’Asta, A.; de Martino, G.; de Santis, S.; et al. The Contribution of ReLUIS to the Usability Assessment of School Buildings Following the 2016 Central Italy Earthquake. Boll. Di Geofis. Teor. Appl. 2017, 58, 353–376. [Google Scholar]
- Sorrentino, L.; Alshawa, O.; Liberatore, D. Observations of Out-of-Plane Rocking in the Oratory of San Giuseppe Dei Minimi during the 2009 L’Aquila Earthquake. In Proceedings of the Applied Mechanics and Materials; Trans Tech Publications Ltd.: Wollerau, Switzerland, 2014; Volume 621, pp. 101–106. [Google Scholar]
- Salzano, P.; Casapulla, C.; Ceroni, F.; Prota, A. Seismic Vulnerability and Simplified Safety Assessments of Masonry Churches in the Ischia Island (Italy) after the 2017 Earthquake. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2022, 16, 136–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zampieri, P.; Zanini, M.A.; Faleschini, F. Derivation of Analytical Seismic Fragility Functions for Common Masonry Bridge Types: Methodology and Application to Real Cases. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2016, 68, 275–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- HAZUS FEMA. Hazus–MH 2.1: Technical Manual; Federal Emergency Management Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
- Mander, J.B. Fragility Curve Development for Assessing the Seismic Vulnerability of Highway Bridges; ASCE: Reston, VA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Argyroudis, S.; Kaynia, A.M.; Pitilakis, K. Development of Fragility Functions for Geotechnical Constructions: Application to Cantilever Retaining Walls. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2013, 50, 106–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Italian Ministry of Infrastructures and Transport. Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni. DM 17/01/2018, Rome, Italy. 2018. Available online: https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/gu/2018/02/20/42/so/8/sg/pdf (accessed on 30 March 2024). (In Italian)
- Felice, G.; Liberatore, D.; de Santis, S.; Gobbin, F.; Roselli, I.; Sangirardi, M.; AlShawa, O.; Sorrentino, L. Seismic Behaviour of Rubble Masonry: Shake Table Test and Numerical Modelling. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2022, 51, 1245–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, X.Z. Development of Fragility Functions for Slope Instability Analysis: Fragility Functions for Slope Instability Analysis. Landslides 2015, 12, 165–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martino, S.; Battaglia, S.; Delgado, J.; Esposito, C.; Martini, G.; Missori, C. Probabilistic Approach to Provide Scenarios of Earthquake-Induced Slope Failures (PARSIFAL) Applied to the Alcoy Basin (South Spain). Geosciences 2018, 8, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DT212. Documento Tecnico 212. Istruzioni per La Valutazione Affidabilistica Della Sicurezza Sismica Di Edifici Esistenti; Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche: Roma, Italy, 2013.
- Augusti, G.; Ciampoli, M.; Frangopol, D.M. Optimal Planning of Retrofitting Interventions on Bridges in a Highway Network. Eng. Struct. 1998, 20, 933–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mollaioli, F.; AlShawa, O.; Liberatore, L.; Liberatore, D.; Sorrentino, L. Seismic Demand of the 2016–2017 Central Italy Earthquakes. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2019, 17, 5399–5427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fiorentino, G.; Forte, A.; Pagano, E.; Sabetta, F.; Baggio, C.; Lavorato, D.; Nuti, C.; Santini, S. Damage Patterns in the Town of Amatrice after August 24th 2016 Central Italy Earthquakes. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2018, 16, 1399–1423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Durante, M.G.; di Sarno, L.; Zimmaro, P.; Stewart, J.P. Damage to Roadway Infrastructure from 2016 Central Italy Earthquake Sequence. Earthq. Spectra 2018, 34, 1721–1737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casapulla, C.; Mousavian, E.; Argiento, L.; Ceraldi, C.; Bagi, K. Torsion-Shear Behaviour at the Interfaces of Rigid Interlocking Blocks in Masonry Assemblages: Experimental Investigation and Analytical Approaches. Mater. Struct./Mater. Et Constr. 2021, 54, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giresini, L. Effect of Dampers on the Seismic Performance of Masonry Walls Assessed through Fragility and Demand Hazard Curves. Eng. Struct. 2022, 261, 114295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
λ | ∆λ | (B) | (C) | (1.0 s; C) | PGD (C) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Years | 1/Years | 1/Years | g | - | s | g | G | G | cm |
30 | 0.0333 | 0.0133 | 0.078 | 2.393 | 0.273 | 0.094 | 0.117 | 0.123 | 2.412 |
50 | 0.0200 | 0.0097 | 0.103 | 2.324 | 0.280 | 0.124 | 0.155 | 0.161 | 3.411 |
72 | 0.0139 | 0.0050 | 0.122 | 2.311 | 0.287 | 0.146 | 0.182 | 0.192 | 4.246 |
101 | 0.0099 | 0.0034 | 0.141 | 2.295 | 0.294 | 0.170 | 0.212 | 0.225 | 5.208 |
140 | 0.0071 | 0.0025 | 0.163 | 2.293 | 0.302 | 0.195 | 0.240 | 0.260 | 6.249 |
201 | 0.0050 | 0.0025 | 0.189 | 2.310 | 0.315 | 0.227 | 0.272 | 0.304 | 7.598 |
475 | 0.0021 | 0.0020 | 0.259 | 2.362 | 0.342 | 0.299 | 0.345 | 0.417 | 11.398 |
975 | 0.0010 | 0.0009 | 0.332 | 2.399 | 0.360 | 0.359 | 0.406 | 0.515 | 15.417 |
2475 | 0.0004 | 0.0006 | 0.450 | 2.459 | 0.381 | 0.450 | 0.466 | 0.630 | 21.373 |
(C) | ∆λi | λLS,j | |
---|---|---|---|
g | - | 1/Year | 1/Year |
0.117 | 0.01656 | 0.01333 | 0.00022 |
0.155 | 0.02400 | 0.00972 | 0.00023 |
0.182 | 0.02959 | 0.00505 | 0.00015 |
0.212 | 0.03562 | 0.00337 | 0.00012 |
0.240 | 0.04139 | 0.00246 | 0.00010 |
0.272 | 0.04770 | 0.00252 | 0.00012 |
0.345 | 0.06223 | 0.00197 | 0.00012 |
0.406 | 0.07390 | 0.00085 | 0.00006 |
0.466 | 0.08522 | 0.00062 | 0.00005 |
Sum (Equation (6)) | 0.00118 |
Segment A | ||
Element | λLS,j | 1 − λLS |
1a | 0.00118 | 0.99882 |
1b | 0.00034 | 0.99966 |
2 | 0.00324 | 0.99676 |
3 | 0.00022 | 0.99978 |
System | 0.00498 | 0.99502 |
Segment B | ||
Element | λLS,j | 1 − λLS |
4 | 0.00787 | 0.99213 |
5 | 0.00095 | 0.99905 |
System | 0.00881 | 0.99119 |
Segment C | ||
Element | λLS,j | 1 − λLS |
6 | 0.00260 | 0.99740 |
7 | 0.00474 | 0.99526 |
System | 0.00733 | 0.99263 |
Element | λLS | 1 − λLS | λlim |
---|---|---|---|
1–5 | 0.00004 | 0.99996 | |
6 | 0.00260 | 0.99740 | |
7 | 0.00474 | 0.99526 | |
System | 0.00737 | 0.99396 | 0.00559 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Sorrentino, L.; Giresini, L. Risk Assessment of Road Blockage after Earthquakes. Buildings 2024, 14, 984. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14040984
Sorrentino L, Giresini L. Risk Assessment of Road Blockage after Earthquakes. Buildings. 2024; 14(4):984. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14040984
Chicago/Turabian StyleSorrentino, Luigi, and Linda Giresini. 2024. "Risk Assessment of Road Blockage after Earthquakes" Buildings 14, no. 4: 984. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14040984