Systemic Seismic Vulnerability and Risk Analysis for Buildings, Lifeline Networks and Infrastructures Safety Gain

Fragility functions of elements at risk (WP3)

Amir M. Kaynia, NGI (WP3 Leader) Sotiris Argyroudis, AUTH

SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013

WP3 tasks
3.1 Fragility of buildings:
3.1.1 Fragility of RC buildings (UPAV) 3.1.1 Fragility of masonry buildings (UPAV)

3.2 Fragility of elements within utility networks:

3.2.1 Fragility of elements of electric power systems (UROMA) 3.2.2 Fragility of elements of gas and oil pipeline systems (BRGM) 3.2.3 Fragility of elements of water and waste-water systems (AUTH)

3.3 Fragility of elements within transportation infrastructures:

3.3.1 Fragility of elements of roadway bridges (UPAV) 3.3.2 Fragility of elements of road networks (NGI)

3.3.3 Fragility of elements of railway networks (NGI)

3.3.4 Fragility of elements of harbour systems (AUTH)

3.4 Fragility of elements within critical facilities:

3.4.1 Fragility of elements of health-care facilities (UROMA)
3.4.2 Fragility of elements of fire-fighting system (AUTH)
SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013 2

Existing fragility curves

USA
(1997- ) (1998- )

Europe
(2001-2004) (2003-2006)

National research projects

Italy: DPC-Eucentre convention, RELUIS Greece: SRM-LIFE (2003-2007), AsProGe (2003-2007)

Numerous research efforts (worldwide)

SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013

SYNER-G contribution
- Review available fragility curves (typology, damage scales,
intensity measures, performance indicators) - Select fragility curves based on SYNER-G taxonomy, through: - Adapt/modify of existing ones - Validation studies - Develop new fragility curves - Fragility Function Manager Tool (store, harmonize, compare)

- Link with SYNER-G software/code

SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013

WP3 Tasks & Deliverables

3.1 Fragility of buildings 3.2 Fragility of elements within utility networks S3.2.1 Electric power (UROMA) S3.2.2 Gas and oil (BRGM) S3.2.3 Water and waste-water (AUTH) 3.3 Fragility of elements within transportation infrastructures S3.3.1 Bridges (UPAT) S3.3.2 Road (NGI, AUTH) S3.3.3 Railway (NGI, AUTH) S3.3.4 Harbor (AUTH) 3.4 Fragility of elements within critical facilities S3.4.1 Health-care (UROMA) S3.4.2 Firefighting (AUTH)

S3.1.1 RC buildings (UPAV, UPAT, JRC, METU) S3.1.2 Masonry buildings (UPAV, UPAT, JRC, METU)

D3.1

D3.2

Fragility Function Manager tool

D3.3 D3.5 D3.4

D3.6 D3.7 D3.8

D3.9

D3.10

D3.11

Completed To be completed (WP7)

www.syner-g.eu > Deliverables

D 3.12 (Synthetic, M36)

Reference Report #4
5

SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013

Fragility Curves
Constitute one of the key elements in seismic probabilistic risk assessment. Relate the seismic intensity to the probability of reaching or exceeding a level of damage (e.g. minor, moderate, extensive, collapse) for each element at risk. Usually described by a lognormal probability distribution function.
Damage Probability

Different approaches:
1.0
Minor damage FUNCTIONALITY

- Empirical

- Expert Judgment
- Analytical - Hybrid
Complete Damages NOT FUNCTIONAL

0.0

IMi

Seismic Motion
6

SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013

Taxonomy of Buildings
FRM/FRMM/P/E/C-CM/D/FS-FSM/RS-RSM/HL-NS/CL Force Resisting Mechanism (FRM) FRM Material (FRMM) Plan (P) Elevation (E) Cladding (C) Cladding Material (CM) Detailing (D) Floor System (FS) Floor System Material (FSM) Roof System (RS) Roof System Material (RSM) Height Level (HL)/Number of Stories (NS) Code Level (CL)

SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013

Taxonomy of Buildings
FRM/FRMM/P/E/C-CM/D/FS-FSM/RS-RSM/HL-NS/CL Force Resisting Mechanism (FRM) Moment Resisting Frame, Bearing Wall.. FRM Material (FRMM) Masonry, Concrete, Fired Brick, Stone.. Plan (P) Regular, Irregular.. Elevation (E) Regular/irregular geometry.. Cladding (C) Regular/irregular vertically.. Cladding Material (CM) Fired brick, glazing, open first floor.. Detailing (D) Ductile, non-ductile, with tie-rods.. Floor System (FS) Rigid, flexible.. Floor System Material (FSM) RC, steel, timber.. Roof System (RS) Peaked, flat.. Roof System Material (RSM) Timber, thatch.. Height Level (HL)/Number of Stories (NS) Low, mid, high-rise, 1, 2, 3.. Code Level (CL) None, low code, mid code, high code..

SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013

Taxonomy of Bridges
MM1-MM2/TD1-TD2-DC/DSS/PDC/TP1-NP/TS1-TS2-HP/SP-SC/TCA/SK/BC/FT/SDL
Material (MM1) Material (MM2) Type of deck (TD1) Type of deck (TD2) Deck characteristics (DC) Deck structural system (DSS) Pier to deck connection (PDC) Type of pier (TP1) Number of piers per column (NP) Type of section of piers (TS1) Type of section of piers (TS2) Height of pier (HP) Spans (SP) Span characteristics (SC) Type of connection to abutments (TCA) Skew (SK) Bridge configuration (BC) Foundation type (FT) Seismic design level (SDL)
SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013 9

Taxonomy of Bridges
MM1-MM2/TD1-TD2-DC/DSS/PDC/TP1-NP/TS1-TS2-HP/SP-SC/TCA/SK/BC/FT/SDL
Material (MM1) concrete, masonry, steel, iron, wood, mixed Material (MM2) reinforced concrete, pre-stressed concrete, unreinforced masonry, Type of deck (TD1) girder, arch, suspension, cable-stayed, moveable Type of deck (TD2) solid slab, slab with voids, box girder, modern arch, ancient arch, Deck characteristics (DC) width Deck structural system (DSS) simply supported, continuous Pier to deck connection (PDC) monolithic, isolated, combination Type of pier (TP1) single-column pier, multi-column pier Number of piers per column (NP) Type of section of piers (TS1) cylindrical, rectangular, oblong, wall-type Type of section of piers (TS2) solid, hollow Height of pier (HP) Spans (SP) single-span, multi-span Span characteristics (SC ) number of spans, span length Type of connection to the abutments (TCA) free, monolithic, isolated Skew (SK) straight, skewed Bridge configuration (BC) regular or semi-regular, irregular Foundation type (FT) shallow foundation, deep foundation Seismic design level (SDL) no seismic design, low-code, medium-code, high-code
SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013 10

Past Earthquake Damages

1. ground shaking 2. ground failure (liquefaction, fault displacement, slope instability).
Damage due to landslide Damage due to liquefaction Damage due to fault offset

SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013

11

Past Earthquake Damages

3. Interactions

SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013

12

Classification of Damage States

qualitative/empirical, based on postearthquake damage statistics
Damage state DS1 Minor/ Slight Description minor cracking and spalling and other minor distress to tunnel liners

quantitative, based on damage indices that define limit states of the structure
Serviceability Open to traffic, closed or partially closed Permanent Ground Deformation (m) during Damage inspection, State min max mean cleaning and possible 0.02 0.08 0.05 DS1. Minor repair works 0.08 0.22 0.15 DS2. Moderate Closed during repair 0.22 0.58 0.40 DS3. Extensive/Complete works for 2 to 3days Closed for a long Definition of damage states for roadway period of time

DS2 DS3

Moderate Heavy

Ranges from major cracking and spalling to rock falls Collapse of the liner or surrounding soils to the extent that the tunnel is blocked either immediately or within a few days after the main shock

elements (embankments, trenches, abutments, slopes) in SYNER-G

Description of damage states for tunnels (ALA 2001)

SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013

13

Appropriate earthquake intensity measures (IM)

- best captures the response of each element - minimizes the dispersion of response - depends on the approach for derivation of fragility curves

Recommended IMs for different systems (D2.12)

SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013 14

Fragility Functions - Buildings

Methodologies

Reinforced Concrete

Masonry
SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013 15

Fragility Functions - Buildings

Intensity Measure Types

Reinforced Concrete

Masonry
SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013 16

Fragility curves Literature Review

Example of review form for buildings

SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013 17

Fragility curves Literature Review

Example of review form for buildings

SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013 18

Reviewer Element at risk Reference Method Function Typology Damage states

Column Steel bearing Expansion bearing Fixed dowel Expansions dowel Functionality states Seismic intensity parameter Background

UPAT Element Code Bridge Choi et al, 2004 Analytical nonlinear dynamic Lognormal Multi-span RC and steel bridges No Minor Moderate Minor cracking, Moderate cracking spalling of and spalling of abutment; cracks in column; cracked shear keys; minor shear keys or bent spalling and cracks bolts of connection; at hinges; minor moderate spalling at column; settlement of minor cracking at approach deck < 2.0 < 4.0 < 6 mm < 20 mm < 50 mm < 100 mm < 100 mm < 150 mm < 30 mm < 100 mm

RDN01

Literature Review
Major Column degrading; connection losing bearing support; major settlement of approach < 7.0 < 40mm < 150mm < 255mm < 150mm Collapse Column collapsing and connection losing all bearing support > 7.0 > 40 mm > 150 mm > 255 mm > 150 mm

Peak ground acceleration 3-span simply supported or continuous highway bridges Schematic bridges, typical for Central and Southeastern United States, designed to modern USA code The numerical model included pile foundations, active and passive behaviour of abutments and pounding between deck sections Different span lengths, 100 artificial accelerograms

Figures

Deck type: (a) continuous (MSC) precast (b) continuous steel (c) simply supported (MSSS) precast (d) simply supported steel Parameters (median values, values)

Example of review form for bridges

19

Comments

Vulnerability curves were produced for each component and then combined to provide fragility curves for the complete bridge structure.

SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013

Literature Review RDN01 Road Bridges

ATC (1985) Avar et al. (2011) Azevedo et al. (2010) Banerjee and Shinozuka (2008) Basz et al. (1999) Cardone et al. (2011) Ceresa et al. (2012) Choe et al. (2009) Choi et al. (2004) Elnashai et al. (2004) FEMA (2010) Franchin et al. (2006) Gardoni et al. (2003) Jeong and Elnashai (2007) Karim and Yamazaki (2001, 2003) Kibboua et al. (2011) Kim and Shinozuka (2004) Kurian et al. (2006) Lupoi et al. (2004, 2005) Mackie and Stojadinovic (2004, 2007) Marano et al. (2006) Monti and Nistic (2002) Moschonas et al. (2009) Nateghi and Shahsavar (2004) Nielson and DesRoches (2007) Padgett and DesRoches (2009) Qi'ang et al. (2012) Saxena et al. (2000) Shinozuka et al. (2000) Shirazian et al. (2011) Sullivan (2010) Yamazaki et al. (2000) Yi et al. (2007) Zhang et al. (2008)

Variation of fragility curve parameters for the same typology

SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013 20

Fragility Functions Bridges

12% 18%

3%
44%

11%

7%

2%

24%

14%

66%

MDOF nonlinear dynamic SDOF nonlinear dynamic Capacity spectrum Empirical Expert opinion
Methodologies

PGA Spectral acceleration PGV Spectrum intensity Return period

Intensity Measure types
21

SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013

Fragility Functions Bridge Damage States

Definition of damage states for piers and bearings
Damage measure Reference Drift ratio, /h Curvature, Banerjee and Shinozuka (2008) Yi et al. (2007) Avar et al. (2011) Cardone et al. (2008) Choi et al. (2004) Jeong and Elnashai (2007) Nielson and DesRoches (2007) Zhang et al. (2008) Rotation, Qiang et al. (2012) Saxena et al. (2000) Shinozuka et al. (2000a) Yi et al. (2007) Displacement Monti and Nistic (2002) Shear deformation Moschonas et al. (2009) of bearings, Zhang et al. (2008) Slight 1.0% 0.7% y y y y 1.3y y y y y y 0.5u 0.2 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.3y 2.1y 2.0y 2.0y 2.0y 3.5y 4.0y 6.0y 6.0y 2.0y 2.6y 0.7u 2.0 2.0 u 5.0 2.5
22

Moderate Extensive Complete 2.5% 1.5% 0.5u 2.0y 4.0y 5.0% 2.5% 7.5% 5.0% u u 7.0y u 5.2y 7.0y 11.0y 11.0y

SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013

Numerical Analyses: Road and Railway Bridges

Typologies: Deck-pier connection: monolithic; through elastomeric bearings; combination Transverse translation at the abutments: free; constrained Pier cross-section: hollow rectangular; wall-type; circular Level of seismic design: EC2; EC8 Number of spans: 2; 3; 4; 6 Pier height: 10 m; 25 m
Bearings
Probability

Pier yielding 1.0 0.8

Probability

Pier 1 L Pier 1 T

Pier 2 L Pier 2 T

Pier 3 L Pier 3 T

Pier ultimate 1.0 0.8

Probability

Pier 1 L Pier 1 T

Pier 2 L Pier 2 T

Pier 3 L Pier 3 T

0.6

0.6

0.4 0.2 0.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0.4 0.2 0.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Peak ground acceleration (g)

Pier 1 L Pier 1 T Pier 2 L Pier 2 T Pier 3 L Pier 3 T

Peak ground acceleration (g)

Angle V<120km/h Angle, V>200km/h Curvature, 120<V<200km/h Angle, 120<V<200km/h Curvature, V<120km/h Curvature, V>120km/h

Probability

Damage measures: pier chord rotation & shear force, bearing & deck deformation

1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4

0.2

1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0

Damage states: yielding (limited use); near collapse

Intensity measure: PGA

0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Peak ground acceleration (g)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Peak ground acceleration (g)

six-span bridge with continuous deck supported on bearings and constrained transverse translation at the abutments, designed to EC2
23

SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013

Empirical curves: GAS06 Pipeline

Repair rate per km (ALA, 2001):

RR K1 0.002416PGV

PGV in cm/s

K1: corrective factor based on pipe properties

Wave propagation

80% leaks 20% breaks

SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013 24

Empirical curves: GAS06 Pipeline

Repair rate per km (ALA, 2001):

RR K 2 2.58PGD

0.319 PGD in cm

K1: corrective factor based on pipe properties

Ground failure

20% leaks 80% breaks

SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013 25

 Katayama et al, 1975 Eguchi, 1983 ATC-13, 1985 Isoyama & Katayama, 1982 Memphis, Tennessee, 1985 Wang et al, 1991 O Rourke & Ayala, 1993 Eidinger et al. 1995, Eidinger, 1998 Isoyama, 1998 ORourke et al,1998 ORourke & Leon, 1999 Eidinger & Avila, 1999 Isoyama et al, 2000 Toprak, 1998 Hung, 2001 ORourke & Deyoe, 2004 Porter et al, 1991 Honegger & Eguchi, 1992 Heubach, 1995 Eidinger et al,1999 LA, 2001a,b Yeh et al. 2006 Ballantyne & Heubach, 1996 ORourke et al, 2012

Fragility curves - Literature Review WSN05 Water Pipes

Empirical relation: pipe material; Peak Ground Velocity (PGV); Repair rate per km

Empirical relation: pipe material; Permanent Ground Deformation (PGD); Repair rate per km

SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013

26

Validation Studies: WSN05 Water Pipes

!

Lefkas earthquake, 2003 (Mw=6.4)

Recorded damages (points) Estimated damages (lines) (Eidinger & Avila 1999)
!

P9 P8

P10
!

P3
!

P4 P2
! !

P1
Legend
waterfsecond

waterfailures
!

Break Leak No damage

Waterpipes(PGVPGDEID) break leak full-function

! !

P7

P5 P6
240 120 0 240 m

Wave Propagation (PGV)

Permanent Deformations (PGD)

SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013

27

Validation Studies: RDN06 Road pavements

HAZUS/NIBS (2004) expert judgment
Roads with two traffic lanes
1.00

Probability of exceedance

0.75

0.50

0.25
1.00

Roads with four or more traffic lanes

Probability of exceedance

0.00 0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40
0.75

PGD (m)
slight damage moderate damage

extensive/complete

0.50

0.25

0.00 0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

PGD (m)
slight damage moderate damage extensive/complete

validation based on (limited) recorded damages from past earthquakes in Greece

SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013 28

Validation Studies: RDN06 Road pavements c c

Earthquake: Lefkas, 14/8/2003, M=6.4 Earthquake: Lefkas, 14/8/2003, M=6.4 Location: Road in Marina of Lefkas Location: Road in Marina of Lefkas

Earthquake: Lefkas, 14/8/200 Earthquake: Lefkas, 14/8/2003, M=6.4 Road in channel entrance fro Location: Road Location: in channel entrance from Aktio to Lefk

Earthquake: Lefkas, 14/8/2003, M=6.4 kas, 14/8/2003, M=6.4 Location: Golemi mi street-City of Lefkas street-City of Lefkas

Earthquake: Lefkas, 14/8/2003, M=6.4 Earthquake: Lefkas, 14/8/2003, M=6.4 Earthquake: Lefkas, 14/8/2003, M=6.4 Earthquake: Lefkas, 14/8/2003, M=6.4 Location: Sikelianou street -City of Lefkas Coastal road in Vasiliki Location: Sikelianou street -City of Lefkas Location: Location: Coastal road in Vasiliki

Earthquake: Kozani, 13/5/199 Earthquake: Kozani, 13/5/1995, M=6.6 Location: Approach to Rym Location: Approach road to Rymnio road bridge

Earthquake: Peloponnisos , 8/7/2008, =6.5 Earthquake: Peloponnisos , 8/7/2008, =6.5 Earthquake: Lefkas, 14/8/2003, M=6.4 Earthquake: Lefkas, 14/8/2003, M=6.4 Earthquake: Lefkas, 14/8/2003, M=6.4 kas, 14/8/2003, M=6.4 Location: Coastal road in Vrahneika Location: Coastal road in Vrahneika Location: Roadfrom in channel entrance Location: Road in Marina of Lefkas Location: Road in channel entrance Aktio to Lefkas from Aktio to Lefkas d in Marina of Lefkas

Earthquake: Peloponnisos , 8/7/2 Earthquake: Peloponnisos , 8/7/2008, =6.5 Location: Road Location: to AlissosRoad to Aliss

The validation indicates a good agreement between the estimated and observed damage states.
SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013 29

Numerical analyses: RDN01 Roadway bridges

Typologies:
continuous deck; with intermediate joints Deck-pier connection: monolithic; through elastomeric bearings; combination Intensity Measure: Peak Ground Acceleration Damage Scale: Yielding - limited (emergency) use; Near collapse
Pier yielding 1.0 0.8
Probability
Pier 1 L Pier 1 T Pier 2 L Pier 2 T Pier 3 L Pier 3 T

Pier ultimate 1.0 0.8

Probability

Pier 1 L Pier 1 T

Pier 2 L Pier 2 T

Pier 3 L Pier 3 T

0.6

0.6

0.4 0.2 0.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0.4 0.2 0.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Peak ground acceleration (g) Bearings 1.0 0.8

Probability Probability
Pier 1 L Pier 1 T Pier 2 L Pier 2 T Pier 3 L Pier 3 T

Peak ground acceleration (g)

Angle V<120km/h Angle, V>200km/h Curvature, 120<V<200km/h Angle, 120<V<200km/h Curvature, V<120km/h Curvature, V>120km/h

1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0

0.6 0.4
0.2

0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Peak ground acceleration (g)

six-span bridge with continuous deck supported on bearings and constrained transverse translation at the abutments, designed to EC2
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Peak ground acceleration (g)

SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013

30

Numerical analyses: Geotechnical structures

Damage Index

ln DI (dsi)

D
`

ln IM mi

Intensity Measure

Evolution of damage with earthquake intensity measure (IM) and definition of threshold median value (IMmi) for the damage state i (dsi). Definition of standard deviation (D) due to variability of input motion (demand).
SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013 31

Numerical analyses: RDN07 Abutments

Typologies: Cantilever wall
Bridge deck 200kN

Height (h): 6; 7.5 m Ground depth (H): 50 m

t2 t3

t1 h

Backfill

Ground types (EC8): C; D

H

Soil

Intensity Measure: PGA free field Damage Scale:

Minor; Moderate; Extensive/Complete
Bedrock EQ

Damage Measures:
Settlement on the backfill

Analysis:
1D equivalent linear analysis (EERA) 2D dynamic FE models (PLAXIS) 5 records (x 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5g)
Argyroudis et al 2013

SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013

32

Numerical analyses: RDN07 Abutments

1.0 0.9 0.8

Soil C

Minor damageh=6.0m Moderate damageh=6.0m Extensive damageh=6.0m Minor damageh=7.5m

Probability of damage

0.7
0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3

1.0
0.2

0.9
0.1
0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Soil D

Soil C
0.8

Moderate damageh=7.5m Extensive damageh=7.5m

Minor damageh=6.0m Moderate damage-h=6.0m Extensive damage-h=6.0m Minor damageh=7.5m Moderate damage-h=7.5m Extensive damage-h=7.5m

Probability of .damage

0.7 1.0

1.2

1.4

PGA free field (g) 0.6

0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2

0.1
0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 PGA free field (g)

SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013

33

Numerical analyses: RDN02 Tunnels (in alluvial) Potable Water System (Sub-Task 3.2.3)
Typologies: Circular (Bored); Rectangular (Cut & Cover) Ground depth: 30; 60; 120 m Ground types (EC8): B; C; D Intensity Measure: PGA free field Damage Scale: Minor; Moderate; Extensive Damage Measure: exceedance of lining strength capacity Analysis:
1D equivalent linear analysis (EERA) > 3 records x 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7g seismic ground deformations 2D FE models (PLAXIS) Psevdostatic analysis Elasto-plastic soil behaviour
Argyroudis & Pitilakis 2012 SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013 34

Numerical analyses: RDN02 Tunnels (in alluvial) Potable Water System (Sub-Task 3.2.3)

SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013

35

Numerical analyses Potable Water System (Sub-Task 3.2.3)

1.0

0.9
0.8 0.7

Soil C

Minor damageh=4m

RDN03 Embankments

Moderate damage-h=4m
Extensive damage-h=4m Minor damageh=2m Moderate damage-h=2m Extensive damage-h=2m

Probability of damage

0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 PGA free field (g)

1.0 0.9 0.8

Soil D

Minor damageh=4.0m Moderate damage-h=4.0m Extensive damage-h=4.0m Minor damageh=6.0m Moderate damage-h=6.0m Extensive damage-h=6.0m

Probability of damage

RDN04 Trenches

0.7
0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 PGA free field (g)

SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013

36

Fault tree analysis: Potable Water System (Sub-Task 3.2.3)

Physical components of Health Care Facilities HCS03-5: Medical Gas

Probabilistic characterization of the capacity of the medical gas system

Object Cylinders Pipes Demand Acceleration Drift Distr. LN LN Mean 0.50g cv References 0.25 Expert judgment

0.90% 0.25 Kuwata and Takada, 2003

SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013

37

Fragility Function Manager Tool

Store, Visualize, Manage large number of fragility functions sets

SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013 38

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!

SYNER-G Final Workshop, Milano, 21-22 March 2013

39