Harmonized Approach To Stress Tests For Critical Infrastructures Against Natural Hazards (STREST)

Critical Infrastructures (CIs) provide essential goods and services for modern society; they are highly integrated and have growing mutual dependencies. Recent natural events have shown that cascading failures of CIs have the potential for multiinfrastructure collapse and widespread societal and economic consequences. Moving toward a safer and more resilient society requires improved and standardized tools for hazard and risk assessment of extreme events, and their systematic application to whole classes of CIs. Among the most important assessment tools are the stress tests, designed to test the vulnerability and resilience of individual CIs and infrastructure systems in natural disasters. We present the main results of the STREST project regarding extreme event quantification with focus on extreme earthquakes and extreme earthquake consequences. We show that extremes result from the combination of stochastic, site-specific and/or explicit physical processes. The stochasticity of earthquake risk is represented by random phenomena (e.g., random earthquake clusters, spectral acceleration sigma) and model uncertainties. Site-specific aspects include geotechnical properties, near-source effects and ground shaking spatial correlations, which can locally increase the seismic risk. Finally, physical processes include maximum fault rupture propagation, earthquake interactions (i.e., aftershocks) and associated vulnerability changes, inter-hazard interactions (e.g., tsunamis, landslides), natech interactions (i.e., domino effects within the CI system following an earthquake), and additional CI interactions. Combination of all these processes tends to yield more extremes (fattening the risk curve) based upon which the CI stress test is made. The different steps of the STREST stress test method are presented in a companion paper.

[1]  B. E. Shaw,et al.  Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3)—The Time‐Independent Model , 2014 .

[2]  L. Danciu,et al.  Considering large earthquake clustering in seismic risk analysis , 2016, Natural Hazards.

[3]  Yin Cheng,et al.  Application of a Monte‐Carlo simulation approach for the probabilistic assessment of seismic hazard for geographically distributed portfolio , 2016 .

[4]  Georgios Baltzopoulos,et al.  The displacement coefficient method in near‐source conditions , 2015 .

[5]  Chiara Smerzini,et al.  Evaluation of earthquake ground motion and site effects in the Thessaloniki urban area by 3D finite-fault numerical simulations , 2017, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

[6]  Kyriazis Pitilakis,et al.  Thessaloniki’s Detailed Microzoning: Subsurface Structure as Basis for Site Response Analysis , 2001 .

[7]  R. Basili,et al.  Quantification of source uncertainties in Seismic Probabilistic Tsunami Hazard Analysis (SPTHA) , 2016 .

[8]  Philippe Guéguen,et al.  Period elongation-based framework for operative assessment of the variation of seismic vulnerability of reinforced concrete buildings during aftershock sequences , 2016 .

[9]  Paolo Franchin,et al.  SYNER-G: Systemic Seismic Vulnerability and Risk Assessment of Complex Urban, Utility, Lifeline Systems and Critical Facilities: Methodology and Applications , 2014 .

[10]  Bulent Akbas,et al.  A simplified analysis model for determining the seismic response of buried steel pipes at strike-slip fault crossings , 2015 .

[11]  J. Bommer,et al.  Control of hazard due to seismicity induced by a hot fractured rock geothermal project , 2006 .

[12]  Solomon Tesfamariam,et al.  Handbook of Seismic Risk Analysis and Management of Civil Infrastructure Systems , 2013 .

[13]  Nicolas Luco,et al.  Accounting for uncertainty and correlation in earthquake loss estimation , 2005 .

[14]  Linda Al Atik,et al.  A Model for Single‐Station Standard Deviation Using Data from Various Tectonic Regions , 2013 .

[15]  Ernesto Salzano,et al.  Seismic damage to pipelines in the framework of Na-Tech risk assessment , 2015 .

[16]  Iunio Iervolino,et al.  Closed‐form aftershock reliability of damage‐cumulating elastic‐perfectly‐plastic systems , 2014 .

[17]  Simona Miraglia,et al.  Fragility functions for pipeline in liquefiable sand : a case study on the Groningen gas-network , 2015 .

[18]  Domenico Giardini,et al.  Reassessment of the Maximum Fault Rupture Length of Strike‐Slip Earthquakes and Inference on Mmax in the Anatolian Peninsula, Turkey , 2015 .

[19]  Bernard Dost,et al.  Implications of salt-related propagation and mode conversion effects on the analysis of induced seismicity , 2012, Journal of Seismology.

[20]  Iunio Iervolino,et al.  Markovian modeling of seismic damage accumulation , 2016 .

[21]  Paolo Franchin,et al.  Seismic vulnerability analysis of a complex interconnected civil Infrastructure , 2013 .

[22]  Benjamin Edwards,et al.  Predicting ground motion from induced earthquakes in geothermal areas , 2013 .

[23]  J. Bommer,et al.  Empirical Equations for the Prediction of PGA, PGV, and Spectral Accelerations in Europe, the Mediterranean Region, and the Middle East , 2010 .

[24]  A. Scolobig,et al.  Using reasoned imagination to learn about cascading hazards: a pilot study , 2016 .

[25]  Stefan Wiemer,et al.  Induced seismicity risk analysis of the 2006 Basel, Switzerland, Enhanced Geothermal System project: Influence of uncertainties on risk mitigation , 2015 .

[26]  M. Dolšek,et al.  Engineering risk-based methodology for stress testing of critical non-nuclear infrastructures (STREST Project) , 2017 .

[27]  M. Dolšek,et al.  THE IMPACT OF STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS ON FRAGILITY CURVES OF SINGLE-STOREY INDUSTRIAL PRECAST STRUCTURES , 2014 .

[28]  Iunio Iervolino,et al.  Near‐source seismic hazard and design scenarios , 2013 .

[29]  Rui Pinho,et al.  Seismic fragility of Italian RC precast industrial structures , 2015 .

[30]  Warner Marzocchi,et al.  Accounting for Epistemic Uncertainty in PSHA: Logic Tree and Ensemble Modeling , 2014 .

[31]  Mathieu Causse,et al.  What is Sigma of the Stress Drop , 2013 .

[32]  Stefan Wiemer,et al.  The quantification of low-probability–high-consequences events: part I. A generic multi-risk approach , 2014, Natural Hazards.

[33]  A. Schleiss,et al.  Vulnerability of large dams considering hazard interactions Conceptual application of the Generic Multi-Risk framework , 2016 .