Modelling the functional capacity losses of networks exposed to hazards

References

• Adey, B. T., & Jamali, A. (2012). On the role of inspections and interventions in infrastructure management. Materials and Corrosion, 63(12), 1134–1146.10.1002/maco.v63.12
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, S. E. (2003). Transportation planning for disasters: An accessibility approach. Environment and Planning A, 35(6), 1051–1072.10.1068/a35195
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enke, D., Tirasirichai, C., & Luna, R. (2008). Estimation of earthquake loss due to bridge damage in the St. Louis Metropolitan Area. II: Indirect losses. Natural Hazards Review, 9(1), 12–19.10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2008)9:1(12)
   Google Scholar
• Faber, M. H., & Sorensen, J. D. (2002). Indicators for inspection and maintenance planning of concrete structures. Structural Safety, 24(2–4), 377–396.10.1016/S0167-4730(02)00033-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gehl, P., & D’Ayala, D. (2015, July 12–15). Integrated multi-hazard framework for the fragility analysis of roadway bridges. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering (ICASP12), Vancouver, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Gehl, P., & D’Ayala, D. (2016). Development of Bayesian networks for the multi-hazard fragility assessment of bridge systems. Structural Safety, 60, 37–46.10.1016/j.strusafe.2016.01.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hackl, J., Adey, B. T., Heitzler, M., & Iosifescu-Enescu, I. (2015). An overarching risk assessment process to evaluate the risks associated with infrastructure networks due to natural hazards. Special Issue of International Journal of Performability Engineering on Transport System Safety, Risk and Asset Management, 11(2), 153–168. Retrieved from http://www.ijpe-online.com/march-2015-p4-an-overarching-risk-assessment-process-to-evaluate-the-risks-associated-with-infrastructure-networks-due-to-natural-hazards.html#axzz4q6rgs7TF
   Google Scholar
• Hackl, J., Heitzler, M., Lam, J. C., Adey, B. T., & Hurni, L. (2016). Final model, methodology and information exchange, deliverable 4.2. Novel indicators for identifying critical, INFRAstructure at RISK from Natural Hazards, grant agreement No. 603960, ETH Zurich.
   Google Scholar
• Hackl, J., Heitzler, M., Lam, J. C., Adey, B. T., & Hurni, L. (2017). Development of flood and mudflow events for the spatio-temporal risk assessment of networks. Proceedings of the 10th World Congress on Water Resources and Environment “Panta Rhei”, Athens, Greece.
   Google Scholar
• Jamali, A., & Adey, B. T. (2016). The effect of management decision processes on the management of bridges. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 22(1), 92–104.10.3846/13923730.2014.897967
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kull, D. W., & Feldman, A. D. (1998). Evolution of Clark’s Unit Graph method to spatially distributed runoff. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 3(1), 9–19.10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(1998)3:1(9)
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lam, J. C., & Adey, B. T. (2016). Functional loss assessment and restoration analysis to quantify indirect consequences of hazards. ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering, 2(4), 04016008. Retrieved from https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/AJRUA6.0000877
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Losey, S., & Wehrli, A. (2013). Schutzwald in der Schweiz: Vom Projekt SilvaProtect-CH zum harmonisierten Schutzwald. Final Report, Bern: Bundesamt für Umwelt (BAFU).
   Google Scholar
• Miller, M., Cortes, S., Ory, D., & Baker, J. W. (2015). Estimating probabilistic impacts of catastrophic network damage from earthquakes using an activity-based travel model. Proc., Transportation Research Board 94th Annual Meeting.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute of Building Sciences. (2003). Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology: Earthquake model HAZUS MH MR4 technical manual. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
   Google Scholar
• O’Rourke, T. D. (2007). Critical infrastructure, interdependencies, and resilience. Washington, DC: The Bridge: Linking Engineering and Society, National Academy of Engineering of the National Academies.
   Google Scholar
• Ortuozar, J. D., & Willumsen, L. G. (2011). Modelling transport. 4th ed. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9781119993308
   Google Scholar
• Porter, K. (2014). A beginner’s guide to fragility, vulnerability, and risk. In M. Beer, A. I. Kougioumtzoglou, E. Patelli, & S.-K. I. Au (Eds.), Encyclopedia of earthquake engineering (pp. 1–29). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, Berlin Heidelberg.
   Google Scholar
• Qin, J., & Faber, M. H. (2012). Risk management of large RC structures within spatial information system. Computer-aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 27(6), 385–405.10.1111/mice.2012.27.issue-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rickenmann, D. (1999). Empirical relationships for debris flows. Natural Hazards, 19(1), 47–77.10.1023/A:1008064220727
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schubert, M., Faber, M. H., & Baker, J. W. (2007). Decision making subject to aversion of low frequency high consequence events. Stanford, CA: Special Workshop on Risk Acceptance and Risk Communication.
   Google Scholar
• Stergiou, E., & Kiremidjian, A. (2010). Risk assessment of transportation systems with network functionality losses. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 6(1–2), 111–125.10.1080/15732470802663839
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wüest, M., Frei, C., Altenhoff, A., Hagen, M., Litschi, M., & Schär, C. (2010). A gridded hourly precipitation dataset for Switzerland using rain-gauge analysis and radar-based disaggregation. International Journal of Climatology, 30(12), 1764–1775.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar