Large parts of the world are subjected to one or more natural hazards, such as earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides, tropical storms (hurricanes, cyclones, and typhoons), coastal inundation, and flooding; although, many regions are also susceptible to artificial hazards. In recent decades, rapid population growth and economic development in hazard-prone areas have greatly increased the potential of multiple hazards to cause damage and destruction of buildings, bridges, power plants, and other infrastructure; thus, grave danger is posed to the community and economic and societal activities are disrupted. Although an individual hazard is significant in many parts of the United States, in certain areas more than one hazard may pose a threat to the constructed environment. In such areas, structural design and construction practices should address multiple hazards in an integrated manner to achieve structural performance that is consistent with owner expectations and general societal objectives. The growing interest and importance of multiple-hazard engineering has been recognized recently. This has spurred the evolution of multiple-hazard risk-assessment frameworks and development of design approaches, which have paved way for future research towards sustainable construction of new and improved structures and retrofitting of the existing structures. This paper provides a review of literature and the current state of practice for assessment, design and mitigation of the impact of multiple hazards on structural infrastructure. It also presents an overview of future research needs related to multiple-hazard performance of constructed facilities.
Introduction
Multiple hazards cause thousands of deaths, large scale damages, and billions of dollars in losses throughout the world every year. A total of 950 natural hazards were recorded around the world in 2010, 90% of which were weather-related events such as storms and floods. The overall losses were around US$130 billion, of which approximately US$37 billion was insured (Munich Re 2010). The Munich Re annual report (Munich Re 2010) also indicated that the high number of weather-related natural hazards and record temperatures both globally and in different regions of the world provide further indications of advancing climate change. Natural hazards include earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides, tropical storms (hurricanes, cyclones, and typhoons), snow storms, wildfires, coastal inundation, and flooding. Human or artificial hazards can be both intentional (terrorist attacks), or accidental, resulting from industrial mishaps (e.g., chemical plants, oil and natural gas plants, nuclear power plants), vehicle collision, or a crash. Although all the hazards are to be ultimately considered, the focus of this paper is on earthquake, hurricane, and flood hazards. Population migration and rapid economic development concentrated in hazard-prone areas (coastal areas with high storm potential or regions of high seismic activity) increase the risks from multiple hazards and the anticipated losses expected in the future (Perry and Mackun 2001; RPA 2005). For example, coastal areas of the United States possess a population of approximately 153 million people (over half the country’s population), who live in the 673 coastal counties (Crossett et al. 2004).
During 1984–2003, more than 4.1 billion people were affected by natural disasters across the world. The affected people were 1.6 billion in the first half of that period (1984–93) that increased to almost 2.6 billion in the second half (1994–2003) and has continued to increase since then. Between 1990 and 1999, natural hazards cost $652 billion in losses across the world, which were 15 times higher than the $38 billion in losses between 1950 and 1959 (World Bank IEG 2006). The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (NIST 2007) estimated that natural hazards cause an estimated $55 billion in average annual costs in direct and indirect loss in the United States. Insurance claims paid for weather-related losses totaled more than $320 billion in the United States between 1980–2005 according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO 2007). According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in the United States alone direct economic losses average about $5.4 billion annually from hurricanes and about $4.4 billion a year from earthquakes (FEMA 366 2008).
In recent years, widespread social, economic, and environmental destruction has resulted from floods resulting from typhoons and cyclones in many countries across the world, including Bangladesh, India, Thailand, and from earthquakes in Japan, Haiti, Chile, New Zealand, China, and India and the hurricanes in the United States. and the Caribbean. Furthermore, a global condition in which climate change influences sea level elevation, storm frequency and intensity may continue to increase the vulnerability of structural infrastructure (IPCC 2007; USDOT 2007; White House 2009). Although not all weather-related events are directly affected by climate change, some climatic variations may dramatically increase the vulnerability of the structural infrastructure and their effects on the society as a whole (Allianz Group 2006). Table 1 provides examples of significant historical hazards worldwide and specifically in the United States, along with the estimated damages and losses caused by these hazards. The information in Table 1 shows that even after being the economically most powerful country in the world, the United States is not immune from the effects of multiple hazards, and the broader effects on the world need to be mitigated on a worldwide scale.
Table 1. Damages Caused by Various Hazards in the World and the United States
Hazard
World
The United States
Hurricanes and typhoons
• Typhoon Durian (2006) killed 800 people in Phillippines, and Typhoon Shanshan (2006) caused damages of more than 1.2 billion dollars in Japan (Munich Re 2007).
• The 1900 hurricane of Galveston, Texas killed around 6000 people. Hurricane Katrina (2005) caused damages worth 200 billion dollars and killed around 1570 people (Burton 2010).
Flood
• The Saguenay flood damaged over 1350 houses and around 1.5 billion dollars (Canadian) were paid in insurance claims (Geographical Survey of Canada 2008).
• The Great Midwest flood of 1993 along the Mississippi river killed 48 people and caused 15 to 20 billion dollars in damages (US Department of Commerce 1994).
• The 1997 Red River Basin flood led to losses worth 300 million dollars (Canadian) (Etkin and Haque 2003).
• The 2008 Cedar Rapids, Iowa floods damaged two power plants and over 20 substations (Graham et al. 2009).
Earthquake
• Haiti earthquake of 2010 killed 250,000 people, 300,000 were injured and 7.804 billion worth of losses (Haiti PDNA 2010).
• The Northridge earthquake of 1994 in San Francisco valley killed 61 people and damaged about 45,000 residential buildings (Fairweather 1994).
Tsunami following earthquake
• The 2004 Indian ocean Tsunami killed 283,000 people and displaced more than 1.1 million (Tang et al. 2008).
• The effects of the 2011 Japan Tsunami were felt in the Hawaii islands and at some places along the coast of California.
• Tsunami in Chile in 2010 killed 521 people and caused 30 billion dollars in losses (Elnashai et al. 2011).
• Tsunami in Japan in 2011 killed 11,600 people, and around 63,000 buildings were damaged (The New York Times 2011).
Terrorist attacks
• Train bombings of Spain in 2004 killed 191 people (Global Security 2005), and train bombings in India killed around 176 people (CNN 2006).
• World Trade Center attacks in 2001 led to the collapse of the twin towers, killed more than 2,800 people, and caused losses of around 109 billion dollars (FEMA 2010; Rose and Blomberg 2009).
• The 11/26 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, also referred to as the Indian 9/11, killed more than 172 people (RAND 2009).
• A total of 598,000 people lost their jobs after the World Trade Center attacks (Roberts 2009).
Resilience can be defined as a system property to withstand hazards and the rapidity with which the system recovers (if at all) to prehazard occurrence levels. Resilience is getting growing interest in recent years, particularly in the pursuit of resilient and sustainable communities. For example, the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) recently held workshops on Resilient and Sustainable Critical Infrastructures (RESIN). Describing natural hazard (occurrence and intensity) and structural or infrastructure system response probabilistically is essential for quantifying resilience and sustainability from natural hazards and for developing appropriate strategies to manage risk and increase resilience. Wang and Blackmore (2009) reviewed existing approaches to system resilience and proposed a scheme to quantify the resilience of water resource systems. Godschalk (2003) proposed a comprehensive strategy of urban hazard mitigation to create resilient cities.
The aforementioned events highlight the need for a multiple-hazard resilient world. Assessment and design for multiple hazards is a vast area of research, which has attracted much interest from lawmakers, stake holders, engineers, and the general public to prepare and to mitigate adverse consequences from multiple hazards. This paper provides a summary of the evolving literature and state of practice related to multiple-hazard engineering, which has emerged as a critical topic in last few decades. The summary is intended to highlight the breadth of work related to characterizing the importance of multiple-hazard. The paper summarizes a number of individual hazards, their combinations, different perspectives, and consequences. Furthermore, different hazard assessment strategies including post-disaster surveys, numerical models and experimental testing related to multiple hazards are presented. Fig. 1 illustrates a flowchart of the multiple-hazard approach, which includes the occurrences and the corresponding consequences of individual and combinations of hazards, followed by a set of different assessment and design strategies for mitigating the effects of multiple hazards that are summarized in this paper. Finally, the paper provides an insight into the potential effect of climate change aggravating the risks from multiple hazards along with a summary of future research needs to promote a multiple-hazard resilient constructed environment.
Fig. 1. Assessment, design, and mitigation of multiple hazards
Multiple Hazard Perspective and Examples
Hazards are different in terms of their nature, frequency of occurrence, and associated return period for design. Additional differences include hazard-resistant design philosophies, consequences, and mitigation strategies. The following discussion presents a different perspective of multiple hazards and a few examples of damages and losses caused by multiple-hazard events over the years.
Different Perspectives on Multiple Hazards
Management of risks attributed to multiple hazards through proper design, construction practices, occupancy, and code enforcement presents a challenge to the structural engineering community and to the owners and policy makers. For all natural and artificial hazards, the disruption and downtime of the local businesses, and the need for certain essential facilities to maintain their integrity for post disaster recovery, must factor into any comparative risk assessment.
The economic effects of damage to a structure’s components and contents from wind and earthquake are most significant. The lack of advanced warning systems makes life safety the paramount objective for earthquakes. The design wind speed in ASCE 7-05 (ASCE 2005) is based on a 50-year return period for areas in the central United States and corresponds approximately to a 100-year return period [Allowable Stress Design (ASD) design basis] or 700-year return period [Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) design basis] peak 3-second gust wind speeds along the coast (ASCE 2005). In contrast, wind speeds in ASCE 7-10 are based on different specific return periods depending on the importance of the structure (ASCE 2010). Until recently, the ground motion intensity for seismic design was set as the intensity with a return period of 475 years; current seismic hazard maps stipulate a 2% probability of exceedence in 50 years (abbreviated in the sequel as a 2%/50-year event, termed the “maximum considered earthquake, or MCE”), spectral acceleration with a 2,475-year return period, and the design spectral acceleration is 2/3 of the stipulated seismic intensity (ASCE 2010). The earthquake maps in ASCE 7-10 shift from a uniform hazard philosophy to uniform risk. Seismic risk involves not only the hazard, or the potential of damaging or life-threatening earthquakes, but also the characteristics of structural response and consequences of such earthquakes (morbidity/mortality, economic losses) (Li et al. 2010). In comparison, the return periods for flood and snow loads are 100 years and 50 years, respectively (ASCE 2010). Risk category (I, II, III, or IV) replaces occupancy category in ASCE 7-10. The risk category is determined on the basis of risk associated with unacceptable performance.
In some cases, mitigating risks against an individual hazard may reduce the structure’s vulnerability to another hazard, particularly when the load effects of both hazards are similar. For example, the use of more ductile design details and enhancing connections between components (e.g., roof-to-wall, wall-to-foundation) may reduce damage from both hurricane and earthquake hazards. Installation of seismic shear wall anchors also will be beneficial for buildings to resist horizontal wind loads; however, in other cases mitigating one hazard may increase vulnerability to other hazards. A lighter structure, such as a glass wall or light roof system, may reduce the impact of seismic forces, but the potential damages attributed to wind would increase. Construction standards and practices should aim at optimizing overall costs and risks, and to do this effectively, the relative risks associated with a structure’s performance under a spectrum of multiple hazards must be well-understood.
Damages and Losses from Multiple Hazards
Tropical storms cause heavy damages from the effects of high speed winds followed by torrential downpours, more high speed winds, and buildup of storm surge/floods. Fig. 2 shows considerable wind damage to the roof with missing shingles from Hurricane Katrina’s high speed winds. A part of the roof is missing, and visible damage to the trusses inside the roof is evident. The rest of the building envelope is damaged by the effects of high speed waves and the buildup of storm surge. An earthquake causes large-scale damage and destruction resulting from ground vibration. When an earthquake strikes an oil rig, a chemical plant, a nuclear power plant or damages oil and gas pipelines (leakage), and power transmission lines (electric sparks), explosions and fire can occur. If fires started from the effects of an earthquake are not controlled in time they may take the form of a conflagration, which is more dangerous than the earthquake itself. Fig. 3 displays the fire that started from the damaged natural gas pipelines resulting from the Northridge earthquake in 1994. Table 2 outlines different examples of multiple hazards, their modes of damage, occurrences in the past, and the extent of damages caused by the hazards.
Fig. 2. Wind and storm surge damage [reprinted with permission from Jordon and Paulius (2006)]
Fig. 3. Fire from damage to gas pipelines from Northridge Earthquake in 1994 (image courtesy of Kerry Sieh, director, Earth Observatory of Singapore)
Table 2. Multiple-Hazards
Multiple-hazards
Mode of damage
Occurrences
Examples of multihazard damage
Hurricane (wind and rain)
High speed winds damage doors and windows and when followed by heavy rainfall cause interior property damage to the structure.
• Hurricane Ike (2008)
• During Katrina, complete structural damage was observed when the roofs were blown away by high speed winds, and the interior damaged by heavy rainfall that followed.
• Hurricanes Katrina and Rita (2005)
• Hurricane Andrew (1992)
Hurricane (wind, wave, and storm surge)
Waves cause extensive damage when they strike coastal structures after wind has caused external structural damages.
• Hurricane Ike (2008)
• Waves as high as 7.62 m (25 ft.) were observed during Katrina, which caused large scale structural damage (buildings, bridges).
• Hurricanes Katrina and Rita (2005)
• Hurricane Andrew (1992)
• Hurricane Opal (1995)
Earthquake and tsunami
Tsunamis are high speed and height waves triggered by an underwater earthquake. The combined damages are caused first by ground shaking followed by the effects of high speed waves.
• Indian Ocean tsunami (2004)
• Indian Ocean tsunami killed approximately 283,000 and displaced more than 1.1 million people.
• Japan tsunami (2011)
• The Japanese tsunami damaged the electrical power lines of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant creating a meltdown threat.
Fire following an earthquake
Fires caused after damages to oil and gas pipelines and to electrical power transmission lines damaged by an earthquake.
• San Francisco (1906)
• Around 3,000 people were killed in 1906 San Francisco in 1906 (Varnes and Pielke Jr. 2009), and around 142,000 people were killed in Tokyo in 1923 from fires following an earthquake (James 2002).
• Tokyo (1923)
• The cities of Kesennuma and Sendai of Japan were under heavy fires after the earthquake of 2011 (Reuters 2011).
• Kobe (1995)
• Northridge (1994)
• Japan (2011)
Landslides caused by earthquakes, heavy rainfall, and flood
Landslides can be caused by heavy rainfall, earthquake ground shaking, water level change, storm waves, or erosion. Large-scale deforestation, cutting of slopes for roads and settlement can also trigger a landslide.
• Venezuela (1998)
• In the United States, landslides cause about 25-50 deaths and 2 billion dollars in damages each year (FEMA 2004).
• Brazil (2011)
• The 1962 Peru landslides killed about 5,000 people, and again in 1970 about 18,000 people were killed.
• California (2005)
• The 2006 Indonesia and Philippines landslides buried almost entire villages overnight.
• Philippines (2006)
• Indonesia (2006)
Terrorist attacks
Blasts and fires mostly result from detonation of a charge or effects of collision. The damages are caused by the effects of the blast, consequent fires, and the flying debris.
• Oklahoma City bombings (1995)
• The 2006 train bombings in India killed more than 209 people.
• WTC attacks (2001)
• The bombing of Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City in 1995 killed 168 people and caused damages worth more than 80 million dollars (BBC News 2001).
• Train bombings in Spain (2004) and India (2006)
When a hazard strikes and leads to the failure of a particular infrastructure, it starts a chain reaction in which failure of other dependent infrastructures are triggered. This is also known as cascading failure. For example, the Kobe earthquake of 1995 disrupted the power supply causing a city wide blackout, that led to the failure of 90% of the traffic signals resulting in chaos on the streets and delayed the response of emergency services to the calls of the victims (Savage et al. 2006; McDaniels et al. 2007). In addition, gas and phone connections of thousands of households were cut off. Approximately 531 fires broke out in different parts of Tokyo City, most of them resulting from the natural gas leaks and electric sparks from damaged electrical power lines (Selvaduray 2003). Risk management of cascading failure in complex urban infrastructure was discussed by Little (2009). Some of the key issues include formulation of cascading risk, comparison of risks of different cascading mechanisms, and evaluation of cost, risk, and benefits of the associated mitigation strategies.
Assessment of the Effects of Multiple Hazards
Postdisaster Survey and Investigation
A postdisaster survey is often conducted after the disastrous event to collect data on the hazards and their consequences, such as modes of structural failure, infrastructure performance, and capacity for resilience. The qualitative lessons learned from such events often either help (1) to validate or to shape changes in design and construction practices, (2) offer empirical data for model calibration and validation, and (3) future risk assessment, management, mitigation, and planning for hazards. The data collected is typically in the form of visual inspections, field surveys, photographs, survey forms, shop drawings (recreation of prehazard original condition), samples of structural components, and building or infrastructure owner’s quarries about the status of their facilities or service level that will be provided to their constituents. Postdisaster survey forms are used not only for determining number of casualties, extent of damage and loss assessment but also for monitoring the health of the affected population, clean water supply and sanitation conditions, and condition of lifeline utilities (Emergency Management Australia (EMA) 2001; Franco et al. 2010).
After Hurricane Katrina, Robertson et al. (2007) visited Biloxi, Mississippi to survey damage to bridges, barges, buildings, and other infrastructure. Researchers from the Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering (TCLEE) evaluated the performance of the gulf coast’s bridges, railroads, and roadways (DesRoches 2006). FEMA’s Mitigation Assessment Team (MAT) surveyed Katrina’s landfall sites to evaluate building performances, practices, and materials used to assess flood and wind damages (FEMA 549 2006). FEMA’s Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) surveyed the effected sites post Hurricane Ivan and after the midwest floods in Iowa and Wisconsin. The teams assessed structural performances and provided recommendations for future construction practices in those areas (FEMA 489 2005; FEMA P-765 2008).
The International Tsunami Survey Team surveyed posttsunami coasts of Sumatra and off-shore Aceh Province islands to analyze structural damage, injuries and deaths, scouring, and erosion caused by the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami (Prasetya et al. 2008). Similar surveys for damage and loss estimation were performed over southern India and Sri Lanka (Yeh et al. 2007; Tanaka et al. 2007). Tiago and Julio (2010) surveyed Coimbra, Portugal to assess damages to a 16-story reinforced concrete building resulting from heavy rainfall and subsequent landslides in 2000. FEMA’s BPAT surveyed the site of 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center to estimate losses and to identify areas of further research (FEMA 2010). NIST investigated the collapse of World Trade Center (WTC) 7 resulting from falling debris from the collapse of WTC 1 tower (NIST 2008). FEMA’s BPAT surveyed the area around the Alfred P. Murrah building to collect data from damages from a car bomb explosion in Oklahoma City in 1995 (Corley et al. 1998).
A postdisaster survey team consisting of members from the Word Bank, the Government of Haiti, and other organizations from around the world, surveyed post after the 2010 earthquake in Haiti for damage assessment and future risk management needs (Haiti PDNA 2010). The Earthquake Engineering Research Institute’s (EERI) reconnaissance team investigated the effects impact of the earthquake in Chile in 2010 to assess nonstructural (ceiling tiles, equipment, piping) damage to hospitals and other important buildings (MCEER 2010). EERI’s (2011) research team travelled to New Zealand after the 2011 Christchurch earthquake to examine the performance of engineered structures, eccentrically braced steel frame structures, nonstructural building components, hospitals, and other structures.
Postdisaster surveys in the past have led to significant changes in the design codes and aided in modeling and numerical analysis for multiple hazards. Van de Lindt et al. (2007) gathered wind damage data resulting from Hurricane Katrina for design codes development. Padgett et al. (2010) evaluated hazard intensities and bridge characteristics important in predicting the level of bridge damage by performing a multivariate regression analysis by using data collected from post Katrina surveys. The SAC steel project provided guidelines for evaluation, repair, and rehabilitation of moment-resisting steel frame buildings based on analytical studies and physical tests conducted from the data collected from postNorthridge earthquake surveys (Song and Ellingwood 1998). Data collected from the postdisaster surveys for the Loma Prieta (1989) and Northridge (1994) earthquakes led to the 1997 American Institute of Steel Construction’s (AISC) seismic specifications for improved connection details for steel moment-frame structures and stricter requirements for wood-frame shear walls in the International Building Code (IBC) 2006 (Ratay 2011).
Experimental Testing
NIST’s (2010) Building and Fire Research Lab (BFRL) provides FASTData, a collection of results of over 450 real-time fire experiments at single assemblies and single and multiple-story apartments conducted in the labs. The Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES 2009) has test facilities across many universities in the United States to assess seismic performance of wood, steel, and concrete structures by using shake tables, field mounted actuator assemblies, centrifuges, and field equipment. Some examples of the project supported by the NEES included: the NEESWood project to develop a performance-based seismic design philosophy for midrise woodframe construction that included full-scale testing of a 6-story light-frame wood building subjected to earthquake ground motion with a 2,500-year return period (van de Lindt et al. 2010) and tests of sidesway collapse of two scale models of a 4-story moment-resisting frame under seismic excitations (Lignos et al. 2011). Although a number of tests have been conducted for individual hazards, very few experiments have been conducted for multiple hazards. Some of the experimental tests conducted to validate new designs and to assess the effects of multiple hazards include:
Example 1: Earthquake and Explosion
An explosion may be a result of an accident, detonation of a charge, or effect of a collision done on purpose. A large-magnitude earthquake can easily trigger an explosion. Bruneau et al. (2006) experimentally tested a multiple-hazard bridge pier concept. The bridge pier system provided satisfactory protection from collapse under seismic and explosion loading but not a combination of both. Fig. 4 displays the experimental setup of frames that had Concrete Filled Circular Steel Columns (CFCSC) and were subjected to a series of successive explosion. No significant damage was observed to the bents, and the piers showed ductile behavior.
Fig. 4. Test setup showing CFCS columns subjected to an explosion loading [reprinted with permission from Fujikura et al. (2008)]
Example 2: Hurricane (Wind, Rain, Wave, and Storm Surge)
During a hurricane, high winds and wind-borne debris may initiate damage in the building envelope and increase building internal pressure. The increase in the net pressure may result in complete upliftment of the roof and/or failure of walls. Hurricane events may also cause damage to buildings from wind-driven rain and surge/flood. To investigate hurricane induced multi-stressor effects, especially from wind, rain, and debris, Florida International University (FIU) built a hurricane simulator, “Wall of Wind,” to simulate hurricane-level winds, wind-driven rain, and wind-borne debris effects. The 6-fan Wall of Wind (Fig. 5) is capable of generating a maximum wind speed of approximately (125 mph). The high winds accompanied with horizontal wind-driven rain simulated with a water-injection system are used for destructive testing on several structures. The Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety (IBHS) recently built a wind test facility in South Carolina. The facility’s 21,000-square-foot test chamber has the ability to test full size residential and commercial buildings for the effects of wind and rain 〈www.DisasterSafety.org〉.
Fig. 5. Wind-driven rain testing at FIU wall of wind (image courtesy of Dr. Arindam Chowdhury, Florida International University)
Oregon State University’s Tsunami Wave Basin provides test facilities and experimental data for tsunami research (NEES 2009). Testing was performed on a 1/6th-scaled model of a 2-story wood-framed residential structure at the Tsunami Basin by using alternate wave heights from 10 to 60 cm. This research was successful in developing experimental setup test surge wave forces (overturning moments and uplift forces) resulting from wave loading (Wilson et al. 2009).
Risk Assessment, Modeling, and Numerical Analysis
Subsequently, the process of risk assessment is defined, and the current risk assessment approaches and tools used are discussed.
Risk Assessment and Loss Estimation
A risk can be viewed as the summation of the expected number of deaths, injuries, damage to infrastructure, and socioeconomic disruption resulting from an individual threat or a combination of threats. Risk () as the product of the probability that an event () with potential consequences will occur, and its consequences () given the event occurs is
(1)
A number of studies have been performed in recent decades for risk assessment of buildings and structural infrastructure. Ellingwood and Ang (1974) defined failure risk of a structure as the probability of occurrence of an event where the resistance provided by the structure is lesser than the applied loads, and then they conducted a quantitative analysis to show the effect of uncertainty in loads and structural resistance on the level of risk to the structures. Cornell (1968) presented a method for seismic risk evaluation attributed to uncertainties from the number, size, and locations of future earthquakes. Ang (1973) developed methods for risk assessment in terms of probability of failure or survival of a structure. Corotis and Nafday (1989) developed a model to assess the reliability of complex structural systems from random loads and resistances. Chang et al. (2000) developed a probabilistic risk analysis method to assess seismic risks to lifeline systems in the Los Angeles area. Li et al. (2009) developed a risk assessment and ranking methodology on the basis of a consistent decision making process, which is a combination of probabilistic risk assessment, decision analysis, and expert judgment, to develop alternate mitigation strategies for multiple hazards. Ayyub et al. (2007) proposed the Critical Asset and Portfolio Risk Analysis (CAPRA) framework for assessing risks and consequences of multiple hazards.
Buildings and structural infrastructure are at a continuous risk from structural deterioration and eventual collapse from aging by the effects of corrosion and chemical attack (Ellingwood 2005). The risk assessment approach called the SAMUG (Kepner and Trego 1981) and AS/NZS 4360 1999 (Standards Association of Australia 1999) are used by the Australian Emergency Agencies to identify hazards that cause maximum damage. The structural information (e.g., location, type of material used) and risk level from multiple hazards are stored in a database for future use (Standards Australia 1999; Middleman and Granger 2000). Novelo-Casanova and Suarez (2010) performed risk and vulnerability assessment for the Cayman Islands for multiple natural and artificial hazards by identifying different hazards and then categorizing them according to both the severity and vulnerability of the region.
Various risk assessment tools are available to assess risks and potential losses from multiple hazards. HAZUS-MH, a risk assessment tool developed by FEMA analyzes potential losses from floods, hurricane winds, and earthquakes (FEMA 2011). The risk and vulnerability Assessment Tool (RVAT) assesses risk and vulnerability to help identify people, property, and resources that are at risk of injury, damage, or losses from multiple hazards (NOAA 2003).
Modeling and Numerical Analysis
Numerical models for predicting risks and losses, performance assessment, and design are developed by using data from experimental testing. When experimental data is not available, modeling and numerical analysis can be carried out by using data collected from the postdisaster surveys, and the models can then be validated through experimental testing. This section discusses numerical models developed for prediction of failure, risk assessment, performance, and design for multiple hazards. Examples of modeling and analysis for a combination of hazards are discussed subsequently. Ellingwood (2001) proposed a framework to balance the risk among competing hazards. Assuming that structural failure can result from any one of mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive hazards, , the probability of failure () is
(2)
where is the conditional probability of failure attributed to hazard . One way to reduce risk is to avoid or minimize each hazard []; another way is to design the facility to withstand the effect of each hazard []. This general framework has been applied for different hazards and structural systems. For example, the framework was used to demonstrate the overall risk to bridges that are susceptible to earthquakes, storm surges, and ship collision (Beavers et al. 2009). Bruneau et al. (2003) developed a quality function to describe structural performance of power transmission networks for earthquakes. The same function was used by Reed for wind (Reed 2007).
Tiago and Julio (2010) created a 2D model of a 16-story RC building in Coimbra, Portugal to assess damages from the landslides caused by heavy rainfalls in 2000. Greimann et al. (1999) performed a 3D finite element analysis of the AP600 nuclear power plant’s shield building roof under a combination of dead, snow, wind, and seismic loads. The Internal Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA 2006) conducted a survey of its member countries’ nuclear power plants for design methods currently used to protect nuclear power plants from multiple hazards. This information can be used to upgrade existing or to construct new plants.
Example 1: Earthquake and Wind
Earthquake and tsunami, earthquake and explosion, fire following earthquake, earthquake and wind are a few examples of combinations of earthquakes with other hazards that have to be considered by designers and risk managers. Kostarev et al. (2003) proposed a design method for decreasing the floor response spectra considering interconnection of main building structures inside nuclear power plant containment, by using high viscous dampers, which would increase the resistance of the power plant toward seismic, wind, and explosion loads. Potra and Simiu (2009) set forth a numerical method for multiple-hazard design by using inter point method by optimizing design variables for loads generated by earthquake and winds, for sites subjected to both the hazards individually and simultaneously. Li and Ellingwood (2009) assessed the overall risk resulting from hurricanes and earthquakes. Fig. 6 shows the probability of damage attributed to different levels of earthquakes and hurricanes intensities as a function of their return period for a building in Charleston, South Carolina. Padgett et al. (2010) evaluated a multi-span simply supported concrete girder bridge for seismic and hurricane-induced wave and storm surge loading, and they conducted a sensitivity analysis to determine aging parameters that significantly affect the dynamic response of the bridge to both the hazards.
Fig. 6. Probability of hurricane and earthquake damage [reprinted with permission from Li and Ellingwood (2009)]
Example 2: Wind, Wave, and Surge/Floods
Hurricanes cause damage by the combined effects of wind, waves, and storm surge/flood. Li et al. (2011) calculated the losses attributed to the combined effects of wind and storm surge on a single-story wooden residential building. Fig. 7 displays the combined losses caused by hurricane wind and surge as a percentage of the total cost of the building. Kim and Yamashita (2004) developed a wind-wave-surge model to simulate storm surge caused by Typhoon Bart in the Yatsushiro Sea, Japan. The model consists of a WW3 model for wind waves, meso-scale meteorological model for wind, and coastal ocean model (POM) for storm surge simulations. Ataei et al. (2010) studied the combined effects of storm surge and wind waves caused by hurricanes on the dynamic response of bridges, by using a 3D non-linear finite element model to identify statistically significant bridge parameters (e.g., upliftment of deck, ultimate dowel strength, and initial stiffness of elastomeric pads) through a sensitivity analysis.
Fig. 7. Combine losses from hurricane wind and surge damage [reprinted with permission from Li et al. (2011)]
Example 3: Fire Following Earthquake
Usually fire follows a significant earthquake. Fires following the San Francisco (1906) and Tokyo (1923) earthquakes caused more damages than the earthquake itself. Rin and Xie (2004) developed a mathematical model that predicts the place where fire outbreaks may occur after an earthquake, and they also simulated dynamic fire spreading by using data from past fires following earthquakes in America, Japan, and China. Zhao et al. (2006) set forth a numerical model in which a random Poisson event and Weibull distribution were by used to construct the spatial-temporal probability distribution of fire outbreaks following an earthquake by using a geographical information system (GIS)-based stochastic simulation schema. Davidson (2009) used generalized linear and generalized linear mixed models to statistically model postearthquake fire ignitions and to collect data for modeling, and applied it to late twentieth century California. Yassin et al. (2008) developed a framework for studying the effects of postearthquake fire on wooden structures. A finite element model for assessing the performance of the wood frame system tested at the National Fire laboratory of National Research Council Canada was created by using ANSYS 3D modeling software (ANSYS).
Design and Mitigation for Multiple Hazards
The data collected through postdisaster surveys, experimental tests, risk assessment, and loss estimation, and numerical models developed are then combined together to aid in the development of multiple hazards resistant design.
Design for Multiple Hazards
It is physically impossible and economically not feasible to design structures for worst possible or most extreme event. Engineering can only be as good as the validity of the underlying assumptions. If the assumptions cause us to venture out into the “unknown” world, a certain level of risk may be expected. There always exists a tradeoff whether structures should be redesigned or retrofitted for multiple hazards. Therefore, economically viable and socially acceptable structural design and retrofitting techniques should be developed with careful consideration of design constraints or minimum design requirements for structures at risk or located in hazard prone areas by using the results of experimental tests verified by numerical models and vice-versa.
A masonry wall of a 12-story cantilever was replaced with a reinforced concrete wall for better load transfer from shoring systems to the retrofitted steel frame of the 16-story building damaged by landslides in Coimbra, Portugal (Tiago and Julio 2010). Keller and Bruneau (2009) proposed the concept of Steel Plate Shear Wall (SPSW) design of bridge piers. SPSW are ductile, resistant to multiple hazards, and easy to repair when damaged. A four column box SPSW pier was developed that offered seismic resistance in all directions depending upon the plate thickness, which also resisted the impacts of hurricane-induced surge, tsunami waves, and explosion. Teich and Gebbeken (2009) designed a new structural system containing a reinforced concrete sacrificial wall with reinforced and protective sand cladding for both seismic and explosion load resistance. The design (Fig. 8) also replaces the traditional stone foundation with a deep and stiff strip foundation with a reinforced concrete slab.
Fig. 8. Design of a single storey building for earthquake and explosion [reprinted with permission from Teich and Gebbeken (2009)]
Performance-Based Design (PBD) for Multiple Hazards
In PBD, the performance objectives of a structure are decided by the owners, and then the best design is selected after going through a series of designs that incorporate risks from multiple hazards. PBD is the integration of design, construction practices, operation, and maintenance of a structure for the intended lifetime. Fig. 9 describes a performance-based engineering approach for multiple hazards. The National Science Foundation (NSF 2008) stated that developing PBD approaches for multiple hazards would be a large step toward building a resilient and sustainable civil infrastructure. Although there have been some advancements in the field of PBD, there exists a gap between development and actual implementation of the designs. For example, most of the developed PBD models and strategies remain qualitative and are never actually used in quantitative terms or along with conventional design (Aktan et al. 2007).
Fig. 9. Performance-based design approach for multiple hazards
The Applied Technology Council (ATC) and FEMA’s Project ATC-58 (ATC 2009) developed performance-based seismic design guidelines. The project includes a series of resource documents that define procedures to design new or upgrade (retrofit) existing structures to achieve desired performance goals and to assist stakeholders in selecting the best suited reliable design performance goals for buildings economically (ATC 2009). The guidelines developed could also be used for other hazards such as blast, fire, and hurricanes. Taggart and van de Lindt (2009) developed a PBD approach to calculate monetary losses resulting from flood damage for various buildings and site design.
Mitigation Strategies and Considerations
NIST’s disaster resilience report (2006) provides detailed insight into types of hazards, vulnerability, and risk assessment by using forecasting, risk management, loss estimation, retrofitting, and mitigation strategies, and provides steps to be taken and prepared in the future. FEMA 543 (FEMA 2007) design guide recommends incorporating wind and flood hazard mitigation measures into all stages and at all levels of critical structural planning and design. The FEMA 530 (FEMA 2005) Earthquake Design Guide provides a number of methods for identification of retrofitting areas for homeowners, which would also mitigate threats from fires and floods. MCEER and other institutions are currently working toward the establishment of a framework to systematically expand the current AASHTO LRFD into a multiple-hazard-LRFD for the multiple-hazards design of highway bridges (MCEER 2009). Table 3 illustrates a summary of current mitigation strategies employed for multiple-hazards in the United States. Incorporation of life cycle cost analysis would help home owners or other stakeholder to apply cost-effective multiple-hazard mitigation techniques into the design.
Table 3. Current Mitigation Strategies for Multiple-Hazards
Mitigation strategies
Description
Examples
Forecasting
Forecasting specifies in advance the location, size, and time of occurrence of a natural hazard.
• SLOSH is used to estimate storm surge heights and wind intensities resulting from historical, hypothetical, or predicted hurricanes (NHC 2003).
Land use planning
An effective tool for development of hazard-prone areas.
• Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) protects coastal areas from development and, thus, limits property damage (FEMA 2010).
• Disaster mitigation Act, 2000 makes it mandatory for public sector organizations to prepare multihazard mitigation plans to be eligible for federal funding.
Improved building codes and standards
Provide minimum design specifications and instructions necessary for new construction and for retrofitting.
• International Building Code includes instructions for designing structures for wave and wind load simultaneously (ASCE 2010).
• National Flood Insurance program (NFIP) has created performance standards for structures in the coastal areas.
Risk communication and loss estimation
Creating public awareness about the ways a hazard can affect people.
• Building trust among people so that every warning (flood, tsunami, winds) is treated as a real threat.
• Local hazard information centers to educate people about multihazard risks and mitigation strategies.
Building code compliance plays an important role in mitigation hazards. In Australia, minimum design requirements of structures for earthquake, floods, winds, and storm have been set and every structure has to meet these requirements (Middlemann and Granger 2000). In Japan, the strict implementation of the building design codes saved many lives during the 2011 Tohoku tsunami and earthquake.
Life Cycle Analysis to Evaluate the Cost-Effectiveness of Mitigation Strategies
The cost of construction, operation, maintenance, and repair over the lifetime of a structure plays an important role in designing the new structure or for retrofitting of existing structures. In the context of hazard mitigation, life cycle analysis is performed to determine whether it is economically feasible to retrofit a structure by using mitigation strategies incorporated into design or to rebuild from start. Life cycle analysis is also used to determine the best retrofitting design from a number of available design options and potential losses to the structure from multiple hazards during its lifetime. Bruneau (Multi Hazard Mitigation Council 2005) stated that spending every $1 toward multiple-hazard mitigation would save $4 in the future from losses.
Wen and Kang (2001a) developed a mathematical model to calculate the expected total cost of a new or retrofitted structure over its lifetime for a single or multiple hazards by using an optimum design method. The result of the analysis demonstrates that the structure should not be designed only for the dominating hazard; the lesser hazard may also contribute significantly (Wen and Kang 2001b). Jalayer et al. (2011) set forth a numerical model to calculate the expected life cycle cost of a structure from multiple hazards involving uncertainties from both type of loading and the modeling parameters. Ettouney and Alampalli (2006) developed a model to perform life cycle analysis for a structure affected by multiple hazards.
Potential Effect of Climate Change
The current design and mitigation strategies address the effects of nature as a stationary process. However, it is evident from numerous global warming and climate change studies that the constructed environment may be affected by climate change through a rising sea level and altered patterns of natural hazards attributed to enhanced greenhouse conditions in the future (e.g., IPCC 2007; Schiermeier 2006; Wilbanks 2003; Olsen et al. 1998). Over the last century, the earth has become 0.74 degrees Celsius warmer (Carius et al. 2008). Zhang et al. (2010) displayed the trends of increasing frequency and intensity of typhoons attributed to changes in the hydrological cycle as a result of global warming, which would continue to increase in the future (Nordhaus 2007). Hazards such as hurricanes, snowfall and heavy precipitation, and floods, are expected to change in magnitude with even a small increase in temperature as a result of climate change (IPCC 2007; CBO 2009). Current design and construction practices may not meet current or proposed building performance requirements warranted by plausible climate change scenarios (AGO 2007; Larsson 2003; Lisø et al. 2003); therefore, the design of new buildings and retrofitting existing facilities should consider this effect. Understanding of the physical climate system has progressed rapidly in the United States, but the use of this knowledge to support decision making, manage risks, and engage stakeholders is inadequate (National Research Council 2007).
A growing interest exists in the potential effects of climate change on buildings and infrastructure damage (Stewart et al. 2011; Bjarnadottir et al. 2011a, b; Hansen 2008; Association of British Insurers 2005; McCarthy et al. 2001). A number of risk assessment tools are available to incorporate the climate change effects into development plans, land use plans for the policy makers to create a balance between protection against hazards, structural construction costs and effects from these costs. A community-based Risk Screening Tool for Adaptation and Livelihoods is a tool to help integrate climate change adaptation and risk reduction into community level projects (International Institute for Sustainable Development 2007). SimCLIM is another computer model system used for examining the effects of climate variability and change over time by describing baseline climates, examining current climate changes, and assessing risks at present and in the future (CLIM 2005).
Climate change is a problem with many future uncertainties. Adaption strategies that are robust against a wide range of plausible scenarios are desirable. The novel analytic methods (exploratory modeling) for finding robust strategies combine scenario-based planning and quantitative decision analysis (Lempert and Schlesinger 2000). Several approaches that can be considered for managing the climatic risk include: (1) Avoiding or minimizing the risk by proper land use planning (e.g., avoid inundation zone in coastal areas that associate with rising sea level or hurricane-induced surge), (2) Designing and building for hazard-resistant buildings or infrastructure, (3) Adopting physical countermeasures such as levees and floodwalls, (4) Reducing the risk by increasing redundancy through multiple facilities or improve the robustness, (5) Transferring the risk through insurance, e.g., include insurance transactions in cost-benefit analysis of adaptation strategies, and (6) Retaining the risk by the stake holders, i.e., accept a portion of the consequences of climate change and price this risk into the cost of service.
Summary and Future Research Needs
This paper provides examples of damages and losses resulting from multiple hazards and offers an overview of the differences and similarities between different hazards. Postdisaster surveys, experimental testing, risk assessment and loss estimation, and modeling and numerical analysis, to assess the effects of multiple hazards are discussed. In addition, the potential effects of climate change on natural hazard patterns and building/infrastructure damages are presented.
In the past, design and mitigation strategies were often limited to an emphasis on mitigating the effects of individual hazards. However, such measures these measures may improve the structure’s performance to specific hazards, but in some cases these measures may make the structure more vulnerable to other hazards. Therefore, there often exists a trade-off in designing a structure for an individual hazard and leveraging limited resources to optimize design and construction practices. In recent decades, a shift toward developing methods to assess and mitigate the effects of multiple hazards has occurred. This transition has been propelled by the occurrence of rare and extreme events revealing the susceptibility of structures and infrastructure to multiple hazards (either concurrent or independent throughout a structure’s lifetime); an evolution in understanding the hazard exposure of different regions of the country and increased awareness of the potential effects of a changing climate; and a paradigm shift toward performance-based or consequence-based engineering of structures, which implicitly necessitates consideration of multiple hazards to which a structure is exposed. Additional analysis and testing of both design and retrofit techniques that simultaneously address multiple hazards are needed. Expanded consequences models with consistent metrics of performance across multiple hazards will enable more risk-consistent design and retrofit.
The development of frameworks (e.g., risk assessment, life cycle analysis) can be used to quantify metrics of multi-hazard performance (e.g., resilience), but needs exist for continued work to extend these concepts that have emphasized independent threats to multiple threats. The MCEER (2007) symposium emphasized the requirement for resilience toward multiple hazards in the future and identified needs. A 4R (Robustness, Redundancy, Resourcefulness, and Rapidity) approach was proposed toward enhancing the disaster resilience of the communities through multiple-hazard engineering (MCEER 2007). The need to develop methods to incorporate probability of occurrences of the multiple hazards and their consequences was also discussed (MCEER 2007). Britton and Clark (2000) outlined the reform that shifts the focus from responding to emergencies after disasters to managing the risks through creating resilient communities. The shift represents a new way to more effectively mitigate the damage risks resulting from natural hazards. Additionally, the consequence-based engineering approach concentrates on the consequences of the hazard and the mitigation strategies employed (Abrams 2002), and it emphasizes effects ranging from damage to socioeconomic effects. This framework offers an alternative through which multiple-hazard mitigation can be evaluated, yet its application to integrating different hazards has been limited to date. Life-cycle models need to be developed that integrate risks from multiple hazards to evaluate the trade-offs in maintenance or retrofit at different stages of a structure’s life. The life-cycle models need to be integrated with design and mitigation strategies to reduce damages and losses caused by multiple hazards. Furthermore, designs that consider the effects of multiple hazards should be combined with a number of other mitigation strategies (e.g., land use planning, risk communication) for effective mitigation.
Even with the recent advance of performance-based engineering approaches, complementary multiple-hazard perspectives, improvement of building codes, and development of new mitigation strategies, constructed facilities remain vulnerable to threats from multiple hazards at large. Changing climate and natural degradation (deforestation), population growth, and excessive land use has exacerbated the effects of hazards and is only expected to rise in the future (Oberoi and Thakur 2005; IPCC 2007). The effects of climate change have been incorporated into risk assessment recently; however, a significant amount of research needs to be done in this area.
Despite the stringent building codes and advanced warning systems, the 8.9 magnitude 2011 Tohoku Japan earthquake and tsunami caused unprecedented damages, deaths, and economic and societal losses. The number of deaths and damage value assessment is still under investigation; however, some initial estimation predicts a $300 billion loss (PEER 2011) making it the costliest natural disaster in history. This type of event underscores the importance of multiple-hazard mitigation and the challenge of designing and building structures capable of withstanding the effects of such an event in a technically sound and cost-effective manner. Future research to address the aforementioned knowledge gaps and promote a transition to practical implementation is central to mitigate the effects of multiple hazards in regions susceptible to exposure and damage from different threats.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the three anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful and constructive comments. The second author would like to thank Sigridur Osk Bjarnadottir and Sunil Khilnani for the time they spent providing valuable inputs for this paper.
References
Abrams, D. P. (2002). “Consequence-based engineering approaches for reducing loss in mid-America.” Linbeck distinguished lecture series in earthquake engineering, Univ. of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN.
Applied Technology Council (ATC). (2009). “Development of next generation performance-based seismic design procedures for new and existing buildings.” ATC-58, Redwood City, CA.
Ataei, N., Stearns, M. C., Padgett, J. E. (2010). “Response sensitivity and probabilistic damage assessment of coastal bridges under surge and wave loading.” Transportation Research Record 2202, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 93–101.
Ayyub, B. M., McGill, W. L., and Kaminskiy, M. (2007). “Critical assest and portfolio risk analysis: An all-hazards framework.” Risk Anal., 27(4), 789–801.
Beavers, J. E. (2009). “Multihazard issues in the central united states: Understanding the hazards and reducing the losses.” ASCE Council on Disaster Risk Management Monograph No. 3, Reston, VA.
Bjarnadottir, S., Li, Y., and Stewart, M. G. (2011a). “A probabilistic-based framework for impact and adaptation assessment of climate change on hurricane damage risks and costs.” Struct. Saf., 33(3), 173–185.
Bjarnadottir, S., Li, Y., and Stewart, M. G. (2011b). “Social vulnerability index for coastal communities at risk to hurricane hazard and a changing climate.” Nat. Hazards, 59(2), 1055–1575.
Bruneau, M., et al. (2003). “A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities.” Earthquake Spectra, 19(4), 733–752.
CBO. (2009). “Potential impacts of climate change in the United States.” Paper Prepared at the Request of the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Chang, S. E., Shinozuka, M., and Moore, J. E. (2000). “Probabilistic earthquake scenarios: Extending risk analysis methodologies to spatially distributed systems.” Earthquake Spectra, 16(3), 557–572.
Corley, W. G., Malkar, P. F., Sozen, M. A., and Thornton, C. H. (1998). “The Oklahoma city bombing: Summary and recommendations for multihazard mitigation.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 12(3), 100–112.
Corotis, R. B., and Nafday, A. M. (1989). “Structural system reliability using linear programming and simulation.” J. Struct. Eng., 115(10), 2435–2447.
Crossett, K. M., Culliton, T. J., Wiley, P. C., and Goodspeed, T. R. (2004). “Population trends along the coastal United States: 1980–2008.” U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Ellingwood, B. R. (2005). “Risk-informed condition assessment of civil infrastructure: State of practice and research issues.” Struct. Infrastruct. Eng., 1(1), 7–18.
Elnashai, A. S., et al. (2011). “The Maule (Chile) earthquake of February 27, 2010 consequence assessment and case studies.” Mid America Earthquake Center Rep. No. 10-04.
Etkin, D., and Haque, C. E. (2003). “Lessons learnt from red river flooding.” An assessment of natural hazards and disasters in Canada, R. Gregory, ed., Springer, New York.
Ettouney, M., and Alampalli, S. (2006). “Blast hazard considerations within a multihazards environment: An application to the theory of multihazards.” Proc. Structures Congress, ASCE, New York.
FEMA 549. (2006). Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Coast: Mitigation assessment team report, building performance observations, recommendations, and technical guidance, Washington, D.C.
Franco, G., Green, R., Khazai, B., Smyth, A., and Deodatis, G. (2010). “Field damage survey of New Orleans homes in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.” Nat. Hazards Rev., 11(1), 7–18.
Fujikura, S., Bruneau, M., and Lopez-Garcia, D. (2008). “Experimental investigation of multihazard resistant bridge piers having concrete-filled steel tube under blast loading.” J. Bridge Eng., 13(6), 586–594.
Graham, J. W., Weelden, T. V., and Vogt, M. (2009). “The 2008 Iowa floods: Structural challenges and solutions.” Proc., Electrical Transmission and Substation Structures Conf., ASCE, New York, 1–12.
Greimann, L., Fanous, F., Safar, S., Khalil, A., and Bluhm, D. (1999). Three-dimensional analysis of AP600 standard plant shield building roof, Ames Laboratory, Iowa State Univ., IA.
Haiti PDNA 2010. (2010). “Haiti earthquake PDNA: Assessment of damage, losses, general and sectoral needs.” Post Disaster Needs Assessment Team, Government of Republic of Haiti.
Jalayer, F., Asprone, D., Prota, A., and Manfredi, G. (2011). “Multi-hazard upgrade decision making for critical infrastructure based on life-cycle cost criteria.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 40(10), 1163–1179.
Jordan, J. W., and Paulius, S. L. (2006). “Lessons learned from hurricane Katrina.” Proc., 4th Congress on Forensic Engineering, ASCE Technical Council on Forensic Engineering, Cleveland, OH.
Keller, D., and Bruneau, M. (2009). “Multi-hazard resistant steel plate shear wall bridge pier concept.” Behavior of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas, STESSA 2009, CRC, Boca Raton, FL.
Kim, K., and Yamashita, T. (2004). “Wind-wave-surge parallel computation model and its application to storm surge simulation in shallow sea.” Proc., 29th Int. Conf., Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE, New York, 1578–1590.
Kostarev, V., Andrei, P., and Vasilyev, P. (2003). “A new method for essential reduction of seismic and external loads on NPP’s structures, systems and components.” Proc., 17th Int. Conf. on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, Association of Mechanical Engineers of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic.
Li, H., Apostolakis, G. E., Gifun, J., Van Schalkwyk, W., Leite, S., and Barber, D. (2009). “Ranking the risks from multiple hazards in an small community.” Risk Anal., 29(3), 438–456.
Li, Y., and Ellingwood, B. R. (2009). “Framework for multihazard risk assessment and mitigation for wood-frame residential construction.” J. Struct. Eng., 135(2), 159–168.
Li, Y., van de Lindt, J. W., Dao, T., Bjarnadottir, S. O., and Ahuja, A. (2011). “Loss analysis for combined wind and surge in hurricanes.” Nat. Hazards Rev., in press, .
Li, Y., Yin, Y. J., Ellingwood, B. R., and Bulleit, W. M. (2010). “Uniform hazard vs. uniform risk bases for performance-based earthquake engineering of light-frame wood construction.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 39(11), 1199–1217.
Lignos, D. G., Krawinkler, H., and Whittaker, H. (2011). “Prediction and validation of sidesway collapse of two scale models of a 4-story steel moment frame.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 40(7), 807–825.
Lisø, K. R., Aandahl, G., Eriksen, S., and Alfsen, K. (2003). “Preparing for climate change impacts in Norway’s built environment.” Build. Res. Inf., 31(3–4), 200–209.
Little, R. G. (2009). “Managing the risk of cascading failure in complex urban infrastructures.” Disrupted cities: When infrastructure fails, Routledge, London, UK.
McDaniels, T., Chang, S., Peterson, K., Milawoz, J., and Reed, D. (2007). “Empirical framework for characterizing infrastructure failure interdependencies.” J. Infrastruct. Syst., 13(3), 175–184.
Middlemann, M., and Granger, K. (2000). “Community risk in Mackay: A multi hazard risk assessment.” Australian Geological Survey Organization, Commonwealth of Australia.
Multi-hazard Mitigation Council. (2005). Natural hazard mitigation saves: An independent study to assess the future savings from mitigation activities, National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council (NRC). (2007). Evaluating progress of the U.S. climate change science program: Methods and preliminary results, National Academies, Washington, DC.
NIST. (2008). “Final report on the collapse of world trade center building 7.” Federal Building and fire Safety Investigation of World Trade center Disaster, Gaithersburg, MD.
(NSF). (2008). “Division plan: A plan for resource allocation.” The Division of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation (CMMI), National Science Foundation, Washington, DC.
Oberoi, S. V., and Thakur, N. K. (2005). “Disaster preparedness in the hills: Natural hazard modeling using GIS and remote sensing.” Proc., Int. Conf. on Computing in Civil Engineering (CD-ROM), ASCE, Reston, VA.
Olsen, R. J., Beling, P. A., and Lambert, J. H. (1998). “Input-output economic evaluation of system of levees.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 124(5), 237–245.
Padgett, J. E., Dennemann, K., and Ghosh, J. (2010). “Risk-based seismic life-cycle cost-benefit analysis LCC-B for bridge retrofit assessment.” Struct. Saf., 32(3), 165–173.
Padgett, J. E., Ghosh, J., and Ataei, N. (2010). “Sensitivity of dynamic response of bridges under multiple hazards to aging parameters.” Proc., Structures Congress, ASCE, New York.
Prasetya, G. S., Healy, T. R., de Lange, W. P., and Black, K. P. (2008). “Extreme Tsunami run up and inundation flows at Banda Aceh, Indonesia: Are there any solutions to this type of coastal disaster?” Proc., Solutions to Coastal Disasters: Tsunamis 2008 Conf., ASCE, New York, 13–26.
Reed, D. A. (2007). “Multi-hazard analysis of electric power delivery systems.” Proc., 2009 ASCE Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake (TCLEE) Conf., ASCE, New York, 1–7.
Robertson, I. N., Riggs, H. R., Yim, S. C. S., and Young, Y. L. (2007). “Lessons from Hurricane Katrina storm surge on bridges and buildings.” J. Waterw., Port, Coastal, and Ocean Eng., 133(6), 463–483.
Rose, A., and Blomberg, S. B. (2009). “Total economic consequences of terrorist attacks: Insights from 9/11.” Peace Econ. Peace Sci. Publ. Policy, 15(2), 1–14.
Regional Planning Association of America (RPAA). (2005). A Prospectus. 2005, Regional Plan Association’s National Committee for America 2050, New York.
Savage, W. U., Nishenko, S. P., Honegger, D. G., and Kempner, L., Jr. (2006). “Guideline for assessing the performance of electric power systems in natural hazard and human threat events.” Proc., 2006 Electrical Transmission Conf., ASCE, New York, 39–46.
Song, J., and Ellingwood, B. R. (1998). “Seismic reliability of special moment steel frames with welded connections: I.” J. Struct. Eng., 125(4), 357–371.
Stewart, M. G., Wang, X., and Nguyen, M. (2011). “Climate change impact and risks of concrete infrastructure deterioration.” Eng. Struct., 33(4), 1326–1337.
Taggart, M., and Van de Lindt, J. W. (2009). “Performance-based design of residential wood-frame buildings for flood based on manageable loss.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 23(2), 56–64.
Tanaka, H., Ishino, K., Nawarathna, B., Nakagawa, H., and Yano, S. (2007). “Coastal and river mouth morphology change in Sri Lanka due to the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami.” Proc., Int. Symp. on Coastal Engineering and Science of Coastal Sediment Process, ASCE, Reston, VA.
Tang, Z., Lindell, M. K., Prater, C. S., and Brody, S. D. (2008). “Measuring Tsunami planning capacity on U.S. Pacific coast.” Nat. Hazards Rev., 9(2), 91–100.
Teich, M., and Gebbeken, N. (2009). “Assessing the effectiveness of blast and seismic mitigation measures in an integrated design context.” TCLEE 2009: Lifeline Earthquake Engineering in a Multihazard Environment (CD-ROM), 1–12.
Tiago, P., and Julio, E. (2010). “Case study: Damage of an RC building after a landslide-inspection, analysis and retrofitting.” Eng. Struct., 32(7), 1814–1820.
USDOT. (2007). Impacts of climate change and variability on transportation systems and infrastructure: Gulf Coast study, phase I, J. R. Potter, V. R. Burkett, and M. J. Savonis, eds., U.S. Department of Transportation.
van de Lindt, J. W., Graettinger, A., Gupta, R., Skaggs, T., Pryor, S., and Fridley, K. J. (2007). “Performance of wood-frame structures during Hurricane Katrina.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 21(2), 108–116.
van de Lindt, J. W., Pei, S., Pryor, S. E., Shimizu, H., and Isoda, H. (2010). “Experimental seismic response of a full-scale six-story light-frame wood building.” J. Struct. Eng., 136(10), 1262–1272.
Varnes, K., and Pielke, R., Jr. (2009). “Normalized earthquake damage and fatalities in the United States: 1900–2005.” Nat. Hazards Rev., 10(3), 84–101.
Wilson, J. S., Gupta, R., van de Lindt, J. W., Clauson, M., and Garcia, R. (2009). “Behavior of a one-sixth scale wood-framed residential structure under wave loading.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 23(5), 336–345.
World Bank IEG. (2006). “Hazards of nature, risks to development. An IEG evaluation of world bank assistance for natural disasters.” Independent Evaluation Group, Washington, D.C.
Yassin, H., Bagachi, A., and Kodur, V. (2008). “Structural performance of stud walls under normal and post-earthquake fire exposure.” Proc., Structures Congress, ASCE, New York, 1–11.
Yeh, H., et al. (2007). “Effects of the 2004 great Sumantra Tsunami: Southeast Indian coast.” J. Waterw., Port, Coastal, and Ocean Eng., 133(6), 382–400.
Zhang, Q., Zhang, W., Chen, Y. D., and Jiang, T. (2010). “Flood, drought and typhoon disasters during the last half-century in the Guangdong province, China.” Nat. Hazards, 57(2), 267–278.
Zhao, S., Xiong, L., and Ren, A. (2006). “A spatial-temporal stochastic simulation of fire outbreaks following earthquake based on GIS.” J. Fire Sci., 24(4), 313–339.
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Michigan Technological Univ., Houghton, MI 49931 (corresponding author). E-mail: [email protected]
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
CF.1943-5509.0000279/asset/aedf7c6d-8b9c-482b-a1a9-0538a58244f8/assets/images/large/1.jpg)
CF.1943-5509.0000279/asset/f495dabd-a3d5-4a96-9336-7ed568ef2d1b/assets/images/large/2.jpg)
CF.1943-5509.0000279/asset/ea9ea26f-c080-44f1-8317-d92be7453954/assets/images/large/3.jpg)
CF.1943-5509.0000279/asset/2cf75a25-09b8-4fa5-bdc9-4e6243fb1f45/assets/images/large/4.jpg)
CF.1943-5509.0000279/asset/fc1cc8de-171d-4ec8-a8a6-b8e0a90e986e/assets/images/large/5.jpg)
CF.1943-5509.0000279/asset/f4e9454e-dcd2-4fea-adc8-88e172415cf8/assets/images/large/6.jpg)
CF.1943-5509.0000279/asset/5170b3cd-b015-49e9-90ff-be5f3f3c3f02/assets/images/large/7.jpg)
CF.1943-5509.0000279/asset/deabca32-388c-491c-999a-b4beb04cc96d/assets/images/large/8.jpg)
CF.1943-5509.0000279/asset/fc216328-d77d-4ca5-9d36-394e19f7eea9/assets/images/large/9.jpg)
