Risk-Based Multilevel Methodology to Stress Test Critical Infrastructure Systems
Publication: Journal of Infrastructure Systems
Volume 26, Issue 1
Abstract
Making communities safer requires better tools to identify, quantify, and manage risks. Among the most important tools are stress tests, originally designed to test the risk posed by nuclear power plants. A complementary harmonized multilevel stress test for nonnuclear civil infrastructure systems against natural hazards is proposed. Each stress test level is characterized by a different scope and a different level of risk analysis complexity to suit different civil infrastructure systems, different hazards, and different risks. The stress test consists of the following phases. First, the goals and the methods for the risk analysis are defined. The test is then performed at the component and system levels, followed by a verification of the findings. A penalty system is defined to adjust the output of the risk assessment according to the limitations of the risk analysis methods used. The adjusted risk assessment results are then passed to a grading system to determine the outcome of the stress test. Finally, the risk assessment results are reported, and the stress test outcomes are communicated to stakeholders and authorities.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Data Availability Statement
All data, models, and code generated or used during the study appear in the published article.
Acknowledgments
The work presented in this paper was conducted within the project “STREST: Harmonized approach to stress tests for civil infrastructures against natural hazards” funded by the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under Grant Agreement No. 603389. The authors gratefully acknowledge this funding. The authors acknowledge the contributions of the STREST Work Package leaders, Mr. Peter Zwicky, Prof. Fabrice Cotton, Prof. Iunio Iervolino, Prof. Kyriazis Pitilakis, Dr. Fabio Taucer, and Dr. Sotirios Argyroudis. The methods, results, opinions, findings, and conclusions presented in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission.
References
Argyroudis, S., J. Selva, P. Gehl, and K. Pitilakis. 2015. “Systemic seismic risk assessment of road networks in urban areas.” Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 30 (7): 524–540. https://doi.org/10.1111/mice.12136.
Aspinall, W. P., and R. M. Cooke. 2013. “Quantifying scientific uncertainty from expert judgement elicitation.” Risk Uncertainty Assess. for Nat. Hazard. 64 (Feb): 64–99. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139047562.005.
Babič, A., and M. Dolšek. 2016. Grading system in time domain in ST@STREST. Ljubljana, Slovenia: Univ. of Ljubljana.
Babič, A., and M. Dolšek. 2019. “A five-grade grading system for the evaluation and communication of short-term and long-term risk posed by natural hazards.” Struct. Saf. 78 (May): 48–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2018.12.006.
Bazzurro, P., and C. A. Cornell.1999. “Disaggregation of seismic hazard” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 89 (2): 501–520.
Bedford, T., and R. Cooke. 2001. Probabilistic risk analysis. 1st ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bommer, J. J. 2012. “Challenges of building logic trees for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis.” Earthquake Spectra 28 (4): 1723–1735. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.4000079.
Bommer, J. J., and F. Scherbaum. 2008. “The use and misuse of logic-trees in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis.” Earthquake Spectra 24997 (41009): 997–1009. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2977755.
Broccardo, M., P. Galanis, S. Esposito, and B. Stojadinović. 2015. “Probabilistic resilience assessment of civil systems: Analysis and validity of the PEER framework.” In Proc., European Safety and Reliability Conf., 7–10. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Cornell, C., and H. Krawinkler. 2000. Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. Columbus, OH: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research.
Cotton, F., et al. 2016. Reference report 2: Guidelines for harmonized hazard assessment for LP-HC events. Rep. No. Brussels, Belgium: Publications Office of the European Union.
Crowley, H., C. Casotto, M. Dolšek, and A. Babič. 2015. “Deliverable D4.3: Guidelines for performance and consequences assessment of multiple-site, low-risk, high-impact, nonnuclear critical infrastructures (exposed to multiple natural hazards, etc.).” Accessed May 1, 2018. http://www.strest-eu.org/opencms/opencms/results/.
ENSREG (European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group). 2011. “EU stress test specification.” Accessed May 1, 2018. https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/20110525_eu_stress_tests_specifications.pdf.
EPCIP (European Programme for Critical Infrastructure Protection). 2013. “Commission staff working document on a new approach to the European Programme for Critical Infrastructure Protection Making European Critical Infrastructures more secure.” Accessed May 1, 2018. https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/20130828_epcip_commission_staff_working_document.pdf.
Esposito, S., I. Iervolino, A. d’Onofrio, A. Santo, P. Franchin, and F. Cavalieri. 2015. “Simulation-based seismic risk assessment of a gas distribution network.” Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 30 (7): 508–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/mice.12105.
Esposito, S., B. Stojadinović, A. Babič, M. Dolšek, S. Iqbal, J. Selva, and D. Giardini. 2017. “Engineering risk-based methodology for stress testing of critical non-nuclear infrastructures (STREST Project).” In Proc., 16th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, 9–13. Santiago, Chile: Chilean Association on Seismology and Earthquake Engineering.
Esposito, S., B. Stojadinović, A. Mignan, M. Dolšek, A. Babič, J. Selva, S. Iqbal, F. Cotton, and I. Iervolino. 2016. “Deliverable D5.1: Report on the proposed engineering risk assessment methodology for stress tests of non-nuclear CIs.” Accessed May 1, 2018. http://www.strest-eu.org/opencms/opencms/results/.
EUCO (European Council). 2011. “Conclusions of the European Council of 24/25 March 2011.” EUCO 10/1/11 Accessed May 1, 2018. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/120296.pdf.
Field, E. H., et al. 2017. “A synoptic view of the third uniform California earthquake rupture forecast (UCERF3).” Seismol. Res. Lett. 88 (5): 1259–1267. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220170045.
Fischhoff, B. 2015. “The realities of risk-cost-benefit analysis.” Sci. 350 (6260): 6516. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa6516.
Helm, P. 1996. “Integrated risk management for natural and technological disasters.” Tephra 15 (1): 4–13.
Iervolino, I. 2016. “Soil-invariant seismic hazard and disaggregation.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 106 (4): 1900–1907. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120160072.
Jonkman, S. N., P. H. A. J. M. Van Gelder, and J. K. Vrijling. 2003. “An overview of quantitative risk measures for loss of life and economic damage.” J. Hazard. Mater. 99 (1): 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3894(02)00283-2.
Kakderi, K., et al. 2015. “Deliverable D4.2: Guidelines for performance and consequences assessment of geographically distributed, non-nuclear critical infrastructures exposed to multiple natural hazards.” Accessed May 1, 2018. http://www.strest-eu.org/opencms/opencms/results/.
Liu, Z., F. Nadim, A. Garcia-Aristizabal, A. Mignan, K. Fleming, and B. Q. Luna. 2015. “A three-level framework for multi-risk assessment.” Georisk: Assess. Manage. Risk Eng. Syst. Geohazards 9 (2): 59–74. https://doi:10.1080/17499518.2015.1041989.
Marzocchi, W., A. Garcia-Aristizabal, P. Gasparini, M. L. Mastellone, and A. Di Ruocco. 2012. “Basic principles of multi-risk assessment: A case study in Italy.” Nat. Hazard. 62 (2): 551–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0092-x.
Marzocchi, W., M. Taroni, and J. Selva. 2015. “Accounting for epistemic uncertainty in PSHA: Logic tree and ensemble modeling.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 105 (4): 2151–2159. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120140131.
Mignan, A., L. Danciu, and D. Giardini. 2018. “Considering large earthquake clustering in seismic risk analysis.” Nat. Hazard. 91 (1): 149. https://doi:10.1007/s11069-016-2549-9.
Mignan, A., N. Komendantova, A. Scolobig, and K. Fleming. 2017. Multi-risk assessment and governance, handbook of disaster risk reduction and management. 357–381. London: Imperial College Press.
Mignan, A., A. Scolobig, and A. Sauron. 2016. “Using reasoned imagination to learn about cascading hazards: A pilot study.” Disaster Prev. Manage. 25 (3): 329–344. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-06-2015-0137.
Mignan, A., S. Wiemer, and D. Giardini. 2014. “The quantification of low-probability–high-consequences events: Part I. A generic multi-risk approach.” Nat. Hazard. 73 (3): 1999–2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1178-4.
Morgan, M. G. 2014. “Use (and abuse) of expert elicitation in support of decision making for public policy.” PNAS 111 (20): 7176–7184. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319946111.
Pitilakis, K., et al. 2016. Reference report 5: Guidelines for stress-test design for non-nuclear critical infrastructures and systems: Applications. Rep. No. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Pitilakis, K., et al. 2018. “A multi-level stress test methodology: Application to six critical infrastructures in Europe.” In Proc., 16th European Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, 18–21. Thessaloniki, Greece: European Association Earthquake Engineering.
Quagliariello, M. 2009. Stress-testing the banking system: Methodologies and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rodrigues, D., H. Crowley, and V. Silva. 2018. “Earthquake loss assessment of precast RC industrial structures in Tuscany (Italy).” Bull. Earthquake Eng. 16 (1): 203–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0195-6.
Salzano, E., A. Basco, S. Karafagka, S. Fotopoulou, K. Pitilakis, A. Anastasiadis, J. P. Matos, and A. J. Schleiss. 2016. “Deliverable D4.1: Guidelines for performance and consequences assessment of single-site, high-risk, non-nuclear critical infrastructures exposed to multiple natural hazards.” Accessed May 1, 2018. http://www.strest-eu.org/opencms/opencms/results/.
Selva, J. 2013. “Long-term multi-risk assessment: Statistical treatment of interaction among risks.” Nat. Hazard. 67 (2): 701–722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0599-9.
Selva, J., et al. 2015. “Deliverable D3.1: Report on the effects of epistemic uncertainties on the definition of LP-HC events.” Accessed May 1, 2018. http://www.strest-eu.org/opencms/opencms/results/.
SSHAC (Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee). 1997. Recommendations for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: Guidance on uncertainty and use of experts. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rep. No. NUREG/CR-6372. Washington, DC: SSHAC.
Stojadinović, B., S. Esposito, A. Babič, F. Cotton, M. Dolšek, D. Giardini, S. Iqbal, A. Mignan, J. Selva, and G. Tsionis. 2016. Reference report 4: Guidelines for stress-test design for non-nuclear critical infrastructures and systems: Methodology. Rep. No. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
STREST. 2018. "Harmonized approach to stress tests for critical infrastructures against natural hazards". Accessed May 1, 2018. http://www.strest-eu.org/opencms/opencms/results/.
Tsionis, G., A. Pinto, D. Giardini, A. Mignan, F. Cotton, I. Iervolino, K. Pitalakis, B. Stojadinović, P. Zwicky, and L. Danciu. 2016. Reference report 6: Harmonized approach to stress tests for critical infrastructures against natural hazards. Rep. No. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Woessner, J., et al. 2015. “The 2013 European seismic hazard model: Key components and results.” Bull. Earthquake Eng. 13 (12): 3553–3596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9795-1.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Infrastructure Systems
Volume 26 • Issue 1 • March 2020
Copyright
©2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: May 2, 2018
Accepted: Jul 9, 2019
Published online: Dec 19, 2019
Published in print: Mar 1, 2020
Discussion open until: May 19, 2020
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
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.