Probabilistic Post-Earthquake Restoration Process with Repair Prioritization of Highway Network System for Disaster Resilience Enhancement

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE Probabilistic post-earthquake restoration process with repair prioritization of highway network system for disaster resilience enhancement DISSERTATION submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Civil Engineering by Tsutomu Nifuku Dissertation Committee: Professor Masanobu Shinozuka, Chair Professor Lizhi Sun, Co-Chair Professor Wenlong Jin 2015 © 2015 Tsutomu Nifuku DEDICATION To my family and wife, Yurie, in Japan ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES ···························································································vi LIST OF TABLES ·························································································· xiii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ··············································································· xiv CURRICULUM VITAE ··················································································· xvi ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION ······························································ xviii CHAPTER 1: Introduction ··················································································· 1 1.1 Problem statement ···················································································· 5 1.2 Objective ······························································································ 8 CHAPTER 2: Highway network system ·································································· 13 2.1 Highway network model ··········································································· 13 2.2 Seismic hazard ······················································································· 15 2.2.1 Northridge earthquake ········································································ 15 2.2.2 Regional possible scenario earthquakes ···················································· 16 2.3 Highway bridge damage ··········································································· 20 2.4 Highway link damage ·············································································· 21 2.5 Residual traffic capacity ············································································ 22 2.6 Highway traffic analysis ··········································································· 23 2.6.1 Origin-destination data········································································ 24 2.6.2 Origin-destination data change after earthquake ·········································· 25 2.6.3 Integrated traffic analysis ····································································· 28 2.6.4 Travel demand recovery ······································································ 33 iii 2.7 Social loss as highway performance ······························································ 35 2.7.1 Drivers’ delay ·················································································· 35 2.7.2 Opportunity loss ··············································································· 36 2.8 Business and non-business loss ··································································· 37 CHAPTER 3: Restoration process ········································································· 40 3.1 Repair progress concept ············································································ 41 3.2 Repair prioritization ················································································· 42 3.2.1 Analytic Hierarchy Process ·································································· 43 3.2.2 Prioritizing criteria ············································································ 46 3.3 Constrained repair conditions and calibration ··················································· 48 3.3.1 Necessary labor for bridge construction ···················································· 48 3.3.2 Limited regional labor after earthquake ···················································· 50 3.3.3 Calibration of regional labor ································································· 51 3.4 Bridge restoration process and calibration ······················································· 56 3.4.1 Markov Chain process model ································································ 56 3.4.2 Calibration of transition probability matrix ················································ 59 3.4.3 Uniform and Normal distribution model ··················································· 66 3.5 Monte Carlo Simulation ············································································ 69 CHAPTER 4: Model verification ·········································································· 72 4.1 Loss estimation at Northridge earthquake by Gordon et al., 1998 ··························· 74 4.2 Verification analysis ················································································ 75 4.2.1 Analysis conditions ············································································ 76 4.2.2 Bridge and link damage state ································································ 77 iv 4.2.3 Prioritized repair order ········································································ 79 4.3 Time and economic loss verification ····························································· 83 4.3.1 Bridge restoration model verification······················································· 83 4.3.2 Residual traffic capacity verification ······················································· 90 4.4 Results ································································································ 96 4.5 Model comparison ·················································································· 97 CHAPTER 5: Scenario earthquake application ························································ 108 5.1 Application conditions ············································································ 110 5.2 Initial damage state················································································ 111 5.3 Prioritized repair order ··········································································· 113 5.4 Bridge restoration curves ········································································· 127 5.5 Social loss restoration curves ···································································· 128 5.6 Economic loss ····················································································· 135 5.7 Sensitivity analysis ················································································ 137 5.8 Practical utilization ················································································ 158 CHAPTER 6: Conclusions and future works ·························································· 167 6.1 Conclusions ························································································ 167 6.2 Future works ······················································································· 171 REFERENCES ····························································································· 173 v LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1.1 Highway in broader Los Angeles area (U.S. DOT & ITS, 2002). ······················· 1 Figure 1.2 Rate of commute measure in Los Angeles area (U.S. DOT & ITS, 2002). ············· 2 Figure 1.3 Typical post-earthquake progress (U.S. DOT & ITS, 2002). ····························· 3 Figure 1.4 Post-earthquake recovery process represented by restoration curve. ···················· 6 Figure 1.5 Probabilistic analysis sequence of restoration process. ···································· 6 Figure 1.6 Highway transportation network model in Los Angeles and Orange counties (Zhou, 2006). ···················································································· 8 Figure 1.7 Itemized research flow. ········································································· 9 Figure 1.8 Detailed study framework and process flow. ··············································· 10 Figure 1.9 Conceptual figure of restoration curves corresponding to repair priorities. ··········· 11 Figure 2.1 Highway transportation network model. ···················································· 14 Figure 2.2 PGA distribution at Northridge earthquake (USGS ShakeMap). ························ 16 Figure 2.3 PGA distribution at Newport-Inglewood Mw7.1 scenario earthquake. ················ 19 Figure 2.4 Empirical bridge fragility curves (Shinozuka et al., 2005). ······························ 21 Figure 2.5 Highway link damage based on bottleneck hypothesis. ·································· 22 Figure 2.6 Trip reduction rate and earthquake intensity: home-work. ······························· 26 Figure 2.7 Trip reduction rate and earthquake intensity: home-other. ······························· 27 Figure 2.8 Trip reduction rate and earthquake intensity: other-other. ······························· 27 Figure 2.9 Trip reduction rate and earthquake intensity: other-work. ······························· 27 Figure 2.10 Trip reduction rate and earthquake intensity: home-shop. ······························ 28 Figure 2.11 Trip reduction rate and earthquake intensity: truck trip. ································ 28 Figure 2.12 Integrated traffic analysis of trip reduction and network models. ····················· 29 vi Figure 2.13 Equilibrium conditions on pre- and post-earthquake. ··································· 30 Figure 2.14 Travel

Load more