Bull Earthquake Eng DOI 10.

1007/s10518-012-9391-6 ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER

An integrated procedure for management of bridge networks in seismic areas

Federico Carturan Carlo Pellegrino Riccardo Rossi Massimiliano Gastaldi Claudio Modena

Received: 16 March 2012 / Accepted: 12 October 2012 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Abstract In this work an integrated procedure for the evaluation of the seismic vulnerability of bridges included in the transportation network and a rational resource allocation for retrotting with the aim of minimizing the consequences of an earthquake is shown at a network level. Both normal service and post-earthquake emergency conditions are considered as possible scenarios. The nal result consists in global delay in the network versus seismic action occurring time. An iterative procedure nally denes the priority for optimal budget allocation for retrotting. The procedure has been tested on a wide bridge network located in the North-eastern part of Italy. Keywords Bridge Seismic risk Fragility curves Transportation network Retrot Seismic vulnerability

1 Introduction Many natural hazards threat human life and buildings. Buildings and infrastructures are exposed to many hazards: earthquake, oods, windstorms, ice, tsunamis, debris ows. For stocks of buildings or lifelines such as transportation networks, gas, water, telecommunication facilities, the effects of natural hazards could represent an issue, since they cause severe disruption and imply a long recovery time to get back the complete operability. Furthermore, during an extreme event as an earthquake, emergency response plays an important role in life rescue and reducing economic losses. In transportation lifelines, bridges are vulnerable elements when an earthquake occurs and can experience structural problems due to ageing and environmental conditions such as concrete cover damage with rebar exposition to atmosphere and steel corrosion, concrete damage by icing cycles etc. A key issue for the road manager is to assign the right allocation of limited budget resources for retrotting with the aim of best serving its community.

F. Carturan C. Pellegrino (B ) R. Rossi M. Gastaldi C. Modena Department of Civil Environmental and Architectural Engineering, Via Marzolo, 9, 35131 Padova, Italy e-mail: carlo.pellegrino@unipd.it

123

Bull Earthquake Eng

In this context, minimization of economic losses can be performed using the calculation of the system risk curve. Results of the optimum research procedure can be used to prioritize retrotting interventions. The emergency response can be used as one of the objectives for this optimum research procedure. An instrument for the evaluation of the response in the immediate post-event can be given by simulation of transportation networks damaged by earthquake. The ability of reaching each injured person by emergency vehicles can be investigated with a detailed representation of the transportation network. The emergency response can be forecasted regarding origin destination path planned by the National Protection Agency. 1.1 Scientic background Few procedures for this type of complex and multidisciplinary problems have been developed in literature only for particular contexts. The study of distributed systems under earthquake has been studied by Shinozuka et al. (1981) with an application to water transmission systems. Furthermore, in the USA, FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) proposed a methodology to estimate the losses caused by several natural hazards. These procedures, called HAZUS (FEMA 2004), have been coded into software running on a GIS system that allows performing risk analyses. The key feature of this procedure is the easy retrieval of data, for seismic action, transportation networks, soils, etc. but the effects of retrot interventions and relative indications on retrot priority in risk analyses are not accounted. Shiraki et al. (2007) presented a general method for the calculation of risk in transportation networks. Starting from seismic scenarios built for California they computed the network delay and then correlated the annual occurrence rate for earthquake scenarios to get the system risk curve. Werner et al. (2004, 2006) proposed a procedure called REDARS2, used by Caltrans for the seismic risk analysis. In that work there is also an application to California transportation system. Shinozuka et al. (2006) studied the socio-economic effect of the seismic retrot implemented on bridges in Los Angeles Area Freeway Network. Seville and Metcalfe (2005) worked on similar topics in New Zealand, for the land transportation research. In Italy, Codermatz et al. (2003) performed a risk analysis by means of GIS software in Friuli Venezia Giulia (NE Italy). They accounted for bridge fragility, but there is no information about the effects on the system of transportation. Mander et al. (2007) run a simulation on a single bridge calculating the single bridge risk curve. Kiremidijan et al. (2007) run a simulation for the transportation network degradation, including effects like liquefaction, ground motion, landslides etc. A very recent study of Lee et al. (2011) proposed a procedure for risk evaluation and ow capacity in transportation networks using a Matrix Based Reliability method and presenting an application to Sioux falls in a simplied network. The key point of this method is decoupling of reliability analysis and transportation ows simulation but it is only applicable to very simple networks with reasonable computational efforts. Several details about effects of retrotting on the network and on prioritisation of retrot interventions are given. 1.2 Fragility curves The fragility curve is a common mean to assess the seismic vulnerability of a bridge (Morbin et al. 2012). In Fig. 1 an example fragility curve is represented. The probability of exceeding each damage state is plotted versus the value of an intensity measure value.

123

Bull Earthquake Eng

In literature, the few procedures for evaluation of retrot improvement in system risk usually do not consider the correlation between the effects caused by other retrotting interventions in the network. The correlation between retrotting a bridge and the network re-arrangement has never been studied before. In particular, when a bridge is retrotted, its reduced fragility causes a modication in the behaviour of the entire system (e.g. a redistribution of ows in the transportation network) after an earthquake. Usually, in previous researches, the benet of retrotting a bridge is calculated only once, neglecting the above effects of interaction with the remaining part of the network. With this simplied assumption, the effects of interaction between retrotted and non-retrotted bridges are lost and significant errors in the calculation of risk and loss estimation can be computed. Moreover, on authors knowledge, in the context of emergency response planning, there are not simulations of bridge retrotting considering post-earthquake response of the network as an objective of the minimization procedure. In this work the procedure for management of bridge networks in seismic areas and, in particular, to estimate economic losses and determine the system risk curve is shown. Furthermore, a procedure to dene the priority order on bridge retrotting is presented. Results are given for a typical transportation network in the North-eastern part of Italy as a rst step in the application of such integrated and multidisciplinary procedure. This work extends partial aspects of the procedure shown in Carturan et al. (2010a,b) in which only preliminary results are described and includes new developments about the post-earthquake emergency response. In this work an application of the proposed integrated procedure to determine the priority for retrotting of bridges in the network taking into account the interaction between the various retrot interventions is also shown. Both normal service and post-earthquake emergency conditions are considered as objectives. The integrated procedure for calculation of risk described in this work has been designed considering the application to the Italian country, respecting its lack of seismic hazard data and specic transportation network information. This is the rst work applied to an Italian scenario, but the presented approach is general.

2 Methodology 2.1 Procedure The system risk curve can be used as a tool to dene the system performance under earthquake. The general scheme of the proposed procedure is shown in Fig. 2. A risk curve is calculated, as nal result, starting from information about bridges, seismicity, and transportation network. The procedure begins with data acquisition about seismicity of the area, transportation data (the graph of the network with associated cost function and calibrated transportation demand matrix) and data about seismic behaviour of bridges. Bridge fragility calculation can be done by means of data from visual surveys. At this point, seismic hazard can be computed in many ways depending on the type of data available, also in parallel. The transportation model is computed starting from information about the Origin-Destination (OD) demand matrices, geographic survey of roads, or data from databases like Tele Atlas. System fragility curve is calculated by using the Monte Carlo method linking information about single bridge fragilities, seismic hazard and transportation network.

123

Bull Earthquake Eng

Probability of exceeding damage state

Fig. 1 An example fragility curve from the bridges in the database

1,2 1 0,8

Slight Moderate

Extensive Complete

0,71 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 0 0,25 0,5

0,36 0,18 0,05 0,75 1 1,25 1,5 1,75 2

Sa 1.0s [1/g]

Beginning

Seismic data

Acquire data

Transportation data

Bridge data Fragility calculation Seismic hazard calculation Transportation network modeling

Montecarlo method

Bridge damage index

Link damage index

Transportation simulation

System risk curve

Fig. 2 Block diagram of the procedure

2.2 Bridge inventory and storage in database Data about bridge fragility can be acquired from onsite survey and data about materials can be collected by means of in-situ or laboratory testing from specimens taken from the bridge.

123

Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 3 Web front end of bridge database (accessible at: http://ibrid.dic.unipd.it/)

Fig. 4 Examples of extraction of concrete specimens from abutments and piers

Data is stored on a MySQL database with an internet front-end (Fig. 3). In Figs. 4 and 5 examples of extraction of concrete and steel specimens from abutments and piers are shown. The information generally stored in database is: material; structural scheme; pier type;

123

Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 5 Steel and concrete specimens extracted from abutments and piers

width; number of spans; number of joints; seismic data; skew angle; original drawings (if available); bearing type; foundation soil. 2.3 Seismic scenarios Seismic data can give information about seismic zones, historical earthquakes, probability of occurrence, intensity, etc. Analysis can be carried out with different levels of detail according to this data. Data can be used to predict seismic hazard scenarios by means of ShakeMaps. Aggregated hazard descriptions can be conservatively used, like in the following application, as a starting point for the analyses. In this work, seismic hazard description done by INGV (National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology) has been used (INGV 2004). Nine occurrence ratios have been calculated by INGV. Return times of these seismic scenarios were:30, 50, 72, 101, 140, 201, 475, 975, 2475 years. 2.4 Bridge fragility calculation Bridge fragility curves represent the probability of exceeding a damage state vs. a measure of seismic action. In this work fragility curves have been used to describe each bridge fragility. Damage states have been dened as: no damage, slight damage, moderate damage, extensive damage and complete damage (or collapse) according to Choi et al. (2004) and Morbin et al. (2012). Basoz (1999) made a statistical study on data from significant American earthquakes and damages observed on bridges. This data has been tted by statistical methods and used for the freeway transportation lifeline in Hazus (FEMA 2004). A similar method has been presented in the RiskUe project (RiskUE 2004). Banerjee and Shinozuka (2007) presented a method for the calculation of fragility curves by means of push-over analysis. A control point is chosen and followed until the complete

123

Bull Earthquake Eng

Probability of exceeding a Damage State Probability of exceeding a Damage State

PL1(Minor)

PL4(Complete)

Sa(1s)[g]

Sa(1s)[g]

Fig. 6 Comparison of fragility curves computed using the RiskUe method, plotted with solid line, and time history analysis, plotted with dashed line, for a typical bridge of this study

collapse of the bridge. For each mechanism the performance is computed and then the bridge fragility comes from the product of each mechanism. Banerjee and Shinozuka (2007), Franchetti et al. (2008) and Morbin et al. (2012) suggest the non-linear time history analysis as a method for the computation of bridge fragility, the curve is then calculated using the maximum likelihood method. In this rst implementation of the procedure, RiskUe formulas for the calculation of fragility curve are used. In Fig. 6 a comparison between time history and RiskUe method is presented, as an example, for a typical bridge. Important differences from the application of different models to describe the bridge fragility can be obtained. Fragility curves for retrotted bridges have been built considering the seismically designed bridge according to RiskUE (2004). The Monte Carlo method can be used to determine the actual bridge damage state, since fragility curves are given in probabilistic terms. This method has been presented in Jacoboni and Lugli (1989). The key idea of the method is to make trial and then compute the number of success; the response is the ratio between successes over total number of trials. The Monte Carlo method samples fragility curves to obtain the bridge damage index (BDI). BDI will be used in a further step to calculate the bridge operability and account transportation link capacity reduction. Further details on BDI will be given in 2.5. In this application the casual algorithm computes the random number that determines the bridge damage state, then the bridge damage state is determined with the computed casual number and transportation demand is assigned to damaged network. The Monte Carlo method is concluded when the total time spent in transportation network is computed. As an example, in Fig. 7 a random number of 0.5 (with a seismic action measure determined by the current seismic scenario) in the bridge fragility curve determinates an extensive damage state. Further details about the convergence of the method are given in 2.7. 2.5 Bridge and link damage The link damage state is calculated (according to Shiraki et al. (2007)) with a quadratic form: L DI =
bridge link B D I 2 1/2

(1)

where LDI is the link damage index and BDI is the bridge damage index. The bridge damage states were divided in three groups: 1. full functionality: the link acts as undamaged; 2. reduced functionality: the link can be used but with some limitations; 3. link closed: the link cannot be passed due to large damages.

123

Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 7 Monte Carlo method on fragility curves

The link damage state causes a trafc reduction with the following criteria. Referring to the previous three damage levels, the following rules were applied for the trafc ows: 1. full functionality: the link capacity and free-ow speed were not modied; 2. reduced functionality: the maximum speed was set to 30 km/h and the transit was denied to trucks; 3. link closed: using penalty method the link ux was set to zero.

2.6 Simulation of effects in transportation system The transportation network simulation has been developed with the Frank and Wolfe (1956) algorithm implemented in Citilabs Cube (Citilabs 2008). The Frank and Wolfe algorithm consist in an iterative method for nonlinear programming. The method can be used for the minimization of cost ows in transportation networks, where the approximation introduced is well tolerated. The formulation proposed by B.P.R. (Bureau of Public Roads), with a calibration done with a eld survey, has been used for the description of the arch cost function: t = t0 1 + where: t = total link travel time t0 =free ow travel time , = calibration parameters f = ux on the arch K = trafc capacity of link f K

(2)

123

Bull Earthquake Eng

Since the Monte Carlo method has been used to generate the transportation networks with damaged bridges, about one thousand of damaged network scenarios have been run for the application described in the following. 2.7 Calculation of actual system risk curve The calculation of the actual system risk curve is obtained summing up the results for each seismic scenario. In each seismic scenario the total network travel time is computed for each damaged transportation network. The total network travel times are summed up and divided by the number of Monte Carlo trials for each seismic scenario. Finally the risk matrix is plotted as network delay vs. seismic action intensity. The mean of the total network time of each scenario is computed with the Eq. (3) and the standard deviation is expressed by Eq. (4): x = =
N i =1

NT x )2 N 1

N
N i =1 ( N T

(3) (4)

where: = estimator of the standard deviation; x = estimator of the total network travel time per scenario; NT = total network travel time; N = number of Monte Carlo trials. According to Chang et al. (2000) and Torbol and Shinozuka (2012), the number of Monte Carlo iterations does not affect the mean value of the total drivers delay, instead plays an important role in the dispersion of data. In those works the authors show that increasing the number of Monte Carlo iterations over 10 does not affect the order of magnitude of the error. Hence, according to their ndings, 30 iterations - used here - are enough for the sake of this work. 2.8 Method for the calculation of the priority for retrotting The rst step is to dene the objective parameter to be optimized. In this study two different criteria have been identied. 1. Emergency response: the travel time between some significant OD (Origin-Destination) used for post-earthquake rescue. 2. Total network time: the total network time is calculated as the sum of link ux for each link transit time. To dene retrotting priority, Sgaravato et al. (2008) proposed to order bridges by their impact on transportation system. Anyway, this method neglects the second order effects caused by bridges that were already retrotted. The genetic optimization algorithm can be used imposing constraints on the budget, and choosing the objective parameter for the optimization. Since, in this work, Monte Carlo method is used to get the network degradation, the genetic algorithm could require too much calculation time. In this work a step-wise research method has been chosen. The rst step of this method is to group bridges into homogeneous categories, according to bridge/road owner or road

123

Bull Earthquake Eng

class. In the presented application road owner has been chosen to group the bridges since each management authority typically plans interventions for its bridges. Each group is tested as if retrotted, its delay saving is computed and stored. The group with the highest saving is considered as retrotted and, in second iteration of this research method disappears. The procedure is iterated again until all groups are retrotted.

3 Numerical application and results The procedure presented in the previous section has been tested on a zone in the North-eastern part of Italy. A transportation network including freeway, main roads and secondary roads has been surveyed and modelled. In the test area there were 40 bridges with different typologies: simply supported bridges, continuous bridges, made with steel, concrete, steel-concrete composite, with single span, multi-span etc. The procedure allows computing the baseline risk curve and then the step-wise algorithm has been applied. The results are presented in subsequent paragraphs. 3.1 Historical earthquakes In this test area there have been 3 major earthquakes in the past. In 778 b.c. the city of Treviso has been stroke by a big earthquake that has been reported on literature. In February 25th 1695 a big earthquake hit the sub-alpine zone called Asolano near Treviso and effects of this earthquake were revealed in a wide area. The last big catalogued earthquake was in 1836 in the zone of Bassano, near the test area. Figure 8 represents the major earthquakes reported in the area of study and their spatial extension. 3.2 Bridges damage states When the earthquake hazard is ready, and bridges fragility curves are calculated, a rst simulation of the transportation risk can be run to forecast the response of bridges in the network. In Fig. 9 the damage states of bridges before retrotting, with earthquake return times of 475 and 2475 years, are schematically represented. In Fig. 10 the damage states after the bridges have been retrotted for the same return times of the seismic action are shown. The effect of retrotting is visible since, for both return times, the reduction of damage is significant. For a seismic action with return time of 475 years the percentage of undamaged bridges is 65 %; the percentage of undamaged bridges becomes 91 % if all the bridges were retrotted. For the return time of 2475 years the percentage of undamaged bridges is 32 %; if all bridges are retrotted the percentage of undamaged bridges bocomes 62 %. 3.3 Effects of link interruption Transportation demand assignment should be simulated in the network for calculating delay caused by link interruption. For each seismic scenario, denoted by its return time, a number of damaged networks have been built by the implementation of the Monte Carlo method taking into account both damage in the links overpassing and under passing the bridge. In Fig. 11, the link closure caused by bridges damage is represented. In Fig. 12, the difference of uxes in network arches caused by link interruption is represented. It can be seen that an earthquake occurring in a small area, like the one in the circle of Fig. 12, causes a significant

123

Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 8 Earthquakes that stroked the test area. The size of the circle is the area where the earthquake was reported to be, between the brackets date when they occurred. Bridges are represented as a symbol, roads as lines where thickness is the importance, the city of Treviso is represented as a triangle

Extensive Moderate

RT475
Complete

RT2475
Complete No Damage

Slight

No Damage

Extensive

Moderate

Slight

Fig. 9 Damage states in bridge stock before retrotting with return time 475 and 2475 years scenarios

redistribution of uxes not only in the same area of the earthquake but also in the bigger area of the whole Veneto region. In Table 1 computed values of mean and standard deviation of total network time for various seismic scenarios are listed. Regarding emergency response, the analysis has been carried out considering that only some Origin-Destination couples where used by the Civil Protection Agency in Italy. These sites regard Hospitals, Fire Brigade Stations, Police Stations, and rescue sites, like football yards where emergency camps and shelters can be installed. Considering these OriginDestination couples in the test area the travel time of an emergency vehicle has been computed and used as parameter for the optimization.

123

Bull Earthquake Eng

Slight

RT475 Moderate Extensive

RT2475 Extensive Complete Moderate

Slight No Damage

No Damage

Fig. 10 Damage states in bridge stock after retrotting for same scenarios as those of Fig. 9

Fig. 11 Link closure in a particular scenario chosen as an example. Black is a closed link; white is a link with trafc limitations, thin line is a link with no damage

3.4 System risk and retrotting effect on risk At the end of the procedure the system risk curve is calculated. The system risk curve represents the economic loss in terms of network delay versus the occurrence ratio of the seismic action. As an example, for an annual occurrence ratio of 0.25 % (a return time of seismic action of 475 years) the predicted delay is of 48.37 million of seconds per day. In Fig. 13 the system risk curve of actual situation and the one derived from the simulation of all bridges retrotted are shown. By comparing the delay for the same seismic scenario, the

123

Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 12 Example of uxes redistribution caused by closure of link in Fig.11. The rectangle is the area affected by the earthquake. Black means ux reduction; white means increase, the thickness of the line represents the magnitude of uxes variation

Table 1 Computed values of mean and standard deviation of total network time for various seismic scenarios P x 3.28 % 307E+3 2.73E+5 1.98 % 964E+3 6.14E+5 1.38 % 1.46E+6 2.34E+5 0.99 % 3.75E+6 1.67E+6 0.71 % 5.11E+6 1.98E+6 0.48 % 7.13E+6 1.97E +6 0.21 % 48.37E+6 8.47E+6 0.10 % 71.23E+6 6.26E+6 0.04 % 93.91E+6 4.42E+6

P is the occurrence probability of the i-th seismic scenario, x is the expected value of the total network time for the i-th seismic scenario and is the estimator of the standard deviation for the i-th scenario

network delay goes down from 48.37 to 1.53 millions of seconds per day. For minor seismic action the network delay can be neglected. 3.5 Optimization order A step-wise method of research has been proposed for nding the optimal order of retrotting and dening its priority.

123

Bull Earthquake Eng

Fig. 13 System risk curve after (dashed) and before retrotting (solid) Table 2 Results from the retrotting procedure for each step, with total time as minimization objective First iteration SP102 A27 SR348 SS13 SP248 4.12E+07 1.01E+07 4.23E+07 4.11E+07 4.72E+07 Second iteration SP102 SR348 SS13 SP248 9.82E+06 6.06E+06 7.51E+06 8.85E+06 Third iteration SP102 SS13 SP248 6.00E+06 4.20E+06 6.06E+06 Fourth iteration SP102 SP248 3.12E+06 4.32E+06

The result is given in terms of delay expressed in seconds with respect to the hypothesis of all bridges retrotted

All bridges have been grouped in homogeneous categories. The chosen criterion for grouping bridges was the road administrative definition (other criteria can be chosen as well), hence the following groups have been considered: provincial road SP102, freeway A27, regional road SR348, national road SS13, and provincial road SP248. For each group, simulations have been run considering each group as retrotted and calculating its saving in delay. The group with the highest saving is the one that needs to be retrotted as rst. The second iteration of the method has been played assuming that the group with the highest saving in the rst iteration (in this case the freeway A27) has been retrotted, and computing the saving in delay of each group. The procedure has been repeated since the second last group has been determined (the number of simulations decreases at each step). At the end of the proposed search algorithm, the priority order was (see Table 2 and Fig. 14): A27 S R 348 SS 13 S P 102 S P 248. According to the current practice in Italy, bridges would be retrotted according to the mean value of the ows in the link they are included. Following this criterion the retrotting order would be: A27 S P 102 SS 13 S R 348 S P 248 that is different from the ndings of the stepwise procedure. The same procedure has been applied to post-earthquake emergency response. The travel time of a rescue vehicle, running between Origin-Destination couples given by Civil

123

Bull Earthquake Eng

7 x 10 difference from all! retrofitted

5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

SP102 A27 SR348 SS13 SP248

Step
Fig. 14 Results from the retrotting procedure for each step

Table 3 Results from the retrotting procedure for each step, with emergency vehicle travel time as minimization objective First iteration SP102 A27 SR348 SS13 SP248 17793 17526 17772 17261 17777 Second iteration SP102 SR348 A27 SP248 17210 17201 17065 17203 Third iteration SP102 SR348 SP248 16996 17002 17460 Fourth iteration SR348 SP248 16988 16991

The result is given in term of delay expressed in seconds with respect to the hypothesis of all bridges retrotted

Protection Agency, has been computed in the damaged transportation network when the trafc is still acting. This hypothesis represents the situation of the network still loaded by normal trafc at the time immediately after the earthquake. In Table 3 the results of the procedure for the emergency response are presented.

4 Conclusions In this work an integrated procedure for the determination of risk caused by earthquakes in a transportation network and retrot priority for the bridges included in the network is presented. The procedure considers the correlation between the effects caused by other retrotting interventions in the network and gives the economic losses caused by partial or complete interruption of some links of the transportation network. The system risk curve, representing the economic loss in terms of network delay versus occurrence ratio of the seismic action, is used for the computation of bridge retrot priority.

123

Bull Earthquake Eng

A step-wise procedure is proposed to calculate the retrot prioritization. Two main objectives have been considered: the rst was to minimize the total delay in transportation network due to earthquake bridge damages, the other was to minimize the travel time of rescue vehicles to reach certain Origin-Destination couples usually dened by National Protection Agency. Results of such integrated and multidisciplinary procedure are presented for a typical wide transportation network in the North-eastern part of Italy, with a level of detail including roads from freeways to secondary, in normal service and post-earthquake emergency conditions. The proposed integrated procedure can be used by the Road Authorities for the management of their networks in seismic areas and rational allocation of limited budget resources for bridge retrotting. It can be also considered as an instrument for the evaluation of the network response in the immediate post-event emergency. This work demonstrates that the common retrotting prioritization used in Italy, based on the ows in the link in which bridges are included, seems not suitable and a global analysis of the system needs to be performed to guarantee the best level of service. A step-wise optimal search procedure has been proposed for this purpose, and has been demonstrated how it can be applied referring to various objectives such as total network time or time to reach specic emergency response sites.
Acknowledgments Financial support of Italian Ministry of Education and Scientic Research (Progetto di Ateneo 2008 cod. CPDA081713 and PRIN 2007JHK33Y_003) is gratefully acknowledged.

References
Banerjee S, Shinozuka M (2007) Nonlinear static procedure for seismic vulnerability assessment of bridges. Comput-Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng 22(4):293305 Basoz N, Mander J (1999) Enhancement of the highway transportation lifeline module in hazus Final PrePublication Draft (#7) prepared for the National Institute of Building Sciences Carturan F, Pellegrino C, Modena C, Rossi R, Gastaldi M (2010a) Optimal resource allocation for seismic retrotting of bridges in transportation networks. In Bridge maintenance, safety, management and lifecycle optimization-proceedings of the 5th international conference on bridge maintenance, safety and management, pp 12001207, ISBN: 9780415891370 Carturan F, Pellegrino C, Zampellini A, Modena C, Rossi R, Gastaldi M (2010b) A procedure for the evaluation of the seismic vulnerability of bridge networks, 14th European conference on earthquake engineering, Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia, August 30th-September 3rd, 2010 Chang ES, Shinozuka M, Moore J (2000) Probabilistic earthquake scenarios: extending risk analysis methodologies to spatially distributed systems. Earthquake Spectra 16(3):557572 Choi E, DesRoches R, Nielson B (2004) Seismic fragility of typical bridges in moderate seismic zones. Eng Struct 26:187199 Codermatz R, Nicolich R, Slejko D (2003) Seismic risk assessments and GIS technology: applications to infrastructures in the FriuliVenezia Giulia region (NE Italy). Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 32(11):1677 1690 Citilabs (2008) Cube base reference guide, Citilabs Faccioli E (2006) Seismic hazard assessment for derivation of earthquake scenarios in Risk-UE. Bull Earthquake Eng 4:341364 FEMA (2004) Hazus -MH 20 Technical Manual, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC Franchetti P, Grendene M, Sleiko D, Modena C (2008) Seismic damage assessment for six RC bridges in the Veneto region (NE Italy). Bollettino di geosica applicata 49(3-4):513532 Frank M, Wolfe P (1956) An algorithm for quadratic programming. Nav Res Logist Q 3(1-2):95110 INGV (2004) Redazione della mappa di pericolosit sismica prevista dallordinanza PCM 3274 del 20 marzo 2003 Rapporto conlusivo per il dipartimento della protezione civile INGV, Milano-Roma (in Italian) (Available online: http://zonesismichemiingvit/elaborazioni) Jacoboni C, Lugli P (1989) The monte carlo method for semiconductor device simulation. Springer, Berlin

123

Bull Earthquake Eng Kiremidijan A, Moore J, Fan YY, Yazla-Li O, Basoz N, Williams M (2007) Seismic risk assessment of transportation network systems. J Earthquake Eng 11:371382 Lee YJ, Song J, Gardoni P, Lim HW (2011) Post-hazard ow capacity of bridge transportation network considering structural deterioration of bridges. Struct Infrastruct Eng Maint Manag Life-cycle Des Perform 7(7-8):509521 Mander JB, Dhakal RP, Mashiko N, Solberg KM (2007) Incremental dynamic analysis applied to seismic nancial risk assessment of bridges. Eng Struct 29:26622672 Morbin C, Casadei E, Pellegrino C, Modena C (2012) Effect of FRP retrot interventions on seismic vulnerability of existing bridges. In: Biondini F, Frangopol DM (eds) Bridge maintenance, safety, management, resilience and sustainability-proceedings of the 6th international conference on bridge maintenance, safety and management, IABMAS 2012, Stresa, Italy, 812 July 2012, pp 12281234, ISBN: 9780415621243 RiskUE (2004) An advanced approach to earthquake risk scenarios with applications to different European Town RISK-UE EVK4CT2000-00014 Seville E, Metcalfe J (2005) Developing a hazard risk assessment framework for the New Zealand State highway network Research Report 276, University of Canterbury Sgaravato M, Banerjee S, Shinozuka M (2008) Seismic risk assessment of highway transportation network and cost-benet analysis for bridge retrotting The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China Shinozuka M, Tan R, and Koike (1981) Serviceability of water transmission systems under seismic risk. In: Proceedings 2nd specialty conference of the Tech Council on Lifeline Earthquake Eng, 97-110 Shinozuka M, Zhou Y, Banerjee S, Murachi Y (2006) Cost-effectiveness of seismic bridge retrot. In: Proceedings of third international conference on bridge maintenance, Safety and Management, Porto-Portugal, July 16-19, 2006 Shiraki N, Shinozuka M, Moore JE, Chang S, Kameda H, Tanaka S (2007) System risk curves: probabilistic performance scenarios for highway networks subject to earthquake damage. J Infrastruct Syst 13:4354 Torbol M, Shinozuka M (2012) The directionality effect in the seismic risk assessment of highway networks. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, accepted for publication Werner SD, Taylor CE, Cho S, Lavoie JP, Huyck C, Eitzel C, Chung H, Eguchi RT (2004) Redars 2 Methodology and software for seismic risk analysis of highway systems Werner SD, Cho S, Taylor CE, Lavoie JP (2006) Use of seismic risk analysis of roadway systems to facilitate performance-based Engineering and Risk-Reduction Decision Making (Available online: http://www. pwri.go.jp/eng/ujnr/tc/g/pdf/23/23-4-1werner.pdf)

123