Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Related Work
Case Study
Comparison with Existing Methods
Discussion
Conclusion
References
All Topics
Engineering
Transportation and Mobility Management

Resilient Cities and Structures

Profile image of Daniel McCrumDaniel McCrum

2025, Resilient Cities and Structures

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RCNS.2025.02.005
visibility

…

description

12 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

While in the past the robustness of transportation networks was studied considering the cyber and physical space as isolated environments this is no longer the case. Integrating the Internet of Things devices in the sensing area of transportation infrastructure has resulted in ubiquitous cyber-physical systems and increasing interdependencies between the physical and cyber networks. As a result, the robustness of transportation networks relies on the uninterrupted serviceability of physical and cyber networks. Current studies on interdependent networks overlook the civil engineering aspect of cyber-physical systems. Firstly, they rely on the assumption of a uniform and strong level of interdependency. That is, once a node within a network fails its counterpart fails immediately. Current studies overlook the impact of earthquake and other natural hazards on the operation of modern transportation infrastructure, that now serve as a cyber-physical system. The last is responsible not only for the physical operation (e.g., flow of vehicles) but also for the continuous data transmission and subsequently the cyber operation of the entire transportation network. Therefore, the robustness of modern transportation networks should be modelled from a new cyber-physical perspective that includes civil engineering aspects. In this paper, we propose a new robustness assessment approach for modern transportation networks and their underlying interdependent physical and cyber network, subjected to earthquake events. The novelty relies on the modelling of interdependent networks, in the form of a graph, based on their interdependency levels. We associate the serviceability level of the coupled physical and cyber network with the damage states induced by earthquake events. Robustness is then measured as a degradation of the cyber-physical serviceability level. The application of the approach is demonstrated by studying an illustrative transportation network using seismic data from real-world transportation infrastructure. Furthermore, we propose the integration of a robustness improvement indicator based on physical and cyber attributes to enhance the cyber-physical serviceability level. Results indicate an improvement in robustness level (i.e., 41 %) by adopting the proposed robustness improvement indicator. The usefulness of our approach is highlighted by comparing it with other methods that consider strong interdependencies and key node protection strategies. The approach is of interest to stakeholders who are attempting to incorporate cyber-physical systems into civil engineering systems.

Related papers

Integration of stress testing with graph theory to assess the resilience of urban road networks under seismic hazards
Nazli Aydin

Natural Hazards, 2017

Transportation networks daily provide accessibility and crucial services to societies. However, they must also maintain an acceptable level of service to critical infrastructures in the case of disruptions, especially during natural disasters. We have developed a method for assessing the resilience of transportation network topology when exposed to environmental hazards. This approach integrates graph theory with stress testing methodology and involves five basic steps: (1) establishment of a scenario set that covers a range of seismic damage potential in the network, (2) assessment of resilience using various graph-based metrics, (3) topology-based simulations, (4) evaluation of changes in graph-based metrics, and (5) examination of resilience in terms of spatial distribution of critical nodes and the entire network topology. Our case study was from the city of Kathmandu in Nepal, where the earthquake on April 25, 2015, followed by a major aftershock on May 12, 2015, led to numerous casualties and caused significant damage. Therefore, it is a good example for demonstrating and validating the developed methodology. The results presented here indicate that the proposed approach is quite efficient and accurate in assisting stakeholders when evaluating the resilience of transportation networks based on their topology.

View PDFchevron_right
Modeling the propagation of the effects of a disturbance in a critical infrastructure system to increase its resilience
Djillali Benouar

Urbanism. Arhitectura. Constructii, 2020

In the urban environment, disaster risk management focuses more on prevention, mitigation and intervention than on resilience. Securing our critical infrastructure systems (CISs) strengthens the resilience of our urban sites. The objective of this research work is to propose a methodological approach and modeling of disturbance effects for their monitoring, which contributes to the understanding of CISs and their functioning before, during or after a disaster (flood, earthquake, etc.). Failure scenarios will be developed and used by urban designers in a proactive manner. The modeling contributes to the establishment of a theoretical framework for the creation of a collaborative space between the actors of the urban site. An overall weighted average mission degradation index of a CIS is proposed. The degradation of a water supply system's mission following a flood was taken as an example and discussed to validate the model. The purpose of this study is also to contribute to the s...

View PDFchevron_right
Reliability and Component Vulnerability Analysis of City-Scale Networks: Application to the Transportation System of a Virtual City
Alessandro Cardoni

2017

Infrastructure systems are crucial for the development of communities as they provide essential services to the habitants. To improve the resilience of such systems, their intrinsic properties need to be understood and their resilience state needs be identified. In the literature, several methods to evaluate networks’ reliability and resilience can be found. However, the applicability of these methods is restricted to small-size networks due to several computational limitations. In this paper, the case of large scale networks is tackled. The transportation network of a virtual city is considered as a case study. First, the road map of the city is transformed into an undirected graph. A random removal of the roads is applied until the network’s failure point is reached. The network reliability is then calculated using the Destruction Spectrum (D-spectrum) approach. A Monte Carlo approach has been developed to generate failure permutations, which are necessary for the evaluation of th...

View PDFchevron_right
Urban seismic resilience mapping: a transportation network in Istanbul, Turkey
dina D'Ayala

Scientific Reports, 2022

When a seismic event occurs, transportation networks play a critical role in undertaking emergency activities such as evacuation and relief supply. Accordingly, to secure their functionality, it is essential to accurately assess their resilience. In particular, this study performs a rigorous probabilistic analysis on the seismic resilience of a transportation network in Istanbul, Turkey. The analysis accuracy is enhanced by considering, along with the structural damage of roadways, the additional disruption mode of network performance caused by the debris falling from damaged objects in their vicinity. Moreover, we obtain the results as a map of resilience measure, which enables us to investigate the disruption inequality across the study area and identify critical factors that govern the system resilience. To enable such sophisticated probabilistic analysis, a Bayesian network (BN) model is developed that involves various types of information from the hazard process to the performance of structures and systems. Then, the BN is quantified by identifying and compiling a comprehensive list of datasets. Thereby, this study analyses large-scale systems involving thousands of structures, while providing general probabilistic models and data schema that can be employed for other transportation networks. Transportation networks play a critical role in maintaining welfare and economic systems of modern societies 1 . Their role becomes even more critical when facing disruptive events such as earthquakes, as they are essential to enable emergency activities, evacuation and relief supply and to expedite restorations to normality. The breakdown of these systems under a seismic event can bring about devastating consequences, as witnessed, for instance, in the 2016 Kaikoura, New Zealand earthquake 2 . To prevent such disastrous outcomes, it is essential to accurately evaluate the disaster resilience of those systems. However, such analysis remains challenging as it involves diverse sets of variables interacting to each other (e.g. hazard processes, structural damages and recovery works), a particularly critical issue for large-scale transportation networks with many roadways, such as metropolitan neighbourhoods. Since a resilience analysis requires a modelling and evaluation of the complex dependency between those variables, challenges arise from both compiling all relevant data and computing complex models. Moreover, while the primary disruption would be caused by the structural damage of roadways, further disruptions can occur as the debris generated from the adjacent objects (e.g. buildings, overpasses and slopes) falls onto the roadways . Such additional disruption mode heightens the aforementioned challenges, i.e. data compilation and correlation/computational scale. These disruptions may have a significant influence on analysis results, especially for urban transportation networks which are often set within dense built up areas. While this issue has been investigated at the level of individual roadways , this is an area of emerging study currently hindered by limited research and data. Still, considering the continuing expansion of urban areas, the analysis model needs to take into account both disruption modes, so that the analysis accuracy can be enhanced, and the interactions across multiple contributing factors can be better understood. To evaluate system resilience, an essential prerequisite is to define a measure of system functionality. While it can be defined either at component-level or at system-level, the latter definition enables us to consider the interdependency between the operation of roadways and thereby, to reflect the reality more accurately. However, such system-level approach is more challenging as the associated network analysis in general demands more detailed data and higher computational cost. Moreover, since the objective of resilience analysis is to enable riskinformed decision-making, it is critical to establish resilience metrics that effectively serve decision objectives of interest and communicate loss and recovery in operational terms. This study aims to address the inequality in the accessibility of infrastructure, following a seismic event. While it has been actively investigated for transportation

View PDFchevron_right
Integrated seismic risk and resilience assessment of roadway networks in earthquake prone areas
Anastasios Sextos

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2018

Intercity networks constitute a highly important civil infrastructure in developed countries, as they contribute to the prosperity and development of the connected communities. This was evident after recent strong earthquakes that caused extensive structural damage to key transportation components, such as bridges, overpasses, tunnels and geotechnical works, that in turn led to a significant additional loss associated with the prolonged traffic disruption. In cases of seismic events in developed societies with complex and coupled intercity transportation systems, the interdependency between citizens' life and road functionality has further amplified the seismically-induced loss. Quantifying therefore, the resilience of road networks, defined as their ability to withstand, adapt to, and rapidly recover after a disruptive event, is a challenging issue of paramount importance towards holistic disaster risk mitigation and management. This study takes into account the above aspects of network resilience to earthquake loading and establishes a comprehensive, multi-criterion framework for mitigating the overall loss expected to be experienced by the community due to future earthquake events. The latter is decoupled into the direct structural damage-related loss and the indirect loss associated with the travel delays of the network users, as well as the wider socioeconomic consequences in the affected area. In order to reflect the multidimensional nature of loss, a set of novel, time-variant indicators is herein introduced, while cumulative indicators are proposed for assessing the total loss incurred throughout the entire recovery period. This probabilistic risk management framework is implemented into a software to facilitate informed decisions of the stakeholders, both before and after a major earthquake event, thus prioritizing the pre-disruption strengthening schemes and accelerating the inspection and recovery measures, respectively.

View PDFchevron_right
Integrated Cyber Physical Assessment and Response for Improved Resiliency
Milos Manic

Internet of Things, 2018

View PDFchevron_right
Resilience analysis of networked systems-of-systems based on structural and dynamic interdependencies
Roberto Filippini

11Th International Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management Conference and the Annual European Safety and Reliability Conference 2012 11th International Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management Conference and the Annual European Safety and Reliability Conference 2012 Psam11 Esrel 2012..., 2012

Critical infrastructures support everyday activities in modern societies, facilitating the exchange of services and quantities of various nature. Their functioning is the result of the integration of diverse technologies, systems and organizations into a complex network of interconnections. Benefits from networking are accompanied by new threats and risks. In particular, because of the increased interdependency, disturbances and failures may propagate and render unstable the whole infrastructure network. This paper presents a methodology of resilience analysis of networked systems of systems. Resilience generalizes the concept of stability of a system around a state of equilibrium, with respect to a disturbance and its ability of preventing, resisting and recovery. The methodology provides a tool for the analysis of off-equilibrium conditions that may occur in a single system and propagate through the network of dependencies. The analysis is conducted in two stages. The first stage of the analysis is qualitative. It identifies the resilience scenarios, i.e. the sequence of events, triggered by an initial disturbance, which include failures and the system response. The second stage is quantitative. The most critical scenarios can be simulated, for the desired parameter settings, in order to check if they are successfully handled, i.e recovered to nominal conditions, or they end into the network failure. The proposed methodology aims at providing an effective support to resilience-informed design.

View PDFchevron_right
A Resilience-Based Model for the Seismic Assessment of the Functionality of Road Networks Affected by Bridge Damage and Restoration
camillo Nuti

Infrastructures

Road network functionality after an earthquake is a crucial aspect for an already struck community. In particular, bridges are susceptible to earthquake-induced damages and to lengthy restoration works. This may lead to severe and unexpected disruption of traffic. In this paper, a model for the assessment of the seismic resilience of a road network is presented. The proposed model permits us to evaluate the earthquake-induced perturbations to the functionality of a network in terms of transportation capacities, traffic congestion, and travel times due to bridge damages and subsequent restoration interventions. The evolution over time of the functionality of the network is studied by means of a multi-stage approach describing the evolution of the situation in terms of reducing the normal pre-earthquakes transportation capacities. The methodology has been illustrated with reference to a hypothetical case study, a road network composed of 14 nodes and 31 links.

View PDFchevron_right
A survey on multilayer networks modelled to assess robustness in infrastructure systems
Liz Varga

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 2023

Ahead of Print articles will move to that issue's Table of Contents. When the article is published in a journal issue, the full reference should be cited in addition to the DOI.

View PDFchevron_right
Resilience of infrastructure networks
Pathmanathan Brabhaharan

Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering

View PDFchevron_right

References (101)

  1. Ding R, Ujang N, bin Hamid H, Abd Manan MS, Li R, Wu J. Heuristic urban trans- portation network design method, a multilayer coevolution approach. Physica A: Stat Mech Appl 2017;479:71-83 .
  2. Cats O, Jenelius E. Planning for the unexpected: the value of reserve capac- ity for public transport network robustness. Transport Res Part A: Policy Pract 2015;81:47-61 .
  3. Salomon J, Behrensdorf J, Winnewisser N, Broggi M, Beer M. Multidimensional resilience decision-making for complex and substructured systems. Resilient Cities Struct 2022;1:61-78 .
  4. Loukas G. Cyber-physical attacks: a growing invisible threat. Butterworth-Heine- mann; 2015 .
  5. Zhang N, Alipour A. Multi-scale robustness model for highway networks under flood events. Transport Res Part D: Transport Environ 2020;83:102281 .
  6. Szyliowicz J, Zamparini L. Freight transport security and the robustness of global supply chains. Transp Rev 2022;42:717-24 .
  7. Capacci L, Biondini F, Frangopol DM. Resilience of aging structures and infrastruc- ture systems with emphasis on seismic resilience of bridges and road networks. Resilient Cities Struct 2022;1:23-41 .
  8. Fioklou A, Alipour A. Probability of failure estimation for highway bridges un- der combined effects of uncorrelated multiple hazards. Resilient Cities Struct 2022;1:79-93 .
  9. Ntafloukas K, Pasquale L, Martinez-Pastor B, McCrum DP. Identification of vulner- able iot enabled transportation infrastructure into a cyber-physical transportation network. 2023 IEEE International Conference on Cyber Security and Resilience (CSR); 2023 .
  10. Liveri D, Theocharidou M, Naydenov R. Railway cybersecurity: security measures in the railway transport sector. ENISA; 2020 .
  11. Ntafloukas K, McCrum DP, Pasquale L. A cyber-physical risk assessment approach for internet of things enabled transportation infrastructure. Appl Sci 2022;12:9241 .
  12. Ntafloukas K, McCrum DP, Pasquale L. A risk assessment approach for IoT enabled transportation infrastructure subjected to cyber-physical attacks. 32nd European Safety and Reliability Conference Ireland; 2022 .
  13. Mishra M, Lourenço PB, Ramana GV. Structural health monitoring of civil en- gineering structures by using the internet of things: a review. J Build Eng 2022;48:103954 .
  14. Putra AS, Warnars HLHS. Intelligent traffic monitoring system (ITMS) for smart city based on IoT monitoring. 2018 Indonesian Association for Pattern Recognition International Conference (INAPR). IEEE; 2018 .
  15. Zheng X, Pan L, Chen H, Wang P. Investigating security vulnerabilities in mod- ern vehicle systems. International Conference on Applications and Techniques in Information Security. Springer; 2016 .
  16. Gupta M, Benson J, Patwa F, Sandhu R. Secure V2V and V2I communi- cation in intelligent transportation using cloudlets. IEEE Trans Serv Comput 2020;15:1912-25 .
  17. Mohebbi S, Zhang Q, Wells EC, Zhao T, Nguyen H, Li M, Abdel-Mottaleb N, Uddin S, Lu Q, Wakhungu MJ. Cyber-physical-social interdependencies and organizational resilience: a review of water, transportation, and cyber infrastructure systems and processes. Sustain Cities Soc 2020;62:102327 .
  18. Marashi K, Sarvestani SS, Hurson AR. Identification of interdependencies and prediction of fault propagation for cyber-physical systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2021;215:107787 .
  19. Mahmoud R, Yousuf T, Aloul F, Zualkernan I. Internet of things (IoT) security: current status, challenges and prospective measures. 2015 10th international con- ference for internet technology and secured transactions (ICITST). IEEE; 2015 .
  20. Zanzi L, Cirillo F, Sciancalepore V, Giust F, Costa-Perez X, Mangiante S, Klas G. Evolving multi-access edge computing to support enhanced IoT deployments. IEEE Commun Stand Mag 2019;3:26-34 .
  21. Aazam M, Huh E-N. Fog computing and smart gateway based communication for cloud of things. 2014 International conference on future internet of things and cloud. IEEE; 2014 .
  22. Bansal S, Kumar D. IoT ecosystem: a survey on devices, gateways, operating sys- tems, middleware and communication. Int J Wirel Inf Netw 2020;27:340-64 .
  23. Haghi M, Neubert S, Geissler A, Fleischer H, Stoll N, Stoll R, Thurow K. A flexible and pervasive IoT-based healthcare platform for physiological and environmental parameters monitoring. IEEE Internet Things J 2020;7:5628-47 .
  24. Ooi B-Y, Kong Z-W, Lee W-K, Liew S-Y, Shirmohammadi S. A collaborative IoT- gateway architecture for reliable and cost effective measurements. IEEE Instrum Meas Mag 2019;22:11-17 .
  25. Tung NT, Phong NH, Huy TLD, Huy NM, Tuyen ND, Phuong LM. Development and performance analysis of intelligent street lighting for smart cities using LoRa Wan. Eng Technol 2020;2:1 .
  26. Brincat AA, Pacifici F, Martinaglia S, Mazzola F. The internet of things for intel- ligent transportation systems in real smart cities scenarios. 2019 IEEE 5th World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT). IEEE; 2019 .
  27. Hu Z, Tang H. Design and implementation of intelligent vehicle control sys- tem based on internet of things and intelligent transportation. Sci Program 2022;2022:1-11 .
  28. Martinez-Pastor B, Nogal M, O'Connor A, Teixeira R. Identifying critical and vulner- able links: a new approach using the Fisher information matrix. Int J Crit Infrastruct Protect 2022;39:100570 .
  29. Decò A, Frangopol DM. Life-cycle risk assessment of spatially distributed aging bridges under seismic and traffic hazards. Earthq Spectra 2013;29:127-53 .
  30. Akiyama M, Frangopol DM, Ishibashi H. Toward life-cycle reliability-, risk-and re- silience-based design and assessment of bridges and bridge networks under inde- pendent and interacting hazards: emphasis on earthquake, tsunami and corrosion. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2020;16:26-50 .
  31. Alipour A, Shafei B. An overarching framework to assess the life-time resilience of deteriorating transportation networks in seismic-prone regions. Resilient Cities Struct 2022;1:87-96 .
  32. Arthurs P, Gillam L, Krause P, Wang N, Halder K, Mouzakitis A. A taxonomy and survey of edge cloud computing for intelligent transportation systems and con- nected vehicles. IEEE Trans Intell Transport Syst 2021 .
  33. Al-Osta M, Bali A, Gherbi A. Event driven and semantic based approach for data processing on IoT gateway devices. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput 2019;10:4663-78 .
  34. França CM, Couto RS, Velloso PB. Missing data imputation in Internet of Things gateways. Information 2021;12:425 .
  35. Spencer BF, Jo H, Mechitov KA, Li J, Sim S-H, Kim RE, Cho S, Linderman LE, Moin- zadeh P, Giles RK. Recent advances in wireless smart sensors for multi-scale moni- toring and control of civil infrastructure. J Civ Struct Health Monit 2016;6:17-41 .
  36. Cheng Q, Liao W, Fei Y, Tian Y, Lu X, Zhang W, Ghahari F, Kurtulus A, Taciroglu E. A cost-benefit analysis of sensor quality and spatial density for rapid regional post-event seismic damage assessment: application to Istanbul. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2022;163:107495 .
  37. Marchang J, Sanders B, Joy D. Adaptive V2V routing with RSUs and gateway sup- port to enhance network performance in VANET. In: Wired/Wireless Internet Com- munications: 16th IFIP WG 6.2 International Conference, WWIC 2018, Boston, MA, USA. Springer; 2018. June 18-20Proceedings. 2018 .
  38. Pal K, Shakshuki E. Supply chain transport management, use of electric vehicles, review of security and privacy for cyber-physical transportation ecosystem and related solutions. Procedia Comput Sci 2024;238:135-42 .
  39. Humayed A, Lin J, Li F, Luo B. Cyber-physical systems security -a survey. IEEE Internet Things J 2017;4:1802-31 .
  40. Sturaro A, Silvestri S, Conti M, Das SK. A realistic model for failure propagation in interdependent cyber-physical systems. IEEE Trans Netw Sci Eng 2018;7:817-31 .
  41. Laszka A, Potteiger B, Vorobeychik Y, Amin S, Koutsoukos X. Vulnerability of trans- portation networks to traffic-signal tampering. In: 2016 ACM/IEEE 7th Interna- tional Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems (ICCPS). IEEE; 2016. p. 1-10 .
  42. Enhancing critical infrastructure protection with innovative SECurity framework. https://www.cipsec.eu/ , 2019 (accessed February 9th 2023).
  43. Preparedness and resilience enforcement for critical INfrastructure Cascading Cy- berphysical Threats and effects with focus on district or regional protection https://www.precinct.info/en/publications/ , 2021 (accessed February 9th 2023).
  44. Wang S, Gu X, Chen J, Chen C, Huang X. Robustness improvement strat- egy of cyber-physical systems with weak interdependency. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2023;229:108837 .
  45. Tu H, Xia Y, Wu J, Zhou X. Robustness assessment of cyber-physical systems with weak interdependency. Physica A: Stat Mech Appl 2019;522:9-17 .
  46. Zhang Y, Ya ğan O. Robustness of interdependent cyber-physical systems against cascading failures. IEEE Trans Automat Contr 2019;65:711-26 .
  47. Derrible S, Kennedy C. Applications of graph theory and network science to transit network design. Transp Rev 2011;31:495-519 .
  48. Gordan M, Kountche DA, McCrum D, Schauer S, König S, Delannoy S, Connolly L, Iacob M, Durante NG, Shekhawat Y. Protecting critical infrastructure against cas- cading effects: the PRECINCT approach. Resilient Cities Struct 2024;3:1-19 .
  49. Patel P, Narmawala Z, Thakkar A. A survey on intelligent transportation system using internet of things. In: Emerging Research in Computing, Information, Com- munication and Applications: ERCICA 2018, 1; 2019. p. 231-40 .
  50. Hassija V, Chamola V, Saxena V, Jain D, Goyal P, Sikdar B. A survey on IoT se- curity: application areas, security threats, and solution architectures. IEEE Access 2019;7:82721-43 .
  51. Ntafloukas K, Pasquale L, Martinez-Pastor B, McCrum DP. A vulnerability assess- ment approach for transportation networks subjected to cyber-physical attacks. Future Internet 2023;15:100 .
  52. Stellios I, Kotzanikolaou P, Grigoriadis C. Assessing IoT enabled cyber-physical attack paths against critical systems. Comput Secur 2021;107:102316 .
  53. Lai R, Qiu X, Wu J. Robustness of asymmetric cyber-physical power systems against cyber attacks. IEEE Access 2019;7:61342-52 .
  54. Xu L, Guo Q, Yang T, Sun H. Robust routing optimization for smart grids consider- ing cyber-physical interdependence. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 2018;10:5620-9 .
  55. Zhang P, Cheng B, Zhao Z, Li D, Lu G, Wang Y, Xiao J. The robustness of interdependent transportation networks under targeted attack. Europhys Lett 2013;103:68005 .
  56. Kermanshah A, Derrible S. Robustness of road systems to extreme flooding: using elements of GIS, travel demand, and network science. Natural hazards 2017;86:151-64 .
  57. Urlainis A, Ornai D, Levy R, Vilnay O, Shohet IM. Loss and damage assessment in critical infrastructures due to extreme events. Saf Sci 2022;147:105587 .
  58. Xu L, Guo Q, Sheng Y, Muyeen S, Sun H. On the resilience of modern power sys- tems: a comprehensive review from the cyber-physical perspective. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2021;152:111642 .
  59. Chen Z, Zhang S, Dui H. Importance-based risk evaluation methodology in trans- portation cyber-physical systems. Front Eng Manage 2025:1-14 .
  60. Ti B, Li G, Zhou M, Wang J. Resilience assessment and improvement for cy- ber-physical power systems under typhoon disasters. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 2021;13:783-94 .
  61. Zhu C, Wu J, Liu M, Luan J, Li T, Hu K. Cyber-physical resilience modelling and assessment of urban roadway system interrupted by rainfall. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2020;204:107095 .
  62. Argyriou I, Tsoutsos T. Assessing critical entities: risk management for IoT devices in ports. J Mar Sci Eng 2024;12:1593 .
  63. Kenett DY, Gao J, Huang X, Shao S, Vodenska I, Buldyrev SV, Paul G, Stanley HE, Havlin S. Network of interdependent networks: overview of theory and applica- tions. In: Networks of Networks: The Last Frontier of Complexity; 2014. p. 3-36 .
  64. Buldyrev SV, Parshani R, Paul G, Stanley HE, Havlin S. Catastrophic cascade of failures in interdependent networks. Nature 2010;464:1025-8 .
  65. Cheng Z, Cao J. Cascade of failures in interdependent networks coupled by different type networks. Physica A: Stat Mech Appl 2015;430:193-200 .
  66. Wu J, You W, Wu T, Xia Y. Abnormal phenomenon in robustness of com- plex networks with heterogeneous node functions. Physica A: Stat Mech Appl 2018;506:451-61 .
  67. Gao Y-L, Chen S-M, Nie S, Ma F, Guan J-J. Robustness analysis of interdepen- dent networks under multiple-attacking strategies. Physica A: Stat Mech Appl 2018;496:495-504 .
  68. Zhang Y, Arenas A, Ya ğan O. Cascading failures in interdependent systems under a flow redistribution model. Phys Rev E 2018;97:022307 .
  69. Ji X, Wang B, Liu D, Chen G, Tang F, Wei D, Tu L. Improving interdependent networks robustness by adding connectivity links. Physica A: Stat Mech Appl 2016;444:9-19 .
  70. Dong S, Wang H, Mostafavi A, Gao J. Robust component: a robustness measure that incorporates access to critical facilities under disruptions. J R Soc Interface 2019;16:20190149 .
  71. National Bridge Inventory (NBI). https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi.cfm , (ac- cessed August 2023).
  72. Phule RR, Choudhury D. Assessing and mapping seismic liquefaction hazard, vul- nerability, and risk of the transportation infrastructure of Mumbai city, India. In: Geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics V: seismic hazard analysis, earthquake ground motions, and regional-scale assessment. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers; 2018. p. 658-66 .
  73. Pitilakis K, Franchin P, Khazai B, Wenzel H. SYNER-G: systemic seismic vulnera- bility and risk assessment of complex urban, utility, lifeline systems and critical facilities: methodology and applications. Springer; 2014 .
  74. Mackie KR, Stojadinovi ć B. Fragility basis for California highway overpass bridge seismic decision making. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering; 2005 .
  75. USGS. https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/hazards , (accessed 5th of July 2023).
  76. Danciu L, Nandan S, Reyes CG, Basili R, Weatherill G, Beauval C, Rovida A, Vi- lanova S, Sesetyan K, Bard P-Y. The 2020 update of the European Seismic Hazard model-ESHM20: model overview. EFEHR Techn Rep 2021;1 .
  77. Silva V, Crowley H, Pagani M, Monelli D, Pinho R. Development of the OpenQuake engine, the Global Earthquake Model's open-source software for seismic risk as- sessment. Nat Hazards 2014;72:1409-27 .
  78. Wang Z. Seismic hazard assessment: issues and alternatives. Pure Appl Geophys 2011;168:11-25 .
  79. Muntasir Billah A, Alam MShahria. Seismic fragility assessment of highway bridges: a state-of-the-art review. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2015;11:804-32 .
  80. Baker JW. Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural analysis. Earthq Spectra 2015;31:579-99 .
  81. Costa AC, Sousa M, Carvalho A, Coelho E. Evaluation of seismic risk and mitigation strategies for the existing building stock: application of LNECloss to the metropoli- tan area of Lisbon. Bull Earthq Eng 2010;8:119-34 .
  82. Dong Y, Frangopol DM, Saydam D. Sustainability of highway bridge networks un- der seismic hazard. J Earthq Eng 2014;18:41-66 .
  83. Lee Y-J, Song J, Gardoni P, Lim H-W. Post-hazard flow capacity of bridge trans- portation network considering structural deterioration of bridges. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2011;7:509-21 .
  84. Bocchini P, Frangopol DM. A stochastic computational framework for the joint transportation network fragility analysis and traffic flow distribution under ex- treme events. Probab Eng Mech 2011;26:182-93 .
  85. Huang Z, Wang C, Stojmenovic M, Nayak A. Characterization of cascading failures in interdependent cyber-physical systems. IEEE Trans Comput 2014;64:2158-68 .
  86. Muriel-Villegas JE, Alvarez-Uribe KC, Patiño-Rodríguez CE, Villegas JG. Analysis of transportation networks subject to natural hazards-insights from a Colombian case. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2016;152:151-65 .
  87. Zhu F, Lv Y, Chen Y, Wang X, Xiong G, Wang F-Y. Parallel transportation systems: toward IoT-enabled smart urban traffic control and management. IEEE Trans Intell Transport Syst 2019;21:4063-71 .
  88. Chong HF, Ng DWK. Development of IoT device for traffic management system. 2016 IEEE Student Conference on Research and Development (SCOReD). IEEE; 2016 .
  89. Nogal M, Nápoles OM, O'Connor A. Structured expert judgement to understand the intrinsic vulnerability of traffic networks. Transport Res Part A: Policy Pract 2019;127:136-52 .
  90. Kwag S, Ok S-Y. Robust design of seismic isolation system using constrained mul- ti-objective optimization technique. KSCE J Civil Eng 2013;17:1051-63 .
  91. Zhou S, Demartino C, Xu J, Xiao Y. Effectiveness of CFRP seismic-retrofit of circular RC bridge piers under vehicular lateral impact loading. Eng Struct 2021;243:112602 .
  92. Babar M, Arif F. Real-time data processing scheme using big data analytics in inter- net of things based smart transportation environment. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput 2019;10:4167-77 .
  93. Padgett JE, DesRoches R. Retrofitted bridge fragility analysis for typical classes of multispan bridges. Earthq Spectra 2009;25:117-41 .
  94. Wright T, DesRoches R, Padgett JE. Bridge seismic retrofitting practices in the cen- tral and southeastern United States. J Bridge Eng 2011;16:82-92 .
  95. Raychaudhuri S. Introduction to monte Carlo simulation. 2008 Winter simulation conference. IEEE; 2008 .
  96. Berglund EZ, Monroe JG, Ahmed I, Noghabaei M, Do J, Pesantez JE, Khaksar Fasaee MA, Bardaka E, Han K, Proestos GT. Smart infrastructure: a vision for the role of the civil engineering profession in smart cities. J Infrastruct Syst 2020;26:03120001 .
  97. Pundir A, Singh S, Kumar M, Bafila A, Saxena GJ. Cyber-physical systems enabled transport networks in smart cities: challenges and enabling technologies of the new mobility era. IEEE Access 2022;10:16350-64 .
  98. Haroon A, Sagor M, Maurice M, Jin L, Stoleru R, Blalock R. On edge coordination in highly dynamic cyber-physical systems for emergency response. 2022 Workshop on Cyber Physical Systems for Emergency Response (CPS-ER). IEEE; 2022 .
  99. Tonelli F, Demartini M, Pacella M, Lala R. Cyber-physical systems (CPS) in supply chain management: from foundations to practical implementation. Procedia CIRP 2021;99:598-603 .
  100. Johnson G, Seligson H, Pyun J, Wickens M. Seismic fragility and risk assessment of waterfront structures at the port of San Francisco. 15th Triennial International Conference Reston, VA. American Society of Civil Engineers; 2019 .
  101. Lam JC, Adey BT, Heitzler M, Hackl J, Gehl P, Van Erp N, d'Ayala D, van Gelder P, Hurni L. Stress tests for a road network using fragility functions and functional capacity loss functions. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2018;173:78-93 .

Related papers

Modeling the resilience of critical infrastructure: the role of network dependencies
Therese McAllister

Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure, 2016

Guidotti's research interests are in the area of the risk, reliability and resilience of interdependent urban infrastructure subject to extreme-loading events, with focus on the resilience of water networks, and earthquake engineering, with focus on the modeling of soil-structure interaction, site-city interaction, and seismic hazard characterization via 3D physics-based approaches. Hana Chmielewsk,i is a Pathways Intern with the Community Resilience Group at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and a PhD Candidate in Operations Research, with a domain area of civil infrastructure systems modeling at North Carolina State University. Her research is devoted to the mathematical modeling and optimization of infrastructure planning and operations. Her current projects aim to develop long-term decision-making strategies to increase hazard resilience, protect water supply, and improve investment and policy timing. Vipin Unnikrishnan, is a post-doctoral fellow in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Colorado State University, Fort Collins. Unnikrishnan's research interests are in the areas of the performance-based hurricane risk assessment of engineering, risk assessment of tall buildings subject to extreme winds, resilience of electrical power networks in the event of extreme winds, and multihazard interaction effects on the loss analysis of buildings.

View PDFchevron_right
Resilience of Interconnected Infrastructures and Systems: The RESIIST Project
Vincent Chapurlat

2019

This paper introduces a methodology for resilience assessment of critical infrastructures based on massive data. The methodology is developed for the needs of the RESIIST research project. We start from the observation that the security of large cities has become a major issue. To ensure the proper functioning of critical infrastructures, it is essential to make the right decisions at the right time. To do this, managers are informed in their decision-making processes by several indicators such as resilience. As insecurity becomes more and more threatening with technological, natural and terrorist risks, it is essential to have an indicator of resilience of the infrastructures guaranteeing security. We therefore propose an innovative method of assessing resilience. It is innovative in that it combines both the genericity (it applies to all types of infrastructure), it takes into account several dimensions (economic, technical, social, human, regulatory etc.), it integrates massive d...

View PDFchevron_right
Data-driven resilience assessment for transport infrastructure exposed to multiple hazards
Dr Stergios Aristoteles Mitoulis

2021

The exposure of critical transport infrastructure to natural hazards and climate change effects has severe consequences on world economies and societies and, thus, safety and resiliency of transport networks are of paramount importance. The currently available frameworks for quantitative risk and resiliencebased design and assessment have been mainly developed for bridges exposed to earthquakes. However, there is an absence of well-informed exposure, vulnerability, functionality and recovery models, which are the main components in the quantification of resilience. The present paper proposes an integrated framework for the data-driven resilience assessment of transport infrastructure exposed to multiple hazards by using multiscale monitoring data, such as terrestrial and airborne data, as well as open-access crowd data and environmental measurements. Monitoring and early warnings are expected to produce accurate and rapidly informed quantitative risk and resilience assessments for transport infrastructure and to enhance asset management. Therefore, this framework aims to facilitate stakeholders' decision-making for daily and catastrophic events and to support adaptation and preparedness with preventive and/or retrofitting measures against multiple hazards.

View PDFchevron_right
Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure Defining resilience analytics for interdependent cyber-physical-social networks
Laura A Albert

Theory, methodology, and applications of risk analysis contribute to the quantification and management of resilience. For risk analysis, numerous complementary frameworks, guidelines, case studies, etc., are available in the literature. For resilience, the documented applications are sparse relative to numerous untested definitions and concepts. This essay on resilience analytics motivates the methodology, tools, and processes that will achieve resilience of real systems. The paper describes how risk analysts will lead in the modeling, quantification, and management of resilience for a variety of systems subject to future conditions, including technologies, economics, environment, health, developing regions, regulations, etc. The paper identifies key gaps where methods innovations are needed, presenting resilience of interdependent infrastructure networks as an example. Descriptive, predictive, and prescriptive analytics are differentiated. A key outcome will be the recognition, adoption, and advancement of resilience analytics by scholars and practitioners of risk analysis.

View PDFchevron_right
Resilience Assessment of City-Scale Transportation Networks Using Monte Carlo Simulation
Alessandro Cardoni

IABMAS 9th International Conference on Bridge Maintenance, Safety and Management, 2018

To improve the resilience of critical infrastructure systems, their intrinsic properties need to be understood and their resilience state needs be identified. In the literature, several methods to evaluate networks’ reliability and resilience can be found. However, the applicability of these methods is usually restricted to small-size net-works. In this paper, the transportation network of a large-scale virtual city is considered as a case study. A random removal of the roads is applied simulating the network’s failure. The network reliability is then calcu-lated using the Destruction Spectrum (D-spectrum) method and a Monte Carlo approach has been developed to generate failure permutations that are necessary for the evaluation of the D-spectrum se. In addition, the Birnbaum Importance Measure (BIM) has been adopted in this study to determine the importance of the net-work’s components. The methodology adopted in this study can be also extended to all network-based sys-tems. The pap...

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Intelligent Transportation Systems
  • Cyber Physical Systems
  • Transportation Networks
  • Cyber Physical Systems Security
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved