Fragility modeling practices and their implications on risk and resilience analysis: From the structure to the network scale

Raul Rincon, Jamie Ellen Padgett
{"title":"Fragility modeling practices and their implications on risk and resilience analysis: From the structure to the network scale","authors":"Raul Rincon, Jamie Ellen Padgett","doi":"10.1177/87552930231219220","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although fragility function development for structures is a mature field, it has recently thrived on new algorithms propelled by machine learning (ML) methods along with heightened emphasis on functions tailored for community- to regional-scale application. This article seeks to critically assess the implications of adopting alternative traditional and emerging fragility modeling practices within seismic risk and resilience quantification to guide future analyses that span from the structure to infrastructure network scale. For example, this article probes the similarities and differences in traditional and ML techniques for demand modeling, discusses the shift from one-parameter to multiparameter fragility models, and assesses the variations in fragility outcomes via statistical distance concepts. Moreover, the previously unexplored influence of these practices on a range of performance measures (e.g. conditional probability of damage, risk of losses to individual structures, portfolio risks, and network recovery trajectories) is systematically evaluated via the posed statistical distance metrics. To this end, case studies using bridges and transportation networks are leveraged to systematically test the implications of alternative seismic fragility modeling practices. The results show that, contrary to the classically adopted archetype fragilities, parameterized ML-based models achieve similar results on individual risk metrics compared to structure-specific fragilities, promising to improve portfolio fragility definitions, deliver satisfactory risk and resilience outcomes at different scales, and pinpoint structures whose poor performance extends to the global network resilience estimates. Using flexible fragility models to depict heterogeneous portfolios is expected to support dynamic decisions that may take place at different scales, space, and time, throughout infrastructure systems.","PeriodicalId":505879,"journal":{"name":"Earthquake Spectra","volume":"101 43","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Earthquake Spectra","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/87552930231219220","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although fragility function development for structures is a mature field, it has recently thrived on new algorithms propelled by machine learning (ML) methods along with heightened emphasis on functions tailored for community- to regional-scale application. This article seeks to critically assess the implications of adopting alternative traditional and emerging fragility modeling practices within seismic risk and resilience quantification to guide future analyses that span from the structure to infrastructure network scale. For example, this article probes the similarities and differences in traditional and ML techniques for demand modeling, discusses the shift from one-parameter to multiparameter fragility models, and assesses the variations in fragility outcomes via statistical distance concepts. Moreover, the previously unexplored influence of these practices on a range of performance measures (e.g. conditional probability of damage, risk of losses to individual structures, portfolio risks, and network recovery trajectories) is systematically evaluated via the posed statistical distance metrics. To this end, case studies using bridges and transportation networks are leveraged to systematically test the implications of alternative seismic fragility modeling practices. The results show that, contrary to the classically adopted archetype fragilities, parameterized ML-based models achieve similar results on individual risk metrics compared to structure-specific fragilities, promising to improve portfolio fragility definitions, deliver satisfactory risk and resilience outcomes at different scales, and pinpoint structures whose poor performance extends to the global network resilience estimates. Using flexible fragility models to depict heterogeneous portfolios is expected to support dynamic decisions that may take place at different scales, space, and time, throughout infrastructure systems.
脆弱性建模实践及其对风险和复原力分析的影响:从结构到网络尺度
虽然结构的脆性函数开发是一个成熟的领域,但最近在机器学习(ML)方法的推动下,新算法得到了蓬勃发展,同时也更加强调为社区到区域规模的应用量身定制的函数。本文旨在批判性地评估在地震风险和抗震能力量化中采用传统和新兴脆性建模方法的影响,以指导未来从结构到基础设施网络规模的分析。例如,本文探讨了需求建模的传统技术和 ML 技术的异同,讨论了从单参数脆性模型到多参数脆性模型的转变,并通过统计距离概念评估了脆性结果的变化。此外,还通过所提出的统计距离指标,系统地评估了这些做法对一系列性能指标(如损坏的条件概率、单个结构的损失风险、组合风险和网络恢复轨迹)的影响。为此,利用桥梁和交通网络进行了案例研究,系统地检验了其他地震脆性建模方法的影响。结果表明,与经典的原型脆性相反,基于参数化 ML 的模型与特定结构的脆性相比,在单个风险指标上取得了相似的结果,有望改进组合脆性定义,在不同尺度上提供令人满意的风险和恢复力结果,并精确定位那些性能不佳并延伸到全球网络恢复力估算的结构。使用灵活的脆性模型来描述异构组合,有望为整个基础设施系统中可能在不同规模、空间和时间发生的动态决策提供支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信