Multi-parameter assessment method for seismic resilience of subway stations based on economic losses and recovery paths

Abstract

The recurring occurrence of seismic hazards constitutes a significant and imminent threat to subway stations. Consequently, a meticulous assessment of the seismic resilience of subway stations becomes imperative for enhancing urban safety and ensuring sustained functionality. This study strives to introduce a probabilistic framework tailored to assess the seismic resilience of stations when confronted with seismic hazards. The framework aims to precisely quantify station resilience by determining the integral ratio between the station performance curve and the corresponding station recovery time. To achieve this goal, a series of finite element models of the soil-station system were developed and employed to investigate the impact of site type, seismic intensity, and station structural type on the dynamic response of the station. Then, the seismic fragility functions were generated by developing the relationships between seismic intensity and damage index, taking into account multidimensional uncertainties encompassing factors such as earthquake characteristics and construction quality. The resilience assessment was subsequently conducted based on the station’s fragility and the corresponding economic loss, while also considering the recovery path and recoverability. Additionally, the impacts of diverse factors, including structural characteristics, site types, functional recovery models, and peak ground acceleration (PGA) intensities, on the resilience of stations with distinct structural forms were also discussed. This work contributes to the resilience-based design and management of metro networks to support adaptation to seismic hazards, thereby facilitating the efficient allocation of resources by relevant decision makers.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

subway stations / seismic resilience / seismic fragility / recovery models / parameter analysis / site types

References

[1] Hashash Y M A, Hook J J, Schmidt B, Yao J I C. Seismic design and analysis of underground structures. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2021, 16(4): 247–293

[2] Pitilakis K, Tsinidis G. Performance and seismic design of underground structures. Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering Design, 2014, 28: 279–340

[3] Yang Y F, Cao J J, Qu R Q, Xu Z G. Numerical Simulation of the Seismic Damage of Daikai Station Based on Pushover Analyses. Buildings, 2023, 13(3): 760

[4] Lu C C, Hwang J H. Nonlinear collapse simulation of Daikai Subway in the 1995 Kobe earthquake: Necessity of dynamic analysis for a shallow tunnel. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2019, 87: 78–90

[5] Cui C, Meng K, Wu Y, Chapman D, Liang Z. Dynamic response of pipe pile embedded in layered visco-elastic media with radial inhomogeneity under vertical excitation. Geomechanics and Engineering, 2018, 16(6): 609–618

[6] Le T S, Huh J W, Ahn J H, Haldar A. Damage state identification and seismic fragility evaluation of the underground tunnels. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 2015, 775: 274–278

[7] Huh J, Le T S, Kang C, Kwak K, Park I J. A probabilistic fragility evaluation method of a RC box tunnel subjected to earthquake loadings. Journal of Korean Tunnelling and Underground Space Association, 2017, 2(2): 143–159

[8] Nguyen D D, Park D, Shamsher S, Nguyen V Q, Lee T H. Seismic vulnerability assessment of rectangular cut-and-cover subway tunnels. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2019, 86: 247–261

[9] Avanaki M J, Hoseini A, Vandani S. Seismic fragility curves for vulnerability assessment of steel fiber reinforced concrete segmental tunnel linings. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2018, 78: 259–274

[10] Zhong Z L, Filiatrault A, Aref A. Numerical simulation and seismic performance evaluation of buried pipelines rehabilitated with cured-in-place-pipe liner under seismic wave propagation. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2017, 46(5): 811–829

[11] Zhong Z L, Shen Y Y, Zhao M, Li L, Du X. Seismic performance evaluation of two-story and three-span subway station in different engineering sites. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2022, 26(14): 7505–7535

[12] Huang Z K, Pitilakis K, Tsinidis G, Argyroudis S, Zhang D M. Seismic vulnerability of circular tunnels in soft soil deposits: The case of Shanghai metropolitan system. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2020, 98: 103341

[13] Psyrras N K, Sextos A G. Safety of buried steel natural gas pipelines under earthquake-induced ground shaking: A review. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2018, 106: 254–277

[14] Cimellaro G P, Reinhorn A M, Bruneau M. Framework for analytical quantification of disaster resilience. Engineering Structures, 2020, 32(11): 3639–3649

[15] Argyroudis S A. Resilience metrics for transport networks: A review and practical examples for bridges. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Bridge Engineering, 2022, 175(3): 179–192

[16] Ayyub B M. Practical resilience metrics for planning, design, and decision making. ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems. Part A, Civil Engineering, 2015, 1(3): 04015008

[17] Whitmore D, Aguilar-Vidal V, Miletic M, Bianchini A, Davidson J S. Airfield pavement resiliency assessment against extreme dynamic events by explicit axisymmetric finite element models. Transportation Geotechnics, 2023, 43: 101144

[18] Ayyub B M. Systems resilience for multihazard environments: Definition, metrics, and valuation for decision making. Risk Analysis, 2014, 34(2): 340–355

[19] Wang M Z, Sun Z G, Sun J A, Lyu Y, Wu Y J. Quantitative assessment framework for seismic resilience of petroleum depots. Structures, 2023, 58: 105400

[20] Hua W, Ye J H, Ye J. Resilience assessment and seismic risk assessment of reticulated shell structures considering multiple uncertainties. Structures, 2023, 55: 1584–1594

[21] Argyroudis S A, Mitoulis S A, Hofer L, Zanini M A, Tubaldi E, Frangopol D M. Resilience assessment framework for critical infrastructure in a multi-hazard environment: Case study on transport assets. Science of the Total Environment, 2020, 714: 136854

[22] Chienkuo C, Eiki Y, Santoso D. Seismic resilience analysis of a retrofit-required bridge considering moment-based system reliability. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2021, 17(6): 757–778

[23] Alipour A, Shafei B. Seismic resilience of transportation networks with deteriorating components. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2016, 142(8): C4015015

[24] Capacci L, Biondini F, Titi A. Lifetime seismic resilience of aging bridges and road networks. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2002, 16(2): 266–286

[25] Lakkimsetti B, Latha GM. Role of geofoam inclusions on the liquefaction resilience of transportation geostructures. Transportation Geotechnics, 2023, 41: 101041

[26] Huang Z K, Zhang D M, Pitilakis K, Tsinidis G, Huang H W, Zhang D M, Argyroudis S. Resilience assessment of tunnels: Framework and application for tunnels in alluvial deposits exposed to seismic hazard. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2022, 162: 107456

[27] Chen R P, Lang Z X, Zhang C, Zhao N, Deng P. A paradigm for seismic resilience assessment of subway system. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2023, 135: 105061

[28] DuX LZhangYMiaoH Q. Indicator system for the evaluation of metro system safe operation from the perspective of resilient cities. Journal of Natural Disasters, 2023, 32(3): 1–13 (in Chinese)

[29] Chen X S, Shen J, Bao X H, Wu X, Tang W, Cui H. A review of seismic resilience of shield tunnels. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2023, 136: 105075

[30] Huang H W, Zhang D M. Resilience analysis of shield tunnel lining under extreme surcharge: Characterization and field application. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2016, 51: 301–312

[31] Hu J, Wen W P, Zhai C H, Pei S, Ji D. Seismic resilience assessment of buildings considering the effects of mainshock and multiple aftershocks. Journal of Building Engineering, 2023, 68: 106110

[32] Huang Z K. Resilience evaluation of shallow circular tunnels subjected to earthquakes using fragility functions. Applied Sciences, 2022, 12(9): 4728

[33] HuangZ KZhangD MZhouY T. Resilience Assessment Framework for Tunnels Exposed to Earthquake Loading. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Performance-Based Design in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering (PBD-IV). Beijing: Springer, 2022, 15–17

[34] Cimellaro G P, Reinhorn A M, Bruneau M. Quantification of seismic resilience. In: Proceedings of the 8th US National conference on Earthquake Engineering. San Francisco, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 2006, 8(1094): 1–10

[35] Kassem M M, Nazri F M. Integrated approach between seismic resilience and vulnerability indexes with regularity index for vertical irregularity planar frames risk assessment. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2023, 21(4): 1903–1941

[36] RISN-TG041-2022. Guide Line for Evaluation of Seismic Resilience Assessment of Urban Engineering Systems. Beijing: Standard Quota Research Institute of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Rural Development, 2011

[37] Jiang J E, Naggar M H, Xu C, Chen G, Du X. Seismic fragility analysis for subway station considering varying ground motion ensemble. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2023, 165: 107705

[38] ZhangC MZhongZ LZhenL BShenY YZhaoM. Seismic intensity measures for the damage evaluation of circular tunnels. Engineering Mechanics, 2021, 38: 100–108 (in Chinese)

[39] Zhang C M, Zhao M, Zhong Z L, Du X L. Seismic intensity measures and fragility analysis for subway stations subjected to near-fault ground motions with velocity pulses. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2021, 26(16): 8724–8750

[40] Jiang J W, Naggar M H E, Du X L, Xu C S. Seismic fragility curves for shallow buried subway station using pushover-based method. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2023, 135: 105059

[41] Lysmer J, Kuhlemeyer R L. Finite dynamic model for infinite media. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, 1969, 95(4): 859–878

[42] Fema. Quantifcation of Building Seismic Performance Factors. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Homeland Security, FEMA, 2009

[43] Jiang J, Xu C E, Naggar H M, Du X, Xu Z, Assaf J. Improved pushover method for seismic analysis of shallow buried underground rectangular frame structure. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2021, 140: 106363

[44] Du X L, Jiang J W, El Naggar M H, Xu C, Xu Z. Interstory drift ratio associated with performance objectives for shallow-buried multistory and span subway stations in inhomogeneous soil profiles. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2020, 50(2): 655–672

[45] GB50011-2010. Code for Seismic Design of Buildings. Beijing: Ministry of Housing and Urban Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China, 2016

[46] ShomeN. Probabilistic Seismic Demand Analysis of Nonlinear Structures. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, 1999

[47] PacificEarthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER). PEER Strong Motion Database. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, 2000

[48] IervolinoIManfrediG. A review of ground motion record selection strategies for dynamic structural analysis. Modern Testing Techniques for Structural Systems: Dynamics and Control, 2008: 131–163

[49] Huang Z, Zhang C L, Ma S K, Zhang J B, Zhu Q X. Study of the mechanical behaviour and damage characteristics of three new types of joints for Fabricated rectangular tunnels using a numerical approach. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2021, 118: 104184

[50] GB50010-2010. Code for Design of Concrete Structures.. Beijing: The Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of The People’s Republic of China and the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of The People’s Republic of China, 2015

[51] Peng Q, Zhou D Y, Wu H, Ma L L, Fang Q. Experimental and numerical studies on dynamic behaviors of RC slabs under long-duration near-planar explosion loadings. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2022, 160: 104085

[52] ALA. Seismic Fragility Formulations for Water Systems: Part 1—Guideline. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2001

[53] HAZUS. Multi-Hazard Loss Estimation Methodology: Earthquake Model. Washington, D.C.: Department of Homeland Security. 2004

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Higher Education Press