Write your message
   [Home ] [Archive]    
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
:: Winter ::
Back to the articles list Back to browse issues page
Probabilistic Seismic Direct Loss Estimation for Ports, Case study: Pars Asaluyeh port
Seyed Farshid Montazeri1, Rouhollah Amirabadi *1
1- Department of Civil Engineering, University of Qom
Abstract:   (213 Views)
Ports are the main avenue of global freight transport. In the past, experience has shown that ports are vulnerable to earthquakes, which cause evident economic damage. The port at Kobe, Japan, experienced economic losses of about $11 billion after an earthquake in 1995. The present study used the full-probabilistic PEER-PBEE framework to develop a comprehensive seismic risk assessment approach with which to estimate the total direct and indirect economic loss incurred by a port experiencing an earthquake. In the proposed methodology, the extent of direct economic loss due to the cost of repair of port structures in the Pars Asaluyeh port was estimated. Seismic risk density curves (SRDCs) were employed to determine the seismic performance of different port structures and pieces of equipment as well as the overall seismic performance of the port. The SRDCs show that the mooring structures and breakwater of the port showed appropriate seismic performance, while other port structures and equipment showed weak or average seismic performance.
Keywords: PEER-PBEE|Seismic Risk Density|Economic Loss|Probabilistic Direct Loss estimation|Port of Pars Asaluyeh ,
Full-Text [PDF 1842 kb]   (73 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Coastal Engineering
Received: 2020/04/29 | Accepted: 2020/07/11
References
1. 1. Okuyama, Y., Disaster and economic structural change: case study on the 1995 Kobe earthquake. Economic Systems Research, 2014. 26(1): p. 98-117. [DOI:10.1080/09535314.2013.871506]
2. Chang, S.E., Transportation performance, disaster vulnerability, and long-term effects of earthquakes. Second EuroConference on Global Change and Catastrophic Risk Management. Laxenburg, Austria, 2000.
3. Comartin, C.D., M. Greene, and S.K. Tubbesing, The Hyōgo-ken Nanbu Earthquake: Great Hanshin Earthquake Disaster, January 17, 1995: Preliminary Reconnaissance Report. 1995: Earthquake Engineering Research.
4. Na, U.J., S.R. Chaudhuri, and M. Shinozuka, Performance evaluation of pile-supported wharf under seismic loading, in TCLEE 2009: Lifeline Earthquake Engineering in a Multihazard Environment. 2009. p. 1-10. [DOI:10.1061/41050(357)98]
5. Pachakis, D. and A.S. Kiremidjian, Estimation of downtime-related revenue losses in seaports following scenario earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra, 2004. 20(2): p. 427-449. [DOI:10.1193/1.1705655]
6. Pachakis, D. and A.S. Kiremidjian, The use of simulation in disaster response planning and risk management of ports and harbors, in Advancing Mitigation Technologies and Disaster Response for Lifeline Systems. 2003. p. 425-434. [DOI:10.1061/40687(2003)44]
7. Ichii, K., Application of risk density analysis for seismic design: A gravity-type quay wall case. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 2004. 77.
8. Werner, S.D., S.E. Dickenson, and C.E. Taylor, Seismic risk reduction at ports: Case studies and acceptable risk evaluation. Journal of waterway, port, coastal, and ocean engineering, 1997. 1(6):23 p. 337-346. [DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-950X(1997)123:6(337)]
9. Werner, S.D., et al. Seismic risk analysis of Port of Oakland container berths. in Proc., 7th US National Conf. on Earthquake Engineering. 2002. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Boston.
10. Werner, S., G. Rix, and R. DesRoches. Seismic risk management for seaports. in 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China. 2008.
11. Na, U.J. and M. Shinozuka, Simulation-based seismic loss estimation of seaport transportation system. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2009. 94(3): p. 722-731. [DOI:10.1016/j.ress.2008.07.005]
12. Amirabadi, R., et al., Comprehensive Evaluation of Probabilistic Seismic Risk Methodology for Port Structures. Journal of American Science, 2011. 7(7).
13. Burden, L.I., G. Rix, and S. Werner, Development of a Risk Framework for Forecasting Earthquake Losses in Port Systems. Earthquake Spectra, 2016. 32(1): p. 267-284. [DOI:10.1193/043013EQS117M]
14. Lam, J.S.L. and J.A. Lassa, Risk assessment framework for exposure of cargo and ports to natural hazards and climate extremes. Maritime Policy & Management, 2017. 44(1): p. 1-15. [DOI:10.1080/03088839.2016.1245877]
15. Tavakoli, B. and M. Ghafory-Ashtiany, Seismic hazard assessment of Iran. Annals of Geophysics, 1999. 42(6).
16. Giardini, D., et al., The GSHAP global seismic hazard map. Annals of Geophysics, 1999. 42(6).
17. Werner, S.D., Seismic guidelines for ports. 1998: ASCE Publications.
18. Porter, K.A. An overview of PEER's performance-based earthquake engineering methodology. in Proceedings of ninth international conference on applications of statistics and probability in civil engineering. 2003.
19. Saygili, G. and E.M. Rathje, Empirical predictive models for earthquake-induced sliding displacements of slopes. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2008. 134(6): p. 790-803. [DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:6(790)]
20. IIEES, Seismic Hazard and Geotechnical Hazard Zonation of Assaluyeh (910 Hectare Area). 2001.
21. Hazus, E.L.E.M., Technical manual. National Institute of Building for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington (DC), 1997.
Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

CAPTCHA


XML     Print



Back to the articles list Back to browse issues page
International Journal of Coastal and Offshore Engineering International Journal of Coastal and Offshore Engineering
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.05 seconds with 33 queries by YEKTAWEB 4212