interdependent infrastructure systems under global change€¦ · 1. simonovic, s.p. (2016) from...

TOWARDS MULTIHAZARD RESILIENCEInterdependent Infrastructure Systems Under

Global Change

Slobodan P. SimonovićFCAE, FCSCE, FASCE, FIWRA

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction

Western University, London, Canada

INTRODUCTION 2|

Funding• Linking Hazard, Exposure and Risk Across Multiple Hazards

• NSERC CRD with Chaucer Synd.: 2015-2020 $1,375,600

Research topics1. Detailed study of insurance claims and exposure data for wind, flood, earthquake

2. Integration of general and specific earthquake loss estimation platforms

3. New methods for quantifying earthquake hazard.

4. Improved risk modeling for wind storms by accounting for the effects of storm duration.

5. Mapping climate change impacts on flood hazard in Canada

6. Tool for mapping resilience of urban regions across Canada for all hazards

Research team• Prof. S. P. Simonovic, PI• Prof.. K. Tiampo• Prof. S. Molnar• Prof. G. Kopp• Dr. G. Michel• Mr. P. Kovacs

Research support

MESSAGES 3|

• Resilience as a new development paradigm:• Practical link between adaptation to global change and sustainable

development

• Systems approach needed for quantification of resilience• Understanding of local context of vulnerability and exposure is

fundamental for increasing resilience• Consideration of time and space an integral part of

quantification• Modelling single and multiple hazard conditions requires

different modelling

• Introductory remarks

• From risk to resilience

• Quantitative resilience of infrastructure systems• Systems approach (simulation, time and space)

• Single hazard case

• Multi hazard case

• An example – Greater Toronto Area

• Conclusions

4

OUTLINE 4|

INTRODUCTION4| Natural hazards – single and multiple

INTRODUCTION5| Infrastructure – single and interconnected

INTRODUCTION6| Infrastructure response

Infrastructure interdependence (Rinaldi et al., 2001)

• Cascading failures (throughout

the whole infrastructure system

at regional and national scales)

• Effective protection and recovery

are hard and costly

• Infrastructure system resilience

is often overestimated

• Traditional approach – risk based

RISK TO RESILIENCE7| Need for paradigm change

• The broad definition

• The combination of the probability of an event and its negative consequences.

Risk = Hazard x Consequence

=

=n

i

ikeikeke IMDPR1

)(

RISK TO RESILIENCENeed for paradigm change8|

• Risk management framework (Leiss, 2001)• Static (in time and space)• Difficulties in assessing probability of extreme

events • Difficult integration of physical, social, economic

and ecological concerns

• Resilience framework• Dynamic (in time and space)• Not only assessment of direct and indirect losses

– broader framework

RISK TO RESILIENCE Definition9|

• Simonovic and Peck, 2013• …the ability of a system and its component parts to anticipate, absorb,

accommodate or recover from the effects of a system disruption in a timely and efficient manner, including through ensuring the preservation, restoration or improvement of its essential basic structures and functions…

RISK TO RESILIENCE 11| Implementation – temporal and spatial dynamics

QUANTITATIVE RESILIENCE12|

• Four layers: • Streets• Water supply• Energy supply• Information

• Nodes and edges (two states)• Intra and interconnections• Single and multiple disasters

x

y

Urban infrastructure network system – single hazard

• Five recovery strategies• First repair first failures• First repair last failures• First repair important components

independently • First repair the obvious dependent

elements • First repair the hidden dependent

elements

1RM 1RM

1

1RM

o o

ζ

Rob

(n (t ) e (t ))

R (t )(N E )

+

=+

( )11 ,ζ

ResR (t) f RS (t)

=

1 1ζ ,ζ

Rap RapR =max R (t)

1 1 1

φ,ζ φ,ζ1 1Rap Rap

1 1 1

1 1

,ζ ,ζ ,ζ

0 Res 0

R Rζ ,ζ ,ζ

PA RR ,ζ ,ζ

Rap Rap

SP (t) (R (t)-SP (t))

r =ρ +ρ = +1 R 1 R

1 1 1

φ,ζ φ,ζ1 1Rap Rap1 1 1

1 1

,ζ ,ζ ,ζ

0 Res 0

R Rζ ζ ζ

PA RR ζ ζ

Rap Rap

SP (t) (R (t)-SP (t))

r =ρ +ρ = +1 R 1 R

QUANTITATIVE RESILIENCE13| Urban infrastructure network system – single hazard

QUANTITATIVE RESILIENCE14| Urban infrastructure network system – two hazards

Infrastructure NumberElectric Transmission Network

Power GenerationNuclear 2Gas -fired 6

Transmission Stations500kv 4230kv 43115kv 26

Power line500kv 13230kv 64115kv 30

Gas Transmission NetworkCompressor Stations 2Meter Stations 15Pipelines 22

Oil Transmission NetworkPumping Stations 4Meter Stations 1Pipelines 6

QUANTITATIVE RESILIENCE – GTA CASE STUDY15| Urban infrastructure network system – two hazards

QUANTITATIVE RESILIENCE21|

• Network layers: • Streets• Water supply• Energy supply• Information

• Non-network infrastructure• Critical facilities

Towards general model – multiple hazard

• Temporal relationships

• Spatial relationships

QUANTITATIVE RESILIENCE22| Towards general model – multiple hazard

( +1) ( ( ), ( ), ( ))i i i ik k km m m

A A A A

ISc c cFS t g FS t DS t RE t=

,

( )

( )( )

ikm

i

km

A

cA k m

P

cm

FS t

SP tFS t

=

,

( )

( )

ik km m

i

km

A

c cA k m

F

cm

POP FS t

SP tPOP

=

, ,min ( )i iA k A k

p pROB SP t=, ,

min ( )i iA k A k

F FROB SP t=

,{ }i i

km

A k A

cmRES mean RS=

, ,i i

i

A k A k o

ARAP t t= −

,

,

,0

( )1

i

i

A k

PA k

P k

P

SP tR

SP= −

,

,

,0

( )1

i

i

A k

FA k

F k

F

SP tR

SP= −

• Single hazard impacts:

• Multiple hazard impacts during phase j at specific time:

• State function equation of each component:

• Physical and functional system performance:

• Robustness: ( ) ( , ( ), ( ))i i iA A AK

ISDI t f IS L t S t=

11= min{min{ min ,min{ },min{ } min{ }}plpl

j i i

SCLC K K K

P A A FP RD REl p K K K

TU D D D D D−− }，，

1 -1= -ll l l

i i i

LC LC LC

A A AD t t−1 1= -

pp p p

i i i

SC SC SC

A A AD t t− −

• Redundancy:

• Resourcefulness:

• Rapidity:

,{ }i i

km

A k A

cmRED mean DB=

• Resilience:

CONCLUSIONS 23|

• Resilience as a new development paradigm:• practical link between adaptation to global change and sustainable

development

• Systems approach needed for quantification of resilience• Understanding of local context of vulnerability and exposure is

fundamental for increasing resilience• Consideration of time and space an integral part of

quantification• Modelling single and multiple hazard conditions requires

different modelling

RESOURCES24|

www.slobodansimonovic.com

1. Simonovic, S.P. (2016) “From risk management to quantitative disaster resilience: a paradigm shift”, International Journal of Safety and Security Engineering, 6(2):85-95.

2. Kong, J., and S.P. Simonovic, (2018) “A Model of Infrastructure System Resilience”, International Journal of Safety and Security Engineering, 8(3):377-389.

3. Kong, J., S.P. Simonovic, and C. Zhang (2018) “Sequential hazards resilience of interdependent infrastructure system: A case study of Greater Toronto Area energy infrastructure system”, Risk Analysis, 39(5)1141-1168, DOI: 10.1111/risa.13222.

4. Kong, J., and S.P. Simonovic, (2019) “Probabilistic multi hazard resilience model of interdependent infrastructure system”, Risk Analysis, 39(8):1843-1863, DOI: 10.1111/risa.13305 .

http://www.slobodansimonovic.com/

OPPORTUNITY23|

www.icfm.world

OPPORTUNITY24|

Slobodan P. SimonovićResearch facility26|

• Computer-based research laboratory• Research:

• Subject Matter - Systems modeling; Risk and reliability; Water resources and environmental systems analysis; Computer-based decision support systems development.

• Topical Area - Reservoirs; Flood control; Hydropower energy; Operational hydrology; Climatic Change; Integrated water resources management.

• > 70 research projects• Completed: 8 visiting fellows, 19 PosDoc, 22

PhD and 43 MESc• Current: 2 PosDoc, 2 PhD, 2 MESc and 2

visiting scholars

Slobodan P. SimonovićResearch results27|

• > 540 professional publications• > 235 in peer reviewed journals • 3 major textbooks

• Water Resources Research Reports 105 volumes

• > 75,000 downloads since 2011

• Water Resources Management Capacity Building in the Context of Global Change

• Systems Engineering Approach to the Reliability of Complex Hydropower Infrastructure

• Linking Hazard, Exposure and Risk Across Multiple Hazards

Biomass

Litter

Humus

Stable Humus

and Charcoal

CO2 in Atmosphere

NPP

Litterfall

Decay

to

HumusDecayfromLitter

Decayfrom

Humus

Carbonization

HumificationDecayfrom

Charcoal

<Pjk>

<Tao(Bjk)>

<Lambda j>

<Tao(Lj)>

<Phi j>

<Tao(Hj)>

<Tao(Kj)>

<Sigma (NPPj)>

Unburnt

Wood

Biomassto

CharcoalLitter to

Charcoal

Burnt

BiomassBurntLitter

<Biomass to Atm>

<Burnt Biomass to

Charcoal>

<Dead biomass to

Humus>

<Litter to Atm>

<Litter Burnt into

Charcoal>

Internal Humus

Flows

<Internal Humus

Flows Calculation>

Internal Charcoal

Flows

<Internal Charcoal

Flows Calculation>

Cumulative

EmissionsFossil Fuel Burning

Turn On Human

Land Use

Atmospheric CO2

Concentration

Biome Area

CO2 Emissions

<Current Biome

Area>

<Init Biome Area>

<Litter Q10>

<Humus Q10>

<Charcoal Q10>

Industrial Carbon

Emissions E(t)

Turn On Human

Emissions

Slobodan P. SimonovićCurrent research projects28|

interdependent infrastructure systems under global change€¦ · 1. simonovic, s.p. (2016) from...

Documents