Ren, S (1997) GIS-based tools for earthquake risk assessment of point and spatially distributed lifeline systems. PhD thesis, State University of New York at Buffalo, USA.
Abstract
This study has created a real-time interactive set of GIS tools which can be used to predict the seismic performance of constructed point and distributed facilities such as bridges and gas and fluid pipelines. Three independent interactive systems were created to cover the broad scope of the problems considered, tools for the prediction of the spatial distribution of attenuated earthquake ground motion over large geographic regions, and sets of integrated interactive computational tools for the assessment of the Earthquake Vulnerability of point and continuously distributed constructed facilities. All of the analysis systems developed are based on an object-oriented system approach and can be divided into two major components. (1) The use of a Geographic Information System such as ARC/INFO as an integrating platform to manage non-spatial and spatial data, to carry out spatial query, analysis and display and to construct the graphic user interface. (2) Separate seismic engineering and vulnerability models programed as object modules and integrated with the GIS to predict seismic hazard loadings and the corresponding levels of damage of lifeline facilities due to a historic or user generated earthquake event. The analysis and prediction system has two outstanding characteristics; first is its interactive and graphic capability. A user can choose a historical earthquake or define his/her earthquake. This makes real time earthquake simulation of seismic risk assessment possible. The graphic user interface enables relatively non-technical persons to carry out seismic analysis using a common English language approach without having to know too much about computer-oriented details inside the analysis system. Although the analysis presented uses New York State as an example, the analysis system can be extended to any states or areas provided that the datasets needed are accessible. By developing the system as an object-oriented program, it is possible to plug in and out different theoretical models such as vulnerability, soil liquefaction or ground motion attenuation. It would then be possible to carry out a comparison of the earthquake response for any set of selected models. Where data is available the results could compare the impacts of actual earthquakes with the predicted results.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Gaus, M P |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | geographic information system; pipeline; earthquake; information system; risk assessment; seismic engineering; simulation |
| Index terms: | user interface, vulnerability, spatial distribution, seismic engineering, pipeline, risk assessment, loading, real time, program, module, New York, earthquake, seismic risk, platform, dataset, geographic information system, spatial data, interactive system, information system |
| Subjects: | financial risk, information systems, Geography, data management, architectural elements, geographical techniques and analysis, human-computer interaction, software systems, digital design, infrastructure and transport systems, spatial and geospatial analysis, construction operations, project controls, geographical analysis, environmental hazards, structural engineering |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Research Practice, Time Control, Site Management, Digital Applications, Sustainability, Engineering Principles, Design Practice, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here