Quantifying Directional Dependencies from Infrastructure Restoration Data

Abstract

Lifeline utilities and critical infrastructures are becoming increasingly interactive and dependent on one another for normal operation. With a natural disaster or disruptive event, these dependencies can be studied under stressed conditions. To replicate events and inform future simulations, such dependencies can be quantified in both magnitude and direction. This paper builds on recent efforts by proposing a new dependency index methodology that gives importance to the direction of dependency between coupled infrastructures and equally weighting the multiple dependencies that may be realized across a variety of lag times. The effectiveness of this methodology is presented as a case study for the 22 February 2011 earthquake experienced in Christchurch, New Zealand. Dependencies are quantified for a range of critical infrastructure couplings, which provide insight into the future application of these results and the requirement for integration with qualitative studies to accurately inform interdependency models.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ardagh

M. W.

Richardson

S. K.

Robinson

Than

Gee

Henderson

Khodaverdi

McKie

Robertson

and Schroeder

P. P.

2012. The initial health-system response to the earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand, in February, 2011, The Lancet 379, 2109–2115.

Auckland Engineering Lifelines Group (AELG), 2014. Auckland Engineering Lifelines Project: Stage 2 Report, Auckland, New Zealand.

Berryman

2011. A tale of two earthquakes–the Christchurch sequence of 2010–2011, G-Ever1 Conference, Tsukuba, Japan.

Bigger

J. E.

Willingham

M. G.

Krimgold

and Mili

2009. Consequences of critical infrastructure interdependencies: lessons from the 2004 hurricane season in Florida, International Journal of Critical Infrastructures 5, 199–219.

Box

G. E. P.

Jenkins

G. N.

and Reinsel

G. C.

1994. Time Series Analysis: Forecasting and Control, 3rd Edition, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

Bradley

B. A.

and Cubrinovski

2011. Near-source strong ground motions observed in the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake, Seismological Research Letters 82, 853–865.

Bray

O'Rourke

Cubrinovski

Zupan

Jeon

Taylor

Toprak

Hughes

van Ballegooy

and Bouziou

2013. Liquefaction Impact on Critical Infrastructure in Christchurch, USGS Technical Report, available at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/external/reports/G12AP20034.pdf.

Brunsdon

and Park

2009. Lifeline vulnerability to volcanic eruption: learnings from a national simulation exercise, in Proc. TCLEE 2009: Lifeline Earthquake Engineering in a Multihazard Environment ( Tang

and Werner

, editors), Oakland, CA, 738–749.

Centre for Advanced Engineering (CAE), 1991. Lifelines in Earthquakes: Wellington Case Study: Project Report, Centre for Advanced Engineering, Christchurch, New Zealand.

10.

Chan

and Dueñas-Osorio

2014. Spatial-temporal quantification of interdependencies across infrastructure networks, in Networks of Networks: The Last Frontier of Complexity ( D'Agostino

and Scala

, editors), Springer, 323–340.

11.

Chang

S. E.

McDaniels

T. L.

Mikawoz

and Peterson

2007. Infrastructure failure interdependencies in extreme events: power outage consequences in the 1998 Ice Storm, Natural Hazards 41, 337–358.

12.

Chang

S. E.

Taylor

J. E.

Elwood

K. J.

Seville

Brunsdon

and Gartner

2014. Urban disaster recovery in Christchurch: The Central Business District cordon and other critical decisions, Earthquake Spectra 30, 513–532.

13.

Chou

and Tseng

2010. Collection and analysis of critical infrastructure interdependency relationships, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 24, 539–547.

14.

Christchurch Engineering Lifelines Group (CELG), 1997. Risks & Realities: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach to the Vulnerability of Lifelines to Natural Hazards, CAE, Christchurch, New Zealand.

15.

Cimellaro

G. P.

Solari

and Bruneau

2014. Physical infrastructure interdependency and regional resilience index after the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake in Japan, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 43, 1763–1784.

16.

Contact Energy, 2011. LPG Infrastructure in the Christchurch earthquakes, October 21: Gas Industry Forum, Contact Energy Ltd., New Zealand.

17.

Cubrinovski

Bradley

B. A.

Wotherspoon

Green

Bray

Wood

Pender

Allen

Bradshaw

and Rix

2011. Geotechnical Aspects of the 22 February 2011 Christchurch Earthquake, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.

18.

Cubrinovski

Henderson

and Bradley

2012. Liquefaction impacts in residential areas in the 2010–2011 Christchurch earthquakes, in Proc. of the International Symposium on Engineering Lessons Learned from the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, 1–4 March 2012, Tokyo, Japan.

19.

Davis

C. A.

O'Rourke

T. D.

Adams

M. L.

and Rho

M. A.

2012. Case study: Los Angeles water services restoration following the 1994 Northridge earthquake, in 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, International Association for Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan.

20.

Dellow

Yetton

Massey

Archibald

Barrell

Bell

Bruce

Campbell

Davies

and De Pascale

2011. Landslides caused by the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake and management of landslide risk in the immediate aftermath, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 44, 227–238.

21.

Dueñas-Osorio

and Kwasinski

2012. Quantification of lifeline system interdependencies after the 27 February 2010 Mw 8.8 Offshore Maule, Chile, earthquake, Earthquake Spectra 28, 581–603.

22.

Eberhard

Lowes

and Stanton

2001. The Nisqually Earthquake of 28 February 2001, Preliminary Reconnaissance Report, Nisqually Earthquake Clearinghouse Group, University of Washington, WA.

23.

Eidinger

and Tang

2012. Christchurch, New Zealand Earthquake Sequence of Mw 7.1 September 04, 2010 Mw 6.3 February 22, 2011 Mw 6.0 June 13, 2011: Lifeline Performance, ASCE Monograph 40, Reston, VA.

24.

Eidinger

Tang

and O'Rourke

2010. Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering (TCLEE), Report of the 4 September 2010 Mw 7.1 Canterbury (Darfield), New Zealand Earthquake, ASCE, Reston, VA.

25.

Fenwick

2012a. The Value of Lifeline Seismic Risk Mitigation in Christchurch, Summary Report June 2012, Centre for Advanced Engineering, Christchurch, New Zealand.

26.

Fenwick

2012b. Lifelines: Lessons from Natural Hazards in Canterbury - Document Summaries, Centre for Advanced Engineering, Christchurch, New Zealand.

27.

Fletcher

2011. Christchurch earthquake: Telcos upgrading services in city, New Zealand Herald, 14 March 2011, Auckland, New Zealand.

28.

Foster

2011. Earthquake performance of telecommunications infrastructure in Christchurch 2010/2011, 33^rd International Telecommunications Energy Conference, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

29.

Giovinazzi

and Wilson

2012. Recovery of Lifelines following the 22nd February 2011 Christchurch Earthquake: successes and issues, in Proceedings, 2012 Annual Technical Conference “Implementing Lessons Learnt,” New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Christchurch, New Zealand.

30.

Giovinazzi

Wilson

Davis

Bristow

Gallagher

Schofield

Villemure

Eidinger

and Tang

2011. Lifelines performance and management following the 22 February 2011 Christchurch Earthquake, New Zealand: Highlights of Resilience, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 44, 402–417.

31.

GNS Science, 2014. GeoNet Earthquake Catalogue, Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Ltd., Lower Hutt, New Zealand.

32.

Haimes

Y. Y.

and Jiang

2001. Leontief-based model of risk in complex interconnected infrastructures, Journal of Infrastructure Systems 7, 1–12.

33.

Jacques

C. C.

McIntosh

Giovinazzi

Kirsch

T. D.

Wilson

and Mitrani-Reiser

2014. Resilience of the Canterbury hospital system to the 2011 Christchurch earthquake, Earthquake Spectra 30, 533–554.

34.

Kajitani

and Sagai

2009. Modelling the interdependencies of critical infrastructures during natural disasters: a case of supply, communication and transportation infrastructures, International Journal of Critical Infrastructures 5, 38–50.

35.

Kestrel Group, 2011. Resilience Lessons: Orion's 2010 and 2011 Earthquake Experience, Kestrel Group, Wellington, New Zealand.

36.

Kongar

Esposito

and Giovinazzi

(2015). Post-earthquake assessment and management for infrastructure systems: learning from the Canterbury (New Zealand) and L'Aquila (Italy) earthquakes. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 1–32, DOI: 10.1007/s10518-015-9761-y.

37.

Kwasinski

Weaver

W. W.

Chapman

P. L.

and Krein

P. T.

2009. Telecommunications power plant damage assessment for Hurricane Katrina–site survey and follow-up results, IEEE Systems Journal 3, 277–287.

38.

Lian

and Haimes

Y. Y.

2006. Managing the risk of terrorism to interdependent infrastructure systems through the dynamic inoperability input-output model, Systems Engineering 9, 241–258.

39.

Luiijf

Burger

Klaver

and Marieke

2003. Critical infrastructure protection in the Netherlands: A Quick-scan, in EICAR Best Paper Proc. ( Gattiker

U.E.

, editor), EICAR, Denmark.

40.

Massie

and Watson

N. R.

2011. Impact of the Christchurch earthquakes on the electrical power system infrastructure, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 44, 425–430.

41.

McDaniels

Chang

Peterson

Mikawoz

and Reed

2007. Empirical framework for characterizing infrastructure failure interdependencies, Journal of Infrastructure Systems 13, 175–184.

42.

McLean

Oughton

Ellis

Wakelin

and Rubin

C. B.

2012. Review of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Response to the 22 February Christchurch Earthquake, Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management, Wellington, New Zealand.

43.

Mendonça

and Wallace

W. A.

2006. Impacts of the 2001 World Trade Center attack on New York city critical infrastructures, Journal of Infrastructure Systems 12, 260–270.

44.

Mowll

2012. Lifeline Utilities Restoration Times for Metropolitan Wellington Following a Wellington Fault Earthquake, Wellington Lifelines Group, Wellington, New Zealand.

45.

New Zealand Press Association (NZPA), 2011. People urged to restrict cell phone use, New Zealand Herald, 23 February 2011, Auckland, New Zealand.

46.

Nojima

and Kato

2013. Application of an assessment model of post-earthquake lifeline serviceability to recent earthquakes in Japan, International Efforts in Lifeline Earthquake Engineering 38, 11.

47.

Ouyang

2014. Review on modeling and simulation of interdependent critical infrastructure systems, Reliability Engineering and System Safety 121, 43–60.

48.

Park

Nojima

and Reed

D. A.

2006. Nisqually earthquake electric utility analysis, Earthquake Spectra 22, 491–509.

49.

Parker

and Steenkamp

2012. The economic impact of the Canterbury earthquakes, Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bulletin 75, 13–25.

50.

Pederson

Dudenhoeffer

Hartley

and Permann

2006. Critical Infrastructure Interdependency Modeling: A Survey of U.S. and International Research, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID.

51.

Prezelj

and Žiberna

2013. Consequence-, time-and interdependency- based risk assessment in the field of critical infrastructure, Risk Management 15, 100–131.

52.

Radio New Zealand, 2011. Long wait for some without power, water, Radio New Zealand Online, Wellington, New Zealand.

53.

Rahman

H. A.

Beznosov

and Martí

J. R.

2009. Identification of sources of failures and their propagation in critical infrastructures from 12 years of public failure reports, International Journal of Critical Infrastructures 5, 220–244.

54.

Reed

D. A.

Kapur

K. C.

and Christie

R. D.

2009. Methodology for assessing the resilience of networked infrastructure, IEEE Systems Journal 3, 174–180.

55.

Rinaldi

S. M.

Peerenboom

J. P.

and Kelly

T. K.

2001. Identifying, understanding, and analyzing critical infrastructure interdependencies, IEEE Control Systems Magazine 21, 11–25.

56.

Rong

Han

and Liu

2010. Critical infrastructure failure interdependencies in the 2008 Chinese winter storms, 2010 International Conference on Management and Service Science, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Wuhan, China.

57.

Santos

J. R.

and Haimes

Y. Y.

2004. Modeling the demand reduction input- output (I-O) inoperability due to terrorism of interconnected infrastructures, Risk Analysis 24, 1437–1451.

58.

Satumtira

and Dueñas-Osorio

2010. Synthesis of modeling and simulation methods on critical infrastructure interdependencies research, in Sustainable and Resilient Critical Infrastructure Systems ( Gopalakrishnan

and Peeta

, editors), 1–51.

59.

Setola

and De Porcellinis

2008. A methodology to estimate input-output inoperability model parameters, in Critical Information Infrastructures Security (CRITIS 2007) ( Lopez

and Hämmerli

B. M.

, editors), 5141, Málaga, Spain, 149–160.

60.

Setola

De Porcellinis

and Sforna

2009. Critical infrastructure dependency assessment using the input-output inoperability model, International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection 2, 170–178.

61.

Stedman

2011. New Zealand: Christchurch Earthquake Wrecks City Water and Sanitation, Water21 - International Water Association, IWA Publishing, London, UK.

62.

Stevenson

J. R.

Kachali

Whitman

Seville

Vargo

and Wilson

2011. Preliminary observations of the impacts the 22 February Christchurch earthquake had on organisations and the economy: a report from the field (22 February–22 March 2011), Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 44, 65.

63.

Tang

Kwasinski

Eidinger

Foster

and Anderson

2014. Telecommunication systems’ performance: Christchurch earthquakes, Earthquake Spectra 30, 231–252.

64.

Telecommunications Emergency Forum, 2012. Telecommunications: Promoting awareness of the implications of a Wellington Earthquake, Wellington Lifelines Group, Wellington, New Zealand.

65.

Transpower, 2011a. 4 September 2010 Darfield Earthquake Key Findings and Lessons Learned, Transpower NZ Ltd., New Zealand.

66.

Transpower, 2011b. 22 February 2011 Christchurch Earthquake Key Findings and Lessons Learned, Transpower NZ Ltd., New Zealand

67.

van Eeten

Nieuwenhuijs

Luiijf

Klaver

and Cruz

2011. The State and the threat of cascading failure across critical infrastructures: The implications of empirical evidence from media incident reports, Public Administration 89, 381–400.

68.

Vodafone, 2011. Press Release: Christchurch Earthquake - 12.00pm Friday 25 February 2011, Scoop, Wellington, New Zealand.

69.

Watson

N. R.

2010. Impact of the Darfield earthquake on the electrical power system infrastructure, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 43, 421.

70.

Zimmerman

2004. Decision-making and the vulnerability of interdependent critical infrastructure, 2004 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 5, 4059–4063.

71.

Zorn

C. R.

and Shamseldin

A. Y.

2015a. Dimensions of wastewater system recovery following earthquake events, Journal of Infrastructure Systems, in press, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000327.

72.

Zorn

C. R.

and Shamseldin

A. Y.

2015b. Post-disaster infrastructure restoration: A comparison of events for future planning, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 13, 158–166.