The 3rd International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Disaster Mitigation 2016 (ICEEDM-III 2016)

Development of Earthquake Risk Assessment Model for Roads in

Indonesia
Mona Foralisa Toyfura*, Krishna S. Pribadib, Sony S. Wibowoc, I Wayan Sengarac
a
Student of Civi l Engineering Doctoral Program Bandung Institute of Technology, Jl. Ganesha 10, Bandung, 40132 Indonesia
Lecturer of Civil Engineering Sriwijaya University, Jl Raya Palembang-Prabumulih KM 32 Inderalaya, Ogan Ilir South Sumatera, 30662 Indonesia
b
Professor of Civil Engineering Bandung Institute of Technology, Jl. Ganesha 10, Bandung, 40132 Indonesia
c
Associate Professor of Civil Engineering Bandung Institute of Technology, Jl. Ganesha 10, Bandung, 40132 Indonesia

Abstract
Indonesia is one of the countries that are exposed to various natural hazards, such as earthquake, landslide, flood,
volcanic eruptions, etc. Road infrastructure are frequently affected by those disasters. Losses due to disaster caused by
the damage of road infrastructure affect community activities and further impact the economic development of the
affected area. Assessing disaster risk of the road infrastructure is essential in order to provide adequate information for
decision makers at the national and local level in prioritizing mitigation works for the infrastructure. The objective of the
research is to develop an earthquake risk assessment tool for road links, in terms of road segments. The development of
the tool is based on the development of a road disaster risk index model, which consists of risk factors, component
factors and indicators. These model elements will be weighted based on a survey of experts and structured using
Analysis Hierarchy Process. Using this model, the risk level of each road segments within a road network can be
assessed and then plotted onto a road network map based on the risk level category. It is expected that with the risk level
information of the road segments within a road network, road improvement and maintenance programs can be developed
to better prioritize risk mitigation measures and hence improving the network level of service.
Keywords: Roads; Earthquake; Risk Assessment; Model.

1. INTRODUCTION

Indonesia is an archipelago consisting of more than 13,000 islands and located where three major global tectonic plates
(Indo-Australian, Eurasian and Pacific) meets. Accordingly, high seismic and volcanic activities can be found along the
plates’ boundaries [1] as well as within the interacting plates themselves. According to a 2005 study in Aceh [2], some
damages in parts of the road network in Banda Aceh and Meulaboh due to the 2004 Great Indian Ocean earthquake
generally occurred due to avalanche of embankment or landslides caused by ground shaking and lateral spreading, or
liquefaction of saturated sandy soil. The roads located in the coastal areas near the beach were generally damaged by the
peeling effect of the tsunami.

* Tel.: +62-81367659974
E-mail address: monatoyfur@gmail.com, mona.foralisa@students.itb.ac.id
 Bridges were destroyed and dislocated by the tsunami. If not damaged by the tsunami, damage to the bridge usually
occurred due to the landslide or lateral spreading or liquefaction occurring in the embankments of the bridge approach
structures. Damage may also be caused by the movement of the pier and the pier foundation failure due to sliding caused
by the earthquake and tsunami [2].

1.1. Background

Roads are expected to provide good service level to the traffic using them, in order to support human activities
through the movement of both vehicles, people and goods and services. Poor level of service due to poor road
performance affected by a disaster will disrupt or impair the flow of goods and services. Level of service indicates the
condition of a road section providing the service to the road users. Highway Capacity Manual (2010) distinguishes the
level of service in six levels, LOS A being the best service and LOS F being the worst service.
The road network must be reliable, and it should provide a safe and good service for the traffic and offer the users
alternatives routes, when some parts or segments of the system are not available due to road accidents, maintenance, or
natural disasters [3]. When a road segment is interrupted, it will affect other road segments or links that are part of the
road network system. Furthermore the whole road network and the wide area will be affected. Even if the flow of goods
and services is blocked only in a road segment, it will influence the whole economic activities in the affected areas.
Disaster risk management approach will be needed to reduce the impact of a disaster in terms of damage and losses to
roads and bridges. Seismic risk reduction for road system is an important part of the road management system in order to
ensure reliable road performance which will prevent the deterioration of road level of service due to earthquake. Since
damage and losses of road infrastructure caused by natural disaster in Indonesia are quite high, the Indonesian
government, in this case the Directorate General of Highway, Ministry of Public Works and Public Housing has recently
initiated the development of an integrated natural disaster management system for the overall road network. The
Directorate General of Highway is currently preparing some guidelines such as the Guideline for Disaster Emergency
Response for Roads and Bridges and Guideline on Natural Disaster Risk Analysis for Roads and Bridges. However, up
to now, the government has not allocated any specific funds and activities, either regularly or periodically, for risk
analysis and risk mitigation in the road sector.

The objective of this research is to develop a concept of an earthquake risk assessment model as a basis for a tool for
assessing earthquake risk level to road segments within the national road networks. The tool can be used as a decision
support system to prioritize risk mitigation programs for the national road network.

2. RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL

Risk can be defined as: the combination of the likelihood of an occurrence of a hazardous event and the severity of the
consequences (human, social and economic losses). Risk assessment aims to define a measure of the risk [3]. Risk
assessment itself is one of the stages within the disaster risk management processes. Risk analysis is part of the risk
assessment process that combines information on the quantities (including probability) of a hazard with information
describing the level of vulnerability of the various elements that are threatened, in order to understand the risk level of
the elements at risk in the form of the estimated level of losses that may occur as a result of a disaster, as well as an
overview of the degree of likelihood (risk). Risk analysis is conducted by identifying and analysing the hazards as well as
the vulnerabilities of the elements at risk.
Risk can be assessed using qualitative, semi-quantitative or quantitative methods [3, 4]. Qualitative risk assessment or
semi-quantitative risk assessment is usually done for a quick (rapid) risk analysis. Quantitative risk analysis is carried out
for more in-depth understanding of the risk, producing quantitative information of the level of potential damage and
losses that may be impacted by a certain hazard occurring in a certain time and place. Input and output of each risk
analysis method vary depending on the risk modelling used, objectives and types of output needed. Each type of model
also has its own advantages and disadvantages. In-depth quantitative risk analysis can be performed by applying advance
science and technology to provide a more detailed and accurate picture of the extent of damage and losses which can
then be used for better supporting decision making process.
 For earthquake disaster risk assessment, Davidson (1997) has proposed a semi-quantitative approach for assessing
urban earthquake risk, by introducing the urban earthquake disaster risk index (EDRI, based on the concept of hazard
(H), exposure (E), vulnerability (V), external context factors (C) and response capacity (R), as the main variables, and
giving a weight to each of these, as [5]:

EDRI= wHH+ wEE + wVV+ wCC+ wRR (1)

Where:
H = Hazard
E = Exposure
V = Vulnerability
C = External context
R = Emergency response & recovery capability
w = weighting factor

In general, risk assessment for roads can also be carried out by qualitative, semi-quantitative or quantitative methods.
Hosseini and Yaghoobi (2008) developed an EDRI model which is implemented for quick risk assessment of intercity
roads in Iran. There are two types of parameters used in calculating the risk in the model, one is related to seismic hazard
and vulnerability, and the other is related to transportation service [6]. In this research, this model is eventually used as
the basis for the proposed model for road links in Indonesia. Quantitative risk assessment model such as loss estimation
model needs extensive data and detailed technical information, which currently are not available in Indonesia. For
example, Luna et al. (2008) adopted HAZUS-MH methodology to estimate direct and indirect losses due to earthquake
damage for a series of earthquake scenarios. This method needs intensive information about hazard, soil conditions, and
transportation network inventories [7].

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1. Select risk assessment model

The initial step in this research is to select a risk assessment method suitable to be used for roads in Indonesia. Data
availability, ease of use and optimizing the use of the available secondary data being the main considerations in the
selection of the approach, the risk assessment model selected here is based on the model of Earthquake Disaster Risk
Index (EDRI) developed by Davidson (1997) [5].

3.2. Determine component of model

Based on the EDRI, the components of the risk assessment model consist of factors, factor components, and
indicators. In this model, factors are adopted from EDRI, and component factors and indicators are adopted from other
risk assessment models, including quantitative models such SRA (Seismic Risk Assessment) and loss estimation models.

3.3. Quantify the indicators

Each indicator in this model represents a parameter which characterize and influence the risk factors. Each indicator
is translated from real indicator or proxy indicator into an index value, ranging from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high). The
risk index is obtained by summing all the indicators, weighted according to their relative importance. The higher the risk
index means the higher the risk level of the analyzed element (road segment). The risk index is actually showing the
relative risk level of a certain analyzed road segment, compared with the other road segments. It does not actually shows
what is the nominal value of the risk (such as in terms of damage and losses values).
The next step is validation of model. This model will be validate on case study. Case study will be conduct on national
roads in West Coast of West Sumatera Province. These national roads are very vulnerable of earthquake hazard. When
West Sumatera earthquake disaster 2009, some national roads were interrupted caused by damage. Some road links are
also vulnerable of landslide and liquefaction hazard also.

4. ANALYSIS & DISCUSSIONS

Based on the analysis of various available models, the structure of the model is determined. Risk factors from EDRI
(Davidson, 1997) are retained for this model, while factor components and indicators are determined by analyzing
various parameters that influence the risk factors. Table 1 shows the structure of the model elements. In order to
determine the contribution of each element in the risk index, an analysis hierarchy process (AHP) is conducted to
determine the weight of all components. The higher weight means the higher the contribution of the element in the risk
index. The determination of the weights is conducted by analyzing the relative importance of each element to the other
elements, through a survey of a panel of experts, coming from. the Ministry of Transportation, Directorate General of
Highway and Institute of Road Research (both under the Ministry of Public Works and Public Housing), National
Development Planning Agency, Centre for Volcanology and Geological Hazard Mitigation (under the Ministry of
Energy and Mineral Resources), and National Agency for Disaster Management (BNPB).
Table 1. Factors, Factor Components, and Indicators
Factor’s Factor Factor Indicat
w Factors component’s components or’s w Indicators
w
wH1 wH11 Peak Ground Acceleration on road
Ground shaking link
wH12 Site classification
wH Hazards
wH2 wH21 Liquefaction susceptibility
Collateral
wH22 Landslide susceptibility
Hazards
wH23 Potential run up of tsunami
wE1 wE11 Length of Road link
Physical
wE12 Total length of bridges
Exposure wE2 wE21 Traffic volume
wE Population
wE22 Population
wE3 wE31 Gross Domestic Regional Product
Economic
on road area
wV1 wV11 Number of bridges on road link
wV12 Percentage of long span bridges on
road link
Physical
wV Vulnerability wV13 Bridge condition
Availability of alternatives
route/link
wV2 Economic wV21 Road functions in network
wC1 wC11 City function on economic
Economic
wC External Context development
wC2 Politic wC21 City function on politic
wR1 wR11 Institution preparedness for
Planning
emergency response & recovery
wR Emergency
wR2 wR21 Available resources
Response & Recovery Resources
wR22 Gross Domestic Regional Product
Capability
wR3 Access & wR31 Access and mobility of resources
Mobility
4.1. Hazard

Hazard represent the geophysical phenomena that serve as initiating events of an earthquake disaster. This risk factor
is represented by both ground shaking and its collateral hazards (i.e liquefaction, landslide and tsunami) [5]

4.1.1. Ground shaking

Ground shaking is the most important component of hazard because it is usually directly responsible for the majority
of the damage suffered in an earthquake, and most other collateral hazard types (i.e., liquefaction, landslide and tsunami)
require a sufficient level of ground shaking to trigger them. The characteristics of ground shaking that may be of interest
include the amplitude, frequency content, and duration. Amplitude can be assessed in terms of acceleration (e.g. peak
ground acceleration, PGA or spectral acceleration, Sa) or intensity (Modified Mercalli Intensity, MMI or Japan
Meteorological Agency, JMA). In this model, we use PGA value (obtained from a PSHA seismic hazard map) of area
where the road segment is located and also the site classifications [5], which is needed because the PGA is actually the
value of base rock acceleration. For example, for PGA < 0.1 g will be index as 1, indicates very low affect earthquake
disaster risk. PGA 0.3~0.4 g classified as high affect earthquake disaster risk. This classification considered damages
caused by earthquake disaster data and overlay with Indonesia’s Earthquake Hazard Map 2010. PGA value converted
into MMI scale used Wald (1999) [8]. In this study, we use 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years with T = 0
second.
The other indicator of ground shaking is site classification. site classification contribute to the risk because site
classification affect the amplification. Index value of this indicator follow the soil classification from the 1997 NEHRP
Provisions.

4.1.2. Collateral hazards

In the model, the selected collateral hazards that might occur after an earthquake are liquefaction, landslide, and
tsunami. These collateral hazards usually have a significant direct influence to damage mode of the roads and bridges in
a road network. The indicators are mainly based on the liquefaction and landslide susceptibility of the area and potential
run up level in case of tsunami generated by the earthquake.
Liquefaction indicator is identified from soil type, magnitudes, depth of ground water, and epicenter. The more
loose of soil type, higher magnitude, shallow of ground water and close of distance, the higher risk will be.
Landslide indicator is identified from slopes, daily rainfall, vegetation coverage, and drainage system around the
roads. Slopes, vegetation coverage, and drainage system are classified from Ministry of Public Works and Public
Housing regulation for earthquake disaster-prone areas. Daily rainfall will be classified from Meteorology, Climatology
and Geophysics Agency (BMKG).
Tsunami indicator is identified from the height of run up level. The higher run up level, will be the greater risk.

4.2. Exposure

Seismic exposure represents the extension, quantity, and quality of the various anthropic elements that make up the
territorial context (populations, building, infrastructures, etc.) whose conditions and operation could be damaged by a
seismic event.[3]. Exposure is a necessary component of the disaster risk. No matter how devastating hazard, without an
exposed population and infrastructure, there would be no damage or disruption, there would be no risk. The larger the
exposure, the risk would be greater [5]. The population is the main category at risk and the potential number of users and
the community who live around the roads are considered as a measure. The other factor components are physical and
economic exposure.
Physical exposure indicators are length of road link and total length of bridges in road link. The more length of road
link, the higher risk will be. The index of this indicator classified from distribution of shortest to longest road’s length in
Indonesia’s national roads, also the same process for the bridge.
Economic exposure indicator is Gross Domestic Product of area that road links. GDP is exposed by disaster. The
higher GDP, the greater risk will be. Area’s GDP will be compared to the average national areas’ GDP. The high income
area of GDP will be high exposed, the greater risk will be.
4.3. Vulnerability

The seismic vulnerability is defined as the propensity of an element, simple or complex, to suffer damage, collapse or
modification during a seismic event. The seismic vulnerability is an intrinsic characteristic of each construction; that is
independent of any kind of external factor. To define the vulnerability of road link, it should be considered that each
stretch could be composed by a series of components (bridge, embankments, trenches, tunnels, etc.). For example, the
vulnerability of bridge depends on the design criteria, construction type, the state of maintenance, and so on [3]. The
higher the vulnerability of the components, the risk would be greater.
Tung (2004) developed a methodology for vulnerability assessment for roads based on location, structure, age and
material criteria by comparing HAZUS, JICA, and RADIUS methodology. In the HAZUS method, roadways are
classified into major roads and urban roads [9].
In the model developed in this research, vulnerability factor consists of physical and economic vulnerability. Physical
vulnerability is indicated by the number of bridges on the assessed road link, how many of them are long span bridges,
bridge existing condition and availability of alternatives route/link indicators.
Economic vulnerability is assessed by the function of road in the network. The more important function of the road in
the network, the higher vulnerability will be. For example, the primary roads that connect industrial area, or commercial
area will be high vulnerable compare to secondary roads that connect rural areas which only have small amount of
economic activity.

4.4. External context

External context is included to describe how damage to an area affects a wider area. It incorporates the reality that,
depending on an area’s prominence on economics, transportation, politic, and culture, damage to certain area may have
more far-reaching effects than damage to others [6]. In the road risk assessment concept, it shows that how a link of road
in a road network will affect the whole network in the larger region around the road area. An area that is connected by a
link of road will be disrupted by the disaster which interrupt the connection if a road segment within the link is
interrupted. An area’s or a city’s external context rating indicates the degree to which economic losses, and disruption to
the transportation network, political processes, and social lives are potentially disrupted. The ripple effect may both (1)
increase the total impact by creating additional economic losses or disruption that would not occur if the area was not
completely isolated, and (2) redistribute any impact that may otherwise have been confined within the area region outside
the area or city. Areas or cities that have contribution for economic and politics will contribute higher risk than other
area without economic or politic activity or function.
Tsuciya et al [10] and Kajitani & Tatano [11] studied about economic losses in Japan caused by earthquake and
tsunami. In Indonesia, not many study have been conducted to assess the losses caused by earthquake disasters impacting
road links. The use of simple indicators for external context is considered, in this case the political and economic
functions of the city connected by the road link at risk. The more economic activities in an affected area, there will be
more areas around the affected area influenced by the disruption of the affected area. Increasing total impact would
increase the overall risk, but spreading out losses that otherwise would be concentrated within the area, may reduce the
overall risk. This study is very useful as the advance model for next quantitative model. Indonesia does not have
intensive data about losses, especially for roads. Although interruption of the roads influences development of affected
area, losses in roads caused by disaster are not estimated yet.

4.5. Emergency response & recovery capability

Emergency response and recovery capability describe how effectively and efficiently the Road Agency or the
government (regional and local) can respond to and recover from short- and long-term impact through formal, organized
activities that are performed either after the earthquake, or before the earthquake, but with the primary purpose of
improving post-earthquake activities. Emergency response and recovery planning depend on: pre-earthquake
organizational and operational planning, resources available post-earthquake (financial, equipment and facilities and
trained manpower, GDP), and mobility and access post-earthquake [6].
 Pre-earthquake organizational and operational planning describes how the Road Agency plan for emergency response
and recovery. The indicator identified from preparation of organizational and operational system, and coordination to
other agency. If the organization and operation system are well prepared, implemented and already simulated, it will
contribute lower risk.
Financial resources for recovery depends on annual budget from Ministry of Public Works and Public Housing also
from other party i.e National Agency for Disaster Management (BNPB). Equipment and other facilities are also become
an important indicator because they describe how well prepared the Road Agency for emergency response and recovery
when the disaster occur. The GDP contribution in this indicator is different from exposure factor. In this indicator, the
higher GDP will contribute lower risk. High GDP area will have better preparation, resources and facilities for
emergency response and recovery capability.
Mobility and access post-earthquake is important considering that roads will be interrupted if roads are damaged by
disaster. To restore roads function, mobility and access will play important role. The easier access to achieve the affected
road, it will contribute the lower risk. Access can be defined from distance and duration time from the resources will be
use to restore roads function.
The higher emergency response and recovery capability owned and prepared by the Road Agency and local
government, the lower the risk will be, as rapid recovery can be achieved better and economic activity can be restored
quickly, which will lower the economic losses due to the disruption of the road transportation.

5. CONCLUSIONS

In this study, risk assessment model is developed based on the model of Earthquake Disaster Risk Index by Davidson
(1997) and from Hosseini and Vayeghan (2008) which use also EDRI model for roads. The main factors considered in
this study are hazard, exposure, vulnerability, external context, and emergency response and recovery capability. Each
factor consists of factor components, and each factor components consists of indicator(s). Indicators are selected based
on how directly they influenced the risk. Each factor, factor component, and indicators will be weighted to describe how
they contribute to the risk.
This proposed model can be used by Road Agency to assess the risk by comparing the road links of their authorities.
The risks that the model describes the damages and losses that might occur if the disaster happens in ranks. It does not
actually shows what is the nominal value of the risk (such as in terms of damage and losses values).
For the next research, it will be very helpful if the intensive data of the roads and bridge already clustered in types of
roads and bridges. Quantitative model is suggested for next research.

REFERENCES

[1] Pribadi, KS., Sengara, IW., “Earthquake risk reduction in Indonesia”, Risk Returns, International Strategy for
Disaster Reduction, 2011, pp 50-53.
[2] Sengara IW., et al., “Preliminary assessment and field survey report of earthquake damage in Aceh Province”, 2005,
unpublished report, RCDM-ITB,Bandung.
[3] Cafiso S., “Assessment of Seismic Risk and reliability of road network”, 2010
[4] Coburn, A.,& Spence R., “Earthquake Protection”, 2002, John Wiley & Sons. West Sussex.
[5] Davidson, R., ‘An Urban Earthquake Disaster Risk Index’. The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Centre.
1997, Report no. 121. Stanford University, California.
[6] Hosseini M., and Vayeghan, FY., “A Risk Management Model for Inter-City Road Systems”, The 14th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2008, Beijing, China
[7] Luna, R., Hoffman D., and Lawrence WT., “Natural Hazards Review”, 2008, pp1-11
[8] Wald, DJ, et. Al., “Relationships between peak ground accelerations, peak ground velocity and modified
mercally intensity in California”, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 15, No.3 August 1999, pp 557-564.
[9] Tung, PT., “Road Vulnerability Assessment for Earthquakes”, 2004, International Institute for Geo-
Information Science & Earth Observation- Netherlands
[10] Tsuciya S., et.al., “Economic loss Assessment due to railroad and highway disruptions”, Economic
Systems Research Vol 19 No 2, June 2007, pp 147-162.
[11] Kajitani, Y., and Tatano, H., “Estimation of production capacity loss rate after the great east Japan
earthquake and tsunami in 2011”, Economic Systems Research Vol 26, No 1, 2014, pp 13-38.