Restoration of Bridge Networks After An Earthquake: Multicriteria Intervention Optimization

Restoration of Bridge Networks after an
Earthquake: Multicriteria Intervention

Optimization
Paolo Bocchini,a) and Dan M. Frangopol,a) M.EERI
This paper presents an optimization procedure for the restoration activities

associated with the bridges of a transportation network severely damaged by
an earthquake. The design variables are (i) the time intervals between the occur-
rence of the distress and the start of the interventions on each bridge of the
network; and (ii) the restoration pace of the interventions, which represents a
measure of the funding allocated to each bridge. The objectives of the optimiza-
tion are the maximization of the network resilience, the minimization of the time
required to reach a target functionality level, and the minimization of the total cost
of the restoration activities. Because the first two objectives clearly conflict with
the last one, the optimization procedure does not provide a unique solution, but an
entire set of Pareto solutions. A numerical example involving a complex, existing
transportation network in Santa Barbara, California, illustrates the capabilities of
the proposed methodology. [DOI: 10.1193/1.4000019]
INTRODUCTION
The problem addressed by the present study is the optimization of the restoration inter-
ventions on the bridges of a transportation network that has experienced a strong seismic
event. In fact, earthquakes—as well as such other natural and manmade extreme events
as hurricanes, floods, and large-scale terrorist attacks—can simultaneously affect several
or even all the bridges of a transportation network. In these cases, it is very likely that
the economic loss caused by the delays in the emergency response and the subsequent traffic
disruption is far more noteworthy than the direct losses due to the seismic distress. For this
reason, it is very important to have tools that can assist the decision makers in the process of
allocating funding and defining priorities in the restoration activities of damaged bridge
networks.
In recent years, the concept of resilience has arisen as one of the most popular topics
when dealing with this kind of problem. Bruneau et al. (2003) have defined resilience as
“the ability of social units (e.g., organizations, communities) to mitigate hazards, contain
the effects of disasters when they occur, and carry out recovery activities in ways that mini-
mize social disruption and mitigate the effects of future earthquakes.” Rose (2004) has col-
lected other definitions of resilience, and Bruneau et al. (2007) have applied the concept to a
multihazard framework. In the recent literature, several other studies deal with the concept of
resilience, its assessment, and its use. Without any claim of being exhaustive, a chronological
a)
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, ATLSS Engineering Research Center, Lehigh University,
117 ATLSS Drive, Bethlehem, PA, 18015-4729
427
Earthquake Spectra, Volume 28, No. 2, pages 427–455, May 2012; © 2012, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
428 P. BOCCHINI AND D. M. FRANGOPOL
list of some of the most prominent papers should include the works by Bruneau et al. (2003),
Rose and Liao (2005), Cimellaro et al. (2006), Çăgnan et al. (2006), Miles and Chang (2006),
Bruneau and Reinhorn (2007), Xu et al. (2007), Cimellaro et al. (2010), and Frangopol and
Bocchini (2011).
From an analytical point of view, resilience, R, can be defined as the normalized integral
over time of the network functionality, QðtÞ:
ðh
t 0 þt
QðtÞdt
t0
R¼
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e1;50;570 (1)
th
where t 0 is the time at which the extreme event occurs, and th is the investigated time horizon.
The definition of resilience index in Equation 1 is the latest evolution of a family of analytical
definitions broadly accepted by the scientific community. A comprehensive literature review
has been provided by Zhou et al. (2010), while Bocchini and Frangopol (2011a) discuss the
analytical definitions of resilience. Figure 1 shows the variation in time of the network func-
tionality QðtÞ; therefore the shaded area is the numerator of Equation 1, while the denomi-
nator represents the area of the rectangle with dashed edges ðt h ⋅ 100% ¼ th Þ. Hence, the
resilience index is nondimensional and takes values in the range [0%,100%].
With respect to previous techniques that have dealt with similar problems (e.g., Bocchini
and Frangopol 2012), several important and original developments are presented in this
paper. The first is the ability to handle complex networks, and not only individual segments
with bridges in series, parallel, or series-parallel configurations. Moreover, for this reason, all
the possible travel origins and destinations of the network are considered together, by means
of a comprehensive computational traffic analysis. Then, besides the maximization of resi-
lience and the minimization of the total restoration cost, a third objective is included in the
optimization problem; it consists in the minimization of the time required to restore the func-
tionality of the network to a target level. Finally, the possibility of adding constraints for
100%
Network functionality Q
50%
0%
t0 t0 th
Time t
Figure 1. Definition of resilience. Note that the restoration actions on some bridges can reduce
functionality; this explains the decreasing portions.
RESTORATION OF BRIDGE NETWORKS AFTER AN EARTHQUAKE 429
minimum functionality levels at predefined time instants has been implemented. All these
major developments increase the complexity of the problem, but they also greatly expand the
applicability of the technique to realistic scenarios, as the numerical application shows.
BRIDGE NETWORK MODEL

A bridge network is a transportation network in which the bridges are assumed to be the
only elements that can be affected by structural damage and can undergo repair interventions.
For this reason, a model that describes these networks must integrate the traditional concepts
and techniques of transportation engineering, with the effects due to the bridge structural
conditions and the repair interventions.
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK FUNCTIONALITY

The amount of vehicles that travel on each highway segment is computed solving the
so-called “traffic assignment and distribution” problem (e.g., McNally 2000). According to
graph theory (e.g., Gibbons 1985), every highway segment is represented by an edge, and
every intersection is represented by a node of the network. The nodes are also assumed to be
the elements of the network from which the travels are originated and to which they are
headed. The amount of travels from and to a node can be assessed by means of surveys
or with models based on the population density and on the urban characteristics of the
area. In this study, the survey data reported on the National Bridge Inventory (FHWA
2009) has been used to assess the travel generation and attraction capacity of the various
nodes of the network.
The theoretical background of the technique used for the assessment of the traffic flows
on each highway segment and the network performance has been developed by Evans (1976)
and the computational procedure has been described in detail by Bocchini and Frangopol
(2011b). This procedure is based on two main models: Wardrop’s user equilibrium
(Frank and Wolfe 1956, Lee and Machemehl 2005) and the gravitational model (Levinson
and Kumar 1994). The former model states that every traveler tends to choose the optimal
route according to the following principle: Travel times on all routes actually used are equal,
and less than those which would be experienced by a single vehicle on any unused route.
Moreover, Wardrop’s second principle states that the system is in optimal condition when the
total network travel time is a minimum (Wardrop 1952). The gravitational model, instead,
provides a realistic and widely accepted measure of the travel attraction between two nodes,
by defining it as inversely proportional to the time required to go from one node to another.
The travel origins and destinations have been computed using the combined traffic assign-
ment and distribution technique for the case when all the bridges are in service (i.e., before
the earthquake). After an extreme (seismic) event that has damaged the bridges of an area
heavily, the travelers will tend to adapt not only their routes, but also, within certain con-
straints, their destinations. This means that many travelers might prefer much closer destina-
tions, and therefore, despite the increased congestion and the necessary detours, they could
cover shorter distances and spend less time traveling. This, in turn, might appear as an
improvement in the performance of the transportation network when some bridges are
out of service. This effect would bias the results of the optimization. Therefore, to compute
a fair and unbiased metric of the network performance, the traffic flows are computed as if
the traffic origins and destinations were constant, even after the earthquake. Similarly,
immediately after an extreme event, the travelers’ choices might be chaotic, and it is not
guaranteed that the user equilibrium is achieved. Nevertheless, also in this case, to have
fair comparison of the network performance levels, it is assumed that all the normal assump-
tions used for the reference network performance (i.e., before the earthquake) are valid also
after the extreme event. These assumptions (i.e., constant origins and destinations; user equi-
librium after the earthquake) can be removed if the main purpose of the analysis is an assess-
ment of the post-event network condition. In this paper, the focus is on the recovery strategy
optimization; hence it is more important to have unbiased performance metrics for fair strat-
egy comparisons.
Therefore, depending on the bridge damage levels and the bridge restoration activities in
progress, the traffic flows on the highway segments are assessed and the network perfor-
mance indicator is estimated as:
1
ΓðtÞ ¼ (2)
γ T ⋅ TTTðtÞ þ γ D ⋅ TTDðtÞ
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e2;50;497
where
XX
T TTðtÞ ¼
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e3;50;440 fij ðtÞ ⋅ cij ð fij Þ (3)
i∈I j∈J
XX X
T TDðtÞ ¼
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e4;50;391 fij ðtÞ ⋅ d ij þ fij ⋅ sb;ij ⋅ d db (4)
i∈I j∈J b∈ij
TTTðtÞ is the total travel time (i.e., the sum of the time spent by all the users of the network to
reach their destinations, considering the travels that start in one hour); similarly, TTDðtÞ is
the total travel distance; γ T is a balancing factor (cost) associated with the time spent by the
network users; γ D is a similar factor associated with the distance traveled; i is the set of nodes
of the network; j is the subset of nodes connected to node i; f ij ðtÞ is the traffic flow (number of
car-equivalent vehicles per unit time) transiting over the highway segment between nodes i
and j, as computed by the technique mentioned previously; cij ðf ij Þ is the time required to
cover the highway segment i–j with traffic flow f ij ðtÞ; d ij is the length of highway segment
i–j, index b runs over the bridges associate with segment i–j, sb;ij is the ratio of travelers that
have to take a detour to bypass bridge b, and ddb is the detour length provided by the National
Bridge Inventory (FHWA 2009).
Equations 2–4 can be used to assess the network performance also in the special cases
where all the bridges are in service ðΓ100 Þ and all are out of service ðΓ0 Þ. With these two
definitions, the network performance can be normalized and the network functionality, QðtÞ,
is computed as:
ΓðtÞ − Γ0
QðtÞ ¼ (5)
Γ100 − Γ0
Since Γ0 and Γ100 represent the worst and the best cases, respectively, the values of QðtÞ
provided by Equation 5 are in the range [0%,100%], as customary in the literature.
This estimation of the functionality takes simultaneously into account all the traffic flows
of any complex network.
BRIDGE–NETWORK INTERACTION
The time required to cover a highway segment clearly depends on the conditions of the
bridges by which it is carried and crossed. When a bridge is closed, the users will be forced to
bypass it, taking a detour route. Even if the bridge is open, the presence of works in progress
or minor damages can limit its flow capacity, leading part of the vehicles to detours.
A scheme of these interactions between the bridge conditions and their effects on the trans-
portation network is presented in Table 1, for the cases of carrying bridges and crossing
bridges. The damage level, lb , of bridge b is a real valued variable in the interval [0,4],
with 0 and 4 representing no damage and total bridge collapse, respectively. This scale
and the definition of the three intermediate damage states (corresponding to lb ¼ 1; 2; 3)
are derived by the software HAZUS (DHS 2009), a standard in the field of large-scale hazard
loss estimation.
The proposed technique accounts for two types of detours. The first and most important
type of detour takes place within the network. Due to the limited traffic flow capacity of some
bridges and, in turn, of some road segments, part of the users will choose different routes
within the network. This is modeled using accurate algorithms from transportation engineer-
ing mentioned in the previous section. The analyst can include in the network model all the
important road segments that he wants to be analyzed by this comprehensive model, which
also includes the nonlinear effects due to simultaneous damage of multiple bridges. The sec-
ond type of detours accounts for the vehicles that leave the main transportation network
and use the secondary roads that the analyst has chosen not to include in the network
model. For these secondary routes, a simplified model that does not account for the super-
position of multiple failures has been developed. In fact, it is assumed that each local sec-
ondary route can be affected only by one bridge. However, even this simplified model
accounts for the nonlinear relationship between the traffic flow and the travel time, and inter-
acts with the more complex network model, as described in the following.
Table 1. Bridge impact to the traffic on the carried and crossed road segments
Bridge state with

Works in respect to carried Bridge state with respect
Damage level progress roads to crossed roads
2 ≤ lb ≤ 4 Yes Out of service Dangerous or collapsed
2 ≤ lb ≤ 4 No Out of service Dangerous or collapsed
1 ≤ lb < 2 Yes Out of service Not dangerous, but works
require restrictions
1 ≤ lb < 2 No Partially in service Not dangerous
0 ≤ lb < 1 Yes Partially in service Not dangerous
0 ≤ lb < 1 No In service Not dangerous
From a quantitative point of view, the time to cover the highway segment that includes
bridges partially or totally out of service, for which local secondary detour routes are avail-
able, is given by (Bureau of Public Roads 1964):
β
fij
cij ¼ ceij 1þα (6)
fije
where (Bocchini and Frangopol 2012)

X
ceij ¼ c0ij þ
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e7;50;550 sb;ij ⋅ cdb (7)
b∈ij
2 31
ceij β
6 X β 7
f eij ¼4 sb;ij 5 c0ij (8)
þ s ⋅ c d
ð fijc Þβ b;ij b
f db b∈ij
where cij is the time to cover the highway segment i–j; ceij is the “equivalent” time to cover the
highway segment; fij is the traffic flow on the highway segment in the direction i–j, expressed
in car-equivalents per unit time; α and β are parameters, usually set equal to 0.15 and 4.0,
respectively (Martin et al. 1998, p. 94); fije is the “equivalent practical capacity”; c0ij is the time
to cover i–j at free flow; fijc is the critical flow at which the congestion starts to affect the
traffic heavily (called “practical capacity”); index b runs over the bridges related to (i.e.,
carrying or crossing) the highway segment i–j; cdb is the minimum time required by the detour
route of bridge b; f db is the average practical capacity of the detour route for bridge b; sb;ij is
a measure of the entity of the impact of bridge b on segment i − j, given in Table 2 as
a function of the bridge damage level lb and of the works in progress. The variables ceij
and fije are those that take into account the effects of the bridge conditions. The values of
cdb and f db are characteristics of the bridge location and they depend on the local detour routes
that can be used to bypass bridge b and on the distance between the various exits on the
highway segment, which influence the length of the detour. The limit case of a certain bridge
with no available detour routes can be obtained in this model by setting f db ¼ 0. Otherwise,
the detour length (and, in turn, the time) for every bridge is provided by the National Bridge
Inventory (FHWA 2009), while the flow capacity f db can be assessed looking at the capacity
of the surrounding secondary routes.
The values in Table 2 reflect the fact that the reduction of the traffic flow capacity results
from the closure of a discrete number of lanes. In particular, the most common and average
restriction of the flow capacity due to maintenance and rehabilitation interventions on bridges
consists in closing half of the lanes. If more accurate data on the predicted traffic flow reduc-
tion are available, they can be used in place of the coefficients in Table 2. Unfortunately,
these data are usually unavailable in practice, and the values in Table 2 are proposed as
reasonable assessments based on engineering judgment.
Equation 6 provides the link between the bridge conditions and the network functionality.
Table 2. Bridge impact to the traffic. Summary of the four possible states for a bridge
Case number Damage level Works in progress sb;ij carried sb;ij crossed
1 2 ≤ lb ≤4 Any 1 1
2 1 ≤ lb ≤2 Yes 1 0.5

1 ≤ lb <2 No
3 0.5 0
0 ≤ lb <1 Yes
4 0 ≤ lb <1 No 0 0
INTERSECTION MODEL
Figure 2a shows the simplest and most common way to describe an intersection accord-
ing to graph theory. A node is placed at the intersection of the road segments, and each flow
direction is described by an oriented edge. Therefore, the intersection of two streets is
described by one node and eight edges.
However, this model is not always flexible enough to describe a highway bridge network.
In fact, many times, bridges and ramps are at the intersection. The model in Figure 2a clearly
cannot describe this condition, since the whole intersection is described by a single node. The
more complex model in Figure 2b, instead, expands the intersection and adds an edge for
each traffic flow direction inside the intersection. All these additional edges are assumed to
have infinite capacity and zero-length; therefore, they do not add travel time and distance.
However, they can be used to correctly locate the bridges. This kind of model requires also
the addition of a “dummy destination” node that attracts all the travels that end at the inter-
section and that is connected to all the incoming edges by other dummy (dashed in the figure)
zero-length, infinite-capacity edges. Similarly, a “dummy origin” node and the relative
dummy edges must be added.
dummy origin dummy destination
(a) ( b)
Figure 2. Intersection models: (a) Simplest intersection model, compatible with graph theory;
(b) intersection model used in the present study.
As a result, the intersection of two highway segments with the model in Figure 2b is
described by 10 nodes and 28 edges. This obviously increases the computational complexity
of the problem, but it is the only way to accurately and realistically model the presence and
the effects of bridges located at the intersections. Since the focus of the proposed methodol-
ogy is on the impact of bridge rehabilitation, this more accurate model is deemed to be
necessary.
The construction of such a model by hand can be time-consuming and can lead to numer-
ous errors. For this reason, an automated numerical tool has been developed that takes as
input a transportation network described as in Figure 2a, expands the selected intersections
using the model in Figure 2b and plots the new layouts of the overall network and of the
expanded intersections with the new numbering of edges and nodes. This greatly speeds up
and makes more reliable the input phase. However, a detailed description of this numerical
tool is beyond the focus of the present paper.
COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY
In computational complexity theory, several problems associated with networks are
known to belong to the class “nondeterministic polynomial time hard” (NP-hard). For
instance, the exact computation of the network reliability in the case in which any link
can be in two states (in service/out of service) with a certain probability belongs to this
class (Ball 1980, Konak et al. 2004).
The problem addressed in this study involves even more combinations. In fact, every
bridge can be in four different states, as Table 2 shows. Therefore, depending on the number
of bridges by which it is carried or crossed, every road segment can be in several states. For
instance, for a very simple, rectangular-shaped network with four nodes, four road segments,
and three bridges that carry each highway segment, there are more than 16 million different
possible scenarios. In fact, in general, the number of different possible combinations is given
by 4N , where N is the number of bridges. This number can be reduced if for some of the
bridges the initial damage level is lower than 2 and if some of the bridges either only carry, or
only cross segments of the analyzed roads. Nevertheless, for practical applications, the
assessment of the network performance for all the possible configurations is not feasible.
However, for the problem at hand, the objective function is usually smooth and char-
acterized by very few (if any) local minima, hence the convergence of the optimization pro-
cedure is relatively quick. The sensitivity analysis presented at the end of the numerical
application will clarify this concept. Therefore, the proposed methodology needs to assess
the network performance only for a limited subset of scenarios, so keeping the overall com-
putational cost affordable.
BRIDGE RESTORATION: EFFECTS AND COSTS

The restoration interventions that are applied to the bridges are assumed to linearly reduce
the bridge damage level, as Figure 3 shows. Different (nonlinear) models can be easily con-
sidered within the proposed framework. However, due to the limited information on the
actual restoration process, a linear model seems the most reasonable assumption. Moreover,
a deviation from linear for the recovery processes of the individual bridges is not likely to
Figure 3. Bridge restoration model. The idle time between the damage occurrence and the start
of the restoration (δb ) and the pace of the restoration interventions (θb ) are the design variables of
the problem.
change significantly the profile of the overall network recovery and, in turn, the results of the
optimization.
A sudden damage caused by an earthquake brings the bridge damage level to the value l0b ,
which is assumed to be roughly assessed by surveys, visual inspections, and, when possible,
structural tests.
Since it might be inconvenient (and not possible) to start the restoration works on all the
bridges of the network immediately after the damage occurrence ðt 0 Þ, the parameter δb
describes the time delay between t 0 and the actual start of the restoration intervention. In
Figure 3, this time frame is described by the horizontal segment with constant damage level.
It is assumed that by means of more investments, it is possible to increase the pace of the
restoration. For instance, this can be achieved by means of more workers, longer shifts, and
renting pieces of land close to the bridge to facilitate the operations. The slope of the linear
damage reduction in Figure 3 is given by the parameter θb , which is a real valued variable
in the interval ½θmin; θmax . In fact, it is assumed that the restoration pace cannot be increased,
by any means, beyond a certain value ðθmax Þ and that too-slow restorations ðθb < θmin Þ are
neither realistic, nor convenient. Specific values of θmin and θmax can be selected for each
individual bridge, depending on the specific type of bridge and damage. However, this level
of detail in the model requires information that is usually unavailable in practice. Therefore,
in the reminder of the paper, the case in which the values of θmin and θmax are the same for all
the bridges will be considered.
In summary, for each bridge b of the network, the effects of the restoration are governed
by the two parameters δb and θb , which are the design variables of the optimization problem
that will be formulated.
The costs of the restoration are functions of δb and θb as well. In fact, the value of θb
indirectly represents the amount of funding that is invested in the restoration. The value of δb ,
instead, affects the time of the investments, and therefore, if the discount rate of money is not
null, it changes the total present cost, C.
The formula that is used to compute the total cost is
2e 3
ð
tb
X 6 kb ⋅ tanðθb Þ 7
N
C¼ 4 dt 5 (9)
ð1 þ rÞt
b¼1
t sb
being
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e10;50;506 tsb ¼ t 0 þ δb (10)
l0b
t eb ¼ t 0 þ δb þ (11)
tanðθb Þ
where C is the total present cost; subscript b runs over the N bridges; r is the discount rate of
money; t is the time (in years); tsb is the time at which restoration starts on bridge b; t eb is the
time at which restoration ends on bridge b; and kb is a parameter that depends on the bridge
structure and damage types. A possible way to assess the value of kb makes use of the data of
the software HAZUS (DHS 2009). In fact, this database provides for every bridge the total
restoration cost. Disregarding the effect of the discount rate of money ðr ¼ 0Þ and using
Equations 9–11 and Figure 3, it can be obtained that the total restoration ðl0b ¼ 4Þ cost of
a bridge is
l0b
Total Restoration Cost ¼ k b ⋅ tanðθb Þ ⋅ (12)
tanðθb Þ
that yields
Total Restoration Cost
kb ¼
4
PROBLEM FORMULATION
The main goal of the proposed procedure is to find the optimal restoration planning and
resource allocation in terms of network resilience, functionality, and cost. The problem is
formulated as a multiobjective optimization that results in the computation of the Pareto
front of optimal solutions. A solution is said to be Pareto optimal if there is no other solution
that can yield a better result for one of the objectives without worsening the result for at least
one of the other objective functions.
The objectives considered herein are: (i) the maximization of the total network resilience,
R, as defined by Equation 1; (ii) the minimization of the time interval, T, required to reach a
fixed satisfactory functionality level, Q; and (iii) the minimization of the total present cost, C,
as computed by Equation 9. The design variables are: (i) the idle time, δb , for each bridge b
between the occurrence of the earthquake and the start of the restoration interventions; and
(ii) the restoration intervention pace, θb , for each bridge b, that in turn determines also the
amount of funding invested on that restoration.
The admissible solutions have to satisfy four types of constraints. The domain of the
design variables δb is ½0; t h , where t h is the time horizon of the analysis, and t0 ¼ 0 is
the time of occurrence of the earthquake. The domain of the design variables θb is
½θmin; θmax , for the reasons mentioned previously. The third type of constraints is the
most complex and restrictive one. It requires that at fixed time instants ðt Th Þ, the functionality
of the network has reached a target value, QTh . In general, H constraints of this type can be
imposed, defining a sort of minimum functionality evolution profile (see Bocchini and
Frangopol 2011a). The last constraint is a maximum value, Cmax , for the available budget.
Therefore, the total number of constraints is 2N þ H þ 1.
In summary, the formulation of the optimization problem is
Find:
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e14;71;450 δb ; θb ; ∀b ¼ 1; 2; : : : ; N (14)
so that
R ¼ maximum
T ¼ minimum
C ¼ minimum
subject to the constraints

EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e18;71;309 0 ≤ δb ≤ th ∀b ¼ 1; 2; : : : ; N (18)
EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e19;71;277 θmin ≤ θb ≤ θmax ∀b ¼ 1; 2; : : : ; N (19)

EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e20;71;250 Q tTh ≥ QTh ∀h ¼ 1; 2; : : : ; H (20)
C ≤ C max
Decision makers will eventually choose among the resulting Pareto front of optimal solu-
tions the most convenient one, depending on economic and engineering judgment.
SOLUTION PROCEDURE
The schematic flowchart of the proposed procedure is presented in Figure 4, while
Figure 5 illustrates in detail the objective function.
The first required input data consists in the topology and characteristics of the transporta-
tion network. First, the nodal coordinates in terms of latitude and longitude are collected.
Road
Nodes Bridges
segments Parameters
input data input data
input data
Preprocessor expands
intersections with bridges
Solution Procedure
Compute Γ 100 Compute Γ 0

by traffic flow analysis by traffic flow analysis
Multi-objective Genetic Algorithms
GAs operations
(ranking, selection, crossover, mutation)
Fitness function
See blow up
in Figure 5
Pareto front of optimal solutions
Figure 4. Main flow chart of the proposed technique.
Then, the nodes description requires also their capacity to attract and generate travels. This
can be estimated by trial and error, aiming at reproducing with the previously described traf-
fic assignment and distribution technique the flows on the various bridges as provided by the
National Bridge Inventory (FHWA 2009).
The description of the road segments requires the origin ðiÞ and destination ðjÞ nodes, the
travel time at free flow ðc0ij Þ, the practical capacity ðf cij Þ, and the length ðd ij Þ. The values of c0ij
and dij can be easily assessed by means of various readily available internet services and
computer programs, such as Google Earth (Google, Inc. 2010). The practical capacity f cij
can be roughly estimated as 2,000 car-equivalent vehicles per hour per lane, as assessed
with independent computations by Liu and Frangopol (2006b) and later by Bocchini and
Frangopol (2010).
Figure 5. Flow chart of the objective function.
As already mentioned, in order to expand the nodes that have bridges at the intersection, a
preprocessing tool takes as input these data on nodes and edges and adds all the required
dummy nodes and edges, each one with the relative attributes.
The bridges of the network must be described with a series of properties. The first one is
their location, defined as the list of the road segments that they carry (they can be two if the
bridge carries both traffic directions, or even more if it is an important ramp in a complex
intersection) and of those that they cross (also in this case, for complex intersections they can
be several). Next, the basic detour distance ðd db Þ and time ðcdb Þ can be assessed using the
information provided by the National Bridge Inventory (FHWA 2009). The detour route
practical capacity ðf db Þ is assessed again using the 2,000 car-equivalent vehicles per hour
per lane value and estimating the average number of lanes of the detour route. The value
of kb is provided by Equation 13. Finally, after a real earthquake, the initial damage
level ðl0b Þ is assessed by means of surveys, inspections, and tests. Instead, if the analysis
is performed before the occurrence of an earthquake, to predict the resilience of a network,
the seismic damage is computed by simulation. For instance, the value of l0b can be assessed
performing a network-scale seismic fragility analysis by means of the computer program
HAZUS (DHS 2009). For a given earthquake scenario, HAZUS provides the probability
of being in five damage states (no damage, minor damage, moderate damage, major damage,
and collapse) for each bridge in the investigated region. Assuming that the five damage states
are equispaced in the [0,4] damage domain, the expected value of the damage is given by
l0b ¼ 0 ⋅ Pðno damageÞ þ 1 ⋅ Pðminor damageÞ

þ 2 ⋅ Pðmoderate damageÞ þ 3 ⋅ Pðmajor damageÞ þ 4 ⋅ PðcollapseÞ (22)
where P(·) denotes the probability of bridge b being in a certain damage state, as computed
by HAZUS.
In addition, the input consists of various parameters. They are the number of time steps used
for the analysis, the time horizon ðt h Þ, the time and distance balancing factors (γ T and γ D ), the
annual discount rate of money ðrÞ, the minimum and maximum restoration pace (θmin and θmax ),
the minimum values for the network functionality ðQTh Þ and the times at which they must be
attained ðt Th Þ, the maximum total present cost ðCmax Þ, the target functionality level ðQÞ, besides
some other parameters useful for the numerical solution, such as the convergence tolerance.
With these input data, the procedure is able to compute, once and for all, the values of the
network performance in the cases where all the bridges are in service ðΓ100 Þ and all are out of
service ðΓ0 Þ. These two values are stored to be the first seed of the bookkeeping technique.
In fact, all along the optimization procedure, it will be necessary to compute the network
performance for various combinations of the bridge service states. In order to avoid comput-
ing multiple times, the performance relative to a certain combination, the values of Γ are
stored all along the procedure, together with the relative bridge states combination. Then,
every time the procedure requires the computing of a value of Γ, first the automatic procedure
checks whether it has already been computed and, in this case, it just retrieves it. Otherwise,
Γ is computed using the previously described network analysis technique and then stored in
the bookkeeping array.
The optimization process is then performed by means of multiobjective genetic algo-
rithms (GAs). In particular, a modified version of the NSGA-II algorithm (Deb 2001,
Deb et al. 2002) provided by the software package MATLAB (The MathWorks, Inc.
2009) has been used in this study. GAs are a heuristic optimization tool, based on the con-
cepts of biologic evolution theory and survival of the fittest. A detailed description of GAs’
theoretical aspects and of their numerical implementation has been provided by Goldberg
(1989). For the purposes of this paper, it is worth mentioning only that for the numerical
example, the 80% of new generation individuals was obtained by pure scattered crossover,
to the residual 20% was applied adaptive feasible mutation, and that the selection of the
parent individuals relied on the “tournament” technique. More details on these algorithms
can be found in the MATLAB user manual (The MathWorks, Inc. 2009).
The GAs solution technique consists in the repeated evaluation of the objectives for dif-
ferent values of the design variables. Therefore, the core of the procedure is the objective
function. The first task performed by the objective function is to discretize the analyzed time
horizon in a limited number of time steps (e.g., if the time horizon is two years, the discre-
tization could consist of one initial time instant at t ¼ 0 and 24 time instants at the end of each
month). At every time step, the procedure computes the damage level of the various bridges,
according to the model in Figure 3; the presence of works in progress on the various bridges;
and, in conclusion, all the bridge states according to Table 2.
Then, the procedure computes the total present cost of the interventions, C, using Equa-
tion 9. If the cost is larger than C max , the design variables are not compatible with the con-
straints and therefore the design point is discarded. The way this is numerically done is by
assigning an extremely low value to R. Therefore, the design point will certainly not belong to
the optimal front, but the information on the cost is preserved and can be used by GAs to
choose which design points are evaluated in the subsequent “generations.”
Otherwise, the objective function verifies the compliance with the other constraints. In
particular, it evaluates Q at the H time steps t Th and checks whether Qðt Th Þ ≥ QTh for every
constraint h. If any one of the H constraints of this type is not satisfied, the procedure discards
the design point, using a numerically convenient workaround similar to the previous one.
If all the constraints are satisfied, the objective function computes the value of the func-
tionality, QðtÞ, at all the time steps. It should be noticed that for this task, the procedure takes
great advantage of the bookkeeping technique. At the end of the numerical example, for
instance, less than one third of the network analyses were actually carried out, while in
more than two thirds of the cases, the results were just retrieved.
With the variation of the functionality in time, QðtÞ, it is straightforward to compute the
time required to reach the target functionality, Q (i.e., objective T), and the total resilience, R,
using Equation 1.
The output of the objective function, therefore, consists of the three objectives: cost, C,
time, T, resilience, R. GAs will then continue the optimization procedure and eventually they
will provide the Pareto front of optimal solutions in terms of C, T, R, and the associated sets
of design variables δb , θb .
NUMERICAL EXAMPLE
The described computational procedure is applied to a transportation network in the area
of Santa Barbara (CA), subject to a strong earthquake.
The physical network consists of a western “branched” part and an eastern “looped”
portion which can be described by a total of 11 nodes and 28 road segments. After the expan-
sion of the most complex intersections, which also involve bridges, the number of nodes
raises to 48 and the number of edges to 98. The number of bridges that carry and/or
cross the roads of the network is N ¼ 38, and their characteristics are collected in Table 3.
In the literature, there are papers that analyze extremely large transportation networks,
Table 3. Main characteristics of the network bridges
Bridge Kb cdb ddb l0b

(see Figure 6) [M$] [min] [km] [0,4]
1 0.555 9.0 6 2.524
2 0.796 7.5 5 2.524
3 0.606 0.0 0 3.582
4 0.850 3.0 2 2.149
5 1.162 3.0 2 2.446
6 0.770 7.5 5 2.456
7 0.247 4.5 3 2.818
8 0.918 7.5 5 2.524
9 1.050 7.5 5 3.582
10 0.845 3.0 2 3.04
11 0.482 3.0 2 3.04
12 0.482 3.0 2 2.526
13 0.224 3.0 2 2.404
14 0.263 3.0 2 2.404
15 0.997 4.5 3 3.414
16 0.747 6.0 4 3.414
17 0.787 7.5 5 1.988
18 0.296 4.5 3 1.988
19 0.310 3.0 2 2.406
20 0.304 3.0 2 2.158
21 0.304 3.0 2 2.158
22 0.749 3.0 2 2.564
23 0.337 3.0 2 2.403
24 0.337 3.0 2 2.39
25 0.335 3.0 2 2.39
26 0.335 0.0 0 2.54
27 0.110 3.0 2 2.54
28 0.110 3.0 2 2.025
29 0.104 3.0 2 2.025
30 0.108 3.0 2 1.959
31 0.408 3.0 2 1.959
32 0.262 3.0 2 1.945
33 0.247 3.0 2 1.945
34 0.247 3.0 2 2.678
35 0.877 3.0 2 1.985
36 0.843 3.0 2 1.985
37 0.359 3.0 2 2.42
38 0.338 0.0 0 2.524
but without structural analyses on bridges (e.g., Matisziw and Murray 2009, Peeta et al.
2010). Other articles study large bridge stocks, but without accounting for connections
among them (e.g., Padgett et al. 2010, Orcesi and Cremona 2011b). To the best of the
authors’ knowledge, papers that deal with bridge networks (i.e., papers that combine a trans-
portation network analysis with specific analyses on the bridges) usually consider less than
20 bridges (e.g., Augusti et al. 1998, Liu and Frangopol 2006a, Kang et al. 2008, Lee et al.
2009, Orcesi and Cremona 2011a), with few noteworthy exceptions (e.g., Zhou et al. 2010).
For this reason, the 38-bridge network analyzed in this example can be considered a large
bridge network.
A representation of the network is provided in Figure 6. Node A collects the traffic
originated by and directed to the University of California, Santa Barbara. Node B is located
in the area of the Santa Barbara Municipal Airport. Node C is at the intersection between
(a)
Route 192
E F
Route 192
C Route 101
San Roque rd
Route 101 State st
Route 144
G
B D
Ro
Santa
ut
Goleta e H Barbara
17
10
1
e2
(CA)
ut
(CA) Ro K
Ro
Las Positas rd
ut
e 10
A 1 J Route 101
Legend I
Nodes
Bridges Route 225
Road segments
Pacific Ocean
(b) E F
14 15
C 9 13
6 7 11, 12
8 G
B D
10
3 16
4,5
H
17, 18 20, 21
33, 34
22 36
2 31, 32 K
N 37, 38
1 Legend 35
A 23, 24
Nodes (indicated by letters)
1 km J
Bridges (indicated by numbers) 25, 26 27, 28, 29, 30
Road segments I 19
1 mile
Figure 6. Layout of the network: (a) Satellite image adapted from the U.S. Geological Survey
and (b) model.
Route 217 and Route 101. Nodes D through K are distributed in the city of Santa Barbara and
represent the intersection of the main roads and highways, such as Route 101, Route 225,
Route 192 and State Street. The nodes that involve Route 101, namely C, D, H, and J, repre-
sent the most complex intersections with ramps and bridges at the intersection. For this rea-
son, they have been expanded by the mentioned automatic algorithm.
The characteristics of the secondary routes are relatively homogeneous all over the ana-
lyzed region; therefore, a uniform value f db ¼ 1500 car-equivalent vehicles per hour has been
chosen for all detour routes.
The earthquake has been simulated by means of HAZUS (DHS 2009). The epicenter is
the historical epicenter of the 1854 earthquake with latitude 34.45° and longitude −119.7°.
The depth of the source is 10 km and the magnitude is 8. The damage caused to every bridge
of the network has been computed by Equation 22 and the results are collected in Table 3.
The investigated time horizon of 2 years has been subdivided in monthly time steps.
The annual discount rate of money is 5% and the maximum total present cost is 100 M$.
The remaining parameters have been set as follows: γ T ¼ 2 ⋅ 10−7 , γ D ¼ 10−7 ,
θmin ¼ 60° , θmax ¼ 80° .
Two constraints have been set on the network functionality. After one year, the function-
ality has to be restored to at least 50% (as indicated previously, Q ¼ 0% is the case with all
the bridges out of service and Q ¼ 100% is the case with all the bridges in service) and within
two years the total functionality has to be restored ðQ ¼ 100%Þ. Moreover, the target func-
tionality level Q ¼ 80% should be restored in the minimum possible amount of time.
The total number of design variables in the problem is 2 ⋅ N ¼ 76. GAs start with an
initial population of 1,000 individuals, and after 27 generations, they provide the Pareto
front plotted in Figure 7. In Figure 7, each large black dot represents a Pareto optimal
24
Time to reach Q (i.e. T)
Non-optimal
strategies
[months]
18
Pareto front
12
8
50 S1
45 S2 0
20
40
Total present cost C 40 60 Resilience R
80
[M$] 35 100 [%]
Figure 7. Pareto front in the space of objectives resilience R, total present cost of interventions C,
and number of steps to reach Q (i.e., T). Every dot represents a different rehabilitation strategy.
The optimal strategies are the closest to the lowest corner of the three-dimensional plot.
set of values for δb and θb , with b ¼ 1; 2; : : : ; 38. As expected, in order to achieve better
results (i.e., higher values for R and lower values for T), it is necessary to invest more in the
restoration activities. However, for a fixed value of the investment, the corresponding point
of the Pareto front indicates the most efficient way to spend the funding. Figure 7 represents
the optimal front in a three-dimensional space where all three objectives (R, T, and C) are
considered together. In general, a Pareto front in two dimensions should be a curve, and a
Pareto front in three dimensions should be a surface. In this case, however, two of the objec-
tives (R and T) are strongly dependent. In fact, a low value of the time required to reach
80% functionality ðQ ¼ 80%Þ certainly yields a high value of resilience, R. Vice versa,
high values of the overall resilience can be obtained only if high values of functionality
are achieved very quickly. As a result, the surface of the Pareto front collapses to a
three-dimensional curve (similarly, in problems where only two nonconflicting criteria
are considered, the Pareto curve collapses to a single point).
Two representative solutions have been indicated with “S1” and “S2.” Solution
S1 requires a relatively low amount of funding (38.0 M$) and yields a network perfor-
mance that is compatible with the required constraints, that is, Q(1 year) ≥50% and
Q(2 years) = 100%. However, the overall resilience is not so high (namely 62.8%).
With a 14% increase in the investment ðC ¼ 43.2 M$Þ, solution S2 determines a significant
increase in the overall resilience ðR ¼ 75.3%Þ. Moreover, if solution S2 is adopted Q is
achieved after only eight months, rather than the year required by solution S1.
Analyzing the values of δb , it is possible for the decision makers to identify the bridges
that should receive immediate restoration. Moreover, the values of θb give information on
how to allocate the resources in the most efficient way. For instance, Figures 8–12 show the
time schedule of the interventions, the evolution in time of the network functionality, the
total cumulative cost, and the cost breakdown for the various bridges for the representative
solutions S1 and S2. Figure 8a provides very important information. There are some bridges
(namely 3, 11, 15, and 38) whose prompt restoration is not necessary. In fact, the constraints
impose that every solution restores the original functionality within the two years time slot
and also solution S1 satisfies this constraint, even though it excludes the restoration of
a few bridges. This means that due to the traffic flow redistribution capabilities of the
network, some bridges are unnecessary and can be restored later. Figure 9a confirms
that solution S1 is compliant with the constraints on the functionality: Q(1 year) ≥50%
and Q(2 years) = 100%. It is interesting to notice that after two months the functionality
slightly decreases. This is due to the initiation of the restoration works. Figure 10a shows
that the cumulative cost is almost linear (i.e., the amount of expenses per month is constant)
for the first six months and then it is stable. In fact, after about one year, all the interventions
are completed, and thus there are no more expenses. Figure 11a presents a cost breakdown
for the various bridges. The restorations of bridges 9, 15, and 5 have the highest costs
because these bridges are the most valuable structures ðk9 ¼ 1.05 M$; k 15 ¼ 1.00 M$; k 5 ¼
1.16 M$Þ and also because they were among the most damaged (in particular, l09 ¼ 3.582 is
the highest initial damage, l015 ¼ 3.414, and l05 ¼ 2.446). Figure 12a shows the relationship
between the duration of the restoration and its total present cost. On one hand, longer
restorations can be necessary because of the high initial damage level, and this leads to
high costs. On the other hand, the cost depends also on the work pace ðθb Þ, and faster
(a) 1 (b) 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
Bridges
Bridges
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
0 6 12 18 24 0 6 12 18 24
Time [months] Time [months]
Figure 8. Schedule of the interventions for (a) representative solution S1 and (b) representative
solution S2.
(shorter) restorations are more expensive. In this case, the plot shows an increase of the
restorations costs with the increase of the duration, therefore the former effect prevails.
Comparing Figure 8b with Figure 8a, it appears evident that the optimal solution S2 requires
much faster interventions. This is why, applying this restoration plan, the target functionality
level Q ¼ 80% can be achieved in only eight months. Figure 9b shows that not only the
functionality attains level 80% in a few months, but it is actually restored to the maximum
level in only eight months. This is possible only with a higher investment, as Figure 10b
Figure 9. Variation of the network functionality in time and total resilience for (a) representative
solution S1 and (b) representative solution S2.
shows. Figure 11b, compared to Figure 11a, indicates that for most of the bridges the indi-
vidual restoration costs are higher in solution S2 than in solution S1. Since the values of kb
and of l0b are the same for solutions S1 and S2, the higher costs are due to faster restoration
speeds, according to Equation 9. Figure 12b shows again, as a general trend, an increase of
the cost with the duration of the restoration. However, compared to Figure 12a, the cluster of
points is more spread, and more to the left part of the plot. This is due to the fact that very
high restoration paces are applied to many bridges to attain this optimal solution and this
tends to reduce the duration and increase the cost.
The overall computation took 13.41 hours on a eight-core personal computer. Clusters
with hundreds or thousands of processors are now available in most of the university depart-
ments and research centers, and these computations can be performed in a limited time, if
needed. A total of 69,233 different combinations of the bridge states where analyzed and
stored in the bookkeeping array. Compared to the total number of possible combinations,
this number is extremely low, due to the following reasons of increasing importance:
(i) some of the bridges have an initial damage level l0b < 2, thus they are never in the
case 1 of Table 2; (ii) for every set of δb and θb values, the procedure assesses the network
Figure 10. Total discounted cumulative cost for (a) representative solution S1 and (b) represen-
tative solution S2.
performance at all the time steps, but several of them are actually characterized by the same
combination of bridge states; (iii) the demanding constraints on the functionality level after
one year and two years allow to discard many candidate solutions computing the network
functionality only at these two time instants; and (iv) GAs efficiently identify the region of
the 76-dimensional design space where Pareto optimal solutions are most likely to be found
and they focus the vast majority of the research effort on this region, investigating with only
a few trial solutions the rest of the domain to ensure that local minima are avoided, as
Figure 13 shows.
Finally, a sensitivity analysis has been performed to show that for practical applications,
the convergence to the Pareto front is reasonably smooth. For illustrative purposes, the pri-
mary variables chosen for the sensitivity analysis are δ11 and θ11 . For each of these two
variables, 50 discrete values have been investigated in the ranges [0,24] months and
[60°,80°], respectively, for a total of 50 · 50 = 2,500 rehabilitation strategies. For all the
other bridges the values δb≠11 ¼ 0 months and θb≠11 ¼ 80° have been kept constant. For
each of the investigated rehabilitation strategies, the three objectives have been evaluated
Figure 11. Restoration cost allocation to the various bridges for (a) representative solution S1
and (b) representative solution S2.
and the distance of the resulting point in the objectives space from the Pareto front has been
computed. In order to guarantee that each of the objectives had the same impact on the com-
putation of the distance from the Pareto front, for the sensitivity analysis, the three-dimen-
sional objective space has been normalized so that each objective was spanning from 0 to 1.
The normalization factors for C, T, and R are Cmax , t h , and 1, respectively. Figure 14 shows
the result of the analysis. The computed surface appears smooth, and only one global mini-
mum is present, with no local minima. Similar results have been obtained considering other
primary variables for the sensitivity analysis. Hence, the optimization procedure can quickly
identify the region of the search domain where optimal solutions are more likely to be, com-
puting the network performance for a very small number of configurations, if compared to the
total number of possible combinations.
(a) 4
9
Cumulative present cost [M$]

3
5
10 16
2 8
35
4 22
17 1 11
1 12
31
7
32
3 28 27
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Restoration duration [months]
(b) 4
Cumulative present cost [M$]
9 15
3
5
16
8 10
2
22
36 11
1
1 12 26
31
32 7
3 28 27
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Restoration duration [months]
Figure 12. Restoration time and total present cost for (a) representative solution S1 and (b) repre-
sentative solution S2. Every point represents one bridge. For the sake of clarity, only some
bridges are indicated by their number.
50
45 Best strategies
Total present cost C [M$]
40
35
30
24
18 100
Projection on the T R plane 80
12
60
Time to reach Q̄ (i.e. T ) 40
6 Resilience R
[months] 20
0 [%]
0
Figure 13. Objectives computed for all the trial points. GAs correctly intensified the number of
points in the region associated with the highest resilience and the lowest cost.
10
Distance from Pareto front
8
[normalized units]
Minimum value
6
0
80
75 24
18
θ11 70
12
[degrees] 65
6
δ11
60 0 [months]
Figure 14. Results of the sensitivity analysis. The objective function is smooth and there are no
local minima.
CONCLUSIONS
A computational procedure for the optimal prioritization and funding allocation of the
restoration interventions on a bridge network damaged by a strong earthquake has been pre-
sented. The resulting Pareto front of optimal solutions collects the restoration intervention
schedules and paces that maximize the network resilience, minimize the time required to
reach a target functionality threshold, and minimize the overall total restoration cost.
This result is achieved combining several numerical tools such as GAs and advanced
traffic assignment and distribution techniques. The resulting overall framework is able to
handle any complex network, with bridges on the highway segments and at the intersections,
and with all the simultaneous traffic flows.
Decision makers will be able to select among the various optimal solutions the one that,
overall, better fits the needs of the actual scenario. Within the imposed monetary and tech-
nical constraints, the Pareto front automatically indicates the restoration strategies that with a
marginal increase in the costs can provide a large improvement in the network resilience and
a faster reach of the desired functionality threshold.
Some further important conclusions are drawn as follows:
The new intersection model in Figure 2b allows the consideration of bridges and ramps
at the intersections. The implemented traffic assignment and distribution technique is able
to handle complex networks and traffic flows with all the possible origins and destinations.
Moreover, the travel routes are adaptive to the bridge conditions. New multiple constraints on
the minimum network functionality and an additional objective on the minimization of the
time required to reach a target functionality level have been included.
Multiobjective GAs are an optimization tool that is particularly convenient for the
restoration optimization of damaged structures in complex networks. First of all, it does
not require an analytical formulation of the objectives, but just a numerical procedure to
compute them. Second, it allows one to impose not only constraints on the design variables,
but also complex constraints on the objectives and on the derived variables. For instance, in
this paper, they allowed for the imposition of a constraint on the minimum network func-
tionality at several time instants. Finally, evaluating the objectives at many points in the
design space, the determination of the approximate Pareto front is straightforward. This
last property is extremely important in problems that involve conflicting criteria, such as
those investigated herein.
Even though the numerical example deals with a strong earthquake, the proposed tech-
nique can be used for any hazard sources, and can be expanded to a multihazard environment.
In fact, the choice to model the damage level as a continuous variable without any specific
limitation on the damage cause makes the technique suitable for virtually every disruptive
event. Actually, the applicability is even wider. In fact, even if the framework has been devel-
oped and presented with the aim of being used after a major disruptive event, the same pro-
cedure can be applied in more ordinary circumstances. The damage can be also caused by
normal aging and not necessarily by a sudden event. After an inspection that assesses the
damage level of all the bridges of a network, an aggressive batch of restoration interventions
on the various bridges, keeping a constantly high functionality level even during the inter-
ventions, can be planned and optimized with the proposed methodology. The versatility of
the presented approach allows its application to diverse scenarios.
From a computational point of view, the complexity of the problem is so high that a brute-
force solution would be impractical for any applications to real cases. On the contrary, due to
the joint use of GAs and bookkeeping techniques, the proposed approach keeps the com-
putational cost reasonably low even for demanding applications such as the one considered
in the numerical example.
As already mentioned, several additional constraints and objectives can be added to the
proposed technique. For instance, future developments will be aimed at introducing objec-
tives that mimic the major steps of real disaster response strategies: (i) connect all the critical
facilities, such as health care buildings and administrative buildings to govern the emergen-
cies; (ii) connect and bring good functionality levels to the residential neighborhoods so that
people can go back to their houses and facilitate the recovery; (iii) restore the complete func-
tionality of the network.
Future studies will also be required to develop, calibrate, and validate a more accurate
cost model, including multiple restoration rate–cost relationships that also account for the
nature of the damage and the bridge type.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The support from the National Science Foundation through grant CMS-0639428; the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Community and Economic Development,
through the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Technology Alliance (PITA); the U.S. Federal High-
way Administration Cooperative Agreement Award DTFH61-07-H-00040; and (d) the U.S.
Office of Naval Research Contract Number N-00014-08-0188 are gratefully acknowledged.
The opinions and conclusions presented in this paper are those of the writers and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the sponsoring organizations.
REFERENCES
Augusti, G., Ciampoli, M., and Frangopol, D. M., 1998. Optimal planning of retrofitting inter-
ventions on bridges in a highway network, Engineering Structures 20, 933–939.
Ball, M. O., 1980. Complexity of network reliability computations, Networks 10, 153–165.
Bocchini, P., and Frangopol, D. M., 2010. On the applicability of random field theory to trans-
portation network analysis, in Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management and Life-Cycle Opti-
mization (Frangopol, D.M., Sause, R., and Kusko, C.S., eds.), CRC Press, 3025–3032.
Bocchini, P., and Frangopol, D. M., 2011a. Resilience-driven disaster management of civil infra-
structure, in Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Computational Methods in
Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering -COMPDYN 2011, Corfu, Greece, Keynote
paper.
Bocchini, P., and Frangopol, D. M., 2011b. A stochastic computational framework for the joint
transportation network fragility analysis and traffic flow distribution under extreme events,
Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 26, 182–193.
Bocchini, P., and Frangopol, D. M., 2012. Optimal resilience-and cost-based post-disaster inter-
vention prioritization for bridges along a highway segment, Journal of Bridge Engineering,
ASCE, 17, 117–129.
Bruneau, M., Chang, S. E., Eguchi, R. T., Lee, G. C., O’Rourke, T. D., Reinhorn, A. M.,
Shinozuka, M., Tierney, K., Wallace, W. A., and Winterfeldt, D. V., 2003. A framework
to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities, Earthquake Spec-
tra 19, 733–752.
Bruneau, M., Filiatrault, A., Lee, G., O’Rourke, T., Reinhorn, A., Shinozuka, M., and Tierney,
K., 2007. White paper on the SDR grand challenges for disaster reduction, Technical report,
Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, University at Buffalo, The
State University of New York.
Bruneau, M., and Reinhorn, A., 2007. Exploring the concept of seismic resilience for acute care
facilities, Earthquake Spectra 23, 41–62.
Bureau of Public Roads, 1964. Traffic Assignment Manual, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Urban Planning Division, Washington, D.C.
Çăgnan, Z., Davidson, R. A., and Guikema, S. D., 2006. Post-earthquake restoration planning for
los angeles electric power, Earthquake Spectra 22, 589–608.
Cimellaro, G. P., Reinhorn, A. M., and Bruneau, M., 2006. Quantification of seismic resilience,
in Proceedings of the 8th National Conference of Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco,
CA, April 18–22.
Cimellaro, G. P., Reinhorn, A. M., and Bruneau, M., 2010. Seismic resilience of a hospital sys-
tem, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 6, 127–144.
Deb, K., 2001. Multi-Objective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms, John Wiley and
Sons, New York, 518 pp.
Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., and Meyarivan, T., 2002. A fast and elitist multiobjective
genetic algorithm: NSGA-II, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 6, 182–197.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), 2009. HAZUS-MH MR4 Earthquake Model User
Manual, Department of Homeland Security; Federal Emergency Management Agency;
Mitigation Division, Washington, D.C.
Evans, S. P., 1976. Derivation and analysis of some models for combining trip distribution and
assignment, Transportation Research 10, 37–57.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2009. National Bridge Inventory, Federal Highway
Administration, available on line at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi.htm (visited on 13
January 2011).
Frangopol, D. M., and Bocchini, P., 2011. Resilience as optimization criterion for the rehabilita-
tion of bridges belonging to a transportation network subject to earthquake, in Proceedings of
the 2011 Structures Congress (Ames, D., Droessler, T. L., and Hoit, M., eds.), Las Vegas, NV,
April 14–16, 2044–2055.
Frank, M., and Wolfe, P., 1956. An algorithm for quadratic programming, Naval Research Logis-
tics Quarterly 3, 95–110.
Gibbons, A. M., 1985. Algorithmic Graph Theory, Cambridge University Press, New York,
272 pp.
Goldberg, D. E., 1989. Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning,
Addison-Wesley Professional.
Google, Inc., 2010. Google Earth, release 5.1.3535.3218, Keyhole, Inc. & Google, Inc., Menlo
Park, CA.
Kang, W., Song, J., and Gardoni, P., 2008. Matrix-based system reliability method and applica-
tions to bridge networks, Reliability Engineering & System Safety 93, 1584–1593.
Konak, A., Smith, A. E., and Kulturel-Konak, S., 2004. New event-driven sampling techniques
for network reliability estimation, in Proceedings of the 36th Conference on Winter Simula-
tion, Washington, D.C., 224–231.
Lee, C., and Machemehl, R. B., 2005. Combined Traffic Signal Control and Traffic Assignment:
Algorithms, Implementation and Numerical Results, Research Report SWUTC/05/
47284000074-1, Southwest Region University Transportation Center, Center for Transporta-
tion Research University of Texas at Austin.
Lee, Y.-J., Song, J., and Gardoni, P., 2009. Post-hazard flow capacity of bridge transportation
network considering structural deterioration, in Safety, Reliability and Risk of Structures,
Infrastructures and Engineering Systems (Furuta, Frangopol, and Shinozuka, eds.), CRC
Press, 2894–2901.
Levinson, D. M., and Kumar, A., 1994. Multi-modal trip distribution: structure and application,
Transportation Research Record #1466, 124–131.
Liu, M., and Frangopol, D. M., 2006a. Optimizing bridge network maintenance management
under uncertainty with conflicting criteria: Life-cycle maintenance, failure, and user costs,
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 132, 1835–1845.
Liu, M., and Frangopol, D. M., 2006b. Probability-based bridge network performance evaluation,
Journal of Bridge Engineering 11, 633–641.
Martin, W. A., and McGuckin, N. A. National Research Council, American Association of State
HighwayTransportation Officials and Federal Highway Administration, 1998. Travel Estima-
tion Techniques for Urban Planning, National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP) Report 365, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Matisziw, T., and Murray, A., 2009. Modeling st path availability to support disaster vulnerability
assessment of network infrastructure, Computers & Operations Research 36, 16–26.
McNally, M. G., 2000. The four-step model, in Handbook of transport modeling (Hensher, David
A., and Button, Kenneth John, eds.), Emerald Group Publishing, 704 pp.
Miles, S. B., and Chang, S. E., 2006. Modeling community recovery from earthquakes, Earth-
quake Spectra 22, 439–458.
Orcesi, A., and Cremona, C., 2011a. Optimal maintenance strategies for bridge networks using
the supply and demand approach, Structure and Infrastructure, 7, 765–778.
Orcesi, A. D., and Cremona, C. F., 2011b. Optimization of maintenance strategies for the man-
agement of the national bridge stock in France, Journal of Bridge Engineering 16, 44–52.
Padgett, J. E., DesRoches, R., and Nilsson, E., 2010. Regional seismic risk assessment of bridge
network in Charleston, South Carolina, Journal of Earthquake Engineering 14, 918–933.
Peeta, S., Salman, F. S., Gunnec, D., and Viswanath, K., 2010. Pre-disaster investment decisions
for strengthening a highway network, Computers & Operations Research 37, 1708–1719.
Rose, A., 2004. Definingand measuring economic resilience to disasters, Disaster Prevention and
Management 13, 307–314.
Rose, A., and Liao, S. Y., 2005. Modeling regional economic resilience to disasters: A compu-
table general equilibrium analysis of water service disruptions, Journal of Regional Science
45, 75–112.
The MathWorks, Inc., 2009. MATLAB, version 7.8 -R2009a, Natick, MA.
Wardrop, J. G., 1952. Some theoretical aspects of road traffic research, in ICE Proceedings, Engi-
neering Divisions, Vol. 1, 325–362.
Xu, N., Guikema, S. D., Davidson, R. A., Nozick, L. K., Çăgnan, Z., and Vaziri, K., 2007. Opti-
mizing scheduling of post-earthquake electric power restoration tasks, Earthquake Engineer-
ing & Structural Dynamics 36, 265–284.
Zhou, H., Wang, J., Wan, J., and Jia, H., 2010. Resilience to natural hazards: a geographic per-
spective, Natural Hazards 53, 21–41.
Zhou, Y., Banerjee, S., and Shinozuka, M., 2010. Socio-economic effect of seismic retrofit of
bridges for highway transportation networks: A pilot study, Structure and Infrastructure Engi-
neering 6, 145–157.
(Received 16 August 2010; accepted 27 May 2011)

Restoration of Bridge Networks After An Earthquake: Multicriteria Intervention Optimization

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Restoration of Bridge Networks After An Earthquake: Multicriteria Intervention Optimization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Restoration of Bridge Networks after an

Earthquake: Multicriteria Intervention

This paper presents an optimization procedure for the restoration activities

BRIDGE NETWORK MODEL

TRANSPORTATION NETWORK FUNCTIONALITY

Bridge state with

where (Bocchini and Frangopol 2012)

dummy origin dummy destination

BRIDGE RESTORATION: EFFECTS AND COSTS

subject to the constraints

EQ-TARGET;temp:intralink-;e19;71;277 θmin ≤ θb ≤ θmax ∀b ¼ 1; 2; : : : ; N (19)

Compute Γ 100 Compute Γ 0

Multi-objective Genetic Algorithms

Pareto front of optimal solutions

Figure 4. Main flow chart of the proposed technique.

Figure 5. Flow chart of the objective function.

l0b ¼ 0 ⋅ Pðno damageÞ þ 1 ⋅ Pðminor damageÞ

Table 3. Main characteristics of the network bridges

Bridge Kb cdb ddb l0b

Cumulative present cost [M$]

You might also like