Reference

TypeReport
TitleSeismic fragility formulation for water systems
AuthorsEidinger J. M.; Avila, E. A.; Ballantyne, D.; Cheng, L.; der Kiureghian, A.; Maison, B. F.; O'Rourke, T. D.; Power, M.
Year2001
InstitutionAmerican Lifelines Alliance (ALA)
Abstract

This guideline presents procedures that can be used to evaluate the probability of earthquake damage to water transmission systems. This document was developed to address the lack of a consistent assessment methodology within industry, consulting, and academic communities. The lack of consistency prevents direct comparison of damage estimates for prioritizing where resources can best be allocated to mitigate damage. The raw damage data supporting the fragility relationships are included with the guidelines to facilitate the addition of new information from future earthquakes. Use of these fragility data will allow water system owners to estimate the vulnerability of their systems and to make informed decisions to mitigate risks.

Files
NoFileURLAccess Date
1.PDF Document (946.02 KB)http://www.americanlifelinesalliance.com/pdf/Part_1_Guideline.pdf2015/02/06
2.PDF Document (1.61 MB)http://www.americanlifelinesalliance.com/pdf/Part_2_Appendices.pdf2015/02/06
AccessPublic
Created: Vincenzo ARCIDIACONO, 2014/07/04 12:43:16 – Updated: Serkan GIRGIN, 2017/04/11 14:51:03

Damage Classifications

NoPlant Unit TypeNameDescription
1.Storage TankAmerican Lifelines Alliance (2001) - Storage Tank

Damage states according to American Lifelines Alliance's "Seismic Fragility Formulations for Water Systems" guideline (2001).

5

Fragility Curves

NoNameDamage ClassificationParameterUnitValidity Conditions
1.HAZUS (2010) - Near Full, AnchoredHAZUS (2010) - Storage TankPGAgBase Type: On-ground; Base Support Type: Anchored; Construction Material: Steel; Storage Condition: Atmospheric; Fill Percent: > 80 %vlog μ̃4-
2.HAZUS (2010) - Near Full, UnanchoredHAZUS (2010) - Storage TankPGAgBase Type: On-ground; Base Support Type: Unanchored; Construction Material: Steel; Storage Condition: Atmospheric; Fill Percent: > 80 %vlog μ̃4-
3.Eidinger et al. (2001) - Fill ≥ 50%, AnchoredHAZUS (2010) - Storage TankPGAgBase Type: On-ground; Base Support Type: Anchored; Construction Material: Steel; Storage Condition: Atmospheric; Fill Percent: > 50 %vlog μ̃41
4.Eidinger et al. (2001) - Fill ≥ 50%, UnanchoredHAZUS (2010) - Storage TankPGAgBase Type: On-ground; Base Support Type: Unanchored; Construction Material: Steel; Storage Condition: Atmospheric; Fill Percent: > 50 %vlog μ̃41
5.Eidinger et al. (2001) - Fill ≥ 50%HAZUS (2010) - Storage TankPGAgBase Type: On-ground; Construction Material: Steel; Storage Condition: Atmospheric; Fill Percent: > 50 %vlog μ̃42
6.Eidinger et al. (2001) - Fill ≥ 60%HAZUS (2010) - Storage TankPGAgBase Type: On-ground; Construction Material: Steel; Storage Condition: Atmospheric; Fill Percent: > 60 %vlog μ̃43
7.Eidinger et al. (2001) - Fill ≥ 90%HAZUS (2010) - Storage TankPGAgBase Type: On-ground; Construction Material: Steel; Storage Condition: Atmospheric; Fill Percent: > 90 %vlog μ̃44
8.Eidinger et al. (2001)HAZUS (2010) - Storage TankPGAgBase Type: On-ground; Construction Material: Steel; Storage Condition: Atmosphericlog μ̃4-
9.Eidinger et al. (2001) - Fill < 50%HAZUS (2010) - Storage TankPGAgBase Type: On-ground; Construction Material: Steel; Storage Condition: Atmospheric; Fill Percent: < 50 %vlog μ̃22

Risk Assessment

Natural Hazards

Industrial Plants

Scientific

Users