PSI - Issue 84

N. Kheirkhahan et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 84 (2026) 33–40 N. Kheirkhahan et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2026) 000–000

36

4

Fig. 1. Single-hazard edge values for earthquake (first panel from left), flood (second), landslide (third), and tsunami (fourth).

Table 2. Single-hazard value assigned to each edge of the network for each hazard considered. For earthquakes, the numerical ranges were assigned based on the definition of a minimum acceleration value, obtained by multiplying F o by 0.075g (a reference acceleration value accounting for soil amplification below which the area is considered to have very low seismicity), and a maximum acceleration value of 1.4g. This value was obtained by considering the stratigraphic amplification’s variability with respect to a g and F o , and that the product of a g and F o on Italian soil reaches 0.7g. Single-hazard value 0 0.5 1 2 3

Earthquake

-

< 0.20 g

0.20-0.60 g

0.6-1.00 g

>1.00 g

Medium Probability Hazard

Flood

Absence of hazard

-

Low Probability Hazard

High Probability Hazard

Attention Area and Moderate Hazard

High and Very High Hazard

Landslide

Absence of hazard

-

Medium Hazard

Tsunami

Not affected area

-

-

-

Affected area

Fig. 2. Multi-hazard values.

4. Resilience assessment of the road network model The framework integrates road network topology, hazard data, and accessibility to critical infrastructure. From a topological perspective, the network exhibits small-world characteristics, with an average clustering coefficient of 0.02650, over two orders of magnitude higher than that of the corresponding random graph (0.00025), while preserving high global efficiency, as reflected by a relatively short average shortest path length (37.42), close to the random benchmark (29.31).