Resilience Analysis of Urban Water Infrastructures in a Potential Earthquake (Case Study: Region 2 of Tehran Municipality)

Document Type : Research Paper


1 PhD Candidate in Urban Planning, Art University of Isfahan, Iran

2 Associate Professor of Urban Planning, Art University of Isfahan, Iran

3 Assistant Professor of Geospatial Information Sciences, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Isfahan, Iran


In recent years, several disastrous earthquakes have occurred around the world which highlights the risks of infrastructure damages in urban areas. Because ofSince the improper planning urban communities are vulnerable to extreme events such as earthquakes which could reduce their ability to withstand and recover their function from emergencies and natural disasters. Recent damages caused by natural disasters have attracted researchers’ attention to urban resilience concept especially on the objective of achieving disaster- resilient infrastructures (Chang, McDaniels, Fox, Dhariwal, & Longstaff, 2014).
The purpose of this paper article is to promote a practical approach to evaluate the water infrastructure system vulnerability toward the seismic resilient city. The methodological approach of this article paper is practical, and focuses on water infrastructure system in district two 2 of Tehran city, Iran, in the context of the probable earthquake. In this study, the most probable earthquake scenarios were chosen to evaluate the social and built environment impacts of the potential earthquake on water pipes. Furthermore, geographic information system (GIS) technology was used to analyze the existing water distribution system and visualizing its vulnerability in high-risk areas of Tehran. In this researchstudy, seismic features like PGA, PGV, and Mw were estimated by the probabilistic analysis method. In this study, the probability of the most potential earthquake and the probability of water system pipeline failure for each 200 to 200-meter parcel of the study studied area were calculated. Furthermore, the system failure rate was calculated and analyzed to understand the community vulnerability. Classification of the study area was completed based on system vulnerability..
The rResults of this article indicate that water infrastructure has significantly influenced the community resilience. Based on system repair rate and pipe damages, resilience classification was completed. Finally, we offer suggestions to increase urban resilience based on urban vulnerability..
This article’s methodological approach is practical and concentrates on potential disruptions to water infrastructure services in the case study area. In this research, quantitative methods and analytical techniques were used to analyze and examine the impact of proposed earthquake scenario on water infrastructure by utilizing a probabilistic risk analysis and HAZUS-MH and SR methods. For this research, a solid case study selection was necessary. The process of selecting case study involved a number of steps, which seismic risk, fault features, and main city water pipe locations played a key role in these steps. We focused on district two of Tehran municipality where active faults and main water pipes cross the area. First, we acquired infrastructures, seismic and urban geographic data for the entire region and prepared a GIS database for our study area. Once maps of seismic classification, water infrastructure, and fault locations were generated, these layers were overlaid in GIS software. Second, we used probabilistic analysis method to specify the seismic features of the study area. Moreover, water pipes were divided into separate segments to evaluate each parts vulnerability. In this study, the model simulates repair rate per length as the key indicator of system resilience.
Results and Discussion
In this article, we developed a map of peak ground velocity for the potential earthquake scenario in the region which is shown in map 4. Probability analysis indicates that peak ground velocity is much higher in northern parts of the study area. We calculated pipeline damage based on repair rate per length and PGV which is shown illustrated in map 4. To estimate repair rate and damage, equations number 1 to number 3 were used. Results indicate that total damage points in water pipelines will be 219 in the case of a possible earthquake. We assumed 80% of damages would be leak points while 20% of damages will be broken points in water distribution system for wave-passage.
Our assumptions were based on Fema (1999), Hazus methodology. Results indicate 175 leak points and 43 full damage points in the system which means severe potable water service disruptions can be expected in most urban water infrastructure parts in the immediate aftermath. Map 5 shows the damage rate in the case study area. Based on damage probability analysis and equation number 3 we classified the case study to illustrate the urban and system resilience in case of the probable earthquake which is shown in map 6.
Probability and damage results for the case study area show the likely severity of water disruptions system in the case study especially northern parts of the region. Repair rate in the southern area was less than the northern and western parts of the region.
This study has provided a practical method based on international standards for evaluating water infrastructure resilience, emphasizing the functional features of the system which could be impacted by the earthquake.
For the potential proposed earthquake scenario, due to the break and leak rates, severe water service disruptions could be expected in some parts of water infrastructure sectors in the immediate aftermath.
Emergency restoration efforts are essential to increase urban resilience which should be done based on schedule 2. This research gives recommendations for consideration of construction of the emergency water supply bases, use of underground water and water pipe retrofitting plans.
Seismic-resilient suggestions based on this study includes not only changing the water supply system from brittle to ductile type but also providing emergency water to the citizens. Based on the median rates of repairs per km of pipeline, system vulnerability, and population density in urban areas, emergency water supply locations were suggested to increase urban disaster resilience, so that anybody in the case study area can access water within a standard distance of one to two kilometer after the earthquake. Map7 shows the proposed locations of emergency water supply bases in case study area..
Based on this article's results, we suggest prioritizing northern part of the study area for urban resilience improvement plans. Map of existing reservoir, emergency water bases, and wells should be available for all community members to enhance urban and community resilience..
Overall, this study has demonstrated a practical approach that could be applied by urban planners and disaster managers to reduce risks and vulnerability of water infrastructures toward increasing urban and community resilience..


Main Subjects

1. رضایی، محمدرضا، 1392، ارزیابی تاب‌آوری اقتصادی و نهادی جوامع شهری در برابر سوانح طبیعی، فصلنامۀ مدیریت بحران، سال اول، شمارۀ 2، صص 27-38. 2. رضایی، محمدرضا، رفیعیان، مجتبی و سید مصطفی حسینی، 1394، سنجش و ارزیابی میزان تاب‌آوری کالبدی اجتماع‌های شهری در برابر زلزله (مطالعۀ موردی: زلزلۀ محله‌های شهر تهران)، فصلنامۀ پژوهش‌های جغرافیای انسانی، سال چهل‌وهفتم، شمارۀ 4، صص 609-623. 3. رفیعیان، مجتبی و همکاران، 1389، تبیین مفهومی تاب‌آوری و شاخص‌سازی آن در مدیریت سوانح اجتماع‌محور (CBDM)، برنامه‌ریزی و آمایش فضا، سال پانزدهم، شمارۀ 4، صص 19-41. 4. سمیعی، عزیز، 1393، پروژۀ اسفیر: و حداقل استانداردها در پاسخگویی‌های بشردوستانه، چاپ اول، انتشارات چالش، تهران. ‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬ 5. مقدم، حسن، 1381، مهندسی زلزله: مبانی و کاربرد، انتشارات فراهنگ، تهران. 6. ناطقی الهی، فریبرز، 1379، مدیریت بحران زمین‌لرزۀ ابرشهرها با رویکرد به برنامۀ مدیریت بحران زمین‌لرزۀ شهر تهران، پژوهشگاه بین‌المللی زلزله‌شناسی و مهندسی زلزله، تهران. 7. هاف، سوزان و همکاران، 1392، کتاب زلزله، پس از آنکه زمین می‌لرزد، انتشارات مازیار، تهران. ‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬ 8. Alderson, D. L., Brown, G. G., and Carlyle, W. M., 2015, Operational Models of Infrastructure Resilience, Risk Analysis, Vol. 35, No. 4, PP. 562-586. 9. Alexander, D., 2007, Making Research on Geological Hazards Relevant to Stakeholders’ Needs, Quaternary International, Vol. (SPEC. ISS.), No. 1, PP. 186–192. 10. Alexander, D. E., 2013, Resilience and Disaster Risk Reduction: An Etymological Journey, Nat, Hazards Earth Syst, Sci, Vol. 13, No. 11, PP. 2707-2716. 11. Bastaminia, A., Rezaei, M. R., and Dastoorpoor, M., 2017, Identification and Evaluation of the Components and Factors Affecting Social and Economic Resilience in City of Rudbar Iran, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol. 22, No. 1, PP. 269-280. (In Persian) 12. Berberian, M., and Yeats, R. S., 2016, Tehran: An Earthquake Time Bomb, Geological Society of America Special Papers, Vol. 45, No. 1, PP. 671-675. 13. Boostan, E., Tahernia, N., and Shafiee, A., 2015, Fuzzy Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment, Case Study: Tehran Region, Iran, Natural Hazards, Vol. 2, No. 1, PP. 525-541. (In Persian) 14. Bruneau, M. et al., 2003, A Framework to Quantitatively Assess and Enhance the Seismic Resilience of Communities, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 19, No. 4, PP. 733-752. 15. Chang, S. E. et al., 2014, Toward Disaster-Resilient Cities: Characterizing Resilience of Infrastructure Systems with Expert Judgments, Risk Analysis, Vol. 34, No. 3, PP. 416–434. 16. Dahlberg, R. et al., 2015, Resilience in Disaster Research: Three Versions, Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, Vol. 32, No. 1 and 2, PP. 44-54. 17. FEMA, 1999, Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology HAZUS 99 Technical Manual, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C, USA. 18. Gardner, J. K., and Knopoff, L., 1974, Is the Sequence of Earthquakes in Southern California with Aftershocks Removed Poisoning? Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 64, No. 1, PP. 1363-1367. 19. Holling, C. S., 1973, Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 4, No. 1, PP. 1-23. 20. Hough S. et al., 2014, After the Earth Quakes: Elastic Rebound on an Urban Planet, Maziar, Tehran. (In Persian) 21. JICA, 2000, The Study on Seismic Microzoning of the Greater Tehran Area in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pacific Consultants International Report, Japan. 22. JICA, 2006, The Study on Water Supply System Resistant to Earthquakes in Tehran Municipality in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Tokyo Engineering Consultants Co, Japan. 23. Kijko, A., and Graham, G., 1998, Parametric-Historic Procedure for Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis Part I: Estimation of Maximum Regional Magnitude Mmax, Pure and Applied Geophysics, Vol. 3, No.1, PP. 413-442. 24. Lindell, M. K., and Prater, C. S., 2003, Assessing Community Impacts of Natural Disasters, Natural Hazards Review, Vol. 4, No. 4, PP. 176–185. 25. Lund, L. V., Schiff, A. J., and Engineering, 1992, TCLEE Pipeline Failure Database: Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, U.S.A. 26. Ma, X., and Ohno, R., 2012, Examination of Vulnerability of Various Residential Areas in China for Earthquake Disaster Mitigation, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 35, No. 1, PP. 369–377. 27. Moghadam H., 2002, Earthquake Engineering, Farahang, Tehran. (In Persian) 28. Nategielahi, F., 2001, Megacities’ Disaster Management with Respect to Tehran’s Earthquake Disaster Management, International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Tehran. (In Persian) 29. Omidvar, B., and Kivi, H. K., 2016, Multi-Hazard Failure Probability Analysis of Gas Pipelines for Earthquake Shaking, Ground Failure and Fire Following Earthquake, Natural Hazards, Vol. 82, No. 1, PP. 703-720. 30. O’Rourke, T. D., Jung, J. K., and Argyrou, C., 2016, Underground Pipeline Response to Earthquake Induced Ground Deformation, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 91, No. 1, PP. 272-283. 31. Pagano, A. et al., 2017, Drinking Water Supply in Resilient Cities: Notes from L’Aquila Earthquake Case Study, Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 28, No. 1, PP. 435-449. 32. Pelling, M., 2003, The Vulnerability of Cities: Natural Disasters and Social Resilience, London: Earthscan Publications. 33. Porter, K. A., 2016, Damage and Restoration of Water Supply Systems in an Earthquake Sequence, Colorado University, U.S.A. 34. Rafieian, M. et al., 2011, The Concept of Resilience and Indicators of the Community-Based Disaster Management (CBDM), Spatial Planning, Vol. 15, No. 4, PP. 19- 41. (In Persian) 35. Rezaei M., 2013, Evaluating the Economic and Institutional Resilience of Urban Communities to Natural Disasters Using PROMETHE Technique Case Study: Tehran Districts, Disaster Management, Vol. 2, No. 1, PP. 27-38. (In Persian) 36. Rezaei, M., 2016, Measurement and Evaluation of Physical Resilience of Urban Communities Against Earthquake (Case Study: Tehran Neighborhoods), Human Geography Research Quarterly, Vol. 47, No. 4, PP. 609-623. 37. Samadi Alinia, H., and Delavar, M. R., 2011, Tehran’s Seismic Vulnerability Classification Using Granular Computing Approach, Applied Geomatics, Vol. 3, No. 4, PP. 229-240. (In Persian) 38. Samiee A., 2011,, Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response, Chalesh, Tehran. (In Persian) 39. Sutanta, H., Rajabifard, A., and Bishop, I. D., 2012, Disaster Risk Reduction Using Acceptable Risk Measures for Spatial Planning, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 5, No. 6, PP. 761–785. (In Persian) 40. Tanaka, Y., 2012, Disaster Policy and Education Changes Over 15 Years in Japan, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, Vol. 14, No. 3, PP. 245–253. 41. Timmerman, P., 1981, Vulnerability, Resilience and the Collapse of Society: A Review of Models and Possible Climatic Applications, Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Toronto, Canada. 42. Torres-Vera, M. A., and Antonio Canas, J., 2003, A Lifeline Vulnerability Study in Barcelona, Spain, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 80, No. 2, PP. 205-210. 43. UNISDR, 2009, Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction, Network, United Nation. 44. United States. Department of Homeland Security, 2007, Target Capabilities List a Companion to the National Preparedness Guidelines, Department of Homeland Security, U.S.A. 45. Warner, K., Bouwer, L. M., and Ammann, W., 2007, Financial Services and Disaster Risk Finance: Examples from the Community Level, Environmental Hazards, Vol. 7, No. 1, PP. 32–39. 46. Winchester, P., 2000, Cyclone Mitigation, Resource Allocation and Post-Disaster Reconstruction in South India: Lessons From Two Decades of Research, Disasters, Vol. 24, No. 1, PP. 18-37.
Volume 50, Issue 4
January 2019
Pages 977-991
  • Receive Date: 10 March 2017
  • Revise Date: 14 June 2017
  • Accept Date: 14 June 2017
  • First Publish Date: 22 December 2018