نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری شهرسازی، دانشگاه هنر اصفهان
2 دانشیار گروه شهرسازی، دانشگاه هنر اصفهان
3 استادیار گروه مهندسی نقشه برداری و جی آی اس، دانشگاه اصفهان
چکیده
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Extended Abstract
The increasing dependence on urban infrastructure systems especially, water infrastructure, have led to an increased emphasis on disaster-resilience infrastructures. Recent damages caused by earthquakes around the globe have attracted researchers’ attention to the infrastructure resilience concept. Water infrastructure resilience is the ability of a system to both withstand uncertain conditions caused by natural disasters and to recover quickly from the disastrous events. Urban infrastructure resilience evaluates by a model which analysis restoration time, serviceability index and resistance features.
The purpose of this research is to promote a new practical approach to analyze urban resilience. In this research water infrastructures’ restoration time, serviceability and supply interrupted population in a metropolitan area are analyzed based on new proposed urban resilience methods. The methodological approach of this paper is practical and focuses on the water system in district two of Tehran city, Iran, in the context of the earthquake.
Results of this research demonstrate the vital importance of urban resilience features, restoration time and functional recovery team to increase urban water system resilience. For the case study area, results indicate that in a potential earthquake, water infrastructures would suffer more than 28% of disruption of service in the immediate aftermath, which more than 172982 people will experience almost severe disruption of water availability. To better understand the system resilience, three restoration scenarios were analyzed. In the first scenario, one emergency post consist of 3 teams were allocated. Results indicate that complete restoration of the system takes more than 89.5 days.
Furthermore, analyses of the second scenario indicate that the increase of the resilience factor will reduce restoration time to less than 45 days. In the last scenario, changing sources base on the organizational analysis, decreased the restoration time to less than 29.8 days. Based on the standard target for emergency water supply which should be less than one month, the third scenario seems to improve the resilience of the system dramatically.
Methodology
This article’s methodological approach is practical and concentrates on the restoration period of water infrastructure services in a probable earthquake. In this research, analytical techniques and resilience models were used to analyze the restoration time of water infrastructure based on three scenarios of damages caused by a scenario earthquake. We focused on district two of Tehran municipality where active faults and main urban infrastructures cross the area.
The Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) was used to estimate the seismic features such as PGA and PGV of a most probable earthquake in the case study area. At the next step pipeline damages including breaks and leaks were analyzed based on damage models. At the next step, serviceability was evaluated based on average break rate (equation 3). Besides, the system and was classified and prioritized in 6 levels based on HAZUS methods (Table 3). In this research, ArcGIS software was used to analyze and evaluate restoration time model and produce damage maps. In this article, the restoration function for the water system is analyzed based on the minimum resilience model and damages caused by the earthquake. At the final stage, based on restoration functions and serviceability index, water supply interrupted population and required time for restoration process in three scenarios were analyzed.
Results and Discussion
Understanding restoration time, as one of the main elements of water infrastructure resilience model, is critical for decision-makers and urban planners. It can improve the disaster resilience of cities in high-risk areas around the globe.
Damage analysis indicates that in 43 points break and 175 points leak will happen in a case of the earthquake scenario. Results of this article indicate the vital importance of restoration time and repair functional team to increase urban water system resilience. Results show that water serviceability index was 72% which means that in a potential earthquake, more than a quarter of study area’s population or 172982 people will experience severe disruption of water availability. Based on three restoration scenarios, restoration time will be between 90 to 29.8 days. In the first scenario based on the real data of the emergency department, one urban emergency post consist of 3 teams were analyzed as the model input. Results indicate that complete restoration of the system takes more than 89.5 days.
Furthermore, analyses of the second scenario with two posts consist of 6 teams reduced the restoration time to less than 45 days. In the last scenario, by increasing team numbers, the restoration time decreased to less than 29.8 days. Emergency restoration efforts are predicted to reduce the service disruptions to moderate levels within two weeks, but complete restoration would need more than four weeks.
Conclusion
This article proposed a practical method to increase water infrastructure seismic resilience and specified quantitative measures of restoration time and serviceability index as key parts of urban resilience. The keys to this framework are the three complementary measures of resilience: Reduced time to recovery, increased serviceability index to reduce the consequences of the earthquake and increased the stability of the system. The finding suggests that increasing infrastructure resilience and repair team would reduce the restoration time and damage. However, team numbers should be limited because two teams cannot work at one time on the same area. Since serviceability index has a direct relation with water supply interrupted population, then we found that by increasing serviceability, system resilience will be increased. Furthermore, retrofitting and improving the system would reduce the damage and restoration time which will increase system resilience by 20%.
Based on this article's results, we recommend the following actions to increase urban water infrastructure resilience:
• It seems that three posts consist of 9 teams are essential to achieving the standard resilience target
• A long-term comprehensive earthquake restoration plan should be prepared based on the priority of potable water pipelines (Map 3)
• Developing mid-term and long-term restoration and rehabilitation plans to change vital urban lines with more flexible pipes based on the results of the model to reduce the damage by 70% and increase the urban resilience
• Finally, we encourage more academic studies with a practical approach to propose new urban resilience models
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
13. Abrahamson, N., & Silva, W. (2008). Summary of the Abrahamson & Silva NGA ground-motion relations. Earthquake Spectra. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2924360
14. Agarwal, J., 2015, Improving resilience through vulnerability assessment and management, Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, Vol. 32, No. 1-2, PP. 5-17.
15. 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.
16. Alexander, D., 2007, Making research on geological hazards relevant to stakeholders' needs, Quaternary International, Vol. 171, No. 1, PP. 186-192.
17. Alexander, D. E., 2013, Resilience and disaster risk reduction: an etymological journey, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci, Vol. 13, No. 11, PP. 2707-2716.
18. Bagheri, A.; Darijani, M.; Asgary, A. and Morid, S., 2010, Crisis in Urban Water Systems during the Reconstruction Period: A System Dynamics Analysis of Alternative Policies after the 2003 Earthquake in Bam-Iran, Water Resources Management, Vol. 24, No. 11, PP. 2567-2596.
19. Berberian, M. and Yeats, R. S., 2016, Tehran: An earthquake time bomb, Geological Society of America Special Papers, Vol. 525, No. 1, PP. 291.
20. Boostan, E.; Tahernia, N. and Shafiee, A., 2015, Fuzzy—probabilistic seismic hazard assessment, case study: Tehran region, Iran, Natural Hazards, Vol. 77, No. 2, PP. 525-541.
21. Bruneau, M.; Chang, S. E.; Eguchi, R. T.; Lee, G. C.; O'Rourke, T. D.; Reinhorn, A. M.; … and Winterfeldt, D. V., 2003, A Framework to Quantitatively Assess and Enhance the Seismic Resilience of Communities, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 19, No. 4, PP. 733-752.
22. Bozza, A.; Asprone, D. and Manfredi, G. (2015). Developing an integrated framework to quantify resilience of urban systems against disasters, Natural Hazards, Vol. 78, No. 3, PP. 1729-1748. doi:10.1007/s11069-015-1798-3.
23. Chang, S. E.; McDaniels, T.; Fox, J.; Dhariwal, R. and Longstaff, H.,2014, Toward disaster-resilient cities: characterizing resilience of infrastructure systems with expert judgments, Risk analysis, Vol. 34, No. 3, PP. 416-434.
24. Chang, S. E.; Svekla, W. D. and Shinozuka, M. (2002). Linking infrastructure and urban economy: simulation of water-disruption impacts in earthquakes, Environment and Planning B-Planning & Design, Vol. 29, No, 2, PP. 281-301. doi:10.1068/b2789.
25. Cutter, S. L.; Boruff, B. J. and Shirley, W. L., 2003, Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards*, Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 84, No. 2, PP. 242-261. doi:10.1111/1540-6237.8402002.
26. Dahlberg, R.; Johannessen-Henry, C. T.; Raju, E. and Tulsiani, S., 2015, Resilience in disaster research: three versions, Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, Vol. 32, No. 1-2, PP. 44-54.
27. FEMA,1999, Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology, HAZUS 99, Technical Manual, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C, USA.
28. FEMA, 2013, HAZUS-MH2.1 Multi Hazard Loss Estimation Methodology, Washington.
29. Frazier, T. G., Walker, M. H., Kumari, A., & Thompson, C. M. (2013). Opportunities and constraints to hazard mitigation planning. Applied Geography. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.01.008
30. Gardner, J.K., and Knopoff, L., 1974, Is the sequence of earthquakes in southern California with aftershocks removed Poissonian?, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am, Vol. 64, No. 1, PP. 1363-1367.
31. Holling, C. S., 1973, Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 1, No. 4, PP. 1-23.
32. Hough, S. and Roger, B., 2014, After the Earth quakes: elastic rebound on an urban planet, translated by Kamranzadeh, F.; Zare, M.,Tehran: Maziar.
33. JICA, 2000, The Study on Seismic Microzoning of the Greater Tehran Area in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pacific Consultants International Report, Japan.
34. 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.
35. 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. 152, No. 3, PP. 413-442.
36. Lindell, M. K. and Prater, C. S.,2003, Assessing Community Impacts of Natural Disasters, Natural Hazards Review, Vol. 4, No. 4, PP. 176-185.
38. 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.
39. Meerow, S.; Newell, J. P. and Stults, M., 2016, Defining urban resilience: A review, Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 147, PP. 38-49. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.11.011
40. Moghadam, H., 2002, Earthquake Engineering, Tehran: Farahang.
41. Nategielahi, F., 2000, Megacities' Disaster Management with Resprct to Tehran's Earthquake Disaster Management, Tehran: International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology.
42. National Research Council Committee on National Earthquake Resilience, 2011, National earthquake resilience: research, implementation, and outreach, Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
43. Omidvar, B.; Hojjati Malekshah, M. and Omidvar, H., 2014, Failure risk assessment of interdependent infrastructures against earthquake, a Petri net approach: case study-power and water distribution networks, Natural Hazards, Vol. 71, No. 3, PP. 1971-1993. doi:10.1007/s11069-013-0990-6.
45. Pagano, A.; Pluchinotta, I.; Giordano, R. and Vurro, M., 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.
46. Pelling, M., 2003, The vulnerability of cities: Natural disasters and social resilience, London: Earthscan Publications.
47. Pimm, S. L., 1984, The Complexity and Stailityof Ecosystems, Nature, Vol. 307, No. 5949, PP. 321-326. doi:10.1038/307321a0.
48. Porter, K. A., 2016, Damage and Restoration of Water Supply Systems in an Earthquake Sequence, Colorado university, U.S.A.
49. 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.
50. Ramezani Besheli, P.; Zare, M.; Ramezani Umali, R. and Nakhaeezadeh, G., 2015, Zoning Iran based on earthquake precursor importance and introducing a main zone using a data-mining process, Natural Hazards, Vol. 78, No. 2, PP. 821-835
51. 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.
52. 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.
53. 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.
54. Samiee, A.,2014 , Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response, Tehran: Chalesh,.
55. 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. 56, No. 6, PP. 761-785.
56. 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.
57. Timmerman, P., 1981, Vulnerability, Resilience and the Collapse of Society: A Review of Models and Possible Climatic Applications, Institute for Environmental Studies, Canada: University of Toronto,
58. Torres-Vera, M. A. and Antonio Canas, J., 2003, A lifeline vulnerability study in Barcelona, Spain, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, Vol. 80, No. 2, PP. 205-210.
59. UNISDR, 2009, Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction, Network: United Nation.
60. United States, Department of Homeland Security., 2007, Target capabilities list a companion to the national preparedness guidelines, Department of Homeland Security, U.S.A.
61. U.S Department of Homeland Security, 2006, National Infrastructure Protection Plan, Retrieved from https://fas.org/irp/agency/dhs/nipp.pdf
62. 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.
63. 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. doi:10.1111/1467-7717.00129.
)