Proactive Seismic Rehabilitation Decision-Making for Water Pipe Networks Considering Earthquake-Induced Transient Strains and Geotechnical Instability
Publication: ASCE Inspire 2023
ABSTRACT
Any type of break or any significant amount of leak after seismic events can reduce the serviceability of a water network. Proactive seismic rehabilitation decision-making is essential to reduce the losses and increase the serviceability of a water pipe network after a seismic event. Although water pipelines are vulnerable to permanent ground deformation (PGD) due to earthquake-induced geotechnical instability (landslide and liquefaction hazards) in susceptible zones, a combination of damage due to earthquake-induced transient strains and geotechnical instability (landslide and liquefaction) has not been considered at network level in existing proactive seismic rehabilitation decision-making models of water pipe networks. This research presents a stochastic combinatorial optimization algorithm to determine the most critical pipes of a water pipe network vulnerable to seismic events considering a combination of PGD (damages due to landslide and liquefaction in susceptible zones), PGV (peak ground velocity), and PGA (peak ground acceleration) (damages due to induced transient strains) for a certain budget constraint. Once the earthquake characteristics (e.g., magnitude, epicenter) were identified using deaggregation analysis, PGA and PGV were calculated at the location of each pipe using the ground motion prediction equation (GMPE). The value of PGA and PGV was used to study landslide and liquefaction hazards providing a hybrid empirical-mechanical-based estimation of PGD. A three-phase geotechnical approach was used both for landslide and liquefaction hazards, representing (1) susceptibility analysis, (2) triggering analysis, and (3) estimation of PGD. The stochastic optimization problem was solved using a simulated annealing-based optimization algorithm. Modena network, a benchmark network, was assumed as the test network for the application of the methodology. The approach was verified by comparing the results with an existing method where the value of PGD was assumed to be zero. The comparative study results showed that the inclusion of landslide and liquefaction hazards significantly affects the identified critical pipes of the water pipelines. Also, the maximum achievable serviceability index for the selected rehabilitation budget was reduced significantly if landslide and liquefaction hazards were considered. The proposed methodology is a novel approach that considers a combination of earthquake-induced geotechnical instability and damages due to earthquake-induced transient strain for network-level proactive seismic rehabilitation decision-making.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this chapter.
REFERENCES
Abrahamson, N. A., and Silva, W. J. (2007). Abrahamson & Silva NGA ground motion relations for the geometric mean horizontal component of peak and spectral ground motion parameters. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of California.
ALA (American Lifelines Alliance). (2001). Seismic Fragility Formulations for Water Systems.
Bardet, J. P., Mace, N., and Tobita, T. (1999). Liquefaction-induced ground deformation and failure. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
Boskabadi, A. (2020). A Two-Stage Stochastic Programming Model for Enhancing Seismic Resilience of Water Pipe Networks. The University of Texas at Arlington.
Davis, C. (2016). “Pipe Rehabilitation for a Seismic Resilient System.” Large Pressure Pipe Structural Rehabilitation Conference.
Eidinger, J., and Davis, C. A. (2012). Recent earthquakes: implications for US water utilities. Water Research Foundation.
De Risi, R., De Luca, F., Kwon, O. S., and Sextos, A. (2018). Scenario-based seismic risk assessment for buried transmission gas pipelines at regional scale. J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract, 9(4), 04018018.
Galli, P. (2000). New empirical relationships between magnitude and distance for liquefaction. Tectonophysics, 324(3), 169–187.
Iwasaki, T., Tatsuoka, F., Tokida, K. I., and Yasuda, S. (1978). A practical method for assessing soil liquefaction potential based on case studies at various sites in Japan. In Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Microzonation (pp. 885–896). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
Kayen, R., Moss, R. E. S., Thompson, E. M., Seed, R. B., Cetin, K. O., Der Kiureghian, A., Tanaka, Y., and Tokimatsu, K. (2013). Shear-wave velocity–based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 139(3), 407–419.
Keefer, D. K. (1984). Landslides caused by earthquakes. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 95(4), 406–421.
Newmark, N. M. (1965). Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments. Geotechnique, 15(2), 139–160.
O’Rourke, T. D., Jeon, S. S., Toprak, S., Cubrinovski, M., Hughes, M., van Ballegooy, S., and Bouziou, D. (2014). Earthquake response of underground pipeline networks in Christchurch, NZ. Earthquake Spectra, 30(1), 183–204.
Pudasaini, B., and Shahandashti, S. M. (2018). Identification of critical pipes for proactive resource-constrained seismic rehabilitation of water pipe networks. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 24(4), 04018024.
Roy, A., Pudasaini, B., and Shahandashti, M. (2021). Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Water Pipe Networks under Network Uncertainties. In Pipelines 2021 (pp. 171–179).
Roy, A., Shahandashti, M., and Rosenberger, J. M. (2022). Effects of Network Uncertainty on Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Water Pipe Networks. Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice, 13(3), 04022016.
Saygili, G., and Rathje, E. M. (2008). Empirical predictive models for earthquake-induced sliding displacements of slopes. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 134(6), 790–803.
Schmertmann, J. H. (1978). Guidelines for cone penetration test, performance and design., US Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 145.
Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M. (1971). Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 97, 1249–1273.
Shahandashti, S. M., and Pudasaini, B. (2019). “Proactive seismic rehabilitation decision-making for water pipe networks using simulated annealing.” Nat. Hazard. Rev. 20 (2): 04019003.
Sharveen, S., Roy, A., and Shahandashti, M. (2022). Risk-Averse Proactive Seismic Rehabilitation Decision-Making for Water Distribution Systems. In Pipelines 2022 (pp. 81–90).
Shi, P. (2006). Seismic response modeling of water supply systems. Cornell University.
Tanabe, K., and Takada, S. (1988). Estimation of earthquake-induced settlements for lifeline engineering. Proceedings of 9th 646 World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, August 2-647 9,1988, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, 3, 377–384.
USGS. (2018). U.S. Quaternary Faults and Folds Database.
Wang, Y., Au, S.-K., and Fu, Q. (2010). “Seismic risk assessment and mitigation of water supply systems.” Earthquake Spectra, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 26(1), 257–274.
Wu, J., and Baker, J. W. (2017). “End-To-End Simulation and Analysis Framework for Efficient Seismic Retrofitting of Water Systems.” 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
Yerri, S. R., Piratla, K. R., Matthews, J. C., Yazdekhasti, S., Cho, J., and Koo, D. (2016). “Empirical analysis of large diameter water main break consequences.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
ASCE Inspire 2023
Pages: 979 - 988
History
Published online: Nov 14, 2023
ASCE Technical Topics:
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.