Advertisement

Flood Resilience of a Water Distribution System

  • Fabio TaraniEmail author
  • Chiara Arrighi
  • Laura Carnevali
  • Fabio Castelli
  • Enrico Vicario
Chapter
Part of the Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications book series (ASTSA)

Abstract

Extreme weather events such as heavy rains and floods are becoming more frequent and severe due to global warming, therefore leading to an increasing interest in methods to evaluate environmental consequences and mitigation strategies. Water supply systems (WSS) represent a class of safety-critical infrastructure prone to damage, with direct impact on public health. They can be cast in the class of cyber-physical systems, since their operation is governed by their physical behaviour—related to topology, fluid-dynamics and technology—which in turn is steered by operation policies and user behaviour—pump and valve management, demand–response mechanisms, etc. In this context, we propose an approach to estimate resilience in the indirect damage caused by a flood on a Water Supply System (WSS). To this end, we combine analysis of an inundation model, which computes the floodwater depth over time on the studied territory, and evaluation of a hydraulic network model by a Pressure-Driven Demand (PDD) approach, which also allows for demand–response mechanisms. Flood damage is assessed in terms of both lack of service experienced by inhabitants and length of pipeworks contaminated by floodwater. The approach is experimented on the WSS of Florence, Italy, which serves about 380,000 users and lies in a flood-prone territory. A sensitivity analysis is with respect to demand–response efficiency, speed, and start time.

Keywords

Water distribution networks Flood Resilience Hybrid systems 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the network operator Publiacqua SpA for the WSS hydraulic model of the city of Florence, Italy.

References

  1. 1.
    Abate A, Katoen J, Lygeros J, Prandini M (2010) Approximate model checking of stochastic hybrid systems. Eur J Control 16(6):624–641MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ashley ST, Ashley WS (2008) Flood fatalities in the United States. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 47(3):805–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arrighi C, Tarani F, Vicario E, Castelli F (2017) Flood impacts on a water distribution network. Natural Hazards Earth Syst Sci Discussions 2017:1–22. [Online]. Available: https://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net/nhess-2017-205/
  4. 4.
    Bujorianu ML, Lygeros J (2004) General stochastic hybrid systems: modelling and optimal control. In: Proceedings IEEE Conference Decision Control, Nassau, Bahamas, pp 1872–1877Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cheung P, Van Zyl J, Reis L (2005) Extension of epanet for pressure driven demand modeling in water distribution system. Comput Control Water Ind 1:311–316Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Christodoulou SE (2011) Water resources conservancy and risk reduction under climatic instability. Water Resour Manag 25(4):1059–1062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Emanuelsson MAE, Mcintyre N, Hunt CF, Mawle R, Kitson J, Voulvoulis N (2014) Flood risk assessment for infrastructure networks. J Flood Risk Manage 7(1):31–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Moel H, van Alphen J, Aerts JCJH (2009) Flood maps in Europe – methods, availability and use. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9(2):289–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    EU Parliament (2007) Directive 2007/60/EC, pp 27–34Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    IPCC (2013) Summary for policymakers. Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, p 33Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Galland J, Goutal N, Hervouet J (1991) A new numerical model for solving shallow water equations. Adv Water Resour 14(3):138–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hervouet J (2007) Hydrodynamics of free surface flows modelling with the finite element method, vol 1. Wiley, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Khan SJ, Deere D, Leusch FDL, Humpage A, Jenkins M, Cunliffe D (2015) Extreme weather events: should drinking water quality management systems adapt to changing risk profiles? Water Res 85:124–136. [Online]. Available: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.08.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Luh J, Royster S, Sebastian D, Ojomo E, Bartram J (2017) Expert assessment of the resilience of drinking water and sanitation systems to climate-related hazards. Sci. Total Environ 592:334–344. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896971730596X
  15. 15.
    Lung T, Lavalle C, Hiederer R, Dosio A, Bouwer LM (2013) A multi-hazard regional level impact assessment for Europe combining indicators of climatic and non-climatic change. Glob Environ Chang 23(2):522–536 [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.11.009
  16. 16.
    Lygeros J, Prandini M (2010) Stochastic hybrid systems: a powerful framework for complex, large scale applications. Eur J Control 16(6):583–594MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Methods H, Walski TM, Chase DV, Savic DA, Grayman W, Beckwith S, Koelle E (2003) Advanced water distribution modeling and management. Haestad Press, WaterburyGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Merz B, Kreibich H, Schwarze R, Thieken a (2010) Review article “assessment of economic flood damage”. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 10(8):1697–1724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Meyer V, Becker N, Markantonis V, Schwarze R, Van Den Bergh JCJM, Bouwer LM, Bubeck P, Ciavola P, Genovese E, Green C, Hallegatte S, Kreibich H, Lequeux Q, Logar I, Papyrakis E, Pfurtscheller C, Poussin J, Przyluski V, Thieken aH, Viavattene C (2013) Review article: assessing the costs of natural hazards-state of the art and knowledge gaps. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 13(5):1351–1373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rossman LA (1999) The EPANET programmer’s toolkit for analysis of water distribution systems. In: 29th Annual Water Resources Planning and Management Conference, Tempe, Arizona, United States, ASCE, Reston, VA, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Siew C, Tanyimboh TT (2012) Pressure-dependent EPANET extension. Water Resour Manag 26(6):1477–1498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Short MD, Peirson WL, Peters GM, Cox RJ (2012) Managing adaptation of urban water systems in a changing climate. Water Resour Manag 26(7):1953–1981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Walski T, Blakley D, Evans M, Whitman B (2017) Verifying pressure dependent demand modeling. Proc Eng 186:364–371. {XVIII} International Conference on Water Distribution Systems, {WDSA2016}. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705817313796
  24. 24.
  25. 25.
    World Economic Forum (2017) The Global Risks Report 2017 12th Edition Insight ReportGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabio Tarani
    • 1
    Email author
  • Chiara Arrighi
    • 2
  • Laura Carnevali
    • 1
  • Fabio Castelli
    • 2
  • Enrico Vicario
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information Engineering (DINFO)Università di FirenzeFirenzeItaly
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering (DICEA)Università di FirenzeFirenzeItaly

Personalised recommendations