Abstract
To evaluate seismic risk, it must be taken into account that modern towns depend daily on lifelines and utility systems, that become essential after natural disasters, but are often without any earthquake threat. To evaluate lifeline networks seismic vulnerability, we usually refer to damage models, requiring parameters dealing with pipe features, soil behavior, and seismic hazard of the studied area (peak ground acceleration or velocity, PGA, PGV, or permanent ground displacement, PGD). In this work, models evaluating seismic hazard in a studied area and expected seismic damage for pipeline networks will be applied. A model is shown to assess earthquake induced slope displacements. Some attenuation laws will be selected to evaluate PGA, PGV and PGD. Finally, Repair Rate will be calculated for pipes of an important Italian water network feeding 20 towns of Etnean area, referring to three seismic scenario events. Applications will be developed in a GIS environment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ambraseys NN, Menu JM (1988) Earthquake-induced ground displacements. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 16:985–1006.
American Lifelines Alliance (2001) Seismic fragility formulations for water systems. guideline: ASCE-FEMA, Part 1, p. 104 and Appendices: ASCE-FEMA, Part 2, p. 239.
Azzaro R, Barbano MS, Antichi B, Rigano R (2000) Macroseismic Catalogue of Mt. Etna earthquakes from 1832 to 1998. Acta Vulcanologica 12(1–2):3–36 (CD-ROM).
D.M. 14/01/2008, New Italian Technical Seismic Regulation.
Faccioli E, Rovelli A (INGV Roma) (2004–2006) Project S5 – Seismic input in terms of expected spectral displacements. A collection of the research units final scientific forms.
Idriss I (1985). Evaluating seismic risk in engineering practice, Proceeding Eleventh International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, vol. 1. A.A. Balkema, San Fransisco, CA, pp. 255–320.
Isenberg J, Richardson E, O’Rourke TD (1988) Buried pipelines across San Andreas fault. Proceedings of 9th World Conference Earthquake Engineering. Tokyo/Kyoto.
Isoyama R, Ishida E, Yune K, Shirozu T (1998) Seismic damage estimation procedure for water supply pipelines. Proceedings of Water & Earthquake ’98 Tokyo, IWSA International workshop, Anti-Seismic Measures on Water Supply, International Water Services Association and Japan Water Works Association, Tokyo Japan.
Lambe TW, Whitman RV (1969) Soil Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons.
Kawashima K (2006). Seismic analysis of underground structures. J Disaster Res 1(3):378–389.
Monge O, Alexoudi M, Argyroudis, Martin C, Pitilakis K (2004) RISK-UE. An advanced approach to earthquake risk scenarios with applications to different European towns. Vulnerability assessment of lifelines and essential facilities (WP06): Basic methodological handbook. Report n°GTR-RSK 0101-152 av7, 71 pp.
Nagata S, Kageyama K, Yamamoto K (2008) An emergency restoration model for water supply network damage due to earthquakes. J Disaster Res 3(6):2008, pp.
National Institute of Building Sciences (1999, 2004) Direct physical damage to lifelines-transportation systems-utility systems. Earthquake loss estimation methodology. HAZUS Technical manual, Vol. 2. Chap. 7, 8. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
Newmark NM (1965) Effect of earthquakes on dam and embankment, The Rankine Lecture, Geotèchnique 15(2).
Pitilakis K, Alexoudi A, Argyroudis S, Monge O, Martin C (2006) Earthquake Risk assessment of lifelines. Bull Earthquake Eng 4:365–390.
Raciti E (2008). Lifelines seismic risk: evaluations in a GIS environment. Master Thesis in Analysis, Monitoring and Mitigation of Environmental Risk; (In Italian).
Reed D, Cook C (1999) Multi-hazard analysis of utility lifeline systems. In: Elliot M, McDonough P (eds.) Proceedings of 5th US Conference on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, TCLEE/ASCE, Monograph No.16, 940–949 390 Bull Earthquake Eng (2006) 4:365–390.
Sabetta F, Pugliese A (1996). Estimation of response spectra and simulation of nonstationarity earthquake ground-motion. Bull Seismolog Soc Am 86:337–352.
Seligson H, Ballantyne D, Huyck Ch, Eguchi R, Bucknam St, Bortugno E (2003) URAMP (Utilities Regional Assessment of Mitigation Priorities)—a benefit–cost analysis tool for water, wastewater and drainage utilities: methodology development. In: Beavers JE (ed.) Proceedings of 6th US Conference and Workshop on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, TCLEE/ASCE, Monograph No.25, pp. 494–503.
Scawthorn Ch, Ballantyne DB, Eguchi R, Khater M (1999) Multi-hazard risk assessment for lifelines – Part 1 – overview and approach. In: Elliot M, McDonough P (eds.) Proceedings of 5th US Conference on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, TCLEE/ASCE, Monograph No. 16, pp. 950–959.
Tromans IJ, Bommer JJ (2002). The attenuation of strong-motion peaks in Europe. Proceedings of 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, p. 394.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Maugeri, M., Motta, E., Mussumeci, G., Raciti, E. (2010). GIS Techniques in the Evaluation of Pipeline Networks Seismic Hazard. In: Konecny, M., Zlatanova, S., Bandrova, T. (eds) Geographic Information and Cartography for Risk and Crisis Management. Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03442-8_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03442-8_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-03441-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-03442-8
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)