Seismic Resilience Assessment of Tehran's Southern Water Transmission Pipeline Using GIS-based Analyses

Document Type : Research


1 Ph.D. Student, School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman, USA.

2 Ph.D., School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran.

3 Assistant Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran.

4 Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Department, K. N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran.


It is well accepted that an urban region's seismic resilience is directly related to the seismic resilience of the local water systems. Pipelines having low earthquake resistance generally include old pipes and those susceptible to corrosion. The seismic vulnerability of the water transmission pipelines can be evaluated along with the geologic hazards such as landslides, liquefaction, fault movement, etc. In this study, GIS-based analyses are implemented for one of Tehran's main water transmission pipelines, which transfer Mamloo Dam water to Tehran's southern regions, by considering the four most probable earthquake scenarios to evaluate post-earthquake serviceability of the studied pipeline. Transient Ground Deformation (TGD) due to seismic wave propagation, and also Permanent Ground Deformation (PGD), which may result in liquefaction (lateral spreading, and ground settlement) and landslide, are regarded as destructive earthquake effects on the water transmission pipelines. A restoration curve is also developed for the worst scenario to investigate the adequate post-earthquake water supply throughout the service area and ensure rapid system recovery. Results show that the water serviceability index regarding the worst earthquake scenario (Rey fault activated) is 28%, which means that more than 72% of the study area's population will experience severe disruption of water availability in a potential earthquake.


1. Roohi, M., et al., Implication of building inventory accuracy on physical and socio-economic resilience metrics for informed decision-making in natural hazards. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2020. 17(4): p. 534-554. [DOI:10.1080/15732479.2020.1845753]
2. Maghsoudi-Barmi, A., et al., Probabilistic seismic performance assessment of optimally designed highway bridge isolated by ordinary unbonded elastomeric bearings. Engineering Structures, 2021. 247: p. 113058. [DOI:10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113058]
3. Khansefid, A. Lifetime risk-based seismic performance assessment of buildings equipped with supplemental damping and base isolation systems under probable mainshock-aftershock scenarios. in Structures. 2021. Elsevier. [DOI:10.1016/j.istruc.2021.09.093]
4. Fallahi, A., H. Zafari, and A. Bakhtiari, Urban areas and reduce the risk of injury, in Fifth International Conference on Seismology and Earthquake Engineering. 2007: International Institute of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering: Tehran, Iran. p. 92-99.
5. Eskandari, M., et al., Geospatial analysis of earthquake damage probability of water pipelines due to multi-hazard failure. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 2017. 6(6): p. 169. [DOI:10.3390/ijgi6060169]
6. Mousavi, M., M. Hesari, and A. Azarbakht, Seismic risk assessment of the 3rd Azerbaijan gas pipeline in Iran. Natural hazards, 2014. 74(3): p. 1327-1348. [DOI:10.1007/s11069-014-1244-y]
7. Farahani, S., A. Tahershamsi, and B. behnam, Earthquake and post-earthquake vulnerability assessment of urban gas pipelines network. Natural Hazards, 2020. [DOI:10.1007/s11069-020-03874-4]
8. Farahani, S., B. Behnam, and A. Tahershamsi, Probabilistic seismic multi-hazard loss estimation of Iran gas trunklines. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2020: p. 104176. [DOI:10.1016/j.jlp.2020.104176]
9. Taylor, C.E. Seismic Loss Estimates for a Hypothetical Water System: A Demonstration Project. 1991. ASCE.
11. O'Rourke, M. and G. Ayala, Pipeline damage due to wave propagation. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1993. 119(9): p. 1490-1498. [DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1993)119:9(1490)]
12. FEMA, Multi-Hazard Loss Estimation Methodology, Earthquake Model, HAZUS-MH2. 1. 2012: Washington, D.C.
13. O'Rourke, T., S. Toprak, and Y. Sano. Factors affecting water supply damage caused by the Northridge earthquake. in US-Japan Workshop on Earthquake Disaster Prevention For Lifeline Systems. 1998.
14. ALA, American Lifeline Alliance, Seismic fragility formulations for water systems, Part I-Guideline. Reston, VA: ALA. 2001.
15. Pineda-Porras, O. and M. Ordaz-Schroeder, Seismic vulnerability function for high-diameter buried pipelines: Mexico City's primary water system case, in New pipeline technologies, security, and safety. 2003. p. 1145-1154. [DOI:10.1061/40690(2003)131]
16. Ayala, A.G. and M.J. O'Rourke, Effects of the 1985 Michoacan earthquake on water systems and other buried lifelines in Mexico. 1989. [DOI:10.1193/1.1585583]
17. Rahnama, R., et al., Study of Seismic Vulnerability for Retrofitting Water Supply Network of Tehran District 11. Disaster Prevention and Management Knowledge (quarterly), 2016. 5(4): p. 308-314.
18. Sabeti, R., S. Jamali, and H.H. Jamali, Simulation of thermal stratification and salinity using the Ce-Qual-W2 model (case study: mamloo dam). Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, 2017. 7(3): p. 1664-1669. [DOI:10.48084/etasr.1062]
19. Vernant, P., et al., Present-day crustal deformation and plate kinematics in the Middle East constrained by GPS measurements in Iran and northern Oman. Geophysical Journal International, 2004. 157(1): p. 381-398. [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-246X.2004.02222.x]
20. Masson, F., et al., Strain rate tensor in Iran from a new GPS velocity field. Geophysical Journal International, 2014. 197(1): p. 10-21. [DOI:10.1093/gji/ggt509]
21. Khorrami, F., et al., An up-to-date crustal deformation map of Iran using integrated campaign-mode and permanent GPS velocities. Geophysical Journal International, 2019. 217(2): p. 832-843. [DOI:10.1093/gji/ggz045]
22. Talebian, M., et al., Active faulting within a megacity: the geometry and slip rate of the Pardisan thrust in central Tehran, Iran. Geophysical Supplements to the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 2016. 207(3): p. 1688-1699. [DOI:10.1093/gji/ggw347]
23. Hessami, K. and F. Jamali, Explanatory notes to the map of major active faults of Iran. Journal of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, 2020. 8(1): p. 1-11.
24. JICA, C., The study on seismic microzoning of the Greater Tehran Area in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Pacific Consultants International Report, OYO Cooperation, Japan, 2000: p. 291-390.
25. Farahani, S., B. Behnam, and A. Tahershamsi, Macrozonation of Seismic Transient Ground Displacement and Permanent Ground Deformation of Iran. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., 2020. 2020: p. 1-20. [DOI:10.5194/nhess-2020-48]
26. Wald, D., et al., ShakeMap manual: technical manual, user's guide, and software guide: US Geological Survey. Techniques and Methods TM12-A1, 2005. 132. [DOI:10.3133/tm12A1]
27. Allen, T. and D. Wald, Topographic Slope as a Proxy for Seismic Site-Conditions (Vs30) and Amplification Around the globe. Open-File Report 2007-1357. US Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, 2007. [DOI:10.3133/ofr20071357]
28. Komakpanah, A. and M. Farajzadeh. Liquefaction susceptibility and opportunity macrozonation of Iran. in Second international conference on seismology and earthquake engineering. 1995. Tehran, Iran.
29. Sadigh, K., J. Egan, and R. Youngs, Specification of ground motion for seismic design of long period structures. Earthquake notes, 1986. 57(1): p. 13.
30. Tokimatsu, K. and H.B. Seed, Evaluation of settlements in sands due to earthquake shaking. Journal of geotechnical engineering, 1987. 113(8): p. 861-878. [DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1987)113:8(861)]
31. GSI, Geological Survey and Mineral Explorations of Iran (GSI), 2018.
32. Makdisi, F.I. and H.B. Seed, Simplified procedure for estimating dam and embankment earthquake-induced deformations. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 1978. 104(Proceeding): p. 849-867. [DOI:10.1061/AJGEB6.0000668]