As the cost of lifeline disruption rises with the size and complexity of urban communities, increasing efforts are put into enhancing infrastructure resilience to natural disasters. Aiming to improve the understanding of water supply network seismic resilience, this paper examines in detail the initial performance and restoration of the water supply network following the 22 February 2011 Mw 6.2 Christchurch, New Zealand earthquake. In addition, a method to optimize the recovery of such systems is developed in two phases: the prioritization of pipe inspection and prioritization of pipe repairs. The results inferred from the observed pipe repairs suggest that the recovery was carried out efficiently; however, applying the proposed methodology would have substantially improved the recovery of the system with a 30% reduction in the number of buildings deprived of water in the first two days. Assumptions and limitations of the modeling are also discussed and practical solutions given to apply this framework in real-time for post-earthquake restoration.
BagriacikA., DavidsonR. A., BradleyB., HughesM., and CubrinovskiM., 2018. Comparison of statistical and machine learning approaches to modeling earthquake damage to water pipelines, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering112, 76–88.
3.
BellagambaX., BradleyB. A., WotherspoonL. M., and HughesM. W., 2019. Development and validation of fragility functions for buried pipelines based on Canterbury earthquake sequence data, Earthquake Spectra35(3), in press.
4.
BocchiniP., 2013. Computational procedure for the assisted multi-phase resilience-oriented disaster management of transportation systems, in Safety, Reliability, Risk, and Life-Cycle Performance of Structures and Infrastructures (DeodatisG., EllingwoodB. R., and FrangopolD. M., eds.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 581–588.
5.
BordenF. W., 1996. The 1994 Northridge Earthquake and the Fires That Followed. Building and Fire Research Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology.
6.
BouziouD., and O'RourkeT. D., 2017. Response of the Christchurch water distribution system to the 22 February 2011 earthquake, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering97, 14–24.
7.
BouziouD., O'RourkeT. D., CubrinovskiM., and HendersonD., 2015. Evaluation of ground deformations during the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence, in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, 1–4 November, 2015, Christchurch, New Zealand.
8.
BradleyB. A., 2014. Site-specific and spatially-distributed ground-motion intensity estimation in the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquakes, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering61–62, 83–91.
9.
BradleyB. A., and CubrinovskiM., 2011. Near-source strong ground motions observed in the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake, Seismological Research Letters82, 853–865.
10.
BradleyB. A., QuigleyM. C., Van DissenR. J., and LitchfieldN. J., 2014. Ground motion and seismic source aspects of the Canterbury earthquake sequence, Earthquake Spectra30, 1–15.
11.
BruneauM., ChangS. E., EguchiR. T., LeeG. C., O'RourkeT. D., ReinhornA. M., ShinozukaM., TierneyK., WallaceW. A., and von WinterfeldtD., 2003. A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities, Earthquake Spectra19, 733–752.
12.
ChangS. E., TaylorJ. E., ElwoodK. J., SevilleE., BrunsdonD., and GartnerM., 2014. Urban disaster recovery in Christchurch: The central business district cordon and other critical decisions, Earthquake Spectra30, 513–532.
13.
ChenS., MontgomeryJ., and Bolufé–RöhlerA., 2015. Measuring the curse of dimensionality and its effects on particle swarm optimization and differential evolution, Applied Intelligence42, 514–526.
14.
ChungR. M., BallantyneD. B., ComeauE., HolzerT. L., MadrzykowskiD. M., SchiffA. J., StoneW. C., WilcoskiJ., BorcherdtR. D., CooperJ. D., LewH. S., MoehleJ. P., ShengL. H., TaylorA. W., BuckerI., HayesJ. R.Jr., LeyendeckerE. V., O'RourkeT., SinghM. P., and WhitneyM., 1996. January 17, 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu (Kobe) Earthquake: Performance of Structures, Lifelines, and Fire Protection Systems (NIST SP 901), Tech. Rep. NIST SP 901, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
15.
CimellaroG. P., ReinhornA. M., and BruneauM., 2010. Framework for analytical quantification of disaster resilience, Engineering Structures32, 3639–3649.
16.
CousinsJ., 2013. Wellington Without Water – Impact of Large Earthquakes, Tech. Rep. 2012/30, GNS Science Report, Lower Hutt, New Zealand.
17.
CubrinovskiM., BradleyB., WotherspoonL., GreenR., BrayJ., WoodC., PenderM., AllenJ., BradshawA., RixG., TaylorM., RobinsonK., HendersonD., GiorginiS., MaK., WinkleyA., ZupanJ., O'RourkeT., DePascaleG., and WellsD., 2011. Geotechnical aspects of the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering44, 205–226.
18.
CubrinovskiM., HughesM., BradleyB., NoonanJ., HopkinsR., McNeillS., and EnglishG., 2014. Performance of Horizontal Infrastructure in Christchurch City through the 2010–2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence, Tech. Rep., Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
19.
DahlhamerJ. M., WebbG. R., and TierneyK. J., 1999. Predicting Business Financial Losses in the 1989 Loma Prieta and 1994 Northridge Earthquakes: Implications for Loss Estimation Research, Preliminary Papers 282, Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware, Newark, DE.
20.
DavisC. A., 2014. Water system service categories, post-earthquake interaction, and restoration strategies, Earthquake Spectra30, 1487–1509.
21.
DellowG., YettonM., MasseyC., ArchibaldG., BarrellD. J. A., BellD., BruceZ., CampbellA., DaviesT., De PascaleG., EastonM., ForsythP. J., GibbonsC., GlasseyP., GrantH., GreenR., HancoxG., JongensR., KingsburyP., KupecJ., MacfarlaneD., McDowellB., McKelveyB., McCahonI., McPhersonI., MolloyJ., MuirsonJ., O'HalloranM., PerrinN., PriceC., ReadS., TraylenN., Van DissenR., VilleneuveM., and WalshI., 2011. Landslides caused by the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake and management of landslide risk in the immediate aftermath, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering44, 227–238.
22.
EidingerJ., and TangA. (eds.), 2012. Christchurch, New Zealand Earthquake Sequence of Mw 7.1 September 04, 2010 Mw 6.3 February 22, 2011 Mw 6.0 June 13, 2011: Lifeline Performance, Monograph No. 40, Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, Reston, VA.
23.
FangY., and SansaviniG., 2017. Emergence of antifragility by optimum postdisruption restoration planning of infrastructure networks, Journal of Infrastructure Systems23, 04017024.
24.
FawcettT., 2006. An introduction to ROC analysis, Pattern Recognition Letters27, 861–874.
FengC. -M., and WangT. -C., 2003. Highway emergency rehabilitation scheduling in post-earthquake 72 hours, Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies5, 3276–3285.
FraserI. (ed.), 2017. Building Urban Resilience in New Zealand: Lessons from Our Major Cities, Centre for Disaster Resilience, Recovery and Reconstruction, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
29.
GiovinazziS., StevensonJ., MitchellJ., and MasonA., 2012. Temporary housing issues following the 22nd Christchurch Earthquake, NZ, in Proceedings of the 2012 New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Conference, New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Christchurch, New Zealand, 13–15.
30.
GiovinazziS., WilsonT. M., DavisC., BristowD., GallagherM., SchofieldA., VillemureM., EidingerJ., and TangA., 2011. Lifelines performance and management following the 22 February 2011 Christchurch Earthquake, New Zealand: Highlights of resilience, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering44, 402–417.
31.
HallegatteS., 2008. An adaptive regional input-output model and its application to the assessment of the economic cost of Katrina, Risk Analysis28, 779–799.
32.
HauptR. L., and HauptS. E., 2004. Practical Genetic Algorithms, 2nd edition, Wiley Interscience, Hoboken, NJ.
33.
HughesM. W., NayyerlooM., BellagambaX., MorrisJ., BrabhaharanP., RooneyS., HobbsE., WooleyK., and HutchisonS., 2017. Impacts of the 14th November 2016 Kaikoura Earthquake on three water systems in Wellington, Marlborough and Kaikoura, New Zealand: preliminary observations, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering50, 306–317.
34.
HughesM. W., QuigleyM. C., van BallegooyS., DeamB. L., BradleyB. A., HartD. E., and MeasuresR., 2015. The sinking city: Earthquakes increase flood hazard in Christchurch, New Zealand, GSA Today25, 4–10.
35.
HynesW. M., PurcellS. M., WalshS. D., and EhimenE., 2016. Formalizing resilience concepts for critical infrastructure, in IRGC Resource Guide on Resilience, EPFL International Risk Governance Center (IRGC), Lausanne, Switzerland, 118–122.
JayaramN., and BakerJ. W., 2009. Correlation model for spatially distributed ground-motion intensities, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics38, 1687–1708.
39.
KingA., MiddletonD., BrownC., JohnstonD., and JohalS., 2014. Insurance: Its role in recovery from the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence, Earthquake Spectra30, 475–491.
40.
KliseK., BynumM., MoriartyD., and MurrayR., 2017. A software framework for assessing the resilience of drinking water systems to disasters with an example earthquake case study, Environmental Modelling & Software95, 420–431.
MallipeddiR., and SuganthanP. N., 2008. Empirical study on the effect of population size on Differential evolution Algorithm, in Evolutionary Computation, 2008, CEC 2008. (IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence), IEEE Congress, 3663–3670, IEEE, Piscataway, NJ.
43.
McReynoldsL., and SimmonsR. L., 1995. LA's rehearsal for the big one, Journal-American Water Works Association87, 65–70.
44.
MilesS. B., and ChangS. E., 2006. Modeling community recovery from earthquakes, Earthquake Spectra22, 439–458.
45.
MitchellM., 1998. An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
46.
O'RourkeT. D., JeonS. -S., ToprakS., CubrinovskiM., HughesM., van BallegooyS., and BouziouD., 2014. Earthquake response of underground pipeline networks in Christchurch, NZ, Earthquake Spectra30, 183–204.
47.
RoseA., BenavidesJ., ChangS. E., SzczesniakP., and LimD., 1997. The regional economic impact of an earthquake: Direct and indirect effects of electricity lifeline disruptions, Journal of Regional Science37, 437–458.
StevensonJ. R., BeckerJ., Cradock-HenryN., JohalS., JohnstonD., OrchistonC., and SevilleE., 2017. Economic and social reconnaissance: Kaik ura Earthquake 2016, Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering50, 343–351.
51.
StevensonJ. R., KachaliH., WhitmanZ., SevilleE., VargoJ., and WilsonT., 2011. Preliminary observations of the impacts the 22 February Christchurch Earthquake on organisations and the economy: A report from the field (22 February – 22 March 2011), Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering44, 65–76.
StornR., 1996. On the usage of differential evolution for function optimization, in Proceedings, North American Fuzzy Information Processing, 1996, IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 519–523.
54.
TabucchiT., DavidsonR., and BrinkS., 2010. Simulation of post-earthquake water supply system restoration, Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems27, 263–279.
55.
TierneyK. J., 1997. Business impacts of the Northridge Earthquake, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management5, 87–97.
56.
XuN., GuikemaS. D., DavidsonR. A., NozickL. K., ÇağnanZ., and VaziriK., 2007. Optimizing scheduling of post-earthquake electric power restoration tasks, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics36, 265–284.
57.
YaoM. -J., and MinK. J., 1998. Repair-unit location models for power failures, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management45, 57–65.
58.
ZornC. R., and ShamseldinA. Y., 2016. Quantifying directional dependencies from infrastructure restoration data, Earthquake Spectra32, 1363–1381.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
