JDR Vol.18 No.4 pp. 359-365
doi: 10.20965/jdr.2023.p0359


Estimation of the Restoration Period of the Water Supply System in Lima, Peru, After a Scenario Earthquake

Yoshihisa Maruyama*1,† ORCID Icon, Ryo Ichimoto*2, Nobuoto Nojima*3 ORCID Icon, Italo Inocente*4 ORCID Icon, Jorge Gallardo*4 ORCID Icon, and Luis Quiroz*4 ORCID Icon

*1Graduate School of Engineering, Chiba University
1-33 Yayoi-cho, Inage-ku, Chiba, Chiba 263-8522, Japan

Corresponding author

*2Faculty of Engineering, Chiba University
Chiba, Japan

*3Department of Civil Engineering, Gifu University
Gifu, Japan

*4Japan-Peru Center for Earthquake Engineering Research and Disaster Mitigation (CISMID), National University of Engineering (UNI)
Lima, Peru

November 30, 2022
March 27, 2023
June 1, 2023
restoration period, water supply system, Lima, Peru, probabilistic assessment

The restoration period of the water supply system in Lima, Peru, after a scenario earthquake was estimated in this study. To achieve the objective, the probabilistic assessment model for post-earthquake residual capacity of the utility lifeline system initially proposed by Nojima and Sugito (2005) and revised by following related studies was employed. The dataset of water distribution pipelines was provided by Potable Water and Sewer System Service in Lima, Peru (SEDAPAL), and the spatial distribution of ground motion with a moment magnitude of 8.6 was considered as a scenario earthquake in this study. The water disruption was anticipated to continue for approximately one month in certain districts of Lima, Peru. The estimated smallest water supplying ratio was 21.1% in Villa El Salvador after the scenario earthquake.

Cite this article as:
Y. Maruyama, R. Ichimoto, N. Nojima, I. Inocente, J. Gallardo, and L. Quiroz, “Estimation of the Restoration Period of the Water Supply System in Lima, Peru, After a Scenario Earthquake,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.18 No.4, pp. 359-365, 2023.
Data files:
  1. [1] R. Isoyama, E. Ishida, K. Yune, and T. Shirozu, “Seismic damage estimation procedure for water supply pipelines,” Water Supply, Vol.18, No.3, pp. 63-68, 2000.
  2. [2] N. Nojima and Y. Maruyama, “Comparison of functional damage and restoration processes of utility lifelines in the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake, Japan with two great earthquake disasters in 1995 and 2011,” JSCE J. of Disaster FactSheets, FS2016-L-0005, 2016.
  3. [3] N. Nojima and M. Sugito, “Probabilistic assessment model for post-earthquake serviceability of utility lifelines and its practical application,” G. Augusti, G. I. Schuëller, and M. Ciampoli (Eds.), “Safety and Reliability of Engineering Systems and Structures: Proc. of the 9th Int. Conf. on Structural Safety and Reliability (ICOSSAR’05),” pp. 279-287, Millpress, 2005.
  4. [4] N. Nojima and H. Kato, “Modification and validation of an assessment model of post-earthquake lifeline serviceability based on the Great East Japan Earthquake Disaster,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.9, No.2, pp. 108-120, 2014.
  5. [5] N. Pulido et al., “Estimation of a source model and strong motion simulation for Tacna City, South Peru,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.9, No.6, pp. 925-930, 2014.
  6. [6] N. Nojima, “Assessment model for effects of disruption of utility lifelines due to earthquake in consideration of countermeasures by suppliers and users,” J. of Social Safety Science, Vol.15, pp. 153-162, 2011 (in Japanese).
  7. [7] N. Nojima, “Seismic vulnerability index for lifeline facilities,” Proc. of the 14th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering (14WCEE), 06-0130, 2008.
  8. [8] Y. Kuwata, S. Takada, Y. Tanaka, H. Miyazaki, and Y. Komatsu, “Fragility of underground pipeline under high levels of ground motion,” J. of Water Supply: Research and Technology-Aqua, Vol.59, Nos.6-7, pp. 400-407, 2010.
  9. [9] American Lifelines Alliance, “Seismic fragility formulations for water systems: Part 1 – Guideline,” American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2001. [Accessed November 30, 2022]
  10. [10] Y. Maruyama, S. Nagata, and K. Wakamatsu, “Damage assessment of water distribution pipelines after the 2011 off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku Earthquake,” J. of Energy Challenges and Mechanics, Vol.2, No.4, pp. 144-149, 2015.
  11. [11] K. R. Karim and F. Yamazaki, “Correlation of JMA instrumental seismic intensity with strong motion parameters,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, Vol.31, No.5, pp. 1191-1212, 2002.
  12. [12] S. Midorikawa, K. Fujimoto, and I. Muramatsu, “Correlation of new J.M.A. instrumental seismic intensity with former J.M.A. seismic intensity and ground motion parameters,” J. of Social Safety Science, Vol.1, pp. 51-56, 1999 (in Japanese).
  13. [13] Z. Aguilar, M. Roncal, and R. Piedra, “Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment in the Peruvian territory,” Proc. of the 16th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering (16WCEE), 3028, 2017.
  14. [14] N. Kuehn, Y. Bozorgnia, K. W. Campbell, and N. Gregor, “Partially non-ergodic ground-motion model for subduction regions using the NGA-subduction database,” Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) Report No.2020/04, PEER, University of California at Berkeley, 2020.
  15. [15] G. A. Parker, J. P. Stewart, D. M. Boore, G. M. Atkinson, and B. Hassani, “NGA-subduction global ground-motion models with regional adjustment factors,” Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) Report No.2020/03, PEER, University of California at Berkeley, 2020.
  16. [16] T. Sekiguchi, D. Calderon, S. Nakai, Z. Aguilar, and F. Lazares, “Evaluation of surface soil amplification for wide areas in Lima, Peru,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.8, No.2, pp. 259-265, 2013.
  17. [17] Y. Maruyama and Y. Taguchi, “Evaluation of damage characteristics of water distribution pipelines after recent earthquakes in Japan,” Proc. of the 17th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering (17WCEE), 2e-0002, 2020.
  18. [18] Tokyo Metropolitan Government, “Disaster prevention information,” 2022 (in Japanese). [Accessed November 30, 2022]

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, Opera.

Last updated on May. 28, 2024