JDR Vol.18 No.4 pp. 366-378
doi: 10.20965/jdr.2023.p0366


Earthquake Damage Assessment of Buried Pipeline Networks in the Lima Metropolitan Area

Italo Inocente*,† ORCID Icon, Miguel Diaz* ORCID Icon, Jorge Gallardo* ORCID Icon, Yoshihisa Maruyama** ORCID Icon, Luis Quiroz* ORCID Icon, and Carlos Zavala* ORCID Icon

*Japan Peru Center for Earthquake Engineering Research and Disaster Mitigation (CISMID), National University of Engineering (UNI)
Av. Tupac Amaru 1150, Lima 15333, Peru

Corresponding author

**Graduate School of Engineering, Chiba University
Chiba, Japan

January 6, 2023
April 13, 2023
June 1, 2023
earthquake damage assessment, buried pipeline, fragility function, drinking water system, sewage system

Lifelines such as drinking water and sewage systems provide the means and conveyance for daily critical services, and they are essential systems for recovery operations after a damaging earthquake. Therefore, earthquake damage to lifeline components needs to be reliably assessed for a possible future seismic scenario. This study presents an earthquake damage assessment of buried pipeline networks in the Lima Metropolitan Area (LMA). It includes seismic hazard analysis, a review of pipeline network datasets, and the selection of empirical fragility functions. Deterministic seismic hazard analysis was performed for an inter-plate earthquake scenario using ground motion prediction equations and site conditions to compute the distribution of the peak ground velocity (PGV). Recommendations are offered for an adequate selection of fragility functions developed in other regions, and a logic tree of fragility functions is proposed to be used in pipelines of LMA according to the data of pipeline damage after the 2007 Pisco Earthquake. Finally, the pipeline repair ratios and the total number of repairs are estimated for the earthquake scenario, and the results are geographically presented for each pipeline network.

Cite this article as:
I. Inocente, M. Diaz, J. Gallardo, Y. Maruyama, L. Quiroz, and C. Zavala, “Earthquake Damage Assessment of Buried Pipeline Networks in the Lima Metropolitan Area,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.18 No.4, pp. 366-378, 2023.
Data files:
  1. [1] H. Kameda, “Engineering management of lifelines systems under earthquake risk,” Proc. of the 12th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Article No.2827, 2000.
  2. [2] T. D. O’Rourke, Y. Wang, and P. Shi, “Advances in lifelines earthquake engineering,” Proc. of the 13th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Article No.5003, 2004.
  3. [3] J. Daniell and A. Vervaeck, “The CATDAT Damaging Earthquakes Database – 2012 – The Year in Review: CEDIM Research Report 2013-01,” Geography, 2013.
  4. [4] Z. Aguilar, M. Roncal, and R. Piedra, “Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment in the Peruvian Territory,” Proc. of the 16th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Article No.3028, 2017.
  5. [5] N. Pulido et al., “Scenario Source Models and Strong Ground Motion for Future Mega-Earthquakes: Application to Lima, Central Peru,” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., Vol.105, No.1, pp. 368-386, 2015.
  6. [6] J. Kuroiwa, “Report on Risk Identification of Drinking Water Distribution Pipelines,” SEDAPAL, Report, No.6, 2017 (in Spanish).
  7. [7] M. J. O’Rourke and G. Ayala, “Pipeline Damage Due to Wave Propagation,” J. Geotech. Eng., Vol.119, No.9, pp. 1490-1498, 1993.
  8. [8] American Lifelines Alliance (ALA), “Seismic Fragility Formulations for Water Systems,” ASCE, 2001.
  9. [9] M. Alcantara, “Evaluation of the damage caused to the water supply system of Pisco province due to the 2007 Pisco Earthquake,” C.E. Thesis, School of Sanitary Engineering, National University of Engineering, 2013 (in Spanish).
  10. [10] National Institute of Statistics and Informatics (INEI), “Population estimates and projections by Department, Province, and District, 2018-2020,” 2020 (in Spanish). [Accessed December 15, 2022]
  11. [11] Presidency of the Council of Ministers, “Lima Metropolitan Area: Territorial Information,” 2018 (in Spanish). [Accessed December 10, 2022]
  12. [12] G. Lanzano, E. Salzano, F. S. de Magistris, and G. Fabbrocino, “Seismic vulnerability of gas and liquid buried pipelines,” J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., Vol.28, pp. 72-78, 2014.
  13. [13] K. Pitilakis, H. Crowley, and A. M. Kaynia (Eds.), “SYNER-G: Typology Definition and Fragility Functions for Physical Elements at Seismic Risk,” Springer Dordrecht, 2014.
  14. [14] I. Tromans, “Behaviour of Buried Water Supply Pipelines in Earthquake Zones,” Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, 2004.
  15. [15] P. Gehl, N. Desramaut, A. Réveillère, and H. Modaressi, “Fragility Functions of Gas and Oil Networks,” K. Pitilakis, H. Crowley, and A. M. Kaynia (Eds.), “SYNER-G: Typology Definition and Fragility Functions for Physical Elements at Seismic Risk,” pp. 187-220, Springer Dordrecht, 2014.
  16. [16] S. Toprak and F. Taskin, “Estimation of Earthquake Damage to Buried Pipelines Caused by Ground Shaking,” Nat. Hazards, Vol.40, No.1, pp. 1-24, 2007.
  17. [17] Y. Maruyama and F. Yamazaki, “Construction on Fragility Curve for Water Distribution Pipes based on Damage Datasets from Recent Earthquakes in Japan,” Proc. of the 9th US National and 10th Canadian Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Article No.422, 2010.
  18. [18] Y. Kuwata, K. Sato, and S. Kato, “Seismic Vulnerability of a Water-Supply pipeline based on the damage analysis of two earthquakes during the Great East Japan Earthquake,” J. Japan Assoc. Earthq. Eng., Vol.18, No.3, pp. 91-103, 2018.
  19. [19] S. Toprak, “Earthquake Effects on Buried Lifeline Systems,” Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University, 1998.
  20. [20] 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.
  21. [21] O. Pineda-Porras and M. Ordaz, “Seismic Vulnerability Function for High-Diameter Buried Pipelines: Mexico City’s Primary Water System Case,” New Pipeline Technologies, Security, and Safety, pp. 1145-1154, 2003.
  22. [22] S. S. Jeon and T. D. O’Rourke, “Northridge Earthquake Effects on Pipelines and Residential Buildings,” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., Vol.95, No.1, pp. 294-318, 2005.
  23. [23] T. D. O’Rourke, S. S. Jeon, S. Toprak, M. Cubrinovski, and J. K. Jung, “Underground Lifeline System Performance during the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence,” Proc. of the 15th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, 2012.
  24. [24] K. Kakderi and S. Argyroudis, “Fragility Functions of Water and Waste-Water Systems,” K. Pitilakis, H. Crowley, and A. M. Kaynia (Eds.), “SYNER-G: Typology Definition and Fragility Functions for Physical Elements at Seismic Risk,” pp. 221-258, Springer Dordrecht, 2014.
  25. [25] O. Pineda-Porras and M. Najafi, “Seismic Damage Estimation for Buried Pipelines: Challenges after Three Decades of Progress,” J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract., Vol.1, No.1, pp. 19-24, 2010.
  26. [26] A. K. Tang and J. Johnsson (Eds.), “Pisco, Peru, Earthquake of August 15, 2007: Lifeline Performance,” ASCE, 2010.
  27. [27] The World Bank. “Economic impact of the 2007 earthquake in the water and sanitation sector in four provinces of Peru,” 2011, [Accessed December 10, 2022]
  28. [28] S. Matsuzaki, N. Pulido, Y. Maruyama, M. Estrada, C. Zavala, and F. Yamazaki, “Evaluation of Seismic Vulnerability of Buildings Based on Damage Survey Data from the 2007 Pisco, Peru Earthquake,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.9, No.6, pp. 1050-1058, 2014.
  29. [29] H. Tavera, I. Bernal, F. O. Strasser, M. C. Arango-Gaviria, J. E. Alarcón, and J. J. Bommer, “Ground motions observed during the 15 August 2007 Pisco, Peru, earthquake,” Bull. Earthq. Eng., Vol.7, No.1, pp. 71-111, 2009.
  30. [30] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “Hazus Earthquake Model Technical Manual: Hazus 4.2 SP3,” FEMA, 2020.
  31. [31] SEDAPAL, “Technical Considerations for Pipes and Accessories in Works and Services in SEDAPAL (Drinking Water and Sewage),” 2022 (in Spanish). [Accessed December 23, 2022]
  32. [32] F. Cavalieri and P. Franchin, “Seismic Risk of Infrastructure Systems with Treatment of and Sensitivity to Epistemic Uncertainty,” Infrastructures, Vol.5, No.11, Article No.103, 2020.
  33. [33] T. Rd. Wengström, “Comparative Analysis of Pipe Break Rates: A literature review,” Department of Sanitary Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology: Gothenburg, Sweden, 1993.
  34. [34] American Lifelines Alliance (ALA), “Wastewater System Performance Assessment Guideline,” ASCE, 2004.
  35. [35] L. Reiter, “Earthquake Hazard Analysis: Issues and insights,” 1st ed., Columbia University Press, 1990.
  36. [36] N. Kuehn, Y. Bozorgnia, K. 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, 2020.
  37. [37] G. Parker, J. Stewart, D. Boore, G. Atkinson, and B. Hassani, “NGA-Subduction Global Ground-Motion Models with Regional Adjustment Factors,” Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), Report No.2020/03, 2020.
  38. [38] 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.
  39. [39] D. Calderón, Z. Aguilar, F. Lazares, S. Alarcon, and S. Quispe, “Development of a Seismic Microzoning Map for Lima City and Callao, Peru,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.9, No.6, pp. 939-945, 2014.
  40. [40] E. L. Krinitzsky, “How to obtain earthquake ground motions for engineering design,” Eng. Geol., Vol.65, No.1, pp. 1-16, 2002.

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

Last updated on Sep. 29, 2023