IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i6p3344-d769816.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Resilience-Based Repair Strategy for Gas Network System and Water Network System in Urban City

Author

Listed:
  • Xirong Bi

    (Key Laboratory of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration, Harbin 150080, China
    Earthquake Administration of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Nanning 530022, China)

  • Jingxian Wu

    (Department of Transportation Engineering, Business School, University of Shanghai for Science & Technology, Shanghai 200093, China)

  • Cheng Sun

    (College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Guangxi University for Nationalities, Nanning 530006, China)

  • Kun Ji

    (College of Civil and Transportation Engineering, Hohai University, Nanjing 211124, China)

Abstract

In resilience-based frameworks, optimizing the repair strategy and approaches is important for the recovery of the function of gas network systems (GNS) and water network systems (WNS). According to the resilience quantification results of GNS and WNS for a real example urban city in China, the potential impact of utilizing different repair sequences and repair/replacement approaches was investigated. First, a Monte Carlo simulation-based method was proposed to search for the optimal repair sequence according to the skew of the recovery trajectory (SRT). Under high seismic intensity conditions, the significant difference between the repair sequence corresponding to maximum SRT and minimum SRT indicates that choosing the optimal repair sequence is important in the enhancement of repair efficiency, especially when the pipelines have experienced serious damage. We also discussed the parallel repair strategy, which is more consistent with the practice, and can greatly improve the recovery efficiency compared with the single pipeline repair strategy under large damage conditions; however, under minor damage levels, the parallel repair strategy may result in a certain degree of redundancy. Next, three different repair approaches were thoroughly compared, including the point-by-point repair approach, whole pipeline replacement, and hybrid repair approach. At the condition of high seismic intensity (e.g., macroseismic intensity IX), the resilience curves for the hybrid repair approach and the pipeline replacement approach are overall similar and take less time and economic cost than the point-by-point repair approach. However, when the seismic intensity is low, the point-by-point repair approach is most efficient and has the shortest recovery time. Therefore, the choice of repair approach should be determined by stakeholders based on the specific pipeline’s damage situation. Finally, we calculated the joint resilience curves by allocating different weight factors to GNS and WNS, to represent the proportion of water and gas supply that contributes to community resilience.

Suggested Citation

  • Xirong Bi & Jingxian Wu & Cheng Sun & Kun Ji, 2022. "Resilience-Based Repair Strategy for Gas Network System and Water Network System in Urban City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-15, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:6:p:3344-:d:769816
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/6/3344/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/6/3344/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shuang, Qing & Zhang, Mingyuan & Yuan, Yongbo, 2014. "Node vulnerability of water distribution networks under cascading failures," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 132-141.
    2. Stephanie E. Chang & Timothy McDaniels & Jana Fox & Rajan Dhariwal & Holly Longstaff, 2014. "Toward Disaster‐Resilient Cities: Characterizing Resilience of Infrastructure Systems with Expert Judgments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(3), pages 416-434, March.
    3. Zhao, S. & Liu, X. & Zhuo, Y., 2017. "Hybrid Hidden Markov Models for resilience metrics in a dynamic infrastructure system," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 84-97.
    4. Ouyang, Min, 2016. "Critical location identification and vulnerability analysis of interdependent infrastructure systems under spatially localized attacks," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 106-116.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chen, Xing-lin & Huang, Zong-hou & Ge, Fan-liang & Lin, Wei-dong & Yang, Fu-qiang, 2024. "A probabilistic analysis method for evaluating the safety & resilience of urban gas pipeline network," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 248(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mingyuan Zhang & Juan Zhang & Gang Li & Yuan Zhao, 2020. "A Framework for Identifying the Critical Region in Water Distribution Network for Reinforcement Strategy from Preparation Resilience," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-17, November.
    2. Rahimi-Golkhandan, Armin & Aslani, Babak & Mohebbi, Shima, 2022. "Predictive resilience of interdependent water and transportation infrastructures: A sociotechnical approach," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    3. Suo, Weilan & Wang, Lin & Li, Jianping, 2021. "Probabilistic risk assessment for interdependent critical infrastructures: A scenario-driven dynamic stochastic model," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    4. Galvan, Giulio & Agarwal, Jitendra, 2020. "Assessing the vulnerability of infrastructure networks based on distribution measures," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    5. Agathoklis Agathokleous & Chrystalleni Christodoulou & Symeon E. Christodoulou, 2017. "Topological Robustness and Vulnerability Assessment of Water Distribution Networks," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 31(12), pages 4007-4021, September.
    6. Xiansheng Chen & Ruisong Quan, 2021. "A spatiotemporal analysis of urban resilience to the COVID-19 pandemic in the Yangtze River Delta," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 106(1), pages 829-854, March.
    7. Dong, Zhengcheng & Tian, Meng & Liang, Jiaqi & Fang, Yanjun & Lu, Yuxin, 2019. "Research on the connection radius of dependency links in interdependent spatial networks against cascading failures," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 513(C), pages 555-564.
    8. Timothy L. McDaniels & Stephanie E. Chang & David Hawkins & Gerard Chew & Holly Longstaff, 2015. "Towards disaster-resilient cities: an approach for setting priorities in infrastructure mitigation efforts," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 252-263, June.
    9. Bistouni, Fathollah & Jahanshahi, Mohsen, 2015. "Evaluating failure rate of fault-tolerant multistage interconnection networks using Weibull life distribution," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 128-146.
    10. Chi Zhang & Yuntao Wang & Yu Li & Wei Ding, 2017. "Vulnerability Analysis of Urban Drainage Systems: Tree vs. Loop Networks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-18, March.
    11. H. Klammler & P. S. C. Rao & K. Hatfield, 2018. "Modeling dynamic resilience in coupled technological-social systems subjected to stochastic disturbance regimes," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 140-159, March.
    12. Augutis, Juozas & Jokšas, Benas & Krikštolaitis, Ričardas & Urbonas, Rolandas, 2016. "The assessment technology of energy critical infrastructure," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 1494-1504.
    13. Amro Nasr & Oskar Larsson Ivanov & Ivar Björnsson & Jonas Johansson & Dániel Honfi, 2021. "Towards a Conceptual Framework for Built Infrastructure Design in an Uncertain Climate: Challenges and Research Needs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-19, October.
    14. Xi Hu & Jim W. Hall & Peijun Shi & Wee Ho Lim, 2016. "The spatial exposure of the Chinese infrastructure system to flooding and drought hazards," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 80(2), pages 1083-1118, January.
    15. Dubaniowski, Mateusz Iwo & Heinimann, Hans Rudolf, 2021. "Framework for modeling interdependencies between households, businesses, and infrastructure system, and their response to disruptions—application," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    16. Kameshwar, Sabarethinam & Cox, Daniel T. & Barbosa, Andre R. & Farokhnia, Karim & Park, Hyoungsu & Alam, Mohammad S. & van de Lindt, John W., 2019. "Probabilistic decision-support framework for community resilience: Incorporating multi-hazards, infrastructure interdependencies, and resilience goals in a Bayesian network," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    17. Poulin, Craig & Kane, Michael B., 2021. "Infrastructure resilience curves: Performance measures and summary metrics," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    18. Senderov, Sergey M. & Smirnova, Elena M. & Vorobev, Sergey V., 2020. "Analysis of vulnerability of fuel supply systems in gas-consuming regions due to failure of critical gas industry facilities," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    19. Jiang, J. & Liu, X., 2018. "Multi-objective Stackelberg game model for water supply networks against interdictions with incomplete information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 266(3), pages 920-933.
    20. Tornyeviadzi, Hoese Michel & Owusu-Ansah, Emmanuel & Mohammed, Hadi & Seidu, Razak, 2022. "A systematic framework for dynamic nodal vulnerability assessment of water distribution networks based on multilayer networks," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:6:p:3344-:d:769816. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.