Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.



Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this


  1. 1. EARTHQUAKE EMERGENCY ROAD NETWORK: Framework for Prioritization of Road Network in Emergency Response, A Case Study of Lalitpur – Ward No. 12 Ar. Sweta Amatya Shrestha Department of Civil Engineering Institute of engineering Pulchowk, Lalitpur Abstract Transportation is the spine for the development of every nation. In Nepal, road network holds that role. Concerning many disasters, Nepal could not escape from earthquake, as it has carved its destructive events in its history till to-date. Great earthquakes of Nepal like of 1934 and 1988 have caused huge damages to every sector including road networks. Road networks vulnerability is the major obscurities in post disaster phase especially at the first 72 hours of rescue. Being on the lap of seismic prone country and existence of haphazard urban setup, situation will be perilous in Kathmandu Valley aftermath of earthquake. Thus, study focuses on road network accessibility for rescue operation. In the study, Inversion Hierarchical Weight Process (IHWP) – method used in Tehran for accessing road vulnerability, has been tested in piloted area of Lalitpur - ward no.12. Piloted area comprises of traditional settlements with high influence of modern structures with narrow and wide access roads. This setup resembles most of the core area of Kathmandu Valley. Thus, it manifests to develop the framework for prioritization of road network in emergency response phase. Further, by analyzing road vulnerability, road blockage and priority routes in the piloted area, road networks have been prioritized. After conducting task on the area, framework for road network prioritization for emergency response in earthquake scenario has been developed which could be used in other urban sector of Kathmandu Valley for the same purpose. Key Words: Road Vulnerability, Emergency Response, IHWP, Framework I. INTRODUCTION Transportation infrastructure is one of the communicating medium. In context of Nepal, road networks hold prime importance in this sector. There are basically nine different types of roads (NRS- 1998) that have embellished Nepal. Time and again, these embellishments have been affected by earthquake. Earthquake of 1988 has portrayed this fact reflecting both functional as well as physical impacts. These impacts account much in emergency response phase. Inaccessibility to the affected area due to debris on road network has imparted loss of lives in Haiti and result could be same in context of Kathmandu Valley too. Therefore, road network accessibility has prominent role in emergency response phase. These are generally termed as Emergency Road Network. Physical characteristics of this sort of road is basically govern by width of the road, redundancy, selection of the road avoiding man-made hazards as well as tall constructions and less selection number. Similarly, vulnerability of road network is basically governed by building vulnerability, road vulnerability and road blockage as well. For the purpose, study area has been selected in the Lalitpur municipality Ward number 12. As per ward profile, this ward occupies 82 hectares of lands. Part of the community from Tangal to Lagankhel stretch has been considered. As the study focuses on accessibility, road stretches surrounding the study area and along ward 5, 15 and 19 has been considered as the study area. Figure 1 : Study Area
  2. 2. Existence of mixed residential area incorporating old and new buildings alongside the road stretches; variation of road typologies ranging from alleys till black top road network and mixed land use pattern such as residential and commercial including street vendors has made the area vulnerable in aftermath scenario. On the other hand, Ward Report as well as report by NSET on ward number 12 has depicted on the fact about earthquake vulnerability of the area. Due to this reason area has been selected for the study. Figure below gives the glimpses of the area. II. METHODOLODY Research holds Positivist Paradigm as research is based on quantitative and some qualitative analysis. Quantitative Approach has been carried out to collect and analyze the current situation of the study area on road networks regarding earthquake emergency response. Further, data has been analyzed through various calculations. Research holds Deduction logic to analyze quantitative data through IHWP- method. Further, Induction logic has been considered to develop framework from the analyzed data. Research has been conducted with all 225 numbers of buildings presented over there as each building accounts a lot in blockage of road network. Further, study has been processed following five steps such as Connectivity, Building Vulnerability, Road Vulnerability Rank, and Road Network prioritization for rescue, Road Blockage Analysis, Prioritization of road network for response operation and finally framework for prioritization of road network in Emergency Response has been developed. III. RESULTS Connectivity Connectivity of the study area till open space and hospital has been considered in the study as these are the important response function in aftermath scenario. So, road matrix from community area till Namuna Machhindra School and Patan hospital has been considered. These places have been approached in the area through two stretches from Ity tole and Lagankhel tole respectively following redundancy characteristics of emergency road network. Road stretches that connects those places holds different characteristics as portrayed in table below: Road ID Road width Road length R1 6'-11" (Tangal – Prayakpokhari) 11'-2" 564'-9" 5'-1" R (Prayakpokhari) 5'-3" 162'-3" R2(Prayakpokhari) 15'-4" 612' R3 (Tangal – Lagankhel) 14'-6" 306'-9" R4 (Thati tole-Lagakhel bus park) 17'-7" 849'-5" R5(Ity tole-Patan Hospital) 26'-4" 600'-3" R6(Ity tole Stretch) 16'-3" 584'-5" R7(Lagankhel) 36'-11" 553'-8" Figure 2 : Alleys Figure 3 : Black Topped road Figure 4 : Mixed Land use LEGEND R1 R R2 R3 R4 R7 R5 R6 Ity Tole Prayakpokhari Tangal Lagankhel Bus Park ThatiTole Patan Hospital Mental Hospital Table 1 : Road Typology Figure 5 : Road Typology
  3. 3. Building Vulnerability Study area has been shaped with both old and new buildings ranging from adobe, brick in mud, brick in cement and reinforced buildings. According to the study carried out in the area through Rapid Visual Assessment tool, it has been found that each stretch holds more than 40% of vulnerable buildings. Among them, road R and R6 holds maximum vulnerable buildings. Road Vulnerability Rank Road Vulnerability Ranking has been carried out through IHWP-method that has been referenced through Tehran document. This method is applied when single entity has to be judge by multiple indexes. Indexes considered here are building quality, population and building density, inclusion degree, land use and PGA. These indexes have been ranked according to their importance as per expert’s view and reverse scoring has been given accordingly. Table below portrayed the scenario: Further, each index has been classified as per surveyed data and score of each class has been calculated through formulae presented below: Primary Score, X = D/N where, D = Reverse Score based on its rank N = Number of classes of each indexes Score for different classes of index, j = D – (N – i) * X where, i= Assigned number to different classes of each index Calculated score for each class of indexes are presented below: . Based on these criteria, road vulnerability ranking has been carried out and data portrayed the following facts: Indexes Classification Score Building quality 0-0.4(1) 2 0.4-0.8(2) 4 0.8-1 (3) 6 Building density 0-0.0.1(1) 1.25 0.1-0.2(2) 2.5 0.2-0.3(3) 3.75 0.3-0.4(4) 5 Population density 0-2(1) 1.33 2-3(2) 2.67 3-4(3) 4 Inclusion degree 0-1.0(1) 0.6 1.0-2.0(2) 1.2 2.0-3.0(3) 1.8 3.0-4.0(4) 2.4 4.0-5.0(5) 3 Land use Low risk(1) 0.67 Medium risk(2) 1.33 High risk(3) 2 PGA 300 1 Indexes Rank Reverse score Building Quality 1 6 Building Density 2 5 Population Density 3 4 Inclusion Degree 4 3 Land use 5 2 PGA 6 1 Road ID Road Vulnerability Rank R3 1 R2 2 R1 3 R6 4 R4 5 R 6 R5 7 Table 2 : Indexes Ranking Table 4 : Road Vulnerability Rank Table 3 : Indexes Classification
  4. 4. Road Network Prioritization for rescue Primary concern on rescue operation is to save life of the people. During this phase main obscurities will be vulnerable buildings and land use pattern of the area. So, concerning these factor roads has been prioritized in the study area and a result has been accounted as below: Road Blockage Analysis Road accessibility is accounted by the presence of vulnerable buildings along its side. Road blockage relates to the one third of the height of the vulnerable building. Based on this data showed the following facts: Road ID Accessibility R1 Inaccessible R Inaccessible R2 Accessible R3 Accessible R4 Accessible R5 Accessible R6 Accessible Prioritization of road network for response operation Different criteria have given different value and different priority. So, comparative analysis of road vulnerability, priority and accessibility has been carried out to figure out the road prioritization. Result has been depicted as:  Priority Road for debris removal Data has shown that road R1 is vulnerable, holds high priority for rescue activity and is impassable due to debris coverage. Therefore, as per the priority this section of the road must be cleared first.  Priority Road for Rescue Activity Data portrayed that road R5 and R6 holds least priority for rescue activity with low vulnerability and are accessible so following road matrix has been selected as:  Road matrix R6-R5 has been selected for the passage towards hospital  Road matrix R4 has been selected for the passage to open space Road ID Road Priority R3 1 R2 2 R4 3 R5 4 R1, R6 5 R 6 Road ID Vulnerability Rank Priority Road Accessibility R1 3 5 Inaccessible R 6 6 Inaccessible R2 2 2 Accessible R3 1 1 Accessible R4 5 3 Accessible R5 7 4 Accessible R6 4 5 Accessible Table 5 : Road Priority Rank Patan Hospital Namuna Machhindra School Study Area Ward No: 12 Road R6 Road R4 Road R5 Table 6 : Road Blockage Analysis Table 7 : Comparative Analysis Figure 7 : Priority Route for rescue operation Figure 6 : Road Blockage analysis R3: Accessible R1: Priority 1 R2: Accessible R: Priority 2
  5. 5. IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Analysis has shown that IHWP- method is one of the method that can be used for road vulnerability assessment. Based on the study carried out, framework for prioritization of road network for emergency response has been developed to figure out the priority routes in other urban sectors of Kathmandu valley. Recommended framework for prioritization of road network for emergency response has been presented in figure below: This framework will be applicable for the urban area holding following characteristics: a. Core urban area with conglomeration of modern buildings b. Area holding all five types of buildings like AD, BC, BM, RC3 and RC5 c. Urban area holding different types of road typology ranging from alleys, under ways till main roads d. Area holding less or no traffic flow Henceforth, the framework for road network prioritization has been developed from post disaster earthquake point of view to facilitate quick accessibility in aftermath scenario. This framework can further be used to prioritize road network in other urban sector of Kathmandu valley holding similar urban characteristics as that of the piloted area. Figure 8 : Framework for road network prioritization in Emergency Response
  6. 6. ACKNOWLEDGMENT I express my sincere gratitude to my supervisors Mr. Hari Darshan Shrestha (CoRD) and Mr. Surya Narayan Shrestha (NSET) for their constant guidance and supervision. I am gratified to Prof. Dr. Jibraj Pokharel (IOE), Mrs. Bhubaneshwori Parajuli (NSET), Ar. Inu Salike (IOE), Mr. Ramesh Guragai (NSET) and Dr. Uttar Kumar Regmi (Kathmandu Municipality), for their precious suggestion regarding topic selection. I am obliged to Mr. Prakash Raghubanshi (TIDP, Singha Durbar) for his support and guidance throughout thesis preparation. I am also thankful to Mr. Pradeep Prasad Koirala (MoHA) for his valuable guidance and information as an expert in his fields of expertise and providing necessary document. I would like to thank Mr. Sagar Krishna Joshi (DUDBC) and Mr. Binaya Charan Shrestha (DUDBC) for providing necessary materials and important information needed for the study. I would like to make special reference to Mr. Kamal Torabi (Tehran), for clarifying the concept of road vulnerability assessment used in Tehran. I am equally grateful towards Mr. Gopi. K. Basyal (NSET) and Mr. Narendra Man Shakya (IOE) for their guidance in clarifying the concept of IHWP-method. I am really grateful towards Dr. Jishnu Subedi (IOE) for providing materials and guidance regarding RVA-tool. My sincere thanks go to Ward office of Lalitpur (Ward No.-12), Ms. Mohan Laxmi Shakya (CDMC member), Ms. Nidhi Tamrakar (Red Cross) and Ms. Santa Maya Tamrakar for providing me relevant information related to the study area. Last but not the least; I am indebted to my family who were always been there for my devotion to the work and thankful to my friends who helped me for the work. REFERENCES [1] Carroll, K. (March 2011). Vulnerable Transportation Networks and Earthquakes: A Case Study of the Kathmnandu Valley. [2] Chang, S. E. (n.d.). Measuring Post-Disaster Transportation System Performance:The 1995 Kobe Earthquake in Comparative Perspective. Retrieved from www.cive.gifu- [3] DOR. (NRS-1998). Nepal Road Statistics. [4] Earthquake History - National Society for Earthquake. (n.d.). Retrieved from hp. [5] Earthquake Tips. (April 2002). [6] Esmaeil Shieh et al. (May 2007). Assessing Urban Streets Network Vulnerability against Earthquake Using IHWP- method and GIS – Case Study: Zone #6 of Tehran . International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment . [7] Tung, P. T. (March 2004). Road Vulnerability Assessment for Earthquake. [8] Paudyal, Y. R. (March 2008). Development of Rapid Visual Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Tool for Kathmandu Valley. Bhaktapur: Khwopa Engineering College. [9] NSET. Kathmandu Valley's Earthquake Scenario. [10]Office, W. 1. (Shrawan, 2070). Disaster Risk Management Plan for Lalitpur Sub- Metropolitian City, War no 12. Lalitpur. [11]GoN, D. (May 2011). Seismic Vulnerability Evaluation Guidelines for Private and Public Buildings. Nepal. [12]Gonçalo Caiado, R. M. (n.d.). A New Paradign in Urban Road Network Seismic Vulnerability. Retrieved from s/papers/221.pdf. [13]Government of Nepal, M. o. (2011). Nepal Disaster Report 2011. DP Net, UNDP, actionaid, NSET. [14]Great Hanshin Earthquake. (n.d.). Retrieved from ke. [15](NSET)Infrastructure Development in Nepal: Opportunities and Challenges. (n.d.). Retrieved from Tulasi-Sitaula-Theme. [16]Jha, N. K. (2060). An Approach Towards Earthquake Disaster Management in Historic City Core, A case study of Patan Dhoka Area. Nepal. [17]JICA, M. The Study on Earthquake Disaster Mitigation. [18]JICA, M. (March 2002). The Study on Earthquake Disaster Mitigation . Nepal.