Document Type : CASE STUDY


1 Department of Environmental Management, Graduate School of the Environment and Energy, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Environmental Engineering, Graduate Faculty of Environment, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

3 Department of Political Geography, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

4 Department of Environmental Health Engineering, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran


Ancient City of Ray, located at the southern urban part of Tehran province, is one of the best recognized civilization sites in the world. In this study, the past earthquake incidence in Ray was reviewed using hazards united states tool as a geographic information system-based natural hazard analysis tool. hazards united states tool was chosen to estimate the damage on structural and non-structural elements during various earthquake scenarios with magnitudes of 4.5, 6 and 7.5 on the Richter scale in Ray City. Earthquake magnetitudes of 4.5, 6 and 7.5 would severely damage 49, 72 and 82% of buildings, respectively. The number of casualties was estimated to be in the range of 558 to 2220  people. It was also computed that 93, 197 and 331 km3 of debris would be produced at 4.5, 6 and 7.5 Richter earthquake, respectively. Subsequently, Arc-GIS was used to find out the best route from the affected areas to the temporary disposal locations and to allocate the required number of heavy equipments and manpowers for debris disposal planning. A set of factors, including diversity of the existing wastes, separation of the recyclable wastes, and allocation of the best place and route for debris disposal in the shortest time and with the shortest distance in the street network, were presented and considered in the analyses. Finally, it was concluded that debris management is not only a logistic activity, but also it is an inseparable part of the post-accident recovery process.

Graphical Abstract

Debris management after earthquake incidence in ancient City of Ray


  • Considering debris management of post-earthquake as a critical plan which should be based on debris reduce, recycle and reuse
  • Applying the HAZUS analysis for estimation the potential post-earthquake damages and to estimate the amount of debris following an earthquake.
  • Establishing efficient and cost effective methods for transferring the debris.


Askarizadeh, L.; Karbassi, A.R.; Ghalibaf, M.B.; Nouri, J., (2016). Management of post-earthquake construction debris in Tehran Metropolitan. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Tech., 13(2): 639-648 (10 pages).

Brown, C..; Milke, M.; Seville, E., (2011). Disaster waste management: A review. Waste Manage., 31(6): 1085-1098 (14 pages).

Campbell, K.W.; Bozorgnia, Y., (1994). Empirical analysis of strong ground motion form the 1992 leaders, California, earthquake. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 84(3): 573-588 (16 pages).

Chang, L.; Elnashai, A.S.; Spencer, B.F., (2011). Post-earthquake modelling of transportation networks. Structure Infrastructure Eng., 8(10): 893-911 (9 pages).

Cochran, K.M.; Townsend, T.G., (2010). Estimating construction and demolition debris generation using a materials flow analysis approach. Waste Manage., 30(11): 2247-2254 (8 pages).

Edrissi, A.; Poorzahedy, H.; Nassiri, H.; Nourinejad, M., (2013). A multi-agent optimization formulation of earthquake disaster prevention and management. Europ. J. Oper. Res., 229(1): 261-275 (15 pages).

Fujino, Y.; Takada, T., (2009). Risk assessment, management and monitoring of infrastructure systems. Season 13-resource recycling concrete: Present and future, Japan, 4:233-253 (20 pages).

Gulati, B.; (2006). Earthquake risk assessment of buildings: applicability of HAZUS in Dehradun, India. Unpublished M.S. Dissertation, Faculty of geo-information science and earth observation, Netherlands.

Hekimoglu, Y.; Esen Melez, I.; Canturk, G.; Erkol, Z.; Canturk, N.; Gokhan Dizdar, M.; Oguzhan Melez, D.; Nuri Guler, O., (2013). Evaluation of the deaths secondary to entrapment under the debris in the Van earthquake. Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 3(2): 44-47 (4 pages).

Hu, Zh-H.; Sheu, J-B., (2013). Post-disaster debris reverse logistics management under psychological cost minimization. Transport. Res., Part B: Methodological, 55: 118-141(24 pages).

Inui, T.; Yasutaka, T.; Endo, K.; Katsumi, T., (2012). Geo-environmental issues induced by the 2011 off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku Earthquake and tsunami. Soils Foundations, 52(5): 856-871 (32 pages).

Jenelius, E., (2007). Approaches to road network vulnerability analysis. Licentiate thesis in infrastructures with specialization transport and location analysis. Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.

Karbassi, A.R.; Shahpasand, M.; Rajabi, A.A.; Ghafari, H.A., (2016). Development of new citizenship HSE model for schools and kindergartens of Tehran Metropolitan City. Int. J. Human Capital Urban Manage., 1(1): 19-30 (12 pages).

Karunasena, G.; Amaratunga, D.; Haigh, R., (2012). Post-disaster construction & demolition debris         management: A Sri Lanka case study. J. Civil Eng. Manage., 18(4): 457-468 (12 pages).

Leem, Y.; Rhee, S., (2010). An efficient dissimilar path searching method for evacuation routing. KSCE J. Civil Eng., 14(1): 61-67 (7 pages).

Nouri, J.; Mansouri, N.; Abbaspour, M.; Karbassi, A.R.; Omidvari, M., (2011). Designing a developed model for assessing the disaster induced vulnerability value in educational centers. Safety Sci., 49(5): 679-685 (7 pages).

Omidvar, B.; Golestaneh, M.; Abdollahi, Y., (2014). A framework for post-earthquake rapid damage assessment of hospitals. Case study: Rasoul-e-Akram Hospital, Tehran, Iran. Environ. Hazards, 13(2): 133-160 (28 pages).

Ozdamar, L.; Tuzun Aksu, D.; Erguneş, B., (2014). Coordinating debris cleanup operations in post       disaster road networks. Soc. Econ. Plann. Sci., 48(4): 249-262 (14 pages).

Pramudita, A.; Taniguchi, E.; Gul Qureshi, A., (2014). Location and routing problems of debris collection operation after disasters with realistic case study. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci., 125: 445-458 (14 pages).

Rafee, N.; Karbassi, A.R.; Nouri, J.; Safari, E.; Mehrdadi, M., (2008). Strategic management of municipal debris aftermath of an earthquake. Int. J. Environ. Res., 2(2): 205-214 (10 pages).

Rodríguez, G.; Alegre, F. J.; Martínez, G. (2007). The contribution of environmental management         systems to the management of construction and demolition waste: The case of the Autonomous        Community of Madrid (Spain). Resour. Conserv. Recycl., 50(3): 334-349 (16 pages).

Stepanov, A.; Smith, J.M., (2009). Multi-objective evacuation routing in transportation networks. European J. Operation. Res., 198(2): 435-446 (12 pages).

Tam, V.W.; Tam, C.M., (2006). A review on the viable technology for construction waste recycling. Resour. Conserv.  Recycl., 47(3): 209-221 (13 pages).

Wang, C.Y.; Hu, S.R., (2008). A study on emergency evacuation and rescue network reconstruction for natural disasters with multi-class travel behavior constraints, J. East. Asian Soc. Transport Stud., 6: 4269-4284 (15 pages).

Zhou, C.; Liu, X.; Wang, Z.; Yang, T.; Shi, L.; Wang, L.; Cong, L.; Liu, X.; Yang, J., (2015). Marine debris surveys on four beaches in Rizhao City of China. Global J. Environ. Sci. Manage., 1(4): 305-314 (10 pages).

Letters to Editor

GJESM Journal welcomes letters to the editor for the post-publication discussions and corrections which allows debate post publication on its site, through the Letters to Editor. Letters pertaining to manuscript published in GJESM should be sent to the editorial office of GJESM within three months of either online publication or before printed publication, except for critiques of original research. Following points are to be considering before sending the letters (comments) to the editor.

[1] Letters that include statements of statistics, facts, research, or theories should include appropriate references, although more than three are discouraged.
[2] Letters that are personal attacks on an author rather than thoughtful criticism of the author’s ideas will not be considered for publication.
[3] Letters can be no more than 300 words in length.
[4] Letter writers should include a statement at the beginning of the letter stating that it is being submitted either for publication or not.
[5] Anonymous letters will not be considered.
[6] Letter writers must include their city and state of residence or work.
[7] Letters will be edited for clarity and length.