Quantification of model uncertainty in debris flow vulnerability assessment

Engineering Geology

Volumn 181, Issue , 2014, Pages 15-26

  Eidsvig, U M K ^a,b   Papathoma Kohle M ^c   Du, J ^b,d   Glade, T ^c   Vangelsten, B V ^a,b  

^a NORWEGIAN GEOTECHNICAL INSTITUTE   (Norway)

^b ICG   (Norway)

^c UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^d CHINA UNIVERSITY OF GEOSCIENCES   (China)

Author keywords

Debris flow; Fragility curve; Model uncertainty; Quantitative vulnerability assessment

Indexed keywords

BUILDINGS; DAMAGE DETECTION; DEBRIS; PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK PERCEPTION;

ADVANCED TREATMENT; ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDINGS; ASSESSMENT PROCESS; DEBRIS FLOWS; DIFFERENT DAMAGES; FRAGILITY CURVES; MODEL UNCERTAINTIES; VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS;

UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

BUILDING; DEBRIS FLOW; FLOW MODELING; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS; VULNERABILITY;

AUSTRIA; TYROL;

EID: 84906822096     PISSN: 00137952     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2014.08.006     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Akbas S.O., Blahut J., Sterlacchini S. Critical assessment of existing physical vulnerability estimation approaches for debris flows. Proceedings of landslide processes: from geomorphologic mapping to dynamic modeling, Strasbourg, 6-7 Feb 2009 2009, 229-233. J.P. Malet, A. Remaître, T. Bogaard (Eds.).
2. BUWAL (Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft) Risikoanalyse bei gravitativen Naturgefahren: Methode. Umweltmaterialen No 107/1 1999, 115. Naturgefahren, Bern.
3. Christian J.T. Geotechnical engineering reliability: how well do we know what we are doing?. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2004, 130(10):985-1003. 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:10(985).
4. Consortium MOVE Methods for the improvement of vulnerability assessment in Europe, guidelines for development of different methods, deliverable D6 in the MOVE project. Treatment of uncertainty in vulnerability estimation 2010, Chapter 9. U. Eidsvig, B.V. Vangelsten, M. Uzielli, T. Welle, E. Romieu, J. Rohmer, T. Ulbrich, R.Z. Zaidi (Eds.).
5. Fuchs S., McAlpin M.C. The net benefit of public expenditures on avalanche defence structures in the municipality of Davos, Switzerland. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2005, 5:319-330.
6. Fuchs S., Heiss K., Hübl J. Towards an empirical vulnerability function for use in debris flow risk assessment. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2007, 7:495-506.
7. ISO 31000 Risk Management - Principles and Guidelines 2009.
8. ISSMGE (2004) Glossary of Risk Assessment Terms. (listed on TC304 web page: ):. http://140.112.12.21/issmge/2004Glossary_Draft1.pdf.
9. Kaynia A.M., Papathoma-Köhle M., Neuhäuser B., Ratzinger K., Wenzel H., Medina-Cetina Z. Probabilistic assessment of vulnerability to landslide: application to the village of Lichtenstein, Baden-Württemberg, Germany. Eng. Geol. 2008, 101:33-48.
10. Lacasse S., Nadim F., Langford T., Knudsen S., Yetginer G., Guttormsen T.R., Eide A. Model uncertainty in axial pile capacity design methods, OTC 24066. Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 6-9 May 2013 2013.
11. Li Z., Nadim F., Huang H., Uzielli M., Lacasse S. Quantitative vulnerability estimation for scenario-based landslide hazards. Landslides 2010, 7(2):125-134. 10.1007/s10346-009-0190-3.
12. Mavrouli O., Corominas J. Rockfall vulnerability assessment for reinforced concrete buildings. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2010, 10(10):2055-2066.
13. Nadim F. Tools and strategies for dealing with uncertainty in geotechnics. Probabilistic methods in geotechnical engineering 2007, 71-96. Springer Wien, New York. D.V. Griffiths, G.A. Fenton (Eds.).
14. Negulescu C., Foerster E. Parametric studies and quantitative assessment of the vulnerability of a RC frame building exposed to differential settlements. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2010, 10:1781-1792. 10.5194/nhess-10-1781-2010.
15. Nilsen T., Aven T. Models and model uncertainty in the context of risk analysis. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf 2003, 79(3):309-317.
16. Papathoma-Köhle M., Kappes M., Keiler M., Glade T. Physical vulnerability assessment for alpine hazards: state of the art and future needs. Nat. Hazards 2011, 58(2):645-681.
17. Papathoma-Köhle M., Keiler M., Totschnig R., Glade T. Improvement of vulnerability curves using data from extreme events: a debris flow event in South Tyrol. Nat. Hazards 2012, 64(3):2083-2105.
18. Papathoma-Köhle M., Totschnig R., Keiler M., Glade T. A new vulnerability function for debris flow-the importance of physical vulnerability assessment in alpine areas. 12th Congress INTERPRAEVENT 2012-Grenoble/France, Conference Proceedings 2012, 1033-1043.
19. Phoon K.K., Kulhawy F.H. Characterisation of model uncertainties for laterally loaded rigid drilled shafts. Geotechnique 2005, 55(1):45-54.
20. Pitilakis K., Fotopoulou S., Argyroudis S., Pitilakis D., Senetakis K., Treulopoulos K., Kakderi K., Riga E., SafeLand team D2.5: physical vulnerability of elements at risk to landslides: methodology for evaluation, fragility curves and damage states for buildings and lifelines. SafeLand Report D2.5 2011.
21. Quan Luna B., Blahut J., Van Westen C.J., Sterlacchini S., Van Asch T.W.J., Akbas S.O. The application of numerical debris flow modelling for the generation of physical vulnerability curves. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2011, 11:2047-2060.
22. Rohmer J., Douglas J., Bertil D., Monfort D., Sedan O. Weighting the importance of model uncertainty against parameter uncertainty in earthquake loss assessment. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2014, 58:1-9.
23. Romang H. Wirksamkeit und Kosten von Wildbach-Schutzmassnahmen 2004, 212. Verlag des Geographischen Instituts der Universität Bern, Bern.
24. Ronold K.O., Bjerager P. Model uncertainty representation in geotechnical reliability analyses. J. Geotech. Eng 1992, 118(3):363-376.
25. Totschnig R., Fuchs S. Mountain torrents: quantifying vulnerability and assessing uncertainties. Eng. Geol. 2013, 155:31-44.
26. Totschnig R., Sedlacek W., Fuchs S. A quantitative vulnerability function for fluvial sediment transport. Nat. Hazards 2011, 58(2):681-703. 10.1007/s11069-010-9623-5.
27. Tsao T.-C., Hsu W.-K., Cheng C.-T., Lo W.-C., Chen C.-Y., Chang Y.-L., Ju J.-P. A preliminary study of debris flow risk estimation and management in Taiwan. International Symposium Interpraevent in the Pacific Rim-Taipei, 26-30 Apr 2010, 930-939. Internationale Forschungsgesellschaft Interpraevent, Klagenfurt. S.-C. Chen (Ed.).
28. Uzielli M., Lacasse S. Scenario-based probabilistic estimation of direct loss for geohazards. Georisk 2007, 1(3):142-154.
29. Uzielli M., Nadim F., Lacasse S., Kaynia A. A conceptual framework for quantitative estimation of physical vulnerability to landslides. Eng. Geol. 2008, 102:251-256.
30. Uzielli M., Lacasse S., Nadim F. Probabilistic risk estimation for geohazards: a simulation approach. International Symposium on Geotechnical Safety and Risk. Gifu, Japan, 2009. Proceedings 2009, 355-362.
31. Whitman R.V. Organizing and evaluating uncertainty in geotechnical engineering. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2000, 125(6):583-593.
32. Zhang J., Tang W.H., Zhang L.M. Characterising geotechnical model uncertainty by hybrid Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation. Comput. Geotech. 2012, 43:26-36.