Example of Cairns, Australia

Regional risk analysis Quantitative approach Landslide risk as basis for planning and emergency management purposes
Input data:
Historical landslide information Geological information Geomorphological information Run out of landslide (empirical model) Information on buildings, roads and demography

Michael-Leiba, Baynes, Scott, 1999

0

Example of Cairns, Australia

Michael-Leiba, Baynes, Scott, 1999

Example of Cairns, Australia

Michael-Leiba, Baynes, Scott, 1999

2

Example of Cairns, Australia

Michael-Leiba, Baynes, Scott, 1999

Risk assessment from magnitude recurrence graph

3

Example of Cairns, Australia

Landslide data map

Michael-Leiba, Baynes, Scott, 1999

4

Example of Cairns, Australia

Landslide risk map
Number of houses and blocks of flats expected to be destroyed per square km per 100 years

Michael-Leiba, Baynes, Scott, 1999

5

Example of Cairns, Australia

Major findings of the study Greatest total risk for buildings on hill slopes
Total of 13 buildings could be destroyed in 100 years, if no mitigation measure is taken

Highest total risk for people is in proximal parts of debris flows

Total of 16 people could be killed in 100 years

Main access to Cairns, north and south, pass to steep slopes and can be blocked by landslides => Makes Cairns vulnerable to isolation
Michael-Leiba, Baynes, Scott, 1999
6

Drawbacks:

Example of Cairns, Australia

Paucity of data from which landslide magnituderecurrence were derived Regional study
Site-specific assessments should be checked by geotechnical experts

Lack of discrimination between the effects of shorter, higher intensity rainfall events, of antecedent rainfall and of longer, lower intensity rainfall events

Assumptions:
shadow angles are uniform for all debris flows in the study area Vulnerability is independent of landslide magnitude Landslide intensity is uniform across a landslide

Summary: Qualitative & quantitative assessments

Qualitative assessment (Rheinhessen)
Regional assessment Coarse data sets (information from flood research) First approximation of landslide risk

Quantitative assessments (Iceland / Cairns)

Regional assessments Detailed spatial information Differentiate: Specific Risk / Total Risk (MultiRISK)
Be aware that independent on your method ......
... these analysis are PURELY approximations ... there are high uncertainties ... local assessments are always needed for critical locations ... analysis can only support - and not enforce - decisions
8

Determination of runout zones of landslides - From field surveys to modelling -

PD Dr. Thomas Glade

thomas.glade@uni-bonn.de

Risk assessment & management (1/3)

T rig g e rin g fa c to rs P re p a ra to ry fa c to rs L a n d s lid e in v e n to ry

P ro b a b ility o f la n d s lid in g

R unout b e h a v io r

Land use

H a z a rd assessm ent

E le m e n ts a t ris k

V u ln e ra b ility assessm ent

R is k assessm ent

R is k m anagem ent
10

C o s t-b e n e fit a n a ly s is

Dai et al. (2002)

Lecture Overview
Repetition:
Landslide activity & rate of movement Temporal & spatial occurrence of landslides Soil mechanical basics Preparatory, triggering and controlling factors

General considerations to spatial modeling Calculation of runout zones

Parameters defining & contributing to runout behavior

Methods for predicting runout distance

Empirical models Analytical models Numerical models
11

Coupling local and regional assessments

Landslide activity State of activity

Active Suspended Active Suspended Reactivated Inactive Dormant Abandoned Stabilized Relict

Reactivated

Inactive

Adopted from Cruden & Varnes, 1996

12

Landslide activity State of activity

Dormant Abandoned Active Suspended Reactivated Inactive Dormant Abandoned Stabilized Relict

Stabilized

Relict

Adopted from Cruden & Varnes, 1996

13

Landslide activity - Distribution of activity

Advancing Retrogressive

Enlarging

Diminishing

Confined

Moving

Widening

Adopted from Cruden & Varnes, 1996

14

Landslide activity Styles of activity

Complex Composite

Successive Single

Multiple

Cruden & Varnes, 1996

15

Rate of movement

Cruden & Varnes, 1996

16

Rate of movement

USGS http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/elnino/landslidessfbay/photos.html

17

Temporal and spatial occurrence of natural hazards

Earthquake

Flooding

Space

Local

Tsunami

Volcanism

Snow avalanche

Punctual
nd co Se y Da

Landslide
ar Ye de ca De

Time
18

Temporal and spatial occurrence of landslides

large 2 4 5
Slide / Sackung

6
Otago, New Zealand (Photo: M. Crozier)

Space

Topple / Rock fall

Debris flow

small

1 short long

Time
Mattertal, Switzerland (Photo: H. Grtner)

5 4

Canada (Photo: M. Crozier) 19

Ahrtal, Germany (PhotoT. Glade)

Isle of Wight, UK (Photo: T. Glade)

Desertification

Storm tide Storm

Drought

Hawke Bay, New Zealand (Photo: N. Trustrum)

10

Spatial occurrence of landslides - local

creep

fall, slide flow, slide, slump, creep deposition, creep Summerfield 1991
20

Spatial occurrence of landslides - regional

Earth flow / Debris flow

Hawke Bay 1998 ( Noel Trustrum) Wairarapa 1972 ( Noel Trustrum)

Hawke Bay 1988 ( Noel Trustrum)

Gisborne 2002 ( Michael Crozier))

21

11

Soil mechanical basics of landslides

The shear strength of soils is mainly determined by
Cohesion (c) Internal friction angle ()

and is expressed in the Coulomb equation

f = c + n . tan

22

Cohesion (c)

Selby 1993
23

12

Cohesion (c)

Selby 1993
24

Cohesion (c) and internal friction angle ()

Press & Siever, 1997

25

13

Internal friction angle ()

Block of rock lies upon a horizontal surface
Weight of the block (N) generates an equal and opposite reaction (R) -> compressive stress, block is immobile

Addition of horizontal stress

Reaction (R) adjusts from normal to the horizontal plane to the resultant N and H. The relationship between N, H, R and the angle is shown by the triangle of forces.

Horizontal stress at failure conditions

Increase in H causes increases in R and . When sliding begins the frictional contact will be broken and will have attained its maximum possible value. That maximum value is the internal friction angle ().
tan = N/H = / = shear stress, = normal stress
26

Stress acting at a slope

shear stress

shear plane

normal stress

27

14

Coulomb equation
f = c + n . tan
f c n = shear stress at failure = cohesion = normal stress = angle of internal friction

for saturated soils f = c + (n - u) . tan

taking into account the effect of pore water pressure (u) negative pore water pressure -> stabilizing effect positive pore water pressure -> destabilizing effect
28

Selby 1993
29

15

Methods of slope stability analysis

Field investigations Define Purpose: Regional - / Spatial assessment Slope stability modelling
translational slides (infinite slope model) Rotational slides

30

Factors indicating slope stability (1/2)

Crozier 1986

31

16

Factors indicating slope stability (2/2)

Crozier 1986

32

Crozier 1986

Soil mechanical approach: Infinite Slope Model

c+ z cos 2 ( m w ) tan FS = = z sin cos s

FS s

c z zw

= = = = = = = = = = =

Factor of Safety (<1 unstable; 1 stable) shear strength (resisting forces) [kN/m2] shear stress (driving forces) [kN/m2] effective cohesion [kN/m2] depth of shear plane [m] height of ground water table [m] slope [] unit weight of soil [kN/m3] relation z / zw (0 < m < 1) [-] moist unit weight of soil [kN/m3] effective friction angle []

33

17

Slope stability analysis of rotational slides

The slide is divided into a number of slices of length L and the forces acting on each of these slices are aggregated.

FS =

[cL + (W cos uL) tan ]

B

W sin
B

FS s

W u
34

= = = = = = = = =

Factor of Safety (<1 unstable; 1 stable) W sin , shear strength (resisting forces) [kN/m2] after Carson & Kirkby shear stress (driving forces) [kN/m2] cohesion [kN/m2] Summerfield 1991 W cos , effective normal stress slope [], calculated from the centre of rotation (O) unit weight of soil [kN/m3], operating through the centre of each slice pore-water pressure internal friction angle []

1972 in

Preparatory, triggering and controlling factors

Margin of stability

Preparatory

Stable
Factors

Marginally stable

Triggering Factors

Active unstable

Precondition Controlling Factors

35

18

Preparatory factors - Disposition

Weathering Change in slope geometry Change in soil hydrology Melting permafrost Change in vegetation Land use change ...

36

Triggering factors
Heavy or long lasting rainfall Snow melting Earthquake, volcanic eruption Undercutting of slope ...

37

19

Controlling factors
Slope Curvature (convex, concave,...) Vegetation Channel roughness ...

38

Spatial modeling - Advantages

Abstraction to key-issues Subjectivity by model development and choice Objectivity: Repetition of similar analysis gives identical results Unambiguous rules - Concepts and structures
Uniformity based on objective criteria Transparency is inherent Transferability is possible

Potential for scenarios

39

20

Spatial modeling - Disadvantages

Reduction to single parameter indispensable Commonly statistical relation (if - when) Danger: Essential, important process-determining parameter will not be considered Quality has to be ensured Assumptions have to be reflected for interpretations Transferability has to be critically questioned

40

Scientific challenges in spatial modeling

Development of process-specific methods Scale dependent choice of methods is important Spatial models have to be improved, or further developed Validation of results is essential for the judgement of the quality Scenarios of events

41

21

Modeling of runout zones

Delimiting extent of endangered areas is fundamental to landslide risk assessment => Prediction of runout behavior of landslides
How far and how fast?

Calculation/Modeling is often simply ignored Modeling is complex and data demanding Runout behavior is a set of quantitative and qualitative spatially distributed parameters that define destructive potential of a landslide
Dai et al., 2002

42

Parameters defining runout behavior

Runout distance Damage corridor width Velocity Depth of the moving mass Depth of deposits

Wong et al, 1997 & Hungr et al., 1999 in Dai et al., 2002

43

22

Factors contributing to runout behavior

Factors that control travel: Slope characteristics Mechanisms of failure & modes of debris movement Downhill path Residual strength behavior sheared zones

44

Slope characteristics
Slope geometry
Redistribution of potential energy at failure into:
Friction energy Disaggregating energy Kinetic energy

Slope-forming material
Convergence of hydrologic pathways

Upslope influence zone

45

23

Mechanisms of failure & modes of debris movement

Velocity and travel distance is influenced by:
Modes of debris movement Disintegration of the failure debris Convergence of surface runoff

Contractive soils often evolve into debris flows that may travel great distances Dilatant soils tend to be slow-moving landslides

46

Downhill path
Gradient of downslope path Possibility of channelization Characteristics of ground surface
Susceptibility to depletion Response to rapid loading Type of vegetation Extent of catchment

47

24

Residual strength behavior of sheared zones

Presence or absence of pre-existing shears Degree of brittleness Three types of residual strength
Neutral rate effect
Constant residual strength

Increasing rate of displacement

Positive rate effect

Soils showing an increase in residual strength above the slowly drained residual value at increasing rates of displacement

Negative rate effect

Soils showing a significant drop in strength when sheared at rates higher than a critical value
48

Rate effect and landslide velocity/runout distance

After initial failure => landslide ceases equilibrium => movement to new position Positive rate effect:
Strength increases with velocity => Landslide deceleration

Negative strength effect:

Landslide acceleration => development of fast movement => possibility of long runout distance

49

25

Methods for predicting runout distance

Empirical models
practical tools for predicting runout and distribution

Analytical models
Physical behavior of movement

Numerical simulations
Dynamic motion of debris and/or Rheological model to describe material behavior

50

Empirical models
1. Mass change model
Volume of mobilized material/length of trail Angle of the line connecting the crest of the landslide source to the distal margin of the displaced mass Corominas (1996): linear correlation between volume and angle of reach for all types of failures
Decrease of angle of reach with increase in volume

2. Angle of reach

51

Scatter of data is large => preliminary predictions of travel distance => incorporation of judgement But: required information can be generated easily with historic landslide database

26

Empirical models: Corominas 1996

Types of topographic constraints considered

52

Empirical models: Corominas 1996

Landslide volume vs. tangent of the reach angle for 204 landslide events

Regression equations for considered individual groups

53

27

Analytical models
Based on lump mass approaches in which the debris mass is assumed as a single point Cannot account for lateral confinement and spreading => suitable only for comparing similar paths (geometry, material) Required parameters:
Pore pressure parameters Debris thickness Relation of residual strength with shear rate

54

Numerical Models
1. Fluid mechanics models
Conservation equations of mass, momentum and energy => dynamic motion Rheological model => material behavior
Rheological properties are difficult to determine

2. Distinct element method

Model of large strain particle movement Important for understanding failure mechanics of landslides through back analysis Sophisticated & Time-consuming

55

28

References
Bundesamt fr Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft 1999: Risikoanalyse bei gravitativen Naturgefahren - Fallbeispiele und Daten. In: Umwelt-Materialien Nr. 107/II Naturgefahren. Bern, 129 pp. Corominas, J. 1996: The angle of reach as a mobility index for small and large landslides. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. Vol. 33, pp 260-271. Crozier, M.J. 1986: Landslides: causes, consequences and environment. London. Cruden, D.M. and Varnes, D.J. 1996: Landslide types and processes. In Turner, A.K. and Schuster, R.L., editors, Landslides: investigation and mitigation, Washington, D.C.: National Academey Press, 36-75. Dai, F.C., Lee, C.F. and Ngai, Y.Y. 2002: Landslide risk assessment and management: an overview. Engineering Geology 64, 65-87. Press, F. & Siever, R. 1997: Understanding Earth. New York. Summerfield, M.A. 1991: Global geomorphologyan introduction to the study of landforms. New York. pp 537. Turner, A.K. and Schuster, R.L. (editors) 1996: Landslides: investigation and mitigation, Washington. pp. 673. Landslide movie: http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/elnino/landslides-sfbay/photos.html
56

29