Quantification of model uncertainty in debris flow vulnerability assessment

Eidsvig, Unni; Papathoma-Köhle, Maria; Du, Juan; Glade, Thomas; Vangelsten, Bjørn Vidar

doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2014.08.006

Cited by 63 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The quantification of uncertainties is very important for the end-users of the tool that, in this way, may get an indication of how well the tool is expected to perform. The uncertainties related to the development of the vulnerability curve which formed the basis of the tool presented in this paper have been quantified in a recent study (Eidsvig et al, 2014). However, their quantification is not yet included as a function of the tool.…”

Section: Limitations and Improvementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Loss estimation for landslides in mountain areas – An integrated toolbox for vulnerability assessment and damage documentation

Papathoma-Köhle

Zischg

Fuchs

et al. 2015

Environmental Modelling & Software

Self Cite

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Limitations and Improvementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Loss estimation for landslides in mountain areas – An integrated toolbox for vulnerability assessment and damage documentation

Papathoma-Köhle

Zischg

Fuchs

et al. 2015

Environmental Modelling & Software

Self Cite

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Kang and Kim (2016) carried out a similar study of the vulnerability of both reinforced concrete and nonreinforced concrete buildings to a series of debris flows in South Korea in 2011, and proposed three different vulnerability curves based on estimated flow depths, flow velocities, and impact pressures. Similar approaches to developing vulnerability curves were presented by Quan Luna et al (2011) using data from a series of damaging debris flows in Italy in Eidsvig et al (2014) using data from a debris flow event in Italy in 1987.…”

Section: Estimating Vulnerability Of Elements At Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

2014 Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium: Landslide runout analysis — current practice and challenges

McDougall

2017

Can. Geotech. J.

190

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Flow-like landslides, such as debris flows and rock avalanches, travel at extremely rapid velocities and can impact large areas far from their source. When hazards like these are identified, runout analyses are often needed to delineate potential inundation areas, estimate risks, and design mitigation structures. A variety of tools and methods have been developed for these purposes, ranging from simple empirical-statistical correlations to advanced three-dimensional computer models. This paper provides an overview of the tools and methods that are currently available and discusses some of the main challenges that are currently being addressed by researchers, including the need for better guidance in the selection of model input parameter values, the challenge of translating model results into vulnerability estimates, the problem with too much initial spreading in the simulation of certain types of landslides, the challenge of accounting for sudden channel obstructions in the simulation of debris flows, and the sensitivity of models to topographic resolution and filtering methods.Key words: landslides, runout analysis, modelling, risk assessment.Résumé : Les coulées, comme les glissements de terrain tels que les coulées de débris et des avalanches de roches se déplacent à des vitesses extrêmement rapides et peuvent avoir un impact sur de grandes zones, loin de leur source. Lorsque ces risques sont identifiés, les analyses du battement sont souvent nécessaires pour délimiter les zones inondables, estimer les risques et concevoir des structures d'atténuation. Une variété d'outils et de méthodes ont été élaborés pour ces fins, allant de simples corrélations empiriques-statistiques avancées de modèles informatiques en trois dimensions. Cet article donne un aperçu des outils et des méthodes qui sont actuellement disponibles et examine certains des principaux défis qui sont actuellement traités par les chercheurs, y compris le besoin d'une meilleure orientation pour la sélection des valeurs des paramètres d'entrée du modèle, le défi de traduire les résultats des modèles en estimations de vulnérabilité, le problème de la trop grande dispersion initiale dans la simulation de certains types de glissements de terrain, le défi de comptabilité pour les obstacles soudains de canal dans la simulation des écoulements de débris, et la sensibilité des modèles à la résolution topographique et les méthodes de filtrage. [Traduit par la Rédaction]

show abstract

“…Efforts to analyse and quantify uncertainties concerning the assessment of physical vulnerability for debris flows have been made in the past (Eidsvig et al, 2014;Totschnig and Fuchs, 2013); however, most of them concern vulnerability curves. Based on the comparison of the two methods and the outline of the advantages and disadvantages of it as far as the assessment of physical vulnerability is concerned a number of recommendations for improvement may be made.…”

Section: Cost Effectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Vulnerability curves vs. vulnerability indicators: application of an indicator-based methodology for debris-flow hazards

Papathoma-Köhle

2016

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The assessment of the physical vulnerability of elements at risk as part of the risk analysis is an essential aspect for the development of strategies and structural measures for risk reduction. Understanding, analysing and, if possible, quantifying physical vulnerability is a prerequisite for designing strategies and adopting tools for its reduction. The most common methods for assessing physical vulnerability are vulnerability matrices, vulnerability curves and vulnerability indicators; however, in most of the cases, these methods are used in a conflicting way rather than in combination. The article focuses on two of these methods: vulnerability curves and vulnerability indicators. Vulnerability curves express physical vulnerability as a function of the intensity of the process and the degree of loss, considering, in individual cases only, some structural characteristics of the affected buildings. However, a considerable amount of studies argue that vulnerability assessment should focus on the identification of these variables that influence the vulnerability of an element at risk (vulnerability indicators). In this study, an indicator-based methodology (IBM) for mountain hazards including debris flow ) is applied to a case study for debris flows in South Tyrol, where in the past a vulnerability curve has been developed. The relatively "new" indicator-based method is being scrutinised and recommendations for its improvement are outlined. The comparison of the two methodological approaches and their results is challenging since both methodological approaches deal with vulnerability in a different way. However, it is still possible to highlight their weaknesses and strengths, show clearly that both methodologies are necessary for the assessment of physical vulnerability and provide a preliminary "holistic methodological framework" for physical vulnerability assessment showing how the two approaches may be used in combination in the future.

show abstract

Quantification of model uncertainty in debris flow vulnerability assessment

Cited by 63 publications

References 19 publications

Loss estimation for landslides in mountain areas – An integrated toolbox for vulnerability assessment and damage documentation

Loss estimation for landslides in mountain areas – An integrated toolbox for vulnerability assessment and damage documentation

2014 Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium: Landslide runout analysis — current practice and challenges

Vulnerability curves vs. vulnerability indicators: application of an indicator-based methodology for debris-flow hazards

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About