Leonardo cascini landslides susceptibility, hazard and risk zoning for urban planning anddevelopment

Landslide susceptibility, hazard and risk zoning for
urban planning and development
University of Salerno, Italy
LEONARDO CASCINI
IV South American Young Geotechnical Engineers -2014
Bogotá (Colombia) - 17 October , 2014

Leonardo Cascini: “Landslide susceptibility, hazard and risk zoning for urban planning and development” – IVSAYGEC Bogotá (Colombia) 2
Natural
hazard
(H):
means
the
probability
of
occurrence
within
a
specified
period
of
<me

and
within
a
given
area
of
a
poten<ally
damaging
phenomenon.

Elements
at
risk
(E):
means
the
popula<on,
proper<es,
economic
ac<vi<es,
including
public

services,
etc.,
at
risk
in
a
given
area.

Vulnerability
(V):
means
the
degree
of
loss
to
a
given
element
or
set
of
elements
at
risk
(see

below)
resul<ng
from
the
occurrence
of
a
natural
phenomenon
of
a
given
magnitude.
It
is

expressed
on
a
scale
from
0
(no
damage)
to
1
(total
loss).calibri

Specific
risk
(RS):
means
the
expected
degree
of
loss
due
to
a
par<cular
natural

phenomenon.
It
may
be
expressed
by
the
product
of
H
<mes
V.

Total
risk
(R):
means
the
expected
number
of
lives
lost,
person
injured,
damage
to
property,

or
distrup<on
of
economic
ac<vity
due
to
a
par<cular
natural
phenomenon,
and
is
therefore

the
product
of
specific
risk
(RS)
and
elements
at
risk
(E).

R = (H x V) x E = RS x E
General
framework
for
hazard
and
risk
zoning

WHICH
PHENOMENON ?
WHERE ? WHAT ?
WHEN ?
Ques5ons
to
answer
for
hazard
and
risk
zoning

An
example
of
landslides
classiﬁca5on
system

Varnes
(1978)

Landslide
characterisa<on

Landslide
suscep<ble
areas

• 
Landslide
intensity

• 
Advanced
data
sets

Suscep<bility
(Danger)
Zoning
Map

Analysis
of
sliding
frequency

Hazard
Zoning
Map

Risk
Zoning
Map

Analysis
of
probability
and

severity
of
consequence

Characterisa<on
of
consequence
scenarios

• Elements
at
risk

• Vulnerability
of
elements
at
risk
Cascini
et
al.
2005

A
framework
for
hazard
and
risk
zoning

Areas
prone
to
slope
failure
or
that
a
landslide
may
travel
onto
or
retrogress
into
it.

Landslides

suscep5ble

areas

Landslides
intensity

Advanced
data

set

A
set
of
spa<ally
distributed
parameters
related
to
the
destruc<ve
power
of
a
landslide.
The

parameters
may
be
described
quan<ta<vely
or
qualita<vely
and
may
include
maximum

movement
velocity,
total
displacement,
diﬀeren<al
displacement,
depth
of
the
moving

mass,
peak
discharge
per
unit
width,
kine<c
energy
per
unit
area
(JTC1,
2008).

Set
of
data
that
can
allow
a
thorough
understanding
of
the
landslides
of
the
areas
prone
to

slope
failure.

Landslide
characterisa5on

Landslide
suscep5ble
areas
would
show
as
input
:

•  Location
•  Classification
•  Areal extent and volume
•  Creeping zones
•  State of activity
•  Rate of movement

Landslide
Inventory

•  Future rate of movement
•  The area into which the slide may

Landslide
Suscep<bility

travel
retrogress
enlarge
Landslide
suscep5ble
areas

Individuation of the area where first-failure
phenomenon or landslide reactivation can occur
Lioni landslide (CotecchiaV., Salvemini A.,
Simeoni V., Tafuni, 1992).
Classification:
Earth slide
Areal extent: 6 ha
Volume: 291,000
m3
Classification, areal extent and volume
Sdao et al., 2005
Geomorphological sketch-map
La Braida landslide
Mapping of the creeping zone
Leroueil et al (1996)
Active Suspended Inactive Reactivated
(WLWPLI 1991)
State of activity of
landslides
(Cascini, 2005)
Input
data
for
the
landslide
inventory

Map
scale
1:25,000
State
of
ac5vity
based
on
geological
criteria

Landslide
inventory
map
Montecalvo
Irpino

An
example
of
an
advanced
landslide
inventory

DUTI
Danger
Maps
(Bonnard
and
Noverraz,
1984)

Landslide
at
Quindici,
May
1998.

The
area
into
which
the

slide
may
travel

Slide
at
Ullensaker,
Norway
1953

the
area
into

which
the
slide

may
retrogress

Plan
of
Ames
slide
near
Telluride,

Colorado.
This
enlarging
complex

earth
slide
–
earth
ﬂow
occurred
in

<ll
overlyng
Mancos
shale.
Crown

of
slide
retrogressed
by
mul<ple

rota<onal
slides
aber
main
body
of

displaced
material
moved.
Surface

of
rupture
also
widened
on
leb

lateral
margin.

the
area
into
which
the
slide
may

widen

Predic5ng
the
landslide
evolu5on


Actual
velocity

Maximum
expected
velocity

Pre-‐failure

Post-‐failure

V ~
0 V m
ax V ~
0
3300m/s
3800m/s
2700 -
5000m/s
Sec<on
through
a
slid
showing
inferred

geological
structure

(Glastonbury
and
Fell,
2003)

Landslide
intensity
(volume)

>=2000 kJ
1500 - 2000 kJ
1000 - 1500 kJ
500 - 1000 kJ
0 - 500 kJ
TRAJECTORIES ENERGIES
Trajectories
(leb)
and
kine<c

energy
distribu<on
(right)

(Copons
et
al.
2004).

Rockfall
area
of
the
Solà

d’Andorra,
Spain
(Corominas
et

al.
2003).

Landslide
intensity
(kine<c
energy)

Landslide
intensity
(volume)

The
volume
of
a

landslide
can
be

accurately

detected
only
with

the
aid
of
the
in-‐
situ
inves<ga<ons

The
Slumgullion
landslide
is
a
large
mass

movement
in
the
San
Juan
Mountains
of
Colorado.

It
consists
of
a
younger,
ac<ve
movement
(3.9
km

long)
with
an
es<mated
moving
volume
of
about

20×106
m3,
Overall,
the
volume
of
the
complete

landslide
system
is
es<mated
at
about
170
×
106

m3
(Parise
and
Guzzi,
1992).

Landslide
intensity

§  It
is
recommended
that
frequency
will
be
expressed
as
probability

of
occurrence
or
by
return
period
(Latel<n
1997)
based
on
hazard

acceptability
criteria.

§  Frequency
of
landsliding
can
be
determined
from
historical
data,

rela<on
to
triggering
event
frequencies
(i.e.
rainfall,
earthquake)

with
known
annual
exceedence
probabili<es,
or
rela<ng
the

indicators
or
revealing
factors
of
slope
stability
condi<ons
(i.e.
water

content,
groundwater
and/or
pore
pressure
regime)
to
triggering

factors
(rainfall).

§  However,
care
should
be
taken
in
the
establishment
of
landslide

frequencies,
because
the
condi<ons
responsible
for
a
given

landslide
frequency
in
the
past
may
no
longer
exist
(Latel<n
1997).

Analysis
of
sliding
frequency

HUNGR et al. (1999)
MCF: Magnitude - Cumulative Frequency
“A” constant depending on the length of
corridor in question and on the relative
propensy of various locations to produce
landslide
“b” characterizes the distribution of rock fall
frequencies in the study area and within its
subdomains
=
(i)
1T
f
Magnitude ranges:
1)  Under 1 m3
2)  1 to 1000 m3
3)  1000 to
100’000 m3
ROCKFALLS
log F = A + b log M
Topographic Model Topographic analysis of an area
Hydrological Model Pore pressure investigation
Vegetation Model Vegetational influence on hydrological
and slope stability processes
Slope Stability Model Slope Stability factor or Stability Index
ground surface
bedrock
land cover
water
table
slip
surface
bedrock
land
cover
h
z SHALSTAB (Montgomery & Dietrich,1994)
dSLAM (Wu W. & Sidle R. C., 1995)
SINMAP (Pack et al.,1998)
Analysis
of
sliding
frequency

A country house
(few persons)
A small village (tens of persons)
A big city
(hundreds of persons)
Structures function
Private buildings
Public buildings
Historical buildings
UNESCO World Heritage
Threatened population (Dwellers )
A B
A x B
personsNumber of
persons
Factor of
presence
1
0.3
0.5
1
1
A B
AxB
USA $Number
of units
Calculation
factor
40.000
60.000
60.000
85.000
125.000
35.000
Threatened property (Dwelling-house)
Users of traffic routes
A B
A x B
personsDistance
m
Calculation
factor
0.01
0.005
0.001
A B
AxB
USA $
Floor
area
m2
Calculat
ion
factor
500
250
1000
1700
Other buildings
Elements
at
risk

The
vulnerability
of
the
elements
at
risk
depends
on
both
the
typology
of
the
element
(i.e.
on
its
resistance)
and
on

the
intensity
of
the
landslide
interac;ng
with
it.

PHYSICAL
ECONOMIC

Railways
Pipelines
Electric
transmission
lines

Individual
vulnerabilty
(conscious)

Collec<ve
vulnerability

(not
conscious)

Collec<ve
vulnerabilty

(conscious)

Individual
vulnerability
(not
conscious)

ENVIRONMENTAL

Vulnerability
of
elements
at
risk

SOCIAL

Territory
of
the
Na5onal
Basin
Authority
(LGV
rivers):
Landslide
Inventory
Map
1:250,000
scale

5
Regions

11
Provinces

450
Municipali<es

About
1,800,000
inhabitants

Area:
11,483
km2

Landslides:
32,247

Ac<ve
landslides:
11,
255

Dormant
landslides:
16,942

Relict
landslides:
155

Landslides
density:
2.81
per
km2:

Landslide
Inventory
Map
1:100,000
scale

Site 1
max
length
=
5
km
(5
cm)

max
width
=
1.5
km
(1.5
cm)

Area
=
2.72
km2
(2.72
cm2)

Landslides
Inventory
map
at
diﬀerent
scales

max
length
=
5
km
(20
cm)

max
width
=
1.5km
(6
cm)

Area
=
2.72
km2
(43.52
cm2)

Landslide
Inventory
Map
1:25,000
scale

Landslides
Inventory
map
at
diﬀerent
scales

Landslide
Inventory
Map
1:100,000
scale

Sketch
(drawn
by
hand)

Landslide
Inventory
Map
1:2,000
scale

CARTOGRAPHIC
DATABASE
RISK MAPPING AT DIFFERENT SCALES
(STAKES/PHENOMENA – HAZARDS – RISKS)
REGIONAL SCALE
1/100 000RISKS
SYNTHESIS
(informative map)
PHENOMENA
&
STAKES
INVENTORY
MAP
Tables
Maps
Tables
CARTOGRAPHIC
DATABASE
HIGH
STAKE
LOW
STAKE
Maps
Deterministic
HAZARDS
&
STAKES
MAPS
RISK BASIN SCALE
1/25 000
LOCAL SCALE
1/5 000
RISKS MAP
(administrative map)
Statistical
(zoom)
(Leroi
1996)

Regional
scale
(1:100,000)

Risk
basin
scale
(1:25,000)

Local
Scale
(1:5,000)

Element at risk
Zoning
scales
and
their
applicability

Landslide

(Fell
et
al.
2008)

(1) For qualitative zoning
(2) For quantitative zoning
Risk Zoning
Hazard Zoning
Susceptibility Zoning
Type
of
Zoning Inventory
Mapping
Zoning Level
Inventory of
existing
landslides
Characteriz-
ation of
potential
landslides
Travel distance
and velocity
Frequency
assessment
Temporal
spatial
probability
Elements at risk Vulnerability
Preliminary
Basic
)1( )2(
Basic
)1( )2(
Basic
)1(
Intermediate
)2(
Basic
)2,1(
Basic
)2,1(
Basic
)2,1(
Basic
)2,1(
Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate
to Basic
Advanced Sophisticated
Sophisticated
to
Intermediate
Intermediate to
Sophisticated
Intermediate
to
Sophisticated
Sophisticated Sophisticated
Intermediate
to
Sophisticated
Advanced Advanced to
Intermediate
Intermediate
to advanced
Intermediate
to advanced
Advanced Advanced Intermediate
to advanced
Qualitative Risk Analysis: An
analysis
which

uses
word
form,
descrip5ve
or
numerical
ra5g

scales
to
describe
the
magnitude
of
poten5al

consequences
and
the
likelihood
(1)
that
those

consequences
will
occur.

Quantitative Risk Analysis: An
analysis

based
on
numerical
values
of
the

probability,
vulnerability
and
consequences,

and
resul5ng
in
a
numerical
value
of
the

risk.

Deﬁni5ons
of
levels
of
suscep5bility,
hazard
and
risk
zoning

The
preliminary
level
of
zoning
is
associated
to

methods
for
which
suscep2bility,
hazard
and
risk

are
assessed
based
on
heuris2c
procedures
(or

expert
judgment).

The
intermediate
level
of
zoning
is
usually
based

on
data
treatment
techniques
and
empirical

rela2ons
and
the
outputs
are
compared
with
the

occurrence
landslide
events.

The
advanced
level
of
zoning
is
usually
carried

out
with
physically
based
methods
aimed
at

es2ma2ng
the
probability
of
failure,
run-‐out

distance
and
landslide
velocity.

(SafeLand
D.
2.4)

(Cascini,
2008)
Notes:
*Applicable;
(*)
May
be
applicable;
[*]
Not
recommended
or
not
commonly
used.

Scale
descrip<on

Indica<ve

range
of

scales

Zoning
methods
Zoning
levels
Types
of
zoning

Purpose

Basic

Intermediate

Advanced

Preliminary

Intermediate

Advanced

Suscep<bility

Hazard

Small
<
1:100,000
*
*
*

Regional
zoning

-‐
Informa<on

Medium

1:100,000

to

1:25,000

*
(*)
*
(*)
*
(*)

Regional
zoning

-  Informa<on

-  Advisory

Large

1:25,000

to

1:5,000

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Local
zoning

-  Informa<on

-  Advisory

-  Statutory

Detailed
>
1:5,000
[*]
(*)
*
[*]
(*)
*
(*)
*

Site
speciﬁc
zoning

-  Informa<on

-  Advisory

-  Statutory

-  Design

Levels
and
methods
of
landslides
suscep5bility
and
hazard
zoning
at
diﬀerent
scales

The
territory
of
Liri-‐
Garigliano
and
Volturno

(LG-‐V)
RbA

(12,000
km2)

Liri-‐
Garigliano

Volturno
Total

Area
(km2)

%

Area
(km2)

%

Area
(km2)

%

Plans

926

18

1522

24

2448

21.3

Hills

1954

38

2790

44

4744

41.3

Mountains

2263

44

2030

32

4293

37.4

Risk Zoning Map
Landslide
(danger)

Characterisation
Susceptibility
Zoning Map
Analysis
of
sliding

frequency

Hazard Zoning Map
Characterisation
of

consequences

scenarios
Lettura
foto aeree
T A V . 2
Carta
Geologico-Strutturale
T A V . 3
Carta Geomorfologica
T A V . 1
Carta degli elementi sui
Fenomeni di Dissesto forniti
dagli Enti territoriali
Ricerche
storiche
T A V . 5
Carta Inventario dei
Fenomeni Franosi
CataloghiStudi Esistenti
Sopralluoghi
TA V . 1 2
Carta degli Scenari di
Franosit‡ in funzione della
massima intensit‡ attesa
Vulnerabilit‡
del tessuto urbano e
infrastrutturale
Ambiti
geomorfologici
T A V . 1 1
Carta dei
Danni segnalati dagli
Enti Territoriali
T A V . 1 0
Carta del
Danno Rilevato e
delle strutture ed
infrastrutture molto
vulnerabili
T A V . 8
Carta della
zonazione degli
Insediamenti urbani
T A V . 9
Carta dei detrattori
ambientali
e delle
infrastrutture
T A V . 6
Cartadel
VincoloIdrogeologico
eParchi Nazionali e
Regionali
Analisi
Strumenti
Urbanistici
Comunali
Aggiornamento del
tessuto urbano
mediante ortofoto
AIMA Min.Ambiente
Lettura
foto aeree
Segnalazioni
degli enti
Segnalazioni
del Corpo
forestale
T A V . 7
Cartadei
Vincoli Ambientali
eCulturali
Studi dell'
Autorit‡ di
Bacino
Sitap del Ministero
BBCC e Studi dei
Piani Paesistici
Streetnet
(della soc. Risorse
Ambientali)
Rilievi di
Campagna
Raccolta Dati
Presso Enti
Carta delle aree
innondabili da colate
rapide di fango sulla base
di modelli idraulici
semplificati
Modello
Idraulico
Analisi del tessuto
urbano ed
infrastrutturale
Studi esistenti Sopralluoghi
Definizione
convenzionale
dell'entit‡ del
Danno
Analisi dei dati
rilevati e
attribuzione
dell'entit‡ del
Danno
Elaborazione
ipertestuale e
successiva
archiviazione
dei dati
T A V . 13
Car t a degli s c enar i di
Ris c hio
Analisi geologica del
territorio e analisi Morfo-
evolutiva dei versanti
Aggiornamento carta
inventario dei Fenomeni
Franosi
Avvio studi
Geotecnici
Massima Intensit‡
attesa della franosit‡
reale e potenziale
ISTAT
PIANI
&
PROGRAMMI
T A V . 4
Carta
dei Depositi
di Copertura
Caratterizzazione dei
fenomeni franosi e
Indicatori di Attivit‡ e di
tendenza evolutiva
Evidenze
Morfologiche di
Frane
Indicatori
Morfologici
Indicatori
Geologici-
Strutturali
Verifica
NO SI
Verifica
NO SI
Lettura
foto aeree
T AV. 2
Carta
T AV. 3
T AV. 1
Ricerche
storiche
T AV. 5
Fenomeni Franosi
Sopralluoghi
TA V . 1 2
Carta degliScenaridi
Vulnerabilit‡
deltessuto urbano e
infrastrutturale
Ambiti
geomorfologici
T AV. 1 1
Carta dei
Enti Territoriali
T AV. 1 0
Carta del
Danno Rilevato e
delle strutture ed
vulnerabili
T AV. 8
Carta della
zonazione degli
Insediamenti urbani
T AV. 9
ambientali
e delle
infrastrutture
T AV. 6
Cartadel
eParchi Nazionali e
Regionali
Analisi
Strumenti
Urbanistici
Comunali
Aggiornamento del
tessuto urbano
mediante ortofoto
AIMA Min.Ambiente
Lettura
foto aeree
Segnalazioni
degli enti
Segnalazioni
del Corpo
forestale
T AV. 7
Cartadei
Vincoli Ambientali
eCulturali
Studi dell'
Autorit‡ di
Bacino
Sitap del Ministero
BBCC e Studi dei
Piani Paesistici
Streetnet
(della soc. Risorse
Ambientali)
Rilievi di
Campagna
Raccolta Dati
Presso Enti
Carta delle aree
semplificati
Modello
Idraulico
Analisi del tessuto
urbano ed
infrastrutturale
Definizione
convenzionale
dell'entit‡ del
Danno
Analisi dei dati
rilevati e
attribuzione
dell'entit‡ del
Danno
Elaborazione
ipertestuale e
successiva
archiviazione
dei dati
T A V . 13
Ris c hio
Aggiornamento carta
Franosi
Avvio studi
Geotecnici
Massima Intensit‡
reale e potenziale
ISTAT
PIANI
&
PROGRAMMI
T AV. 4
Carta
dei Depositi
di Copertura
fenomeni franosi e
tendenza evolutiva
Evidenze
Morfologiche di
Frane
Indicatori
Morfologici
Indicatori
Geologici-
Strutturali
Verifica
NO SI
Verifica
NO SI
Lettura
foto aeree
T A V . 2
Carta
T A V . 3
T A V . 1
Ricerche
storiche
T A V . 5
Fenomeni Franosi
Sopralluoghi
TA V . 1 2
Vulnerabilit‡
infrastrutturale
Ambiti
geomorfologici
T A V . 1 1
Carta dei
Enti Territoriali
T A V . 1 0
Carta del
Danno Rilevato e
delle strutture ed
vulnerabili
T A V . 8
Carta della
zonazione degli
Insediamenti urbani
T A V . 9
ambientali
e delle
infrastrutture
T A V . 6
Cartadel
eParchi Nazionali e
Regionali
Analisi
Strumenti
Urbanistici
Comunali
Aggiornamento del
tessuto urbano
mediante ortofoto
AIMA Min.Ambiente
Lettura
foto aeree
Segnalazioni
degli enti
Segnalazioni
del Corpo
forestale
T A V . 7
Cartadei
Vincoli Ambientali
eCulturali
Studi dell'
Autorit‡ di
Bacino
Sitap del Ministero
BBCC e Studi dei
Piani Paesistici
Streetnet
(della soc. Risorse
Ambientali)
Rilievi di
Campagna
Raccolta Dati
Presso Enti
Carta delle aree
semplificati
Modello
Idraulico
Analisi del tessuto
urbano ed
infrastrutturale
Definizione
convenzionale
dell'entit‡ del
Danno
Analisi dei dati
rilevati e
attribuzione
dell'entit‡ del
Danno
Elaborazione
ipertestuale e
successiva
archiviazione
dei dati
T A V . 13
Ris c hio
Aggiornamento carta
Franosi
Avvio studi
Geotecnici
Massima Intensit‡
reale e potenziale
ISTAT
PIANI
&
PROGRAMMI
T A V . 4
Carta
dei Depositi
di Copertura
fenomeni franosi e
tendenza evolutiva
Evidenze
Morfologiche di
Frane
Indicatori
Morfologici
Indicatori
Geologici-
Strutturali
Verifica
NO SI
Verifica
NO SI
Lettura
foto aeree
T A V . 2
Carta
T A V . 3
T A V . 1
Ricerche
storiche
T A V . 5
Fenomeni Franosi
Sopralluoghi
TA V . 1 2
Vulnerabilit‡
infrastrutturale
Ambiti
geomorfologici
T A V . 1 1
Carta dei
Enti Territoriali
T A V . 1 0
Carta del
Danno Rilevato e
delle strutture ed
vulnerabili
T A V . 8
Carta della
zonazione degli
Insediamenti urbani
T A V . 9
ambientali
e delle
infrastrutture
T A V . 6
Cartadel
eParchi Nazionali e
Regionali
Analisi
Strumenti
Urbanistici
Comunali
Aggiornamento del
tessuto urbano
mediante ortofoto
AIMA Min.Ambiente
Lettura
foto aeree
Segnalazioni
degli enti
Segnalazioni
del Corpo
forestale
T A V . 7
Cartadei
Vincoli Ambientali
eCulturali
Studi dell'
Autorit‡ di
Bacino
Sitap del Ministero
BBCC e Studi dei
Piani Paesistici
Streetnet
(della soc. Risorse
Ambientali)
Rilievi di
Campagna
Raccolta Dati
Presso Enti
Carta delle aree
semplificati
Modello
Idraulico
Analisi del tessuto
urbano ed
infrastrutturale
Definizione
convenzionale
dell'entit‡ del
Danno
Analisi dei dati
rilevati e
attribuzione
dell'entit‡ del
Danno
Elaborazione
ipertestuale e
successiva
archiviazione
dei dati
T A V . 13
Ris c hio
Aggiornamento carta
Franosi
Avvio studi
Geotecnici
Massima Intensit‡
reale e potenziale
ISTAT
PIANI
&
PROGRAMMI
T A V . 4
Carta
dei Depositi
di Copertura
fenomeni franosi e
tendenza evolutiva
Evidenze
Morfologiche di
Frane
Indicatori
Morfologici
Indicatori
Geologici-
Strutturali
Verifica
NO SI
Verifica
NO SI
Vulnerabilit烋
infrastrutturale
TA V . 11
Carta dei
Enti Territoriali
TA V . 10
Carta del
Danno Rilevato e
delle strutture ed
vulnerabili
TA V . 8
Carta della
zonazione degli
Insediamenti urbani
TA V . 9
ambientali
e delle
infrastrutture
Analisi
Strumenti
Urbanistici
Comunali
Aggiornamento del
tessuto urbano
mediante ortofoto
AIMA Min.Ambiente
Lettura
foto aeree
Segnalazioni
degli enti
Streetnet
(della soc. Risorse
Ambientali)
Rilievi di
Campagna
Raccolta Dati
Presso Enti
Definizione
convenzionale
dell'entit・del
Danno
Analisi dei dati
rilevati e
attribuzione
dell'entit・del
Danno
Elaborazione
ipertestuale e
successiva
archiviazione
dei dati
ISTAT
Verifica
NO SI
Lettura
foto aeree
T A V . 2
Carta
T A V . 3
T A V . 1
Ricerche
storiche
T A V . 5
Fenomeni Franosi
Sopralluoghi
TA V . 1 2
Vulnerabilit‡
infrastrutturale
Ambiti
geomorfologici
T A V . 1 1
Carta dei
Enti Territoriali
T A V . 1 0
Carta del
Danno Rilevato e
delle strutture ed
vulnerabili
T A V . 8
Carta della
zonazione degli
Insediamenti urbani
T A V . 9
ambientali
e delle
infrastrutture
T A V . 6
Cartadel
eParchi Nazionali e
Regionali
Analisi
Strumenti
Urbanistici
Comunali
Aggiornamento del
tessuto urbano
mediante ortofoto
AIMA Min.Ambiente
Lettura
foto aeree
Segnalazioni
degli enti
Segnalazioni
del Corpo
forestale
T A V . 7
Cartadei
Vincoli Ambientali
eCulturali
Studi dell'
Autorit‡ di
Bacino
Sitap del Ministero
BBCC e Studi dei
Piani Paesistici
Streetnet
(della soc. Risorse
Ambientali)
Rilievi di
Campagna
Raccolta Dati
Presso Enti
Carta delle aree
semplificati
Modello
Idraulico
Analisi del tessuto
urbano ed
infrastrutturale
Definizione
convenzionale
dell'entit‡ del
Danno
Analisi dei dati
rilevati e
attribuzione
dell'entit‡ del
Danno
Elaborazione
ipertestuale e
successiva
archiviazione
dei dati
T A V . 13
Ris c hio
Aggiornamento carta
Franosi
Avvio studi
Geotecnici
Massima Intensit‡
reale e potenziale
ISTAT
PIANI
&
PROGRAMMI
T A V . 4
Carta
dei Depositi
di Copertura
fenomeni franosi e
tendenza evolutiva
Evidenze
Morfologiche di
Frane
Indicatori
Morfologici
Indicatori
Geologici-
Strutturali
Verifica
NO SI
Verifica
NO SI
An
example
of
a
preliminary
level
of
zoning
at
medium
scale
(1:25,000)

The
adopted
framework

by
the
LG-‐V
RbA
for
the
risk
zoning

From
landslide
inventory
map
to
landslide
scenarios

LANDSLIDE
SCENARIOS
MAP
LANDSLIDE
INVENTORY
MAP

LANDSLIDE
INTENSITY
ASSESSMENT
Magnitu
de

Descrip<on
Volume

(m3)

7
Extremely
large
>
5·∙106

6
Very
large
1·∙106÷5·∙1
06

5
Medium-‐large
2.5·∙105÷1
·∙106

4
Medium
5·∙104÷2.5
·∙105

3
Small
5·∙103÷5·∙1
04

2.5
Very
small
5·∙102÷5·∙1
03

2
Extremely
small
<
5·∙102

Velocity

(SASSA,
1988)
Energy

I
(CRUDEN
&
VARNES,
1996)

Volume

(FELL,1984)

T2
Topographic lineφ
a
Energy loss w
= x tanφa
T1
Center of
gravity
Energy line
Kinetic energy
k = v2/2g
Potential
energy u=h
h
x
θ

1:25,000
scale

Class
Descrip<on
velocity

7
Extremely
rapid
5
m/s

6
Very
rapid
3
m/min

5
Rapid
1.8
m/hr

4
Moderate
13
m/mounth

3
Slow
1.6
m/year

2
Very
slow
16
mm/year

1
Extremely
slow
<16
mm/year

H

M
L
I Landslide type
High
Flowslides, Debris flow,
First failure in brittle materials
Medium
Occasional reactivation and Active
landslides
Low
Deep-Seated Gravitational (Slope)
Deformation, Lateral spreads
Intensity
=
the
highest
expected
velocity

LAND-‐USE
PLANNING

STRATEGIC
STRUCTURES

SURVEY
OF
DAMAGED

ELEMENTS
AT
RISK

I

Buiding
5pology
Observed

Damages

VULNERABILITY

HIGH
All
Not
considered
HIGH

MEDIUM

Strategical
building
Not
considered

HIGH

Common
building
YES

Common
building
NOT
MEDIUM

LOW

Strategical
building
Not
considered

MODERATE

Common
building
YES

Common
building
NOT
LOW

ADOPTED
VULNERABILITY
CLASSES

Characterisa5on
of
consequence
scenarios
at
medium
scale

Risk Zoning Map
Susceptibility
Zoning Map
Analysis
of
sliding

frequency

Hazard Zoning Map
Characterisation
of

consequences

scenarios
Vulnerabilit烋
infrastrutturale
TA V . 11
Carta dei
Enti Territoriali
TA V . 10
Carta del
Danno Rilevato e
delle strutture ed
vulnerabili
TA V . 8
Carta della
zonazione degli
Insediamenti urbani
TA V . 9
ambientali
e delle
infrastrutture
Analisi
Strumenti
Urbanistici
Comunali
Aggiornamento del
tessuto urbano
mediante ortofoto
AIMA Min.Ambiente
Lettura
foto aeree
Segnalazioni
degli enti
Streetnet
(della soc. Risorse
Ambientali)
Rilievi di
Campagna
Raccolta Dati
Presso Enti
Definizione
convenzionale
dell'entit・del
Danno
Analisi dei dati
rilevati e
attribuzione
dell'entit・del
Danno
Elaborazione
ipertestuale e
successiva
archiviazione
dei dati
ISTAT
Verifica
NO SI
Vulnerabilit‡
deltessuto urbano e
infrastrutturale
T AV. 1 1
Carta dei
Enti Territoriali
T AV. 1 0
Carta del
Danno Rilevato e
delle strutture ed
vulnerabili
T AV. 8
Carta della
zonazione degli
Insediamenti urbani
T AV. 9
ambientali
e delle
infrastrutture
Analisi
Strumenti
Urbanistici
Comunali
Aggiornamento del
tessuto urbano
mediante ortofoto
AIMA Min.Ambiente
Lettura
foto aeree
Segnalazioni
degli enti
Streetnet
(della soc. Risorse
Ambientali)
Rilievi di
Campagna
Raccolta Dati
Presso Enti
Definizione
convenzionale
dell'entit‡ del
Danno
Analisi dei dati
rilevati e
attribuzione
dell'entit‡ del
Danno
Elaborazione
ipertestuale e
successiva
archiviazione
dei dati
ISTAT
Verifica
NO SI
FRAMEWORK
FOR
LAND
USE,
DAMAGES
AND

VULNERABILITY

EVALUATION

I
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW

HAZARD
H
H
M
H
M

high
(h)
Hh
Hh
Mh

medium

(me)

Hme
Mme

moderate

(mo)

Hmo
Mmo

low
(l)
Hl
Ml

VULNERABILITY

Adopted
levels
for
qualita5ve
risk
assessment

Montecalvo
Irpino
(1:25,000
scale)

R4 R3 R2 R1
A1A2A3A4 A1A2A3A4
RISK
LEVELS

ATTENTION
LEVELS

An
example
of
qualita5ve
risk
maps
(L.
365/2000)

Risk
matrix

Risk Zoning Map
Analysis
of
sliding

frequency

Hazard Zoning Map
Characterisation
of

consequences

scenarios

An
example
of
an
advanced
level
of
zoning:
the
Quan5ta5ve
Risk
Assessment
(QRA)

M2 Predisposing Factor
• Open slope
• Slope
• Morphological discontinuity
Triggering Factor
• Rainfall
• Slope
• Impact of unstable masses
• Morphological concavity
Triggering Factor
• Rainfall
• Sub-superficial groundwater
circulation inside the pyroclastic
deposits
• Slope
• Deep gullies inside the
pyroclastic deposits
Triggering Factor
• Rainfall
Predisposing Factor
• Slope
• Incision inside the
pyroclastic deposits
Triggering Factor
• Rainfall
E1
Triggering
mechanisms
of
debris
ﬂow
The
prevailing
phenomena

The
Monte
Albino
massif
The
hydrographic
catchments

Triggering
mechanism
of
debris
avalanches
Triggering
mechanism
of

hyperconcentrated
ﬂow

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Percentagebyweight(%)
Grain size (mm)
Ashy soils A'
Ashy soils B'
Pumice soil
Transition line
Clay Sand GravelSilt
DTM
obtained
on
the
basis
of
the
data
achieved
via
a
LIDAR
survey
technique
(Avioriprese
s.r.l.,
edi5on
of
2005,

1:1,000
scale),
with
indica5on
of
the
sites
where
the
in-‐situ
tests
were
carried
out.

In-‐situ
tests

Soil
water
characteris;c
curves

Range
of
main
physical
proper;es
of
A’
and
B’
ashy

soils

Soil class
γs (kN/m3) γ (kN/m3) γd (kN/m3) e
min max min max min max min max
A’ 25.1 26.3 10.1 15.7 6.8 10.8 1.42 2.84
B’ 25.5 27.3 11.8 13.4 7.5 9.7 1.67 2.44
Soil class c' (kPa) φ' (°)
A’ 6.1 30.7
B’ 4.1 37.3
Average
values
of
shear
strength
parameters
of
A’
and
B’

ashy
soils

TRIGRS

(Baum
et
al.,
2002)

Modelling
the
triggering
stage

Infinite Slope model
Infiltration model
Linearized solution of Richard’s equation
Factor of Safety
- Transient hydrological conditions
- Fully Saturated conditions
- Slope-parallel watertable
- Homogeneous soil with spatial variability
- Impermeable or infinite basal boundary
Examples
of
modelling
of
the
triggering
stage

DEBRIS
FLOWS

HYPERCONCENTRATED
FLOWS

(Coussot
&
Meunier,
1996
mod.)

Monte Albino
Ø 
DEBRIS
FLOWS

Ø 
HYPERCONCENTRATED
FLOWS

Ø 
LANDSLIDES
ON
OPEN
SLOPES

Frontal
view
of
the
debris

avalanche
occurred
on
March

2005.

Ø 
FLOODS

Analysis
of
the
propaga5on
stage

FLO-‐2D
(O’Brien,
1993)

Modelling
the
propaga5on
stage

Flooding Hyperconcentrated flows
Flowslides Landslides on open slopes
The
quan5ta5ve
risk
es5ma5on

P(LOL)
=
P(L)
x
P(T:L)
x
P(S:T)
x
V(D:T)

Generic
mul5-‐hazard
risk
map:
approach
1
and
approach
2.

Two
adopted
approaches
to
SMCE
for
mul5-‐hazard
risk
analysis.

(Alkema
et
al.,
2014)

Spa5al
Mul5-‐Criteria
Evalua5on
for
qualita5ve
risk
analysis
and
zoning

Approach
1

Approach
2

From
a
preliminary
to
an
advanced
level
of
zoning:
the
case
study
of
landslides
in
weathered
gneiss

The
study
area

The
complexity
of
weathered
soils

V
IV
IV IV
IV IV
V V
V
V-VI
(Cascini
et
al.,

1992)

Schmidt
hammer

0
÷16
Class
V

Schmidt
hammer

11
÷22
Class
IV

Schmidt
hammer

26
÷55
Class
III

Schmidt
hammer
≈
0

Class
VI

Weathered
class
Rock
materials
Rock
mass

VI

Residual

and

colluvial

soil

Soil
produced
by
the
in
site

weathering
in
which
the

original
structure
of
the
rock

is

completely
destroyed.

The
soil
is
aﬀected
by

colluvial
processes.

Residual
soils
an

colluvial
deposits

with
isolated

saprolite
blocks;

absence
of
rock

V

Completely

weathered

gneiss

Completely

disintegrated

rock
having
the
consistency

of
a
soil
but
which
presents,

at

relict
state,
discon<nuity

and
s<ll
preserved
the

original
texture

Saprolite
deposits

with
isolated
strips

of
residual
soils

and
less

weathered
gneiss

unit

IV

Highly

weathered

gneiss

Completely
discolored
and

intensely
weathered
rock

Highly
weathered

gneiss
with

residual
soils
and

saprolite
s<ps
and

less
weathered

gneiss
unit

III

Midly

weathered

gneiss

Completely
discolored
rock,

except
in
a
few
points
away

from
fractures,
and
altered

but
s<ll
with
good
resistance

Midly
weathered

gneiss
with
unit

from
highly
to

midly
weathered

gneiss

II

Weakly

weathered

gneiss

Discolored
rock
only
along

the
discon<nuity;
the

resistance
is
close
to
that
of

not
weathered

the
rock

Weakly
weathered

gneiss
with

greater
weathered

zone
along
the

fractures

I

Fresh

gneiss

rock
in
which
there
are
not

visible
weathered
or

discolored
signs

Not
weathered

gneiss
with
local

weakly
weathered

signs

(Cascini and Gullà, 1993)
Shear
strength
proper5es
of
the
highly
weathered
gneiss

The
weathered
gneiss
map
in
the
test
area

Map of the weathering grade, landslides and hollows in the Gneissic Unit
Map of the weathering grade, landslides and hollows in the Gneissic Unit
(Class V and VI)
Map of landslides in weathered gneissic classes V-VI, drainage network and
tectonic structures.
Mappa geologica e delle frane nell’area campione
Scala 1:10,000
0 200 400
m
(Cascini, 2008)
Study area

Landslide B
An
overview
of
the
landsliding
zone

Landslide A
The
representa5ve
landslide

Geologic
cross
sec5on

Landslide A
Landslide B
5
Water pipe
Buildings

4A

Photographs
of

damaged
buildings

Buildings

7C

Map scale 1:2,000Map scale 1:2,000
0 20 40 60 800 20 40 60 80
mm
0 20 40 60 800 20 40 60 80
mm
0 20 40 60 800 20 40 60 80
mmmm

Groundwater
measurements
and
modelling

Groundwater
measurements

B-B
A-A
C-C
( ) )]()([ ψψ
ψ
ψ +∇∇=
∂
∂
⋅ zK
t
mv
Groundwater
modelling

Richards’
equa<on

(Cascini et al., 2008)
Piezometric
levels
recorded
in
the
gneissic
cover.

4A- 4B
7A
Fs = 1
Landslide B: c’= 14 kPa; ϕ’ = 26°
LAndslide A: c’= 5 kPa; ϕ’ = 23°
The
analyses
highlight
that
the
landslide

reac<va<on:

• 
involved
the
whole
soil
cover
thickness;

• 
was
triggered
by
signiﬁcant
excursions
of
the

water
table
caused
by
cumula<ve
rainfall

(900mmm
in
100-‐120
days
T
=
50
years);

• 
was
favourite
by
concentrated
water
springs
in

the
upper
and
middle
part
of
the
slope.

Slope
stability
analysis

The safety factor takes the unit value at the residual strength congruently with the evolution
model of the slope developed by Cascini eta al. 1992.
EVOLUTION SLOPE MODEL
IN THE STUDY AREA
SLOPES COVERED BY COLLUVIAL-
DEBRIS LAYERS (VI-V CLASSES)
SLOPES HAVING OUTCROPPING
ROCK OF CLASSES III, IV, V
Evolution slope model a) Development stage of the
weathering profiles on the hillslopes and of downcutting
on the river-beds; b) stage of gneiss degradation and of
valley filling; c) debris fillings’ evacuation and renewal of
the downcutting on the river-beds (Cascini et al., 1992).
In the western Sila case study (Cascini et al., 1992).
4A-‐4B

7A

Risk
to
proper5es
by
stress
strain
analysis

FEM
stress-‐strain
analyses
Consequence
scenarios

1
1
1
2
Displacement
magnification
=
5
times
Deformed
mesh
for
a
cumulated
rainfall

with
T
=
50
years
Deformed
mesh
for
a
cumulated
rainfall

with
T
=
100
years
Estimated
settlements
in

correspondence
of
buildings
4A-‐4B

Estimated
settlements
in

correspondence
of
building
7A
W1
L1 = 915 cm
W1
DANNI:
Lesioni diffuse nelle murature (<3 cm);
Abbassamenti dei pavimenti.
W2
L2 = 1169 cm
L1
1 = = 0.036 >
1
300
W2
L2
2 = = 0.0021 > 1
500
CORPO A
W1
L1 = 933 cm L2 = 786 cm
Il corpo A subirà danni.
CORPO B
W1
L1
1 = = 0.004 >
1
300
W2
W2
L2
2 = = 0.00006 < 1
500
CORPO A
W1
L1 = 933cm L2 = 786cm
Il corpo B e la parte nord del corpo A non
hanno subito danni.
CORPO B
W1
L1
1 = = 0.0019 <
1
500
W2
W2
L2
2 = = 0.00005 < 1
500
Estimated
settlements
in

correspondence
of
building
7A

W1
W2
L1 = 915 cm L2 = 1169 cm
Subirà gravi danni.
4A
W1
L1
1 = = 0.074 >
1
300
W2
L2
2 = = 0.0027 > 1
500
Descriptors
for
consequence
to
properties
(Fell
et
al.,
2008)
Buildings
4A-‐4B:
Very
High

Building
7A:
High
150
1
036.01 >=β
500
1
0021.02 >=β
500
1
0019.01 <=β
500
1
105 5
2 <⋅= −
β
150
1
074.01 >=β
300
1
004.01 >=β
500
1
106 5
2 <⋅= −
β
500
1
0027.01 >=β
βi =
Δ
Wi/Li =
angular
distortion
1
1
1
2
4A-4B
7A
4A-4B
7A
Estimated
settlements
in

correspondence
of
buildings
4A-‐4B

βi =
Δ
Wi/Li =
angular
distortion
Descriptors
for
consequence
to
properties
(Fell
et
al.,
2008)
Buildings
4A-‐4B:
Very
High

Building
7A:
Low
Cumulated
rainfall
T=50
years

Cumulated
rainfall
T=100
years

Building
7A
Buildings
4A-‐4B

Very
high
Low

Building
7A
Buildings
4A-‐4B

Very
hight
High

WIDE
DIFFUSION
OVER
LARGE
AREA

SMALL
SIZE

Lenght:

10
m
–
100
m;

Width:
max
20
m;

Slip
surface:
0.40
m
-‐
3.0
m

Intact
clay

Weathered
clay

1m
Catanzaro
(2009),
Calabria

Mangawhero,
New
Zealand
(2004)

M.J. Crozier (2005)
“The
economic
consequences
of
these

widespread
events
in
New
Zealand
reﬂects
the

agricultural
base
to
produc;on
and
losses
are

dominated
by
reduc;on
to
pasture
produc;vity,

damage
to
road
and
rail
links
and
enhanced

downstream
ﬂooding”.

Phenomena
involving
several
geological
context
on
the
World

Catanzaro
(2009),
Calabria

From
a
preliminary
to
an
advanced
level
of
zoning:
the
case
study
of
shallow
landslides

EMPIRICAL METHODS
“Information value” bivariate analysis
(Yin and Yan, 1988).
Variables:
• Elevation
• Lithological complex
• Slope gradient
• Differential uplift rate
• Aspect
• Curvature
• Distance from the main drainage line
IL
D

Iden5ﬁca5on
of
the
slopes
aﬀected
by
shallow
landslides
at
small
and
medium
scales

Small scale (1:100,000) Medium scale (1:25,000)
HEURISTIC METHODS
(Geomorphological Analysis)
Identified Landslides Predisposing Factors:
•  Lithology;
•  Up-lift rate;
•  Drainage lines.

DIM. MORSLE – CZ1 MORSLE – CZ2 MORSLE – CZ3
WIDTH few m few m 10-30 m
LENGHT ≤ 10 m 10-50 m 50-100 m
DEPTH ≤ 0.80 m 1.5 m 3 m
2010 1:5,000
scale

Triggering
mechanisms

Geotechnical
valida;on
of
the
mechanisms

Involving
weathered
fine-‐grained
soils

From
the
iden5fica5on
of
the
affected
area
to
the
es5ma5on
of
the
landslides
volume

2010
TRIGRS-unsaturated
TRIGRS
200120062006
Tensile stress
Primary cracks
Secondary cracks
Tertiary cracks
cp=4.2-5.5 kPa, fp=24°-28°
Quan5ta5ve
analysis
of
landslide
suscep5bility
at
slope
scale

Mitigation Measures
Structural Non - Structural
How
to
mi5gate
the
risk?

Reduction of the
elements at risk value E
(people)
Reduction of the
vulnerability V (people
and properties)
Reduction of the
hazard
Avoidance
Tolerance
Monitoring/Warning
Active
Passive
(Lo,
2000)

b)

(Leroi
et
al.,
2005)

(Sacco
e
Cascini,
2013)

Risk
management
is
not
an
exclusively

technical
issue

Concluding
remarks

Leonardo cascini landslides susceptibility, hazard and risk zoning for urban planning anddevelopment

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (9)

Similaire à Leonardo cascini landslides susceptibility, hazard and risk zoning for urban planning anddevelopment

Similaire à Leonardo cascini landslides susceptibility, hazard and risk zoning for urban planning anddevelopment (20)

Plus de scgcolombia

Plus de scgcolombia (8)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Leonardo cascini landslides susceptibility, hazard and risk zoning for urban planning anddevelopment