D3.1 – Technical Evaluation Report of Current Methods of Hazard Mapping of Debris Flows, Rock Avalanches, and Snow Avalanches
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME Project no. 018412 IRASMOS Integral Risk Management of Extremely Rapid Mass Movements Specific Targeted Research Project Priority VI: Sustainable Development, Global Change and Ecosystems D3.1 – Technical evaluation report of current methods of hazard mapping of debris flows, rock avalanches, and snow avalanches Due date of deliverable: 31/05/2008 Actual submission date: 15/07/2008 Start date of project: 01/09/2005 Duration: 33 months WSL Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research Revision [2] Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Sixth Framework Programme (2002-2006) Dissemination Level PU Public PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services) RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME PRIORITY VI Sustainable Development, Global Change and Ecosystems SPECIFIC TARGETED RESEARCH PROJECT INTEGRAL RISK MANAGEMENT OF EXTREMELY RAPID MASS MOVEMENTS WORK PACKAGE 3: HAZARD ASSESSMENT AND MAPPING OF RAPID MASS MOVEMENTS DELIVERABLE D3.1 Hazard mapping of extremely rapid mass movements in Europe State of the art methods in practice Edited by: MASSIMILIANO BARBOLINI UNIVERSITY OF PAVIA OCTOBER 2007 SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME PRIORITY VI - Sustainable Development, Global Change and Ecosystems SPECIFIC TARGETED RESEARCH PROJECT “IRASMOS” Integral Risk Management of Extremely Rapid Mass Movements (contract n. 018412) DELIVERABLE D3.1 Hazard mapping of extremely rapid mass movements in Europe State of the art methods in practice Edited by: MASSIMILIANO BARBOLINI UNIVERSITY OF PAVIA, ITALY, WP3 LEADER Contributions by: MASSIMILIANO BARBOLINI UNIVERSITY OF PAVIA, ITALY, TASK 3.4 LEADER FEDERICA CAPPABIANCA UNIVERSITY OF PAVIA, ITALY, TASK 3.1 LEADER OLIVER KORUP SWISS FEDERAL INSTITUTES FOR SNOW AND AVALANCHE RESEARCH, SWITZERLAND, TASK 3.3 LEADER DIETER RICKENMANN UNIVERSITY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES, AUSTRIA, TASK 3.2 LEADER 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES …………………………………………….. pag. 4 LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………… pag. 6 FOREWORD …………………………………………………… pag. 7 SUMMARY ……………………………………………………. pag. 8 Chapter 1 DEFINITIONS …………………………………………………. pag. 9 1.1 General definitions ……………………………………... pag. 9 1.2 Process-related definition ……………………………… pag. 11 1.2.1 Debris flow …………………………………………………. pag. 11 1.2.2 Rock avalanches ……………………………………………. pag. 13 1.2.3 Snow avalanches ……………………………………………. pag. 16 Chapter 2 DEBRIS FLOW ………………………………………………… pag. 21 2.1 Hazard mapping criteria ………………………………... pag. 21 2.2 Hazard mapping tools ………………………………….. pag. 26 2.2.1 Identification of debris flow hazard ………………………… pag. 26 2.2.2 Evaluation of debris flow occurrence ………………………. pag. 29 2.2.2.1 Triggering conditions and relevant factors ………… pag. 2.2.2.2 Initiation mechanisms ………………………………… pag. 2.2.2.3 Magnitude and frequency …………………………….. pag. 2.2.3 Dynamical behaviour and runout distance prediction of debris flow ………………………………………………….. pag. 35 2.2.3.1 Empirical-sttistical approaches ……………………… pag. 35 2.2.3.2 Analytical-deterministic approaches ……………….. pag. 42 2.2.3.3 Simulation models …………………………………….. pag. 43 2.2.3.4 Physical models ……………………………………….. pag. 48 2.2.3.5 Conclusions …………………………………………….. pag. 48 2.3 Hazard map types ………………………………………. pag. 49 2.3.1 Hazard index maps (overview scale) ……………………….. pag. 49 2.3.2 Hazard maps (detailed scale) ……………………………….. pag. 50 2.3.3 Overview on methods for hazard mapping …………………. pag. 51 2.3.4 Scenarios and uncertaintiy ………………………………….. pag. 52 Chapter 3 ROCK AVALANCHES …………………………………………. pag. 54 3.1 Hazard mapping criteria ……………………………….. pag. 54 3.2 Hazard mapping tools ………………………………….. pag. 56 2 3.2.1 Identification of of rock avalanches hazard ………………… pag. 56 3.2.1.1 Rock avalanche morphology and sedimentology …. pag. 56 3.2.1.2 Causes of rock avalanches …………………………… pag. 59 3.2.2 Evaluation of rock avalanches occurrence …………………. pag. 60 3.2.2.1 Trigger mechanisms and possible precursors ……... pag. 60 3.2.2.2 Engineering, Geological and geotechnical approaches ……………………………………………... pag. 62 3.2.2.3 Magnitude and frequency …………………………….. pag. 63 3.2.2.4 On- and Off-site hazards ……………………………... pag. 65 3.2.3 Dynamical behaviour and runout distance prediction of rock avalanches ………………………………………………….. pag. 70 3.2.3.1 Modelling approaches ………………………………… pag. 70 3.2.3.2 Data input requirements ……………………………… pag. 71 3.2.3.3 Empirical approaches ………………………………… pag. 72 3.2.3.4 Analytical approaches ………………………………… pag. 74 3.2.3.5 Simulation models …………………………………….. pag. 77 3.2.3.6 Discussion on model result …………………………... pag. 79 3.3 Hazard map types ……………………………………… pag. 79 Chapter 4 SNOW AVALANCHES …………………………………………. pag. 81 4.1 Hazard mapping criteria ……………………………….. pag. 81 4.2 Hazard mapping tools ………………………………….. pag. 83 4.2.1 Identification of snow avalanches hazard ………………….. pag. 83 4.2.1.1 Using historical data …………………………………. pag. 83 4.2.1.2 Naturalist approach …………………………………… pag. 91 4.2.2 Evaluation of snow avalanches occurrence ………………… pag. 94 4.2.3 Dynamical behaviour and runout distance prediction of snow avalanches ……………………………………………. Pag. 98 4.2.3.1 Statistical approaches ………………………………. pag. 98 4.2.3.2 Analytical approaches ………………………………… pag. 101 4.2.3.3 Simulation models ……………………………………... pag. 101 4.3 Hazard map types ……………………………………… pag. 108 ANNEXES ……………………………………………………... pag. 114 Annex A – Legislation ……………………………………….. pag. 114 REFERENCES …………………………………………………. pag. 136 3 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: Oblique aerial view of 1987 Val Pola rock avalanche (35 × 106 m3) and dammed lake, near Bormio, Italy pag. 14 (Crosta et al., 2004) Figure 1-2: Mount Munday rock avalanche, Ice Valley Glacier, Coast Mountains, Canada. Length of rock avalanche is pag. 15 4.7 km (Evans et al., 2002) Figure 1-3: Schematic representation of the components of an avalanche path (Image from "Advanced Avalanche pag. 17 Safety Course Manual" Copyright © 1998 Canadian Avalanche Association) Figure 1-4: Main morphological criteria of avalanche classification pag. 18 Figure 2-1: Main elements which need to be considered in assessing the hazard of debris flows. Elements mainly pag. 22 relevant for debris-flow frequency and magnitude have a green background colour, and those mainly relevant to determine flow intensity and affected areas have a blue background colour Figure 2-2: Hazard rating system used in Switzerland: red = high, blue = medium, yellow = low, white = no hazard. pag. 23 The hazard degree (three colors) is a function of the intensity and probability of an event. Figure 2-3: Relation between critical rainfall intensity and duration for debris-flow occurrence: data from the Swiss pag. 29 Alps (from Zimmermann et al., 1997a), and comparison with other threshold lines. Figure 2-4: Three typical debris-flow initiation mechanism (from VAW, 1992): bed erosion and fluidisation, slope pag. 31 instability, temporary blocking of water and solid discharge Figure 2-5: Data on event magnitude of debris flows. A few data points from Italian events refer to torrential floods pag. 33 with sediment transport. Figure 2-6: Relationships between debris-flow peak discharge and event magnitude (from Rickenmann, 1999). pag. 36 Figure 2-7: Application of Manning equation (2) to debris flows, using a pseudo Manning n value back-calculated for pag. 37 each sub-dataset (from Rickenmann 1999, Rickenmann & Weber 2000). Figure 2-8: Application of empirical velocity equation (3) to debris flows (of data sets in Table 222-4); equation was pag. 38 first developed for water flows (from Rickenmann 1999). Figure 2-9: Travel angle vs. volume of mass movement. Data include 140 debris flows from the Swiss Alps and 51 pag. 39 large landslides/rock avalanches (for data sources see Rickenmann 1999). Also shown is the approximate range for 101 data points of unobstructed landslides plus unobstructed and channelized debris flows discussed in Corominas (1996). Figure 2-10: Observed runout distance of debris flows and rock avalanches compared to predictions with equation (7), pag. 40 which was derived for debris flows. Data include 140 debris flows from the Swiss Alps and 51 large landslides/ rock avalanches (for data sources see Rickenmann, 1999). Figure 2-11: Travel angle of debris flows vs. watershed area. Data include 144 debris flows from the Swiss Alps, where pag. 41 the deposits are characterized as “cs” = clast supported, “sg” = sand and gravel, and “ms” = matrix supported (modified from Zimmermann et al., 1997). Figure 2-12: Typology of the examined flows: (a) loose bed, immature flow (sheet-flow); (b) loose bed, mature flow; (c) pag. 45 loose bed, plug flow; (d) solid bed flow. Figure 2-13: (a) Calculated deposition patterns for Val Varuna debris-flow cone with simulation model of Zimmermann pag. 50 et al. (1997a) [source: Gamma (2000)]; (b) Observed deposition of debris flow in 1987 on the fan of Val Varuna [photo Swiss Federal Office of Torpography of 21.9.1987, archive KSL, flight line 080003, image no. 9871] Figure 2-14: Example of simulation with model of Zimmermann et al. (1997a) used for hazard index mapping; debris- pag. 50 flow paths are marked in red [source: M. Zimmermann, Geo7] Figure 2-15: Example of hazard map at detailed scale (scale of the single path). Case study: Sauris (IT) debris flow. pag. 51 Dynamical model: TRENT-2D. Mapping criteria: (a) Rickenmann (2005b) criteria; (b) PAT (Trento Province) criteria.