Transcript SAFERELNET Meeting

SAFERELNET Meeting
Autostrade per l’Italia
Task 2.5 (Risk of Natural Hazards)
Fri. 19th Nov., 17.00-18.00h
Outline
• Who is the public and what do we want to
solve?
• Overview partners and their progress
• Appendices
– Review of books on natural hazards
– Review of ongoing EU projects on floods
– Plan for 2005
Main goal of Task 2.5
• Identification and further development of
emerging ideas and solutions which hold
promise for practical implementation with
focus on: Earthquakes, Landslides,
Extreme Waves, River Floods.
• Dilemma: should it focus on certain
aspects of natural hazards, or should the
task be presented as a complete entity
which also involves physical, and social
realities related with natural hazards?
• Public -> Practicing design engineers,
code committees on risk and reliability, but
also SAFERELNET partners of the other
WPs
Natural Disasters
•
•
•
•
•
Floods & Storms
Landslides
Forest Fires
Earthquakes
Volcanoes
Partners in Task 2.5
Focus
• Prof. Stoeva and Farrokh Nadim will investigate
the geotechnical stability of land masses and
dikes especially in situations of high water
• Carlos Guedes Soares, Angelo Teixeira, Philip
Smedley and Gholamhossein Najafian will focus
in Task 2.5 on risk assessment models of water
related hazards, such as extreme waves and
extreme water levels.
• Dan Lungu, Iolanda Craifaleanu, EmilSever Georgescu, and Ton Vrouwenvelder
will focus in Task 2.5 on Risk Assessment
Models of Earthquakes.
• Pieter van Gelder focuses on the integral
overview of natural hazards research and
river floods in Task 2.5.
General approach
• Risk management of natural hazards
needs to include the steps of hazard
identification, risk analysis (probability of
occurrence- and consequence analysis),
risk assessment and risk mitigation
(including CBA’s of mitigation strategies)
NGI and UMG
• NGI has reviewed concepts and proposed
an overall method for mapping the hazard
and risk due to landslides along a pipeline
route.
• Susceptibility of a slope to instability
depends on the topography, lithology and
geotechnical characteristics of the material
in the slope, hydrological conditions and
ground surface cover.
NGI
• Most common triggering mechanisms for
slope instability on land, other than gravity,
are rainfall, earthquake and human
activity, all of which can at best be
modelled as random processes.
• The relative landslide hazard level Hlandslide
is determined from:
• Hlandslide = (Sr * Sl * Sh) * (Ts + Tp)
•
where Sr is the slope factor, Sl is the lithological factor, Sh is the relative soil moisture factor, Ts is
the seismic trigger indicator, and Tp is the precipitation (rainfall) trigger indicator.
Identified emerging topics for
further research
• Improvement of Hlandslide
INCERC and TUD
• Seismic hazard assessment is related to
the prediction of the strong ground motion
likely to occur at a particular site and the
subsequent response by the structure. It is
based on the following steps:
Seismic risk assessment
I MM
M
•
•
•
•
•
R
Identification and quantification of sources
Attenuation relationship
Ground motion description
Structural response
Consequences
Seismic active areas on the world
Fig. 7.2: Geographic distribution of earthquake epicenters, recorded
between
27/11/2001 and 27/11/2002.
Inventory of seismic zones (source areas)
number of earthquakes N in zone j
100
area:  50, 000 km2
period: 1 year
10
1
0.1
0.01
1
2
3
4
5
6
ln N( M  m )  A  B( m  mo )
7
magnitude M
Attenuation
M (magnitude)
aˆg  f (M , R)  
R
site
aˆg
M
R
ε
âg
=
=
=
=
Magnitude
Distance to hypocentre
Model uncertainty factor
Peak ground acceleration
source area j
Example (one source area)
Return period T = 500 year, Distance R = 50 km
Statistical data: B = 2 , mo = 3, No = 5 earthquakes per year
MT=500 yr = mo + (1/B)ln (No T) = 3+ 0.5 ln(5*500) = 6.7
Attenuation law according to Donovan (C = 10.8 m/s2, R in km):
C e0.5 M
2
âgd 
1,32 = 1.10 m/s
( R  25)
Response spectrum approach / MDOF
Nonlinear dynamic analysis is, at present, the most elaborate method available for the
assessment of the seismic behaviour of building structures.
Input:
Unit peak ground acceleration
System: MDOF (Te )
Output:
Maximum relative displacement
max(u(t))
INCERC
• INCERC reviewed the theory of inelastic
response spectra with assumed hysteretic
behaviour of structures in seismic hazard
and risk analysis, with examples from
studies on this topic performed in Romania
INCERC
• Unlike the case of elastic spectra, the
applications of inelastic spectra are today
relatively unfamiliar to many practising
design engineers. These applications, until
recently situated primarily in the fields of
research and of development of code
provisions, are now penetrating in those of
the new, performance based, structural
design methodologies.
Identified emerging topics for
further research
• soil structure interaction
• change of natural frequencies in case
of plasticity
• peak ground acceleration as basis for
design
PAFA, UNIVLIV and IST
• Risk of extreme wave heights caused by
extreme winds
Design guidance for FPSOs
• The development design guidance for
Floating Production, Storage and
Offloading (FPSO) vessels subject to
green water loading requires:
• The characterisation of the long-term likelihood and severity of
green water events.
• The calculation of the probability of green water loading requires
data relating to both the sea conditions and the vessel
characteristics.
• The relevant vessel characteristics include the vessel dimensions,
the relative motion response amplitude operators (RAOs) and
• The operational procedures.
PAFA, IST and UNIVLIV
• The design guidance that has been
developed has sought to address
perceived deficiencies in current
Classification Society Rules.
Identified emerging topics for
further research
• RFA of extreme wave heights
• Satellite data interpretation
• Freak waves explanation with physical
models
• Bow shape design optimisation for
FPSOs
TUD
• Risk of river floods caused by extreme
precipitation (and failure of flood defences)
Elbe Flood 2002
Summer floods 2002:
affected regions
El
be
Magdeburg #
Dessau
#
#
#
Bitterfeld #
Leipzig #
#
#
#
Dresden
## #
#
GERMANY
damage area
affected cities
flooded river
#
Moldau
Prague #
#
Pilsen
Regensburg #
CZECH
REPUBLIC
#
#
e
Danub
#
#
Passau #
#
Rosenheim #
© 2004
#
#
#
#
SLOVAKIA
Linz Krems
#
#
Salzburg
#
#
Vienna
Geo Risks Research Dept.,
Munich Re
AUSTRIA
HUNGARY
Damages by the flood:
• 9,2 billion € F.R.G.
• 6,1 billion € Saxonia
• 0,9 billion € Dresden
Main problems in Dresden
• damages in the city by surface
water
• damages to buildings by
increased groundwater
113,00
9,70 m
groundwater
111,00
Elbe river
109,00
107,00
105,00
01.01.03
01.12.02
01.11.02
01.10.02
01.09.02
01.08.02
01.07.02
103,00
Number of Floods worldwide
Source: Dartmouth Flood Observatory, 2003
Regional Distribution of Large Floods
1999-2002
1985-1988
Source: Dartmouth Flood
Observatory, 2003
Reasons for Concern
Source: Smith et al 2001, TAR IPCC WG II
DRILLING CORE FROM GREENLAND:
Climate History of the last 100 000 Years
Eem
Climate changes in the past (not caused by human influence)
Source: Ice Core Project, 2004
Trends in river discharges?
Annual Average River Discharge Data at Lobith, Rhine
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
2000
14
x 10
5
Lobith Annual Average
2
x 10
4
Borgharen Annual Average Discharges
1.8
12
1.6
1.4
Spectral Density
Spectral Density
10
8
6
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
4
0.4
2
0
0
10
0.2
10
1
10
2
10
0
0
10
3
8000
8
7000
7
6000
6
5000
Spectral Density
Spectral Density
[yr] Discharges
Vlotho Annual Time
Average
4000
3000
1
10
Time [yr]
2
10
3
2
10
3
Time [yr]
Koeln Annual Average Discharges
3
1000
1
10
4
2
10
5
1
5
2000
0
0
10
x 10
10
0
0
10
10
1
10
Time [yr]
2
10
3
Periodic components
• River discharges (AM): 4.2 years
– Van Gelder, Kuzmin, and Visser (2000)
• Global temperature records: 20 months
– Tsonis et al. (1998)
• Hurricane activity in North-Atlantic: near
decadal
– Elsner et al. (1999)
deseasonalised daily mean run-off
Daily Mean Run-Off Anomalies at
Achleiten Danube River
POT
year
I Methods: Statistical methods
Problems:
•find suitable distribution that fits your measured data
•estimate suitable parameters for the distribution function
Common approach:
Gumbel, Frechet, Weibull Distributions (limit distributions of
GEV)
unified to the:
Generalized Extreme Value Distribution (GEV, 1943)
Further: GPD: Generalized Pareto Distribution (Poisson)
POT
GEV: PDF & Quantiles
Fat tails
II Methods: Assumptions
Data must be identically and
independently distributed (IID)!
This neglects:
• Internal correlation (seasonality, long-range,
etc.)
• Stationarity is a prerequisite
• Model variation (suitability of GPD/POT)
Typical Techniques and Solutions
• Guarantee statistical independence, e.g.
by elimination of correlation, e.g.
seasonality
• Devide the data k subsets, choose highest
value and assume that these are
independent (GEV-max/GDP-pot)
• Separate trends and variability
• Stochastic modelling to examine the
internal structure
Identified emerging topics for
further research
• Connecting statistical models with
physical models
• Explanation of periodic components in
environmetric data
• Better consequence models
(evacuation models for people)
Appendices
• Review of books
• Review of ongoing EU projects on floods
• Table of contents of 2003 proceedings,
2004 proceedings
• Plan for 2005
Ongoing EU projects on Flood Risks
• EFFS: A European Flood Forecasting System
– to develop a prototype of a European flood
forecasting system for 4-10 days in advance, which
could provide daily information on potential floods for
large rivers, and flash floods in small basins.
• SPHERE: Systematic, Palaeoflood and Historical data
for the improvement of flood Risk Estimation
– to develop a new approach which complements
hydrologic modelling and the application of historical
and paleoflood hydrology to increase the temporal
framework of the largest floods over time spans from
decades to millennia; in order to improve extreme
flood occurrences.
• THARMIT: Torrent Hazard Control in the European Alps
– to develop practical tools and methodologies for
hazard assessment, prevention and mitigation, and
to devise methods for saving and monitoring
potentially dangerous areas.
• CARPE DIEM: Critical assessment of Available Radar
Precipitation Estimation techniques and Development of
Innovative approaches for Environmental Management.
– to improve real-time estimation of radar rainfall fields
for flood forecasting, by coupling multi-parameter
polarisation radar data and NWP, and exploiting NWP
results in order to improve the interpretation of radar
observations.
• IMPACT: Investigation of Extreme Flood Processes and
Uncertainty
– to investigate extreme flood and defense failure
processes, their risk and uncertainty. Will consider
dam breach formation, sediment movement, flood
propagation and predictive models, within an overall
framework of flood risk management.
• GLACIORISK: Survey and Prevention of Extreme
Glaciological Hazards in European Mountainous
Regions
– to develop scientific studies for detection, survey and
prevention of glacial disasters in order to save lives
and reduce damages.
• MITCH: Mitigation of Climate Induced Hazards
– A CA dealing with the mitigation of natural hazards
with a meteorological cause, in order to assist
planning and management. The main focus will be on
flood forecasting and warning, but it will also include
other flood related hazards, such as landslips and
debris flow, and longer term climate hazards, such as
drought, and the possible impact of climate change
on the frequency and magnitude hazards
• ADC-RBM: Advanced Study Course in River Basin
Modelling for Flood Risk Mitigation - June 2002
• FLOODMAN: Near real-time flood forecasting, warning
and management system based on satellite radar
images, hydrological and hydraulic models and in-situ
data
– near real-time monitoring of flood extent using
spaceborne SAR, optical data & in-situ
measurements, hydrological and hydraulic model
data. The result will be an expert decision system for
monitoring, management and forecast of floods in
selected areas in Europe. The monitoring will also be
used to update the hydrological/hydraulic models and
thereby improving the quality of flood forecasts.
• FLOODSITE: The FLOODsite project covers the
physical, environmental, ecological and socioeconomic aspects of floods from rivers, estuaries
and the sea. The project is arranged into seven
themes covering:
• Risk analysis – hazard sources, pathways and
vulnerability of receptors.
• Risk management – pre-flood measures and flood
emergency management.
• Technological integration – decision support and
uncertainty.
• Pilot applications – for river, estuary and coastal
sites.
• Training and knowledge uptake – guidance for
professionals, public information and educational
material.
• Networking, review and assessment.
• Co-ordination and management.
The proposed
research
approach
in
FORELANDS
Assessment of Research on Natural Hazards
by Gilbert White, J. Eugene Haas
Natural Hazards and Environmental Change (Key
Issues in Environmental Change) by Bill McGuire, et al
Natural Disasters by David Alexander
Natural Hazards by Edward Bryant
At Risk: Natural Hazards, People's Vulnerability, and
Disasters by Piers M. Blaikie, et al
Estimating Probabilities of Extreme Floods: Methods and
Recommended Research by National Research Council
Published contributions of
2003 report
Received contributions for 2004 report
• APPLICATIONS OF NONLINEAR MODELS IN
SEISMIC HAZARD AND RISK ANALYSIS; A
STATE-OF-THE-ART FOR ROMANIA by Lungu
D, Craifaleanu I.
• Rheologic stability of a clay rock mass by Prof.
Stoeva.
• Extreme Wave Effects on Offshore Structures by
E.J. Ballard and A.J. Fyfe, PAFA Consulting
Engineers
• Mapping of landslide hazard and risk along the
pipeline route by Farrokh Nadim and Suzanne
Lacasse
• Seismic hazards and current practice by Ton
Vrouwenvelder and Halil Karadeniz
• Freak waves by Carlos Guedes Soares
Plan for 2005
• The plan for 2005 is to continue the
identification and further development of
emerging ideas and solutions which hold
promise for practical implementation with
focus on: Earthquakes, Landslides,
Extreme Waves, River Floods.