Quantification of debris flow vulnerability of typical bridge substructure based on impact force simulation

References

• Akbas SO, Blahut J, Sterlacchini S. 2009. Critical assessment of existing physical vulnerability estimation approaches for debris flows. Proceedings of Landslide Processes: From Geomorphologic Mapping to Dynamic Modeling, Strasbourg, pp. 229–233.
   Google Scholar
• Bell R, Glade T. 2004. Quantitative risk analysis for landslides-examples from Bíldudalur, NW-Iceland. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci. 4(1):117–131.
   Google Scholar
• Cardinali M, Reichenbach P, Guzzetti F, Ardizzone F, Antonini G, Galli M, Cacciano M, Castellani M, Salvati P. 2002. A geomorphological approach to the estimation of landslide hazards and risks in Umbria, Central Italy. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci. 2(1/2):57–72.
   Google Scholar
• China Geological Survey Bureau. 2004. Design code for debris flow hazard prevention engineering of China. Beijing: China Geological Survey Bureau. pp. 9–15.
   Google Scholar
• Christian JT. 2004. Geotechnical engineering reliability: how well do we know what we are doing? J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. 130(10):985–1003.
   Google Scholar
• Флейшман СМ, Yao DJ. (translate) 1986. Debris flow velocity. Debris Flow. Beijing: Science Press; pp. 207–217.
   Google Scholar
• Computers and Structures, Inc. 2013. CSI Analysis Reference Manual. Berkeley, CA: Computers and Structures, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Consortium MOVE. 2010. Methods for the improvement of vulnerability assessment in Europe, guidelines for development of different methods, deliverable D6 in the MOVE project. Chapter 9. In: Eidsvig U, Vangelsten BV, Uzielli M, Welle T, Romieu E, Rohmer J, Ulbrich T, Zaidi RZ, editors. Treatment of uncertainty in vulnerability estimation.http://www.alpaslanhamdikuzucuoglu.com/move-project-move-methods-for-the-improvement-of-vulnerability-assessment-in-europe.html?lang=az.
   Google Scholar
• Eidsvig UMK, Papathoma-Köhle M, Du J, Glade T, Vangelsten BV. 2014. Quantification of model uncertainty in debris flow vulnerability assessment. Eng Geol. 181((1):15–26.
   Google Scholar
• Fuchs S, McAlpin MC. 2005. The net benefit of public expenditures on avalanche defense structures in the municipality of Davos, Switzerland. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci. 5:319–330.
   Google Scholar
• Fuchs S, Heiss K, Hübl J. 2007. Towards an empirical vulnerability function for use in debris flow risk assessment. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci. 7(5):495–506.
   Google Scholar
• Huang X. 2015. Study on the vulnerability of debris flow in strong earthquake areas. Dynamic characteristics and quantitative risk assessment of catastrophic debris flows in Wenchuan earthquake-stricken area. PhD thesis, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu.
   Google Scholar
• Hwang H, Jernigan JB, Lin YW. 2000. Evaluation of seismic damage to Memphis bridges and highway systems. J Bridge Eng. 5(4):322–330.
   Google Scholar
• Hu KH, Wei FQ, Hong Y, et al. 2006. Field measurement of impact force of debris flow. Chinese J Rock Mech Eng. 25(z1):2813–1819.
   Google Scholar
• Jakob M, Stein D, Ulmi M. 2012. Vulnerability of buildings to debris flow impact. Nat Hazards. 60(2):241–261.
   Google Scholar
• Kaynia AM, et al. 2008. Probabilistic assessment of vulnerability to landslide: application to the village of Lichtenstein, Baden-Württemberg, Germany. Eng Geol. 101(1–2):33–48.
   Google Scholar
• Kang HS, Kim YT. 2016. The physical vulnerability of different types of building structure to debris flow events. Nat Hazards. 80(3):1475–1493.
   Google Scholar
• Li JZ, Song XD, Fan LC. 2005. Investigation for displacement ductility capacity of tall piers. J Earthquake Eng Eng Vibrat. 25(1):43–48.
   Google Scholar
• Lo W-C, Tsao T-C, Hsu C-H. 2012. Building vulnerability to debris flows in Taiwan: a preliminary study. Nat Hazards. 64(3):2107–2128.
   Google Scholar
• Luna BQ, et al. 2011. The application of numerical debris flow modelling for the generation of physical vulnerability curves. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci. 11(7):2047–2060.
   Google Scholar
• Luna BQ, Remaître A, van Asch TWJ, Malet J-P, van Westen CJ. 2012. Analysis of debris flow behavior with a one-dimensional run-out model incorporating entrainment. Eng Geol. 128:63–75.
   Google Scholar
• Luna BQ. 2012. Dynamic numerical run-out modeling for quantitative landslide risk assessment. PhD thesis, University of Twente, Enschede.
   Google Scholar
• Luna BQ, et al. 2014. Physically based dynamic run-out modelling for quantitative debris flow risk assessment: a case study in Tresenda, northern Italy. Environ Earth Sci. 72:645–661.
   Google Scholar
• Michael-Leiba M, Baynes F, Scott G, Granger K. 2003. Regional landslide risk to the Cairns community. Nat Hazards. 30(2):233–249.
   Google Scholar
• Papathoma-Köhle M, Keiler M, Totschnig R, Glade T. 2012. Improvement of vulnerability curves using data from extreme events: debris flow event in South Tyrol. Nat Hazards. 64(3):2083–2105.
   Google Scholar
• Park YJ, Ang AHS. 1985. Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete. J Struct Eng. 111(4):722–739.
   Google Scholar
• Shi CF. 2013. Calculation and analysis of horizontal displacement on the top of the high piers and a comparison about the pier type in the mountain regions. PhD thesis. Changan University, Xi’an.
   Google Scholar
• Shinozuka M, Feng MQ, Kim H-K, Kim S-H. 2000. Nonlinear static procedure for fragility curve development. J Eng Mech. 126(12):1287–1295.
   Google Scholar
• Tang GW, et al. 2008. Seismic design rules for highway bridges. Beijing: China Communications Press; pp. 33–38.
   Google Scholar
• Totschnig R, Sedlacek W, Fuchs S. 2011. A quantitative vulnerability function for fluvial sediment transport. Nat Hazards. 58(2):681–703.
   Google Scholar
• Totschnig R, Fuchs S. 2013. Mountain torrents: quantifying vulnerability and assessing uncertainties. Eng Geol. 155((2):31–44.
   Google Scholar
• Tsao T-C, et al. 2010. A preliminary study of debris flow risk estimation and management in Taiwan. International Symposium Interpraevent in the Pacific Rim, Taipei, pp. 930–939.
   Google Scholar
• Uzielli M, Lacasse S. 2007. Scenario-based probabilistic estimation of direct loss for geohazards. Georisk. 1:142–154.
   Google Scholar
• Uzielli M, et al. 2009. Probabilistic risk estimation for geohazards: a simulation approach. International Symposium on Geotechnical Safety and Risk, Gifu, pp. 355–362.
   Google Scholar
• Whitman RV. 2000. Organizing and evaluating uncertainty in geotechnical engineering. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 125(6):583–593.
   Google Scholar
• Winter MG, Smith JT, Fotopoulou S, Pitilakis K, Mavrouli O, Corominas J, Argyroudis S. 2014. An expert judgement approach to determining the physical vulnerability of roads to debris flow. Bull Eng Geol Environ. 73(2):291–305.
   Google Scholar
• Xu SB. 2016. Evaluation of vulnerability of subgrade suffering from debris flow hazards. Bull Soil Water Conserv. 36(5):235–241.
   Google Scholar
• Yu B, Tang C. 2016. Average velocity of debris flow movement. Study on dynamic characteristics and activities of debris flow. Beijing: Science press; pp. 47–64.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang S, Zhang L, Li X, Xu Q. 2018. Physical vulnerability models for assessing building damage by debris flows. Eng Geol. 247:145.
   Google Scholar