8 research outputs found
Use of Multi-Criteria Model to Compare Devices for the Protection of Roads against Rockfall
No full textMany kilometers of roads in mountainside areas have adjacent rock slopes that are prone to rockfall. The analysis of these instabilities is a complex and multidimensional process that requires engineering judgments regarding the choice of a suitable protection device because different alternatives can be used to solve the same problem, taking into account the costs and impact on the environment. Nevertheless, very few tools are available to help designers and decision makers to manage this problem by comparing the various alternatives and by quantifying the advantages or disadvantages of each. For this reason it is important to highlight that the Multi-Criteria Analysis approach, as applied in the Analytic Hierarchy Process technique, is a suitable tool since it considers the various aspects that are involved in the assessment and design of rockfall protection devices. The model presented in this article considers the five most relevant aspects (economic, environmental, design, transport, and social) considered in the process of decision making concerning the choice of a rockfall protection device. Finally, the developed model is applied to a real case of a mountain road that is prone to rockfall phenomena, and the results are presented and discussed
Protection of a tunnel entrance from rockfall risk
No full textIn mountainous areas, tunnel portals and job sites for tunnel construction are often located in areas prone to rockfall events. Providing the safety of roads close to tunnel portals, subjected to rockfall risk, is an unavoidable issue that should be taken into account. In this paper, a risk management approach has been introduced to evaluate rockfall risk on the road stretch at the entrance and exit of tunnels. The event tree method is improved to achieve a flexible solution to calculate the rockfall risk for tunnels. Furthermore, some design abacuses are developed to provide the input parameters related to the event tree. Afterwards, a parametrical analysis is presented to explain the methodology. The elaborated approach can be useful to choose best technical solutions and design protection devices against rockfal
Analysis of Risk Induced by Rockfall on roads. Proposal of Management Procedure
No full textRick induced by rockfall on a road is a relevant topic for designer. In this paper we discuss a risk analysis management procedure for roads subject to rockfall phenomena using a new method specifically developed, named RO.MA. In this method rockfall risk is calculated using an event tree approach. Two different examples of application are proposed and discusse
Engineering Reconnaissance following the October 2016 Central Italy Earthquakes. Version 2. Editors Paolo Zimmaro and Jonathan Stewart, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering Reconnaissance GEER Association, Report No. GEER-050D
No full textA team from the Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance (GEER) Association, supported by the National Science Foundation, has been mobilized to investigate geotechnical and geological aspects of the destructive earthquake sequence that occurred in Central Italy during a series of significant events October 26-30, 2016, which followed prior events August 24-29, 2016. GEER responded to the initial event sequence and reports resulting from that effort are published on the GEER web site. As before, GEER will operate in close collaboration with Italian engineers and scientists. GEER is also coordinating its reconnaissance activities to coincide with those of EERI, which will be led by Dr. Silvia Mazzoni.
Giuseppe Lanzo, Professor at Sapienza University of Rome, and Jonathan P. Stewart, Professor and Chair of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at UCLA, are the GEER team co-leaders. The US-based GEER team members participating in the investigation are Prof. Kevin Franke (Brigham Young University), Dr. Robert E. Kayen (US Geological Survey and UCLA), and Dr. Bret Lingwall (South Dakota School of Mines and Tech.). The GEER team is part of an international coordinated effort that involves cognizant Italian agencies (i.e. National Institute of Geophysics and Vulcanology, INGV; Rete dei Laboratori Universitari di Ingegneria Sismica, ReLuis; and European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering, EUCENTRE Foundation and Italian Center for Seismic Microzonation and its Applications). Key Italian participants include: Prof. Luigi Di Sarno (ReLuis and University of Sannio), Profs. Sebastiano Foti and Filiberto Chiabrando (Politecnico di Torino), Dr. Fabrizio Galadini, Emanuela Falcucci, and Stefano Gori (INGV), Prof. Alessandro Pagliaroli (University of Chieti-Pescara), Dr. Giuseppe Scasserra and Prof. Filippo Santucci de Magistris (University of Molise), Prof. Francesco Silvestri (University of Napoli Federico II), Prof. Stefano Aversa (University of Napoli Parthenope) and MrDr. Paolo Tommasi (Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Rome). Also contributing to the GEER effort are researchers from New Zealand (Dr. Fernando Della Pasqua, GNS Science) and United Kingdom/Greece (team led by Prof. Anastasios Sextos, University of Bristol and Aristotle University of Thessaloniki). A full list of GEER team members will be compiled following deployment to the field. The GEER team assembled for this effort is multi-disciplinary, including geology, seismology, geotechnical engineering, structural engineering, and geomatics.
Based on information gathered to date, field investigations for the GEER team and collaborators have focused on: (1) substantial surface fault rupture, apparently on the Mt. Vettore fault, (2) major rockfalls and landslides, including a large slide that dammed a river; and (3) building, bridge, and other infrastructure performance in villages and hamlets throughout the region, including many that had been well documented in reconnaissance following the 24-29 August event sequence.
Earthquake engineering is an experience-driven field in which perishable data that can be used to advance our understanding should be systematically collected. The data collection will be performed using traditional mapping/observational methods and advanced imaging tools
Engineering Reconnaissance Following the October 2016 Central Italy Earthquakes - Version 2
No full textBetween August and November 2016, three major earthquake events occurred in Central Italy. The first event, with M6.1, took place on 24 August 2016, the second (M5.9) on 26 October, and the third (M6.5) on 30 October 2016. Each event was followed by numerous aftershocks.
As shown in Figure 1.1, this earthquake sequence occurred in a gap between two earlier damaging events, the 1997 M6.1 Umbria-Marche earthquake to the north-west and the 2009 M6.1 L’Aquila earthquake to the south-east. This gap had been previously recognized as a zone of elevated risk (GdL INGV sul terremoto di Amatrice, 2016). These events occurred along the spine of the Apennine Mountain range on normal faults and had rake angles ranging from -80 to -100 deg, which corresponds to normal faulting. Each of these events produced substantial damage to local towns and villages. The 24 August event caused massive damages to the following villages: Arquata del Tronto, Accumoli, Amatrice, and Pescara del Tronto. In total, there were 299 fatalities (www.ilgiornale.it), generally from collapses of unreinforced masonry dwellings. The October events caused significant new damage in the villages of Visso, Ussita, and Norcia, although they did not produce fatalities, since the area had largely been evacuated. The NSF-funded Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance (GEER) association, with co-funding from the B. John Garrick Institute for the Risk Sciences at UCLA and the NSF I/UCRC Center for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (C-UAS) at BYU, mobilized a US-based team to the area in two main phases: (1) following the 24 August event, from early September to early October 2016, and (2) following the October events, between the end of November and the beginning of December 2016. The US team worked in close collaboration with Italian researchers organized under the auspices of the Italian Geotechnical Society, the Italian Center for Seismic Microzonation and its Applications, the Consortium ReLUIS, Centre of Competence of Department of Civil Protection and the DIsaster RECovery Team of Politecnico di Torino. The objective of the Italy-US GEER team was to collect and document perishable data that is essential to advance knowledge of earthquake effects, which ultimately leads to improved procedures for characterization and mitigation of seismic risk. The Italy-US GEER team was multi-disciplinary, with expertise in geology, seismology, geomatics, geotechnical engineering, and structural engineering. The composition of the team was largely the same for the two mobilizations, particularly on the Italian side. Our approach was to combine traditional reconnaissance activities of on-ground recording and mapping of field conditions, with advanced imaging and damage detection routines enabled by state-of-the-art geomatics technology. GEER coordinated its reconnaissance activities with those of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), although the EERI mobilization to the October events was delayed and remains pending as of this writing (April 2017). For the August event reconnaissance, EERI focused on emergency response and recovery, in combination with documenting the effectiveness of public policies related to seismic retrofit. As such, GEER had responsibility for documenting structural damage patterns in addition to geotechnical effects. This report is focused on the reconnaissance activities performed following the October 2016 events. More information about the GEER reconnaissance activities and main findings following the 24 August 2016 event, can be found in GEER (2016). The objective of this document is to provide a summary of our findings, with an emphasis of documentation of data. In general, we do not seek to interpret data, but rather to present it as thoroughly as practical. Moreover, we minimize the presentation of background information already given in GEER (2016), so that the focus is on the effects of the October events. As such, this report and GEER (2016) are inseparable companion documents.
Similar to reconnaissance activities following the 24 August 2016 event, the GEER team investigated earthquake effects on slopes, villages, and major infrastructure. Figure 1.2 shows the most strongly affected region and locations described subsequently pertaining to:
1. Surface fault rupture;
2. Recorded ground motions;
3. Landslides and rockfalls;
4. Mud volcanoes;
5. Investigated bridge structures;
6. Villages and hamlets for which mapping of building performance was performed
