Advertisement

Semi-Empirical Assessment of Road Vulnerability to Seismically Induced Slides

  • Sotiris Argyroudis
  • Stavroula FotopoulouEmail author
  • Kyriazis Pitilakis
Chapter

Abstract

The present paper aims at the proposition and quantification of a semi-empirical methodology to estimate physical vulnerability of roads subjected to earthquake induced landslide hazards. It is based on a modification of the existing engineering judgmental HAZUS fragility curves using an empirical model that relates the seismic permanent ground displacement (PGD) with the peak ground acceleration (PGA) for the Newmark rigid sliding block case. In this regard, it is possible to account for the specific characteristics of soil and local topography within the estimation of road vulnerability. Various sets of fragility curves can be constructed as a function of peak ground acceleration (PGA), considering the characteristics of the slope (i.e. yield coefficient, ky) and the earthquake magnitude. A preliminary application of the proposed methodology is performed with the aid of GIS tool to the roadway system of city of Grevena in NW Greece for three different earthquake scenarios. It is observed that the level of damage predicted using the aforementioned methodology is less severe compared to the corresponding level of damage anticipated using the HAZUS methodology.

Keywords

Vulnerability Roadway system Earthquake induced landslide hazard Fragility curves 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The work described in this paper was supported by the project SafeLand “Living with landslide risk in Europe: Assessment, effects of global change, and risk management strategies” under Grant Agreement No. 226479 in the 7th Framework Program of the European Commission. This support is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. AGSO (2001) Natural hazards and the risk they pose to South-East Queenland. AGSO-Geoscience Australia. Digital report on CD-ROM, Queenland, 389ppGoogle Scholar
  2. Azevedo J, Guerreiro L, Bento R, Lopes M, Proença J (2010) Seismic vulnerability of lifelines in the greater Lisbon area. Bull Earthq Eng 8:157–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bray JD, Travasarou F (2007) Simplified procedure for estimating earthquake-induced Deviatoric slope displacements. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 133(4):381–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Giovinazzi S, King A (2009) Estimating seismic impacts on lifelines: an international review for riskscape. In: Proceedings of 2009 NZSEE conference New Zealand, Christchurch, April 2009Google Scholar
  5. Jibson RW (2010) Methods for assessing the stability of slopes during earthquakes – a retrospective. Eng Geol. doi: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2010.09.017
  6. Leone F, Aste JP, Leroi E (1996) L’évaluation de la vulnerabilité aux mouvements de terrain. Rev Géographie Alpine 84(1):35–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Michael-Leiba M, Baynes F, Scott G, Granger K (2003) Regional landslide risk to the cairns community. Nat Hazard 30:233–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) (2004) Earthquake loss estimation methodology HAZUS 2004, technical manual. FEMA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. Pitilakis et al (2009) SRM-DGC: Development and proposition for implementation of an efficient methodology and appropriate local instruments for the management, prevention and reduction of seismic risk in Düzce – Turkey, Grevena – Greece and Catania – Italy. Final Report, Part A (2009), Final report for the city of Grevena (WP: 1-5), Laboratory of Soil Mechanics, Foundations & Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, ThessalonikiGoogle Scholar
  10. Pitilakis K et al (2010) Physical vulnerability of elements at risk to landslides: Methodology for evaluation, fragility curves and damage states for buildings and lifelines. Deliverable 2.5 in EU FP7 research project No 226479 SafeLand – living with landslide risk in Europe: Assessment, effects of global change, and risk management strategiesGoogle Scholar
  11. Pitilakis K, Anastasiadis A, Kakderi K, Manakou M, Manou D, Alexoudi M, Fotopoulou S, Argyroudis S, Senetakis K (2011) Development of comprehensive earthquake loss scenarios for a Greek and a Turkish city: Seismic hazard, Geotechnical and Lifeline Aspects. Earthquakes and Structures (accepted for publication)Google Scholar
  12. Remondo J, Bonachea J, Cendrero A (2008) Quantitative landslide risk assessment and mapping on the basis of recent occurrences. Geomorphology 94:496–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Tang C, Zhu J, Qi X (2011) Landslide hazard assessment of the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake: a case study in Beichuan. Can Geotech J 48:128–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Zêzere JL, Garcia RAC, Oliveira SC, Reis E (2008) Probabilistic landslide risk analysis considering direct costs in the area north of Lisbon (Portugal). Geomorphology 94(3–4):467–495Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sotiris Argyroudis
    • 1
  • Stavroula Fotopoulou
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kyriazis Pitilakis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations