Document Actions

IJEGE-11_BS-Scheuner-et-alii

background image
Italian Journal of Engineering Geology and Environment - Book www.ijege.uniroma1.it © 2011 Casa Editrice Università La Sapienza
993
DOI: 10.4408/IJEGE.2011-03.B-108
APPLICATION OF A TWO-DIMENSIONAL NUMERICAL MODEL
IN RISK AND HAZARD ASSESSMENT IN SWITZERLAND
T. SCHEUNER
(*)
, S. SCHWAB
(*)
& B.W. McARDELL
(**)
(*)
GEOTEST AG, Zollikofen, Switzerland
(**)
Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL, Birmensdorf, Switzerland
INTRODUCTION
Debris flows are persistent natural hazard for
people and infrastructure in mountainous regions
(R
iCkenmann
et alii, 1993; z
immeRmann
et alii, 1997).
To improve hazard mapping as well as planning and
evaluation of mitigation measures against debris
flows, there is a strong need for process-based models.
Hazard maps in Switzerland show expected intensities
and return periods of dangerous processes for a certain
area or location by a detailed outlining of areas where
construction of buildings must be prohibited or where
rules and recommendations should be established
(P
etRasCHeCk
& k
ienHolz
, 2003).
In Switzerland debris flow hazard assessments
in residential areas are carried out by a well-proven
method (BWW et alii, 1997). Endangered areas are
classified into one of five classes of equal degree of
hazard which are assigned a color on the final map:
high hazard (red), medium hazard (blue), low hazard
(yellow), residual danger (yellow-white striped) and
no or negligible danger according to current state of
knowledge (white or uncolored). A high precision de-
lineation of endangered areas is thought to be attain-
able and leads finally to a hazard map.
An allotment to a hazard zone is often associated
with far reaching consequences for building owners.
In areas with medium danger, local protection is re-
quired when planning construction projects, whereas
in areas of high danger there is normally a prohibi-
tion on construction (P
etRasCHeCk
& k
ienHolz
, 2003;
ABSTRACT
In Switzerland a well-established method for de-
bris flow hazard assessment is in use. However the
method requires delineation of endangered areas by
the expected intensity for a given return period. For
this reason there is a strong need for process-based
models to improve the quality of hazard mapping and
for planning and evaluation of mitigation measures. In
this paper, we present the application of a Swiss mod-
eling system for rapid mass movements. The RAMMS
debris flow model is a two-dimensional model for
simulating the runout distance, velocity, flow depth
and impact pressure of debris flows. It uses the single-
phase Voellmy fluid friction relation which describes
the debris flow resistance as a combination of a dry
Coulomb-type friction and a viscous resistance which
varies with the square of the flow velocity. The model
solves the depth-averaged shallow water equations for
granular flows in 2D using a finite volume scheme. We
present two case studies in which RAMMS was used
by practitioners as a support tool in hazard manage-
ment and planning mitigation measures. The first site
is located in Stechelberg in the western Swiss Alps
and the second one in Walchensee, Bavaria (Germa-
ny). In both examples RAMMS was found to provide
valuable support for practitioners.
K
ey
words
: hazard mapping, hazard assessment, debris flow
modelling
background image
T. SCHEUNER, S. SCHwAB & B.w. McARDELL
994
5th International Conference on Debris-Flow Hazards Mitigation: Mechanics, Prediction and Assessment Padua, Italy - 14-17 June 2011
PROCEDURE
Generally a well-established method of hazard
assessment in Switzerland (i.e. P
etRasCHeCk
& k
ien
-
Holz
, 2003) was carried out for the case studies pre-
sented in the following. The method consists of the
following steps:
1. Hazard identification and analysis (including anal-
ysis of previous events and assessment of spatial
parameters such as flood discharge or potential
volume of debris. The potential debris volume
is based on geomorphic analysis methods which
have been systematically developed for use in
Switzerland. In this paper, the method proposed
by l
eHmann
(1993) was used for the case study at
Mattenbach and the method introduced by G
eRt
-
sCH
(2009) was used for the case study at Walchen-
see (see chapter case studies).
2. Definition of event scenarios for a certain return
period.
3. Hazard assessment derived from scenarios, and ad-
ditionally the impact analysis.
This method, the sequences and the detailed de-
scription of the steps can be taken from BWW et al.
(1997). The three common scenarios in Switzerland
provided a basis for the Mattenbach (see chapter case
studies), described in the following:
• 30 years scenario: return period of 30 years or less.
• 100 years scenario: return period of 30 to 100 years.
• 300 years scenario: return period of 100 to 300 years.
To describe the catchment area in the Walchensee
case study the 300 years scenario was not considered.
Depending on the case study, the following steps were
added to the described procedure:
• assessment and definition of model parameters to
carry out RAMMS.
• calculation using a 2D debris flow model (RAMMS).
• Considering planned measurements in hazard as-
sessment.
For every single scenario an intensity map was
generated. The intensity map shows the expected spa-
tial intensity of debris flow hazard. Examples will be
described later in this paper.
RAMMS RUNOUT MODEL
The RAMMS model was initially developed as a
tool to assist practitioners for solving snow avalanche
runout problems which could not be solved with exist-
ing 1D runout models. The Voellmy friction relation
BWW et alii 1997). This leads to a financial devalua-
tion of land for construction or existent buildings and
therefore significant financial losses for landowners
and communities. Hence it is essential for practition-
ers to accurately establish in particular the boundaries
of red and blue danger levels.
Different approaches exist to assess impact areas
of potential debris flows. In addition to computer-aid-
ed methods (e.g. H
uGGel
et alii, 2003; G
amma
, 2000)
practitioners in Switzerland often apply the ”method
of flow paths”. In doing so, hazard areas are deline-
ated directly in field based on flow paths delineated by
topographic features. In the same work step intensities
and debris accumulation are usually assessed, leading
to the definition of an intensity scenario and the as-
sociated hazard level. An inspection of the catchment
as well as a proper definition of breakout and sediment
delivery scenarios are required.
Nevertheless practical experience shows that an
exact determination of flow paths is a major challenge,
mainly in the case of complex topography together
with vegetation, the consideration of frictional param-
eters as well as the inclusion of mitigation measures
such as sediment retention basin or deflection dams.
In addition, calculations to determine process inten-
sity such as flow velocity or flow heights have to be
carried out, typically using empirical estimation for-
mulas (e.g. R
iCkenmann
, 1999).
Whereas different models for assessing mud flow
inundation and rock fall activity are available (e.g.
o’b
Rien
et alii, 1993; b
RunneR
, 2010; t
obleR
et alii,
2009), calibrated and well-established debris flow
models are scarce. Existing models are only partially
suited for detailed hazard assessment because they are
based either on probabilistic or topographic approach-
es (e.g. G
amma
, 2000; H
uGGel
, 2003) and are applied
mainly for small-scale hazard assessment in terms of
hazard index maps.
Particularly in topographically complex situa-
tions, there is a strong need for models, which can not
substitute for an expert’s opinion, but which surely
may provide considerable support.
First we describe the Swiss method of hazard as-
sessment, followed by a description of the Swiss mod-
eling system RAMMS which was designed partially
with this goal in mind, and subsequently, we present
two case studies in which RAMMS was used to sup-
port practitioners in debris flow hazard assessment.
background image
APPLICATION OF A TWO-DIMENSIONAL NUMERICAL MODEL IN RISK AND HAZARD ASSESSMENT IN SWITZERLAND
Italian Journal of Engineering Geology and Environment - Book www.ijege.uniroma1.it © 2011 Casa Editrice Università La Sapienza
995
CASE STUDY MATTENBACH
OBJECTIVE
The mountain torrent Mattenbach is situated in
Stechelberg, a part of the political community of
Lauterbrunnen in Switzerland (Fig. 1). In the upper
part, the catchment mainly consists of limestones
(lower cretaceous of the Doldenhorn nappe). The
middle and the lower part consists of Malm lime-
stones (Mesozoic autochthonous of the Aar massif).
The lower most part (debris fan) consists of alluvi-
ums of the Mattenbach as well as the river Lütschine.
According to the Swiss permafrost map (f
oen
,
2005) the upper part of the catchment probably con-
tains permafrost.
On a regular basis, the Mattenbach delivers dam-
age-causing floods and debris accumulations within
the Matta settlement of Stechelberg, most recently in
2004. The channel has to be maintained almost every
year, resulting in costs of several thousand Swiss
francs (oral communication by R. J
anzi
in 2009).
Former events are known from 1929, 1987, 1997 and
2001 (G
eotest
AG et alii 2003).
The hazard map of the Mattenbach was initially
generated in 2001 (G
eotest
AG et alii, 2003) then re-
vised in 2009 (G
eotest
AG, 2009). Part of the settle-
ment is categorized into the blue hazard zone; the ar-
eas close to the channel and a community road were
assigned to the red hazard zone. Debris flows initiat-
ing in the upper catchment area are considered to be
the most dangerous hazard. If debris flows reach the
fan apex they may cause lateral overbank flow of wa-
ter and sediment, carry driftwood and cause floods at
both sides of the fan. Moreover sedimentation may
jam the channel cross section and clog bridge cul-
used to describe the motion of flowing snow has also
been used to describe the motion of debris flows (e.g.
R
evellino
et alii, 2004; R
iCkenmann
et alii, 2006), the
main difference being the density of the materials and
the typical values of the friction coefficients. The ini-
tial application of RAMMS to debris flows was tested
largely in the framework of research theses written by
students (e.g. s
CHeuneR
, 2007).
Here, we briefly describe the governing equations
which are solved in the RAMMS model. Additional
details on the RAMMS model, including further re-
marks on the equations and their numerical solution
are available in C
HRisten
et alii (2010) and P
ReutH
et
alii (2010). The model is based on a finite-volume so-
lution to the depth-averaged equations of motion for
granular flows:
where H is the flow depth, U is the velocity, g is the
gravitational acceleration; Sg is the driving gravita-
tional; and S
f
denotes the frictional resistance, with
subscripts x and y indicating the quantities in the x
and y directions. RAMMS uses the Voellmy fric-
tion approach, which splits the total friction into a
velocity-independent dry Coulomb term which is
proportional to the normal stress at the base of the
flow (friction coefficient μ) and velocity-dependent
so-called turbulent or viscous friction (coefficient
ξ).
The Voellmy relation can be written (analogously in
both the x and y directions):
In an optimal case, μ (–) and ξ (m s
-2
) are selected
to best match data from historical events. When data are
not of sufficient quality to permit calibration, μ is typi-
cally initially selected to be the same as the local slope on
the area where debris flows have stopped in the past, and
then ξ is selected to provide plausible velocities which
may be based on existing observations, back-calculated
flow velocities estimated by geomorphic methods (such
as super-elevation around channel bends).
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Fig. 1 - Study area Mattenbach (red line), Stechelberg
(community of Lauterbrunnen), Switzerland (Re-
produced by permission of swisstopo BA100660)
background image
T. SCHEUNER, S. SCHwAB & B.w. McARDELL
996
5th International Conference on Debris-Flow Hazards Mitigation: Mechanics, Prediction and Assessment Padua, Italy - 14-17 June 2011
evidence of former debris accumulation. The chan-
nel is steep, except of the section from the fan apex
downwards. It is evident that the torrent is able to
form debris flows (G
eotest
AG et alii, 2003).
The models decisive parameters were derived
from the expert’s opinion according to his experience
from other debris flow events at similar catchment
areas. In this manner the slope’s friction parameter
and the density of potential debris flows have been
roughly assessed (Tab. 1). After completion of the
first debris flow modeling, the estimated parameters
were refined by on site mapping of debris accumula-
tions at the slope.
SCENARIOS
Based on the on site inspections by Lehmann
(2005) and G
eotest
AG et alii (2003) as well as the
estimations by G
eotest
AG (2009) the expected de-
bris load was determined for every return period (Tab.
2).
Based on Table 2, the scenarios for the Matten-
bach hazard assessment were defined as follows:
• 30-years scenario: It is expected that the total
amount of debris will be retained by the sediment
retention basin (Tab. 2). Neither hydraulic nor
verts alongside the channel. These processes may
also cause overbank flooding and debris flow deposi-
tion (G
eotest
AG, 2009).
To assure protection of the Matta settlement, a
debris retention construction was planned in 2009
with a retention capacity of 1,900 m
3
. Cost-efficien-
cy was an important constraint. Therefore the reten-
tion construction was optimized with regard to the
retention volume. Compared to the maximum poten-
tial debris volume (Tab. 2) the construction is not ca-
pable to stop all of the total debris load. It is possible
that, due to topography, part of the debris load may
leave the channel above the retention construction
(G
eotest
AG, 2009).
The construction of an additional protection or
deflection dike respectively to prevent debris flow
outbursts above the planned debris retention con-
struction was considered. Due to expected costs, this
measurement was not planned any further.
The only objective of this case study was to
evaluate the impact of the described partial reten-
tion of debris on the hazard areas after completion
of the debris retention construction. The aim was
to analyze in which manner the missing protection
dike influences the endangered area (e.g. changes in
the hazard map). The hazard map shown in Figure 2
was already finished and published before modelling
with RAMMS. The RAMMS model was solely used
to support the expert’s opinion with the objective to
obtain repeatable model results and to confirm there-
with the assumed hazard areas after the protection
measures were completed. The evaluation was man-
dated by the local water authorities.
FIELD EVIDENCE AND PARAMETERS FOR
RAMMS
The catchment of the Mattenbach with an area
of 1.4 km
2
extends from the summit of the Schwarz-
mönch (2,648 m a.s.l.) to its outlet into the river
Lütschine (900 m a.s.l.). It mainly consists of rock
faces and debris slopes. Between the rock faces and
the alluvial fan we find a section covered with grass
and bush vegetation. Here part of the channel runs on
loose material. On the fan apex, there is significant
Tab. 1 - Parameters for model calculations with RAMMS
Fig. 2 - Debris flow modelling with RAMMS and hazard
map , 300-years scenario (Map UP5
©
Office for
Geographical Information Canton Bern)
background image
APPLICATION OF A TWO-DIMENSIONAL NUMERICAL MODEL IN RISK AND HAZARD ASSESSMENT IN SWITZERLAND
Italian Journal of Engineering Geology and Environment - Book www.ijege.uniroma1.it © 2011 Casa Editrice Università La Sapienza
997
surge of a size of 700 m
3
. Most of the debris is
expected to be transported as far as the bridge
at 895 m a.s.l. or is deposited at the left side of
the cone. Sedimentation of approx. 270 m
3
in the
channel is expected up to the culvert at the alti-
tude of 895 m a.s.l.. Due to the higher bank at the
right waterside debris and water can not leave the
channel to the orographic right side and do not af-
fect the Matta settlement. Debris flows can leave
the channel at the left side of the cone. It is very
probable that debris and flood material will block
the bridge. Large amounts of debris and water
discharge near the bridge at the altitude of 895 m
a.s.l. are expected.
HAZARD ASSESSMENT
The hazard assessment was carried out by the
method described in chapter “Procedure”. As de-
scribed above, RAMMS was used to support the as-
sessment of possible outbursts at the fan apex. As a
basis, a high precision digital terrain model with a
2x2 m grid was used. The altitude-accuracy is 0.5 m
(swisstopo, 2005).
The modelling results with RAMMS (Fig. 2)
show that outbursts to the right side of the fan apex
are still possible, even when the protection measures
are built. Additionally, the modelling shows that out-
bursts to the orographic left side of the fan apex are
possible as well. The hazard map shown in Figure 2,
published before the RAMMS modelling was carried
out, shows a correct, but more spacious classifica-
tion of the red and partially of the blue hazard zone.
Most part of the blue and yellow hazard zones are not
shown in the results of RAMMS modelling due to a
process change from debris flow to overbank sedi-
mentation and inundation. This process change had
to be delineated in the field by the expert’s opinion
and cannot be modelled within the RAMMS model.
CONCLUSION
In this case study it is evident that calculations with
the RAMMS model led to a comprehensible and trans-
parent decision making. The modelling results with
RAMMS show that an outburst is likely for both sides
of the fan apex. Hence, the modelling results support
the experts opinion derived from the “method of flow
paths” and the conclusion of the hazard map shown in
Figure 2. The model served as a support tool for the
technical problems with debris are to be expected
near the channel and the bridge at the altitude of
895 m a.s.l. This scenario was not calculated with
RAMMS.
• 100-years scenario: During a 100-year event debris
flow outbursts above the planned sediment reten-
tion basin construction at the orographic right side
of the cone are possible. It is expected that most of
the debris load can be held back by the sediment
retention basin (Tab. 2). There are no failure points
located below the sediment retention basin. To cal-
culate the model with RAMMS we took a single
debris flow surge of a size of 300 m
3
.
• 300-years scenario: The sediment retention basin
essentially stops the debris and reduces the peak
discharge. It is able to hold a maximum load of
1,900 m
3
debris. Sediments from 200 to a maxi-
mum of 700 m
3
can flow out of the sediment re-
tention basin and end up in the channel. Debris
flow outbursts above the planned sediment re-
tention basin at the orographic right side of the
cone are expected to deposit their debris load on
parts of the farmland. Debris flows do not affect
residential buildings (Figure 2). To calculate the
model with RAMMS we took a single debris flow
Tab. 2 - Amount of debris of the Mattenbach (all data in m
3
)
background image
T. SCHEUNER, S. SCHwAB & B.w. McARDELL
998
5th International Conference on Debris-Flow Hazards Mitigation: Mechanics, Prediction and Assessment Padua, Italy - 14-17 June 2011
expert in evaluating the necessity of a deflection dam
near the fan apex. The model indicates that the flows
are expected to stop above the settlements and that
substantial quantities of the debris load will not reach
the residential area. Therefore, the previously described
additional reflection dam was deemed unnecessary and
planning was stopped. This led to lower costs for the
construction of countermeasures and therefore to finan-
cial savings for the community.
CASE STUDY WALCHENSEE
INTRODUCTION
The high traffic road between Walchensee and
Urfeld (Bavaria, Germany) is endangered by debris
flows from the so-called Reissenwand (Fig. 3). On
behalf of the local authorities a detailed hazard as-
sessment was carried out followed by the design
of protective countermeasures. Model calculations
were made using RAMMS as a support tool.
FIELD EVIDENCE AND PARAMETERS FOR
RAMMS
The catchment area of the assessed channel
reaches from the forest covered Rauchkopf crest at
the altitude of 1,380 m a.s.l. down to the Walchsee
at the altitude of 800 m a.s.l. Below the steep scarp
at the Reissenwand the channel runs on bare rock,
then the channel runs through massive slope debris
accumulations resulting from intensive rock fall out
of the Reissenwand. The sediment accumulations
constitute a large debris reservoir
Upon the well-defined debris cone the channel is
deeply cut into the slope (up to 3 m deep). Beyond the
channel the debris cone is covered with vegetation.
With a short distance above the road there are large,
small-grained debris flow heads. They are evidence that
the channel is active in terms of debris flow processes.
On one hand the decisive model parameter were
deduced from grain analysis and on the other hand
based on experienced data from other debris flow
events (s
CHeuneR
, 2007). By this means the friction
parameters and the density of potential debris flows
were estimated (Table 3). We subsequently refined
the estimated parameters based on information on
mapped traces from debris flow deposits at the slope
SCENARIOS
The amount of potential debris was estimated ac-
cording to the method of Gertsch (2009), which is
based on observed patterns and tendencies and was
calibrated with the experienced and limiting values
of 58 debris flow events. This method is an empiri-
cal, system based and strongly process oriented es-
timation procedure. The debris load calculation is
made for single homogenous channel sections where
slope and channel processes are distinguished.
Table 4 shows the estimated debris load for the
corresponding return period.
There are two critical points along the investi-
gated channel. After a steep section of the channel
(> 60%) running on bare rock, there is a distinct shift
in direction of the channel axis at the fan ape, where
bank erosion and the potential for overbank flow en-
danger the orographic right side of the cone. Similar-
ly, shortly before the forest, the channel may change
its position (channel slope < 20%), leading to a new
flow path towards the road. Such channel avulsions
and consequent directional changes are expected es-
pecially when the channels slope is low and sediment
is deposited (e.g. z
immeRmann
et alii, 1997).
HAZARD ASSESSMENT
30-years scenario
In this case, no debris flows endanger the road
directly (Figure 4). The decisive sediment deposition
Fig. 3 - Study area Reissenwand, walchensee (Bavaria,
Germany)
Tab. 3 - Parameters for model calculations with RAMMS
Tab. 4 - Estimated potential debris for 30-years and
100-years scenario
background image
APPLICATION OF A TWO-DIMENSIONAL NUMERICAL MODEL IN RISK AND HAZARD ASSESSMENT IN SWITZERLAND
Italian Journal of Engineering Geology and Environment - Book www.ijege.uniroma1.it © 2011 Casa Editrice Università La Sapienza
999
The road is endangered by debris flow events
with a probability of occurrence of 100 years. A
wedge shaped retention dam may be capable of hold-
ing back debris above the road. Water will be drained
off controlled by a culvert (concrete pipe). To pre-
vent jams during frequent events an appropriate de-
bris screen has to be installed above the culvert. In
this case plain water can be drained of over the peak
of the dam in a controlled manner.
Flow velocity was calculated by RAMMS and is
low (< 3 m/s) , mainly due to a low slope (< 20%).
Therefore the dynamic impact is expected to be
small, however debris accumulation will certainly
elevate the static stress. Due to back-filled material
behind the retention dam debris deposits are expect-
ed to accumulate up to 2 m thickness. Besides flow
velocity and height of deposition, the weight of the
back-filled material and the energy-impact of a de-
bris flow impacting on the dam have to be taken into
consideration.
At the upper part of the cone, a smooth stone em-
bankment may protect the orographic right side of
the bank from erosion. By this means the probability
of channel outbursts can be minimized.
occurs below the flat section (channel slope < 20%)
where the flows run out at the altitude of 860 m a.s.l.
Only small amounts of debris are expected to reach
the forest. Small grain diameter sediment loads and
water may reach the road and by flowing through the
forest mobilize leaves and branches as well, which
may cause jams at the culvert and therefore initiate
flooding of the road (depth of inundation < 0.5 m).
100-years scenario
Debris flow discharge affects large sections of
the road (Figure 4). The debris accumulation may be
up to 1m high. It is expected, that large areas above
the road will be covered by debris, because the flow
velocity is strongly reduced by the presence of forest
and long flat reaches, and a forest road. Moreover it
is possible that debris flow leave the channel and fan
out above the forest. Trace of previous events on the
slope support this scenario.
Due to the results from the modelling with
RAMMS as well as from the empirical verification
with estimation formulas in common use, higher
flow velocities have to be expected at the altitude of
950 m a.s.l. The reasons why we expect this phenom-
enon are the decisive declination of the channel (>
60%) as well as the long channel section running on
bare rock. We expect flow velocity of up to 8 m/s.
These circumstances facilitate bank erosion. Togeth-
er with morphological and topographical characteris-
tics of the debris fan as well as blockages caused by
bank failures, an outburst at the fan apex and a debris
flow further south of the main direction is possible.
Changes in topography during a debris flow (bank
failures, erosion processes) are not yet incorporated
in RAMMS. Therefore, notwithstanding the model-
ling results (Fig. 4) the southern part of the fan is po-
tentially endangered, as is the northern part. Such a
debris flow on the southern part of the fan apex may
follow the still visible former debris channel down
to the road
PROTECTION MEASUREMENTS
Here, only one possible protection measurement
for events with a return period of 100 years will be
described. Events with a return period of 30 years do
not endanger the road and therefore only protection
measures preventing road flooding have to be taken
into account (especially maintenance of the culvert).
Fig. 4 - Debris flow modelling with RAMMS for 30- and
100-years scenario
background image
T. SCHEUNER, S. SCHwAB & B.w. McARDELL
1000
5th International Conference on Debris-Flow Hazards Mitigation: Mechanics, Prediction and Assessment Padua, Italy - 14-17 June 2011
for hazard analyses, and in any case field inspections
are necessary to establish the plausibility of model
results. In the discussed case studies we found that
a process change from debris flow to inundation can
hardly be represented by the modelling system. The
flood-prone areas had to be delineated in the field by
an expert’s assessment. Furthermore channel-bed or
bank erosion is not yet incorporated. Due to this con-
straint it is not possible to assess break-out points
solely by the modelling system.
The RAMMS model is under further development
for the eventual general release to practitioners in the
field. Additional developments, currently in the test-
ing phase, include the possibility to use an input hy-
drograph instead of a block release, and to include the
influence of channel-bed erosion on the flow properties.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The two case studies, Mattenbach and Walchen-
see have illustrated that RAMMS is a useful support
tool for experts evaluating natural hazards. The model
results provide estimates of flow paths, maximum
flow depths and velocities. Using these results, it is
possible to estimate the dynamic forces for use in
evaluating the dimensions of protection measures.
Additionally, the model is useful for providing
additional support on the application of simple em-
pirical formulas often used in hazard assessment and
may lead to an additional degree of certainty in the
results, especially in cases where model verification
with good-quality field data is possible.
However no model is a replacement for field
work or for the estimation of parameters necessary
REFERENCES
b
RunneR
, G.w. (2010) – HEC-RAS River Analysis System User’s Manual Version 4.1. US Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for
Water Resources, Hydrologic Engineering Center, California.
b
ww
, b
RP
& b
uwal
(1997) – Consideration of flood hazards for activities with spatial impact. Recommendations. Federal Office
for Water Management (BWW), Federal Office for Spatial Planning (BRP), Federal Office for the Environment, Forests and
Landscape (BUWAL), Biel.
C
HRisten
m., k
owalski
J. & b
aRtelt
P. (2010) – RAMMS: Numerical simulation of dense snow avalanches in three-dimensional
terrain. Cold Regions Science and Technology, 63: 1-14.
f
oen
(2005) – Indication map of potential permafrost in Switzerland. Federal Office for the Environment, Berne.
G
amma
P. (2000) – “dfwalk” Ein Murgang-Simulationsmodell zur Gefahrenzonierung. Institute of Geography, University of
Berne. Geographica Bernensia G66 (only in German).
G
eotest
AG (2003) - Impuls AG and Beffa Hydrodynamik - Hazard map Lauterbrunnen. Technical bulletin and maps, Zollikofen
(only in German).
G
eotest
AG (2009) - Lauterbrunnen Mattenbach. Technical bulletin and maps, Zollikofen (only in German).
G
eotest
AG (2010) - Analyis of debris flow and rock fall hazard at Reissenwand and Desselkopf. Technical bulletin on behalf of
the state building authority of Weilheim, Germany.
G
eRtsCH
e. (2009) - Geschiebelieferung alpiner wildbachsysteme bei GrossereignissenEreignisanalysen und Entwicklung
eines Abschätzverfahrens. Dissertation at the Institute of Geography, University of Berne (only in German).
H
uGGel
C., k
ääb
a., H
aebeRli
w. & k
RummenaCHeR
b. (2003) - Regional-scale GIS-models for assessment of hazards from
glacier lake outbursts: evaluation and application in the Swiss Alps. Natural Hazards and Earth Sciences, 3: 647-662.
l
eHmann
C. (2005) - Compilation of basic information relating to the project “weisse Lütschine”. Dr. C. Lehmann Hydrologie,
Urtenen-Schönbühl (only in German).
l
eHmann
C. (1993) - Zur Abschätzung der Feststofffracht in wildbächen. Grundlagen und Anwendungen. Institute of Geogra-
phy, University of Berne. Geographica Bernensia G42 (only in German).
o’b
Rien
J.s., J
ulien
P.y. & f
ulleRton
w.t. (1993) - Two-dimensional water flood and mudflow simulation. Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering, 119(2): 244-261.
P
etRasCHeCk
a. & k
ienHolz
H. (2003) - Hazard assessment and mapping of mountain risks in Switzerland. In: Debris-Flow
Hazards Mitigation: Mechanics, Prediction and Assessment. R
iCkenmann
& C
Hen
(e
d
.). Milipress, Rotterdam, 25-38.
P
ReutH
t., b
aRtelt
P., k
oRuP
o. & m
C
a
Rdell
b.w. (2010) – A random kinetic energy model for rock avalanches: eight case
studies. Journal of Geophysical Research, 115: 22 pp.
R
evellino
P., H
unGR
o., G
uadaGno
f.m. & e
vans
s.G. (2004) – Velocity and runout simulation of destructive debris flows and
background image
APPLICATION OF A TWO-DIMENSIONAL NUMERICAL MODEL IN RISK AND HAZARD ASSESSMENT IN SWITZERLAND
Italian Journal of Engineering Geology and Environment - Book www.ijege.uniroma1.it © 2011 Casa Editrice Università La Sapienza
1001
debris avalanches in pyroclastic deposits - Campania region, Italy. Environmental Geology, 45: 295-311.
R
iCkenmann
d. & z
immeRmann
m. (1993) - The 1987 debris flows in Switzerland: documentation and analysis. Geomorphology,
8: 175-189.
R
iCkenmann
d. (1999) – Empirical Relationships for Debris Flows. Natural Hazards, 19: 47-77.
R
iCkenmann
d., l
aiGle
d., m
C
a
Rdell
b.w. & H
übl
J. (2006) – Comparison of 2D debris-flow simulation models with field
events. Computational Geosciences, 10: 241-264.
s
CHeuneR
t., k
eusen
H., m
C
a
Rdell
b.w. & H
uGGel
C. (2007) - Debris flow modeling with a dynamic-physical and a GIS-based
flow model. Wasser Energie Luft, 101: 15-21 (only in German).
s
wisstoPo
(2005) - DTM-AV, Digital Terrain Model of Cadastral Survey. Federal Office of Topography, Berne. http://www.
swisstopo.admin.ch/internet/swisstopo/de/home/products/height/dom_dtm-av.html (access: July 20, 2010).
t
obleR
d., G
Raf
k. & k
RummenaCHeR
b. (2009) – Rockfall assessment of natural hazards by 3D-simulation. Geophysical Re-
search Abstracts, 11: EGU General Assembly 2009.
z
immeRmann
m., m
ani
P. & G
amma
P. (1997) - Debris flow hazard and climate change – a GIS-based approach. Final report
NFP 31, Zürich (only in German).
Statistics