Bull Eng Geol Environ

DOI 10.1007/s10064-014-0570-3

ORIGINAL PAPER

An expert judgement approach to determining the physical

vulnerability of roads to debris flow
M. G. Winter • J. T. Smith • S. Fotopoulou •

K. Pitilakis • O. Mavrouli • J. Corominas •

S. Argyroudis

Received: 30 May 2013 / Accepted: 3 January 2014

 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Abstract The physical vulnerability of roads to debris flow the mean of the responses received. Inevitably there was a
may be expressed through fragility functions that relate flow degree of scatter in the results, and the treatment of such
volume to damage probabilities. Fragility relationships are variation, or ‘experimental errors’, was crucial to under-
essential components of quantitative risk assessments as they standing the data and developing the fragility curves. Fra-
allow for the estimation of risk within a consequence-based gility curves are quantitative expressions of vulnerability.
framework. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the The method adopted is based upon qualitative, expert judg-
first time that fragility curves have been produced in order to ment of quantitative probabilities. In addition to an assess-
provide the conditional probability for a road to be in, or to ment of the probabilities of given damage states being
exceed, a certain damage state for a given debris flow volume. exceeded, respondents to the questionnaire were polled as to
Preliminary assessments were undertaken by means of a their level of experience and confidence in their ability to
detailed questionnaire. A total of 47 returns were received provide a valid and coherent set of answers to the questions
from experts in 17 countries: 32 % academia, 51 % the posed. The development of the fragility curves and their
commercial sector and 17 % governments. Fragility curves validation are described in the paper.
have been defined for three damage states (limited damage,
serious damage and destroyed) for each of low-speed and Keywords Landslide  Debris flow  Road  Hazard 
high-speed roads in order to cover the typical characteristics Vulnerability  Risk
of roads vulnerable to debris flow. The probability of any
given damage state being reached or exceeded by a debris
flow of a given volume (10–100,000 m3) was derived from Introduction

Fragility curves are a graphical means of describing the

M. G. Winter (&) physical vulnerability of elements at risk to a given hazard.
Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), 13 Swanston Steading, They give the conditional probability of a particular ele-
109 Swanston Road, Edinburgh EH10 7DS, UK ment at risk to be in, or to exceed, a certain damage state as
e-mail: mwinter@trl.co.uk
a result of a hazard of a particular type or intensity
J. T. Smith (Mavrouli and Corominas 2010a, b). Fragility relationships
Golder Associates (formerly TRL), Cavendish House, Bourne are essential components of quantitative risk assessments
End Business Park, Cores End Road, Bourne End SL8 8AS, UK (QRA), as they allow for the estimation of risk within a
consequence-based framework.
S. Fotopoulou  K. Pitilakis  S. Argyroudis
Research Unit of Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil The losses, or economic impacts, resulting from debris
Dynamics, Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle flow activity take a variety of forms and include (Winter
University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessalonı́ki, Greece and Bromhead 2012) those that are:
O. Mavrouli  J. Corominas • Direct such as damage to the road and associated
Department of Geotechnical Engineering and Geosciences, structures and the consequential need for repair.
Technical University of Catalonia, 08034 Barcelona, Spain

123
 M. G. Winter et al.

• Direct consequential such as the effects of delays and • Blockages and other types of damage to the drainage
detours. The costs to society of fatal and non-fatal system.
injuries would also be included in this category. • Damage to vehicle restraint systems.
• Indirect consequential such as reduced levels of • Damage to support structures including slopes and
business activity as access to an area is restricted. retaining walls downhill from the road.
When considering dispersed consequential economic The vulnerability to debris flow for impacted buildings has
impacts, the concept of vulnerability shadow (Winter and been expressed using fragility curves and/or probabilities
Bromhead 2012) becomes important for understanding the of exceedance of damage states (Haugen and Kaynia 2008;
consequences of an event. In such cases, an event that closes a Jakob et al. 2012; Quan Luna et al. 2011; Papathoma-
road at a critical location on the network has a relatively small Khöle et al. 2012). However, to the best of the authors’
footprint, but the vulnerabilities that result may be experi- knowledge, this is the first time that fragility curves have
enced across a much wider geographical area. This wider been developed for the effects of debris flow on roads.
geographical area is referred to as the vulnerability shadow. While several possible approaches were available for the
Extensive vulnerability shadows are particularly likely to development of fragility curves, including analytical
occur on rural networks, including routes in Scotland (some of approaches, it was decided that expert engineering judgement
which are used as examples later in this paper), and the range should be used due to the lack of a comprehensive empirical
of losses illustrates the need for a robust risk assessment, of dataset as well as the complex nature of the problem.
which the proper assessment of vulnerability forms an This paper describes the development of the question-
essential part. Fragility relationships are widely adopted in naire that was sent to experts globally in order to collect
seismic ‘expected loss’ and risk assessments, being a valuable data for the development of fragility curves. It then goes on
tool to explicitly assess the vulnerability of structures to to describe the analysis of the data collected, the inter-
earthquake hazard (Pitilakis et al. 2006). For the purposes of pretation of those data, and finally its validation using real-
this work, debris flow is defined as classified by Cruden and world examples. The paper forms part of a larger piece of
Varnes (1996), and broadly falls into the initial slurry flow and work undertaken as part of the SafeLand project (http://
viscous slurry flow, viscous granular flow categories defined www.safeland-fp7.eu/).
by Pierson and Costa (1987). The sediment–water flows are
defined as plastic, with movement occurring over a wide range
of potential velocities. These features are broadly character- Methodology
istic of the debris flow types experienced in, for example,
Scotland in recent years (Winter et al. 2005). Road characterisation
The estimation of the vulnerability of road infrastructure to
landslide, let alone specifically rainfall-induced debris flow, Many different classifications of roads could potentially be
seems to be relatively poorly served by the available litera- considered, covering numerous key factors, such as con-
ture. A generic approach is often applied to different vul- struction type, stiffness, and traffic speed. However, in
nerable elements’ typologies, and/or simple damage criteria order to reduce the questionnaire to a reasonable size, some
such as the percentage of affected road are considered simplification was needed.
(Wieczorek et al. 2004; Galli and Guzzetti 2007; Geertsema Primarily, it was decided that, for the purposes of this
et al. 2009; Mansour et al. 2011). Unsurprisingly, there is a exercise, all roads could be considered to be relatively stiff
greater focus upon human as opposed to infrastructural los- and brittle (the low strain stiffness of even an unbound
ses, and typically traffic volume—with or without other pavement, for example, may be typically up to around one
factors—is taken as a proxy for such vulnerabilities gigapascal) in comparison to most debris materials. In
(McMillan and Matheson 1997; Winter et al. 2009). order to further simplify the analysis, roads were divided
For the purposes of this work, the element at risk is a into low- and high-speed roads, characterized as follows:
road and the hazard is debris flow. Damage probabilities
• High-speed roads speed limit between 80 and 110 km/h
have been assigned for specific debris flow volumes. Fra-
and at least one running lane in each direction, very
gility curves have been produced that indicate the proba-
often in conjunction with a hard strip or hard shoulder.
bility of a debris flow of a given volume exceeding each of
• Local (or low-speed) roads speed limit typically
three damage states. Typically, damage to roads resulting
\50 km/h on a single-carriageway (one lane for each
from debris flow may include one or more of the following:
traffic direction) or single track. This category is
• Debris covering the carriageway, preventing vehicle intended to encompass both paved (bituminous, unre-
movements. inforced or reinforced concrete) and unpaved
• Damage to the carriageway surfacing materials. constructions.

123
Determining physical vulnerability of roads to debris flow

Clearly there is a gap between the speed limits of the two combination of damage states (limited damage, serious
classes of road, reflecting the transition between local roads damage and destroyed) and landslide volumes (\10, 10, 100,
and high-speed roads, which is by no means geographically 1,000, 10,000, 100,000 m3). (Note that the codes A–G in
consistent. This reflects reality—in some countries and Table 2 were used to avoid confusion between the visually
regions certain road geometries are more closely aligned rather similar probabilities with which they correspond and
with the definition of local roads, and in others they are which were used to construct the fragility curves.) It was
more closely aligned with the definition of high-speed particularly noted in the questionnaire that the qualitative
roads. Speed limit is not, and should not be, the only descriptors ‘highly improbable’ and ‘extremely likely’
determinant of the category of road. In most instances, the should be used with caution, and only where an extensive,
category that a particular geometry and speed limit high-quality dataset supports the classification.
combination will belong to is relatively self-evident, but Respondents were asked to consider a segment of road
extending the speed limits between 50 and 80 km/h in the 500 m long. The questionnaire specifically noted that the
category descriptions could lead to uncertainty and volume ranges refer to volumes deposited at the level of the
potential incorrect categorisation. road. However, this could perhaps have been clearer as to
whether this implied the total volume remaining on the
Damage states road immediately post-event, or the volume that passes
through the level of the road. In the former instance, for
Representative damage states associated with the conse- volumes of 10,000 and 100,000 m3, it would be impossible
quences of a debris flow of a given volume intersecting a not to have reached the destroyed damage state, since the
road were defined. The damage states considered in the whole road would be covered. The fact that not all of the
questionnaire are defined in Table 1. The damage states questionnaire responses indicate a probability of unity for
range from ‘limited damage’, which is unlikely to signifi- these volumes does imply that this may not have been fully
cantly affect the passage of vehicles, through ‘serious understood by all respondents, and goes some way to
damage’ that completely blocks the carriageway, to explaining the lower probabilities for high volumes as
‘destroyed’, involving complete blockage and damage to discussed under ‘‘Interpretation’’.
the road itself that for, high-speed roads at least, will
almost certainly need to be repaired prior to reopening to Experience of the respondents
traffic without restrictions on speed.
Hazard perception varies from person to person, and
Probability of exceedance clearly the experience of the respondents is a critical metric

Respondents to the survey were asked to use their expert Table 2 Description of probabilities
judgement to assess the probability of each damage state
Qualitative Description Code Values
(Table 1) being exceeded. This was achieved using the
descriptor for
qualitative descriptors and descriptions of the quantitative analysis
probabilities of damage state exceedance (Table 2) for a
range of volumes deposited at the level of the road for each Highly Damage state almost certainly not A 0.000001
improbable exceeded, but cannot be ruled
out
Table 1 Damage state definition
Improbable Damage state only exceeded in B 0.00001
Damage High-speed roads Local (low-speed) roads (remote) exceptional circumstances
state Very Damage state will only be C 0.0001
unlikely exceeded in very unusual
P1 (limited Encroachment limited to Partial blockage of
circumstances
damage) verge/hard strip carriageway
Unlikely Damage state may be exceeded, D 0.001
P2 (serious Blockage of hard strip Complete blockage of
but would not be expected to
damage) and one running lane carriageway and/or
occur under normal
damage to ancillaries
circumstances
P3 Complete blockage of Complete blockage of
Likely Damage state expected to be E 0.01
(destroyed) carriageway and/or carriageway and/or
exceeded under normal
repairable damage to damage to surfacing. For
circumstances
surfacing unpaved roads the
surfacing may remain Very likely Damage state expected to be F 0.1
damaged but passable at exceeded
reduced speeds post Extremely Damage state is almost certainly G 1.0
clean-up likely exceeded

123
 M. G. Winter et al.

in terms of understanding, evaluating, analysing and

interpreting the data resulting from the questionnaire.
Having been pre-selected by the authors as individuals with
known expertise in this area, the respondents were asked to
assess the levels of both their experience of debris flow and
their confidence in their responses for each debris flow
volume assessed on a scale of 0 (no experience) to 10
(extensive experience).
The scores for the experience-based self-assessment
were weighted towards the higher end of the range, as
might be expected from a sample of respondents who were
selected for their known expertise in this area. It thus seems
potentially appropriate to place a greater confidence in the
responses received from those who reported that their level Fig. 1 An idealized plot of the probability of exceeding a given
damage state against the frequency of response, illustrating how the
of experience was higher than the average, and a number of
data might be expected to appear and to thus provide an immediate
approaches is possible. The scores for the level of confi- ‘sense’ check
dence in the responses for each volume of debris flow
assessed are discussed in the ‘‘Interpretation’’ section. Analysis

Preliminary fragility curves

Data collection
It is a relatively straightforward matter to construct pre-
In total, the questionnaire was sent to 176 experts by the liminary fragility curves from the average of the proba-
three organisations involved in this work. Of those, 47 bility responses at each volume, at each damage state and
responded by completing the questionnaire, giving a for both high speed roads and local roads, as illustrated in
response rate of 27 %. Responses were received from 17 Fig. 3. These curves have the basic attributes of typical
countries: UK (34 %), Greece (23 %), other European fragility curves. The curves generally show that landslides
countries (26 %), Asia (4 %), Australasia (4 %), North of a given volume are associated with higher probabilities
America (4 %), and the Middle East (2 %). The back- of exceeding a certain damage state when they affect local
ground of the respondents spanned academia (32 %), the roads than when they affect high-speed roads, as would be
commercial sector (51 %) and government bodies (17 %). expected. In addition, the curves for high-speed roads
As with all data, a reality (or ‘sense’) check is advis- generally show little effect at small landslide volumes,
able. Figure 1 illustrates the way in which one might below a few 100 cubic metres.
anticipate that the basic probability data should plot. For It is noticeable that the mean probabilities do not reach
smaller landslide volumes, the majority of the responses unity for any of the curves. This implies that the damage
should plot to the left hand side, while for larger volumes, states as defined can never be reached or exceeded with
the majority of the data should plot to the right hand side. complete certainty. However, this is an inevitable function
For the intermediate volumes, the majority of the data of using the average of the responses, as the maximum
should plot somewhere between these two extremes. The possible response coincides with the desired termination
precise shape of the curve will, of course, vary between point of each curve (a volume at which exceeding the given
these conceptual ‘norms’. Although not illustrated in damage state is inevitable and the probability is unity).
Fig. 1, it would also be reasonable to anticipate that for Further stages of analysis were undertaken to interrogate
limited damage, the data would be skewed to the right, as and better understand the data.
more events would be expected to induce such a damage
state. Similarly, for the destroyed category, it might be Curve fitting
expected that the data would be skewed to the left, as
fewer events would be likely to induce this extreme Standard Microsoft ExcelTM curve-fitting was applied to the
damage state. basic curves (third-order polynomial for limited damage
The data from the questionnaire responses (Fig. 2) show states, and fourth-order polynomial for serious damage and
that, in broad terms, the results are reasonable. While there destroyed states). This gave better separation of the individ-
is a greater or lesser degree of scatter and/or variation from ual curves than is shown in Fig. 3, and there was greater
the norm set out in Fig. 1, most of the data broadly follow contrast between the results for high-speed and local roads
the pattern illustrated. (Pitilakis and Fotopoulou 2011). This technique allows a

123
Determining physical vulnerability of roads to debris flow

Fig. 2 Probability of exceeding each damage state on each type of road plotted against the number of responses for each landslide volume: left
local roads, right high-speed roads, top limited damage state, middle serious damage state, bottom destroyed damage state

degree of extrapolation of the data to higher volumes/prob- This has been achieved by visually judging the appropriate
abilities. However, the over-application of such extrapolation value of probability at 1,000,000 m3 in order to maintain
tends to distort the curves at lower volumes by increasing the the broad trend of the curves (Fig. 4)—generally, in this
divergence of the curve from the data. Such a technique high-volume part of the curve, the probability is increasing
proved unsuitable for extending the curves by other than with increasing volume but at a decreasing rate. It is
small amounts of the volume considered (certainly consid- noticeable that, even when the volume is increased to
erably less than an order of magnitude). Other curve-fitting 1,000,000 m3 in this way, none of the fragility curves reach
methods could, of course, have been used, including two- unity. Only for limited damage of local roads is a value of
parameter cumulative log-normal distributions. around 0.95 achieved at the highest volume.

Manual extrapolation Weighting the data

It is thus interesting to manually extrapolate the data pre- In order to incorporate the experience of the respondents as
sented in Fig. 3 by a further logarithmic cycle of volume. a measure of the reliability of the data, a weighting

123
 M. G. Winter et al.

approach may be taken. However, care is needed to ensure

that the sample is weighted rather than the individual
responses; otherwise bias will be introduced into the
results. (Weighting the individual responses will, depend-
ing upon the precise approach taken, either increase or
decrease the individual probabilities contained within the
questionnaires for those with higher expertise and the
converse for those with lower levels of expertise. There is
no logical justification for such a change and this approach
has therefore been avoided.) Weighting the sample may be
done as follows:
Pn
p i Ei
p ¼ Pi¼1 n ; ð1Þ
i¼1 Ei

where p is the weighted mean probability of a particular

damage state being exceeded, pi is the individual responses
of the probability of a particular damage state being
exceeded, Ei is the individual responses in terms of self-
assessed experience, and n is the number of responses.
However, the question of what a weighted average
means remains, and statistical advice (Sexton, personal
communication) indicates that the results should be treated
with a degree of caution. This approach yields fragility
curves (Fig. 5) with lower probabilities of given damage
states being exceeded for a given volume of event com-
Fig. 3 Preliminary fragility curves: top local roads, bottom high-
speed roads
pared to those derived from the unweighted data set
(Fig. 3). This potentially indicates that either those who
perceive their expertise as greater take a less conservative
approach to assessing the likely damage incurred for a
given event size, or that those who are less experienced
overestimate the potential damage.
The second approach involves rejecting the data from
those respondents reporting less experience, leaving only
the data from those who assessed themselves as more
experienced in this area. Statistical advice (Sexton, per-
sonal communication) indicates that (approximately) only
scores from the upper 25 % of the available range should
be examined. This implies that the analysis should be
undertaken for those judging their experience level as eight
or above (33 % of respondents). However, plotting the data
led to curves that were rather difficult to interpret and to the
conclusion that those 16 respondents (or 33 %) were
insufficient in number to present a coherent picture (Piti-
lakis and Fotopoulou 2011).

Interpretation

The data points that make up the fragility curves described

above represent the mean responses of the entire sample at
Fig. 4 Extrapolated fragility curves: top local roads, bottom high- each event volume. As such, it is both necessary and
speed roads desirable to examine the statistical variation in the data.

123
Determining physical vulnerability of roads to debris flow

damage level increases, seemingly indicating a high level of

confidence on the part of the respondents to questions relating
to the probability of low-volume events creating high damage
states. Again, this result conforms to what might reasonably
be expected.
The curves illustrated in Fig. 3 do not stretch between
zero and unity. Even when manually extrapolating to a
landslide volume of 1,000,000 m3 (Fig. 4), the curves do
not reach to unity, as would be expected if they had been
derived from modelling in which a constraint would have
been placed upon the process in order to ensure such a
result.
As previously mentioned, using the current approach, it
is inevitable that the mean probability of each damage state
being reached or exceeded is less than unity unless all of
the respondents return such a value. This seems more than
a little unlikely (see also the ‘‘Analysis’’ section). This
facet is also likely compounded by the fact that, in the
questionnaire, the respondents were encouraged to exercise
caution and to use their direct experience to support their
use of the lowest and highest qualitative descriptors of the
likelihood of given damage states (i.e. highly improbable
and extremely likely), and thus discouraging their use. In
addition, as articulated in the description of the method-
ology, the questionnaire could perhaps have been clearer
on what was meant by the volume of a debris flow, and this
may have led to some confusion amongst respondents and
Fig. 5 Weighted fragility curves: top local roads, bottom high-speed
inconsistency of response. The questionnaire also asked
roads
respondents to consider a length of road 500 m long, and
this may have led to some debate as to when the different
In order to do this, the standard deviation may be damage states are reached (i.e. when affecting the full
assessed and the curves representing the mean plus and 500 m length or only a fraction thereof). It is clear that an
minus one standard deviation plotted alongside the mean event of a few thousand cubic metres can seriously damage
curve; these represent the bounds within which 68 % of the or destroy the road while only affecting a fraction of the
data fall (Fig. 6). Clearly the results cover a wide range and 500 m length. How this was perceived and rated in terms of
reach into the zone corresponding to negative probability road vulnerability by the respondents remains uncertain.
and probabilities greater than unity in some instances. This then begs the question of how to account for such
While both states are ‘impossible’, this reflects the genuine an inevitable, and seemingly contradictory, facet of the
statistical variation in the data. results. If a constant ratio is assumed between the different
The lines at zero and unity are important as probability probabilities of exceeding a damage state at any given
states outside these bounds are purely of a statistical nature volume, it is a simple matter to ‘force’ (or stretch) the
and have no meaning in terms of the relative likelihood of a fragility curves to reach unity at the greatest value of
damage state being reached. Where the curves extend landslide volume. This can be achieved by adopting a
beyond these conceptual limits, it is clear that there is a straightforward ratio approach (the forced probability at
wide range within the reported data. any value of landslide volume pif = pi[1/pn], where pi is
In broad terms, the standard deviation of the probability of the mean probability and pn is the mean probability at the
a given damage state being reached or exceeded increases maximum value of the landslide volume).
with the volume of the event considered. This is not altogether In order to determine whether such an approach can be
surprising, as larger events occur less frequently, and thus the justified, one must examine the more detailed responses of
collective experience of the respondents may be expected to the respondents to the questionnaire, and in particular the
be both less and more variable; both of these factors have the responses of those where a probability of unity was
potential to increase the range of responses. This increase in assigned to the combinations of landslide volume and
the variation in responses seems to be more marked as the damage state. These data illustrate, as might be anticipated,

123
 M. G. Winter et al.

Fig. 6 Fragility curves from Fig. 3 showing the mean and the mean plus and minus one standard deviation: left local roads, right high-speed
roads, top limited damage state, middle serious damage state, bottom destroyed damage state

that the number of respondents assigning a probability of combine these two actions, as illustrated in Fig. 7. The
unity increases markedly with landslide volume while curves illustrated therein conform to the ‘s’ shape generally
decreasing with increased damage state severity. Most perceived as being the correct form for fragility curves.
importantly, by the time high landslide volumes are con- Notwithstanding this, one would normally expect that the
sidered, the majority of respondents return a value of unity curves for different damage states would reach unity at
for the likelihood of a given damage state being reached or different landslide volumes; that they do not is a function
exceeded. This lends considerable justification to the of the type of analysis undertaken, and it seems reason-
approach of ‘forcing’ the curves to reach unity. able—as none of the curves reach unity—to force all to
As discussed, the preliminary fragility curves of Fig. 3 such a level at the highest volume considered.
can be forced to unity at the highest value of landslide Clearly it is possible to make alternative assumptions in
volume. As these have already been manually extrapolated relation to the presentation of the fragility curves; for exam-
to the next order of magnitude in terms of landslide volume ple, forcing the curve for limited damage to unity (at the
(i.e. 1,000,000 m3) (Fig. 4), the next logical step is to greatest landslide volume), allowing that for destroyed to

123
Determining physical vulnerability of roads to debris flow

As noted in the ‘‘Analysis’’ section, the experience of

the respondents is a critical metric in terms of this data set,
and respondents were asked to assess their experience on a
scale of 0–10. The scores of this self-assessment were
weighted towards the higher end of the range, as might be
expected from a sample of respondents who were selected
for their known expertise in this area, and the data are
plotted in Fig. 8. As might be expected, the confidence of
respondents for low-volume events is markedly higher than
that for high-volume events, reflecting the higher frequency
of low-volume events. Indeed, examination of the indi-
vidual charts for each landslide volume considered (Fig. 8)
indicates that:
• For low-volume events, the distribution of the
responses is skewed to the right (high confidence).
• For medium-volume events (1,000–10,000 m3), the
distribution becomes broadly normal.
• For high-volume events (100,000 m3), the distribution
shows signs of beginning to skew to the left (lower
confidence).

Use of the fragility curves

In order to assess the validity of the curves developed, a

Fig. 7 Fragility curves ‘forced’ to unity and manually extrapolated to view must be taken on the most appropriate set of curves to
the next order of magnitude for volume: top local roads, bottom high- consider. In light of the comments received from ques-
speed roads tionnaire respondents, it was decided to use curves which
remain as derived from the data (Fig. 4), and forcing the have been extrapolated to a debris flow volume of
curve for serious damage to a level midway between the two. 1,000,000 m3 and which have been forced to unity as
It does, however, seem that there is no greater or lesser jus- shown in Fig. 7. Events from Scotland in the UK and the
tification for either approach, except inasmuch as it might be Republic of Korea are considered here.
anticipated that the destroyed state should always be reached Figure 9 illustrates hypothetically shaped curves in
in response to a landslide volume of 1,000,000 m3, and thus which the numbers given relate to a 5,000 m3 event as
the approach taken in Fig. 7 appears reasonable. applied to a high-speed road in Fig. 7. The probabilities of
Geographical variations and variations potentially the damage being equal to or greater than a given level are
caused by respondents’ backgrounds (academic, the com- as follows:
mercial sector, and governments) were investigated (Piti- • Damage greater than or equal to limited, p = 0.6.
lakis and Fotopoulou 2011). It was concluded that the • Damage greater than or equal to serious, p = 0.4.
datasets were generally too small to draw definitive con- • Damage greater than or equal to destroyed, p = 0.3.
clusions, albeit that the data appeared to suggest that:
The discrete, or conditional, damage state probabilities (i.e.
• Responses from the UK exhibited slightly higher the probabilities of the occurrence of a given damage state)
probabilities for larger landslide volumes compared to are then estimated from those probabilities of a given
those for the rest of the world. damage state being exceeded as follows:
• Similarly, the response for academia exhibited slightly
• Probability of no damage = 1.0–0.6 = 0.4.
higher probabilities for larger landslide volumes com-
• Probability of limited damage = 0.6–0.4 = 0.2.
pared to those for the commercial sector.
• Probability of serious damage = 0.4–0.3 = 0.1.
Not withstanding these very tentative observations, no • Probability of destroyed damage state = 0.3.
major difference in the pattern of responses was observed
These should, of course, always total unity.
for the different groups.

123
 M. G. Winter et al.

Fig. 8 Self-assessed confidence ratings relative to given event volumes: top left \10 m3, middle left 10 m3, bottom left 100 m3, top right
1,000 m3, middle right 10,000 m3, bottom right 100,000 m3

Note that the conditional probability of the destroyed culverts and other drainage features, and necessitated a full
damage state is always equal to the probability of that state repair to the road pavement, safety barriers and parapets
being exceeded. Vulnerability assessment using fragility (Winter et al. 2005, 2006). Some 20 vehicles were trapped
curves is, of course, probabilistic in nature and the models by the events and 57 people were airlifted to safety; one
used in their construction—in this case a model based vehicle was swept away in the latter stages of the event
purely upon expert judgment—have inherent uncertainties. (Winter et al. 2005). The smaller southerly and larger
In this context, the validation examples are not expected to northerly events were estimated to have deposited around
precisely predict the observed damages. 3,200 and 8,500 m3 in their respective debris lobes, having
been triggered by smaller translational slides of around 285
A85 Glen Ogle, Scotland and 280 m3 (Milne et al. 2009). The depositional figures
are believed not to include material deposited on the road,
In August 2004, two debris flow events occurred at Glen and it seems reasonable therefore to round these figures up
Ogle (Fig. 10). These blocked the A85 strategic road, to around 5,000 and 10,000 m3. This perhaps also

123
Determining physical vulnerability of roads to debris flow

Fig. 9 Hypothetical fragility curve in which the numbers given relate

to a 5,000 m3 event as applied to a high-speed road (see Fig. 7),
illustrating the probabilities of a given event exceeding a given
damage state and also the conditional probabilities for a given level of
damage (not to scale)

Fig. 11 The fragility curves of Fig. 7 with vertical lines added at

200, 500, 1,000, 5,000 and 10,000 m3. These lines are drawn
horizontally across to the probability axis. In order to retain a degree
of clarity, only horizontal lines where the limited damage curve is
intersected are shown: top local roads, bottom high-speed roads

brackets); for the larger (10,000 m3) event, the conditional

probabilities are around 0.3, 0.15 (0.7), 0.15 (0.55) and 0.4
(0.4), in both cases for a high-speed road. Certainly the
damage caused by the larger event would have been
described as destroyed using the scheme considered here,
and the probability of this state, 0.4, seems to be broadly in
line with observations made in its immediate aftermath,
albeit affecting a road length of around 200 m. Similarly,
the damage caused by the smaller event, although signifi-
cantly less in terms of physical damage to the infrastruc-
ture, would also be classified as destroyed, and this seems
to be broadly reflective of the probability of 0.3 returned
Fig. 10 The larger northerly event of the two August 2004 debris
flows at A85 Glen Ogle
from Fig. 11 (Table 3).

illustrates the uncertainty when dealing with debris flow A83 Rest and be Thankful, Scotland
volumes between the amount that is mobilised and the
amount that is deposited at around road level. Events at the Rest and be Thankful on the A83 strategic
Figure 11 shows how these event volumes plot on the road (Winter et al. 2009, 2010) are frequent and have
fragility curves originally derived in Fig. 7. For the smaller certainly occurred on at least an annual basis over the
(5,000 m3) event, the conditional probabilities for no preceding 20–25 years. The event magnitude is, however,
damage, limited, serious and destroyed damage states are rather small, generally ranging between 200 and 1,000 m3.
0.4, 0.2 (0.6), 0.1 (0.4) and 0.3 (0.3) (the probabilities of Following an event in October 2007, the volume of
the damage states being met or exceeded are given in material deposited at road level was estimated by the road

123
 M. G. Winter et al.

Table 3 Probabilities of damage states being exceeded and condi-

tional probabilities for high-speed roads for given event volumes
Event volume (m3)
200 m3 1,000 m3 5,000 m3 10,000 m3

Probability of damage state being met or exceeded

Limited 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.7
Serious 0.05 0.2 0.4 0.55
Destroyed 0.01 0.02 0.3 0.4
Conditional probability
No damage 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.3
Limited 0.15 0.1 0.2 0.15
Serious 0.4 0.18 0.1 0.15
Destroyed 0.01 0.02 0.3 0.4 Fig. 12 General view of the main hillside at the A83 Rest and be
Thankful, including the October 2007 event

operating company to be around 400 m3. On-site obser-

vations indicate that it is reasonable to use a figure of
around 1,000 m3 for the total amount of material mobi-
lised. Figure 12 illustrates the main hillside at the Rest and
be Thankful.
For smaller events (200 m3 in Fig. 11), the conditional
probabilities of the damage states no damage, limited,
serious, and destroyed are 0.8, 0.15 (0.2), 0.04 (0.05), and
0.01 (0.01), respectively. For larger events (1,000 m3), the
conditional probabilities of the damage states limited,
serious, and destroyed are 0.7, 0.1 (0.3), 0.18 (0.2), and
0.02 (0.02) (Fig. 11; Table 3).
Following the October 2007 event, the road was closed
for a considerable period while major structural repairs
were undertaken to the area below the road. The observed
effects exceeded the destroyed damage state. This does
then beg the question as to how such a small event caused
so much damage. In simple terms, two events occurred.
The first flow above the road simply blocked the A83 and
in isolation required clean-up and pavement repairs.
However, it also blocked an open drain on the upslope side
of the road which caused water to overtop the road and to
erode a further wash-out-type failure below the road
(Fig. 13); it was this secondary event that did most of the
damage (as described in more detail by Winter et al. 2009).
In addition, the profile of this road and some of the con-
struction details, such as the aforementioned open drain,
make an argument for describing this road as a local road
(within the scheme described herein and notwithstanding the
higher speed limit). Thus, the conditional probability of the
destroyed damage state occurring in the context of the initial
1,000 m3 flow is higher, at around 0.2 (Fig. 11; Table 3).

Chuncheon National Road 46, Republic of Korea

For the Seoul to Chuncheon National Road 46, landslide Fig. 13 Detailed view of the October 2007 event at the A83 Rest and
deposits were up to 5,000 m3 (Lee and Winter 2010) be Thankful

123
Determining physical vulnerability of roads to debris flow

Fig. 15 Debris flow site from July 2009 above tunnel portals on the
Seoul to Chuncheon National Highway in the Republic of Korea: top
source area, and bottom view from the source area looking out over
the tunnel portals
Fig. 14 Source area for a debris flow site from July 2009 at the Seoul
to Chuncheon National Road 46 in the Republic of Korea
and destroyed are 0.7, 0.1 (0.3), 0.18 (0.2), and 0.02 (0.02)
(Fig. 11; Table 3).
(Fig. 14). For an event of this volume, the conditional Only very minor damage was incurred at the Seoul to
probabilities for no damage, limited, serious and destroyed Chuncheon National Highway tunnel portals, and this
damage states are 0.4, 0.2 (0.6), 0.1 (0.4) and 0.3 (0.3) reflects the small volumes; the probability of either limited
(Fig. 11; Table 3). damage or no damage (the combined conditional proba-
The damage state corresponded to the destroyed cate- bilities) is 0.8 (Fig. 15). The road was not open at the time
gory, and this is reflected in the probability of such an of the event, and there is every possibility of both further
occurrence of 0.3 (an approximately one in three chance). and larger events that have the potential to meet or exceed
It should also be noted that the damage that occurred was higher damage states.
most likely exacerbated by the highly constrained nature of
both the natural topography and by the channelling effect Seoul to Gangnung Highway at Pyeong-chang Services,
of concrete drainage channels on the lower slopes close to Republic of Korea
the road (Lee and Winter 2010).
For the Seoul to Gangnung Highway at Pyeong-chang
Seoul to Chuncheon National Highway tunnel portals, Services, landslide volumes were up to 10,000 m3
Republic of Korea (Fig. 16). For an event of this volume, the conditional
probabilities of no damage and the damage states limited,
For the Chuncheon National Highway tunnel portals serious, and destroyed being met are 0.3, 0.15 (0.7), 0.15
(Fig. 15), landslide deposits were 500–1,000 m3. For an (0.55), and 0.4 (0.4), respectively (Fig. 11; Table 3).
event of this volume (1,000 m3), the conditional proba- Less detail is available for the event at Seoul to Gang-
bilities of the damage states no damage, limited, serious, nung Highway at Pyeong-chang Services, but the damage

123
 M. G. Winter et al.

maximum of 100,000 m3 contained in the questionnaire.

Consequently, the proposed fragility curves have been
extrapolated to include events one order of magnitude
greater than the largest considered in the questionnaire. In
addition, this form of determining fragility curves renders it
almost impossible for the probabilities to range from zero
to unity; accordingly, the proposed fragility curves have
been stretched to ensure such a spread.
The derived fragility curves have been compared to
known events in Scotland (UK) and the Republic of Korea.
In general, the curves tend to give results that might be
deemed reasonable, with probabilities of around 0.3 gen-
erally being suggested for known damage states. Excep-
tions to this occur when detailed site characteristics
introduce complexities that are not, and could not be,
accounted for in the analysis.
The method of data acquisition, the statistical analyses,
and the interpreted results, as well as the perceived inter-
pretations of the questionnaire for this first approach raise
some interesting issues that are explored in the body of the
report. Continued efforts are needed, potentially including
the use of modelling and empirical data to further validate,
and potentially improve, the curves reported herein.

Acknowledgments The work described in this paper was (partially)

supported by the European Commission through the project SafeLand
‘‘Living with landslide risk in Europe: assessment, effects of global
Fig. 16 Debris flow site above the Seoul to Gangnung Highway at change, and risk management strategies’’ under grant agreement no.
Pyeong-chang Services in the Republic of Korea: top view of the flow 226479 in the 7th Framework Programme of the European Com-
channel above the road; bottom view from the flow channel above the mission. This support is gratefully acknowledged. The TRL authors
road, looking at the services located on the opposite side of the road gratefully acknowledge additional funding from Transport Scotland.
The first author is grateful to Professor Sugon LEE (of the University
of Seoul) who hosted his visit to the Republic of Korea.
stage exceeded at least serious damage and, most likely,
destroyed. Certainly, significant remedial works have been
constructed since the flow occurred. Thus, the associated
References
combined conditional probabilities of those damage states
being met is 0.3 (or an approximately 1 in 3 chance of Cruden DM, Varnes DJ (1996) Landslide types and processes. In:
occurrence), and this seems to be broadly reflective of the Turner AK, Schuster RL (eds) Special report 247: landslides:
events. investigation and mitigation. National Academy of Science,
Washington, DC, pp 36–75
Galli M, Guzzetti F (2007) Landslide vulnerability criteria: a case
study from Umbria, Central Italy. Environ Manag 40:649–664
Conclusions Geertsema M, Schwab JW, Blais-Stevens A, Sakals A (2009)
Landslides impacting linear infrastructure in west central British
Columbia. Nat Hazards 48:59–72
A survey of experts in the field of debris flow has been
Haugen ED, Kaynia AM (2008) Vulnerability of structures impacted
conducted to ascertain their views on a wide range of by debris flow. In: Chen Z, Zhang J-M, Ho K, Wu FQ (eds)
pertinent issues related to the construction of preliminary Landslides and engineered slopes: from the past to the future.
fragility curves for the effects of debris flows on roads, CRC, London, pp 381–387
Jakob M, Stein D, Ulmi M (2012) Vulnerability of buildings to debris
using an empirical approach.
flow impact. Nat Hazards 60(2):241–261
Included in the questionnaire was the opportunity for the Lee S-G, Winter MG (2010) The effects of debris flow in the
respondents to make ‘free text’ responses to defined Republic of Korea and some issues for successful management
questions. Their responses have been used, in part, to and mitigation. In: Williams AL, Pinches GM, Chin CY,
McMorran TM, Massey CI (eds) Proceedings of the 11th IAEG
determine the form of analysis. In particular, it was clear
congress: geologically active. CRC, London, pp 1243–1250
that many respondents considered that flows up to Mansour MF, Morgenstern NR, Martin CD (2011) Expected damage
1,000,000 m3 should be considered rather than the from displacement of slow-moving slides. Landslides 8:117–131

123
Determining physical vulnerability of roads to debris flow

Mavrouli O, Corominas J (2010a) Vulnerability of simple reinforced Quan Luna B, Blahut J, van Westen CJ, Sterlacchini S, van Ach TWJ,
concrete buildings in front of the rockfall impact. Landslides Akbas SO (2011) The application of numerical debris flow
7(2):169–180 modelling for the generation of physical vulnerability curves.
Mavrouli O, Corominas J (2010b) Rockfall vulnerability assessment Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 11:2047–2060
for reinforced concrete buildings. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci Wieczorek GF, Mossa GS, Morgan BA (2004) Regional debris-flow
10(10):2055–2066 distribution and preliminary risk assessment from severe storm
McMillan P, Matheson GD (1997) A two stage system for road rock events in the Appalachian Blue Ridge Province, USA. Land-
slope risk assessment. Int J Rock Mech Miner Sci 34(3–4):196 slides 1:53–59
Milne FD, Werritty A, Davies MCR, Browne MJ (2009) A recent Winter MG, Bromhead EN (2012) Landslide risk—some issues that
debris flow event and implications for hazard management. Q J determine societal acceptance. Nat Hazards 62(2):169–187
Eng Geol Hydrogeol 42:51–60 Winter MG, Macgregor F, Shackman L (eds) (2005) Scottish road
Papathoma-Khöle M, Keiler M, Totschnig R, Glade T (2012) network landslides study. The Scottish Executive, Edinburgh,
Improvement of vulnerability curves using data from extreme p 119
events: debris flow event in South Tyrol. Nat Hazards Winter MG, Heald AP, Parsons JA, Macgregor F, Shackman L (2006)
64(3):2083–2105 Scottish debris flow events of August 2004. Q J Eng Geol
Pierson TC, Costa JE (1987) A rheological classification of subaerial Hydrogeol 39:73–78
sediment–water flows. Rev Eng Geol VII:1–12 Winter MG, Macgregor F, Shackman L (eds) (2009) Scottish road
Pitilakis K, Fotopoulou S (eds) (2011) Physical vulnerability of network landslides study: implementation. Transport Scotland,
elements at risk to landslides: methodology for evaluation, Edinburgh, p 278
fragility curves and damage states for buildings and lifelines. Winter MG, Dent J, Macgregor F, Dempsey P, Motion A, Shackman
SafeLand Deliverable 2.5. http://www.safeland-fp7.eu/ L (2010) Debris flow, rainfall and climate change in Scotland.
Pitilakis K, Alexoudi M, Argyroudis S, Monge O, Martin C (2006) Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 43:429–446
Earthquake risk assessment of lifelines. Bull Earthq Eng
4:365–390

123