Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG on 04/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design

(GSP 199) 2010 ASCE

Risk analysis of Tangjiashan landslide dam

Ming Peng1, Limin Zhang2, M. ASCE, and Runqiu Huang3
1

Research Assistant, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Hong Kong
University of Science and Technology, HKSAR, China; email: pengming@ust.hk
2
Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Hong Kong
University of Science and Technology, HKSAR, China; email: cezhangl@ust.hk
3
Professor, State Key Laboratory of Geohazard Prevention & Geoenvironment Protection,
Chengdu University of Technology, China; e-mail: hrq@cdut.edu.cn

ABSTRACT: Tangjiashan Landslide Dam, with a height of 82-124 m, a volume of

20.4 million m3 and a reservoir volume of 316 million m3, is the largest landslide
dam induced by the Ms 8.0 Wenchuan Earthquake on 12 May 2008. The breaching
of the dam threatens more than 1.3 million people downstream. This paper outlines a
procedure to estimate the loss of lives (LOL) due to various potential modes of
failure of the landslide dam. A regression model with parameters of population at risk
(PAR), warning time (WT) is studied. Based on empirical breach parameters,
analysis of flood routing in the river downstream the dam is performed using a river
analysis program, HEC-RAS. Both the real failure scenario and two assumed
overtopping failure scenarios are considered. The inundation area and warning time
for each affected zone in each scenario are obtained. A physical model is selected to
obtain the population at risk based on historical data and the information of water
depth, flow velocity, warning time etc from the analyses using HEC-RAS. Some
possible situations of warning time are compared. Based on the regression model
with data of PAR, WT, force, and population distribution along the downstream of
Tangjiashan Landslide Dam, the LOL can be estimated in different scenarios.
INTRODUCTION
Landslide dams are natural dams that form when the body of a landslide partially or
completely blocks a river channel. Tangjiashan Landslide Dam (Fig. 1), with a height
of 82-124 m, a volume of 20.4 million m3 and a reservoir volume of 316 million m3,
is the largest landslide dam induced by the Ms 8.0 Wenchuan Earthquake (Zhang,
2009). The landslide dam is located at 3.5 km upstream of Beichuan Town and about
85 km upstream of Mianyang City. The elevation of the bottom of the dam is 666 m,
50 m higher than that of Beichuan Town and 216 m higher than Mianyang. The steep
slope of the river makes the flood reach the towns downstream quickly (Liu 2008).

GeoFlorida 2010

2192

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG on 04/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design

(GSP 199) 2010 ASCE

Fig. 1. Tangjiashan Landslide Dam

Landslide dams have no channelized spillway or other protected outlet;
consequently, landslide dams commonly fail by overtopping, followed by breaching
from erosion by the overflowing water (Costa and Schuster 1988). Once breaching
occurs in Tangjiashan Landslide Dam, more than 1.3 million people in the
downstream areas would be threatened. This paper aims at evaluating the influenced
area, the population at risk, and the potential fatalities that can be resulted from the
breaching of Tangjiashan Landslide Dam, as well as the effect of several important
factors such as breach size and warning time.
Ayyaswamy (1974) studied casualty risk from dam break induced by
earthquakes, and suggested an analysis method based on experience and judgment
(McClelland 2002). Brown & Graham (1988) suggested a model to calculate the loss
of lives (LOL) with parameters of warning time (WT) and population at risk (PAR),
based on statistical data. Later on, DeKay & McClelland (1993) suggested a more
advanced dimensionless model with an additional parameter of flood force (i.e. the
severity of flood). From another angle, Abe et al. (1989), Karvonen et al. (2000), and
Lind & Hartford (2000) experimentally studied the stability of people at different
water depths and velocities. However, it is difficult to evaluate the loss of lives as we
cannot treat people who lose stability in water as fatalities in the physical model, or
take all the people downstream as PAR. In order to efficiently estimate the potential
risk of people downstream of a landslide dam and to select a reasonable warning
time, a combined model of the methods of Dekay & McClelland and Lind &
Hartford is selected to evaluate the potential fatalities in this paper, aided with
analyses of flood routing from the breach.
BREACHING PARAMETERS
Tangjiashan Landslide Dam was formed on 12 May 2008. After on-site
investigation, the government decided to lower the water level by excavating a
discharge channel starting from 23 May 2008. At that time, the lake water level was
720 m with a volume of 110 million m3. By 1 June 2008, the Chinese Army Corps
completed the excavation of the channel, with a length of 475 m, width of 25 m and

GeoFlorida 2010

2193

GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design

(GSP 199) 2010 ASCE

680

Dam site
Beichuan City

Elevation (m)

640

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG on 04/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2194

600

Tongkou Town
Hanzeng Town

560

Qinlian Town
Longfeng Town
Mianyang City

520
480

Shima Town

440
400
0

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Distance to dam site (km)

Fig. 2. Locations of influenced area

depth of 12 m. The channel lowered the crest elevation from 752 m to 740 m,
reduced the water volume form 316 million m3 to 247 million m3.
The water level arrived 740 m at 7:08 am of 7 June, with a flow rate less than
3
1 m /s. The flow rate increased rapidly in the early morning of 10 June: 497 m3/s at
7:42 am, 2190 m3/s at 10:00 am, and 6500 m3/s at 11:30 am. The locations of seven
towns downstream the dam are shown in Fig. 2. No fatality was caused in the dambreaching event because of early warning and mass evacuation, although the water
level increased more than 7 m at Beichuan Town. The flood arrived at Mianyang, the
second largest city in Sichuan Province, with a peak flow of 7110 m3/s at 17:18 of 10
June. There was not much damage in Mianyang City, as the design flood defense
standards are 10800 m3/s for 20-year returned floods, 13000 m3/s for 50-year
returned floods, and 14600 m3/s for 100-year returned floods (Liu 2008).
There was a public panic when such a big landslide dam was found upstream
of Beichuan (3.5 km) and Mianyang (85 km). Would the landslide dam break? How
large the peak flow rate would be? How many people would be at risk? How many
fatalities would be caused at different warning times, if the discharge channel had not
been built? This paper attempts to find answers to these questions.
Three cases are studied here: the real case, the case with medium erodibility
of the landslide dam, and the upper bound of 75% confidential interval of the
medium erodibility case. After a regression analysis with 51 landslide dam cases with
the assumption of trapezoid breach shape, we obtained equations for estimating the
breaching parameters as follows:
Bd / hr = 0.031( H d / hr ) 0.859 (Vd 1/ 3 / hr ) 0.216 (Vl1/ 3 / hr ) 0.139 e a

(1)

Wt / hr = 2.440( H d / hr )0.671 (Vd 1/ 3 / hr ) 0.882 (Vl1/ 3 / hr ) 0.842 eb

(2)

Wb / Bd = 1.182 0.042 H d / hr + 0.00029(Vd 1/ 3 / hr ) + 0.006(Vl1/ 3 / hr ) + c

(3)

Tb / tr = 0.621( H d / hr ) 0.949 (Vd 1/ 3 / hr ) -0.143 (Vl1/ 3 / hr )1.093 e d

(4)

where Bd is breach depth; hr is a reference height equal to 1 m; Hd is height of

GeoFlorida 2010

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG on 04/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design

(GSP 199) 2010 ASCE

2195

landslide dam; Vd is volume of landslide dam; Vl is volume of landslide lake; Wt is

top width of breach; Wb is bottom width of breach; Tb is breach time; and tr is a
reference time equal to 1 hour. The values of a, b, c and d are erodibility coefficients.
a is 3.916 for high erodibility and 3.615 for medium erodibility; b is 1.809 for high
erodibility and 0.824 for medium erodibility; c is 5.008 for high erodibility and 2.810
for medium erodibility; and d is 0.534 for high erodibility and 0.729 for medium
erodibility. Three cases of breaching parameters are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Three cases of breaching parameters
Item

Real case

Top width (m)

Bottom width (m)
Breach depth (m)
Breaching time (h)
Elevation of breach (m)

145-235
80-100
30
14
740

Medium erodibility
case
184.5
84.6
37.5
11.0
752

75% upper bound of the

medium erodibility case
387.2
120.7
61.0
4.9
752

FLOOD ROUTING SIMULATION

HEC-RAS 4.0 (Institute for Water Resources 2008) is used for hydraulic
simulation of both dam breaching progression and flood routing. Dam break and dike
break can be simulated given such breaching parameters as breach size, breaching
duration, and breaching progression.
For simulating breaching progression, three cases are studied as shown in
Table 1. In the real case, the dam breached 47 hours (from 7:08 of t June to around
6:00 am of 9 June) after the water level reached elevation 740 m (the threshold of the
discharge channel). While in the latter two cases, no discharge channel is considered,
and it is assumed that the dam breaches 47 hours after the water level reaches
elevation 752 m, which is the lowest part of the natural crest of the dam.
For flood routing simulation, 5303 cross sections are selected in the river
downstream of dam site, 26 of which have detailed elevation and distance data (Liu
2008). Mannings n values for both channel and floodplains are based on Chow
(1959). Typical values for contraction and expansion coefficients referred to HECRAS Reference Manual (Institute for Water Resources 2008).
Figs. 3-5 show the flow processes at three locations in the three cases. From
the results in these figures, we can observe that:
(1) The peak flow rate in the medium erodibility case is much larger than that in the
real case, and the breaching time is slightly shorter than that in the real case. One
of the reasons is that the lake elevation in the medium erodibility case is 752 m,
while that of the real case was 740 m. In addition, the erodibility of the dam is
not uniform, with the deep layers being low erodibility materials.
(2) The peak flow rate is very sensitive to breaching time. In the third case, with the
same water level as the second case, the peak flow rate is more than triple.
(3) The time for flood travelling becomes shorter as the peak flow rate increases.
This is because the velocity of flow becomes larger. Thus, earlier warning is

GeoFlorida 2010

GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design

(GSP 199) 2010 ASCE

2196

7000

Dam site

Flow rate (m3/s)

6000

Tongkou Town
Mianyang City

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
6/10
5:00

6/10
7:00

6/10 6/10 6/10 6/10 6/10 6/10 6/10 6/10 6/11

9:00 11:00 13:00 15:00 17:00 19:00 21:00 23:00 1:00
Time

6/11
3:00

6/11
5:00

Fig. 3. Flow rates in the real case

12000

Dam site
Tongkou Town

Flow rate (m3/s)

10000

Mianyang City

8000
6000
4000
2000
0
6/16 6/17
23:00 1:00

6/17
3:00

6/17
5:00

6/17
7:00

6/17 6/17 6/17 6/17 6/17 6/17 6/17 6/17

9:00 11:00 13:00 15:00 17:00 19:00 21:00 23:00
Time

Fig. 4. Flow rates in the medium erodibility case

40000

Dam site

35000
Flow rate (m3/s)

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG on 04/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

needed for larger peak flow rate cases.

(4) The flood in Mianyang City takes a longer time to fade than that at the dam site
and Tongkou Town due to the lower flow velocity. The peak flow rate in
Mianyang is smaller.

Tongkou Town

30000

Mianyang City

25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
6/16 6/17
22:00 0:00

6/17
2:00

6/17
4:00

6/17
6:00

6/17 6/17 6/17 6/17 6/17 6/17 6/17 6/17

8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00
Time

Fig. 5. Flow rates in the 75% upper confidence level case

GeoFlorida 2010

GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design

(GSP 199) 2010 ASCE

2197

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG on 04/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL LOSS OF LIFE CAUSED BY BREACHING OF

TANGJIASHAN LANDSLIDE DAM
Dekay and McClelland (1993) suggested a model to calculate the loss of life
based on a regression analysis of 29 flooding cases. Three parameters, population at
risk, warning time and flood force were selected as valuables in the model:
LOL =

1 + 13.277( PAR

0.440

PAR
(5)
) EXP[0.759(WT ) 3.790( Force) + 2.223(WT )( Force)]

where Force means the severity of flood. Equation (5) may be simplified by
substituting zero or 1.0 for force. In the equations that follow, HF stands for High
Force and LF stands for Low force (DeKay 1993).
If the PAR is located in a canyon, where the floodwater is likely to be very
deep and swift, Force equals 1.0, and equation (5) reduces to the following:
LOLHF =

1 + 13.277( PARHF )

PARHF
EXP[2.982(WTHF ) 3.790]

0.440

(6)

On the other hand, if the PAR is located on a plain, where the floodwater is
likely to be shallow and slow, Force equals zero, and equation (5) reduces to:
LOLLF =

PARLF
1 + 13.277( PARLF ) 0.440 EXP[0.759(WTLF )]

(7)

Two problems need to be solved. The first one is the value of PAR, which is
not equal to the total population. The second problem is about the WT, which is
difficult to obtain in the real situation.
In order to obtain PAR, another physically-based human-water interaction
model (Lind 2000) for human beings to stay stable in a flow is introduced. The
human body is modeled mechanically by a rigid solid circular cylinder of a uniform
density equal to the density of water. The model human stands on a thin, weightless
rigid foot that protrudes a distance downstream from the center of gravity of the body.
Based on experimental data of Abt et al. (1989), and Karvonen et al. (2000), the
critical conditions of water depth, h, and velocity, v, to maintain human stability in
water flow were obtained. hvcr ranges from 0.65 to 2.13 m2/s with a sample mean
of 1.22 m2/sec and a COV of 0.27. In this case, 1.22 m2/s is selected as the critical
condition of human stability.
Two assumptions are made to deal with PAR. First, people who cannot stay
stably in water flow are at risk. Second, the population is uniformly distributed from
the river bank to a certain distance depending on terrain conditions. After simulations
using HEC-RAS, data of water depth and velocity can be obtained in both the
floodplain and the main channel in one cross section, as shown in Fig. 6.

GeoFlorida 2010

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG on 04/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design

(GSP 199) 2010 ASCE

2198

Fig. 6. Principles for calculating PAR

The water level is higher than the river banks in Fig. 6. The population is
assumed to be uniformly distributed in the floodplains. In that case, not all the people
in the area covered by water are at risk but only those who lose their stability. After
calculating the critical condition for people to stay stable in water using the model of
Lind (2000), we can get the critical depths in the floodplain. The people in the area
with depths larger than the critical depth are at risk. PAR can be obtained by:
PAR =

AreaPAR
Population
AreaWhole

(8)

With the methods introduced in the previous sections, we can calculate the
potential LOL in the three different cases. Before doing so, we have one problem
unsolved, which is the warning time, WT. In the real case, warning time was as long
as several days, so no LOL happened along the river downstream. In this paper, three
cases are assumed for warning time: time from the start of breaching, time when the
peak flow occurs at the dam site, and no warning time. The results of loss of lives in
the three cases are shown in Tables 2-4, respectively.
Table 2. Loss of lives in the real case with different warning times

Location

Population
PAR
(person) (person)

Beichuan
Tongkou
Hanzeng
Qianlian
Longfeng
Shima
Mianyang

30000
7300
10000
16300
15000
20500
1127000

14926
0
0
903
1484
0
0

Total

1226100

17312

Warning at start Warning when peak

of breach
flow occurs at dam site
WT
(h)
7.83
8.67
8.83
9.33
9.83
10.33
10.67

LOL
(person)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

GeoFlorida 2010

WT
(h)
0.17
1.00
1.17
1.67
2.17
2.67
3.00

LOL
(person)
428
0
0
1
0
0
0
430

No warning
WT
(h)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

LOL
(person)
691
0
0
129
175
0
0
996

GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design

(GSP 199) 2010 ASCE

2199

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG on 04/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 3. Loss of lives in the medium erodibility case with different warning
times

Location

Population
(person)

PAR
(person)

Beichuan
Tongkou
Hanzeng
Qianlian
Longfeng
Shima
Mianyang
Total

30000
7300
10000
16300
15000
20500
1127000
1226100

25578
974
1764
3750
4276
2351
0
38693

Warning at start Warning when peak

of breach
flow occurs at dam site

No warning

WT
(h)

LOL
(person)

WT
(h)

LOL
(person)

WT
(h)

LOL
(person)

5.25
5.83
6.17
6.67
7.17
7.50
8.00

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.08
0.67
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.33
2.67

742
21
11
4
1
0
0
779

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

944
135
195
307
332
232
0
2145

Table 4. Loss of lives in the upper bound of 75% confidence level, medium
erodibility case

Location

Population
PAR
(person) (person)

Beichuan
Tongkou
Hanzeng
Qianlian
Longfeng
Shima
Mianyang

30000
7300
10000
16300
15000
20500
1127000

30000
3965
7526
11607
11611
9521
130921

Total

1226100

205151

Warning at start Warning when peak

of breach
flow occurs at dam site
WT
(h)
2.38
3.00
2.72
3.83
4.33
4.67
5.00

LOL
(person)
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
2

WT
(h)
0.05
0.67
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.33
2.50

LOL
(person)
896
47
25
7
2
1
0
977

No warning
WT
(h)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

LOL
(person)
1035
317
464
597
597
532
55
3598

From the results in the three tables, the following observations can be made:
(1) The PAR is very sensitive to the peak flow rate. It changes from 17312 people in
the real case, to 38693 people in the second case and 205151 people in the third
case, with the peak flow rates being 6526 m3/s, 10840 m3/s, and 35470 m3/s,
respectively.
(2) The LOL is quite sensitive to the warning time. If the warning time is sufficient,
very few LOL might occur, whereas the LOL becomes very large if no warning
time is available. In the real case, the Beichuan Town was severely flooded, but
no casualty was caused because the PAR was evacuated ahead of time.
(3) Even if there is no warning time, the fatality rate (LOL/PAR) is still just 1.75% in
the third case. That may be because a large number of people are located far
away from the dam site and in the low force (plain) areas.

GeoFlorida 2010

GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design

(GSP 199) 2010 ASCE

(4) There is no PAR in Mianyang in the first two cases, because the peak flow rates
from the dam breach are smaller than the 100-year-return flood rate of 14600
m3/s in Mianyang.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG on 04/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

CONCLUSIONS
Tangjiashan Landslide Dam is the largest one induced by the Ms 8.0
Wenchuan Earthquake, which threats more than 1.3 million people downstream.
Attempting to find the consequences of failure when breaching starts with a
discharge channel and when breaching starts in a natural way, three breach sizes are
studied in this paper. The analysis is divided into three steps. First, different
breaching progressions are obtained based on three sets of breaching parameters.
Second, flood routing for the three cases is simulated using a river hydraulic program,
which provides flow rate, flow velocity, and water depth in the inundation zone.
Finally, potential loss of lives is estimated based on a combined model, and detailed
results at seven locations are tabulated.
Based on the results of simulation, the peak flow rate is sensitive to the
erodibility of landslide dams, as the breach size would increase and the breaching
time would decrease with a higher erodibility. The PAR is affected by peak flow rate,
as a larger area would be submerged, and deeper water and faster water flow would
occur associated with a larger peak flow rate. The LOL is significantly influenced by
the warning time. If enough warning time is given, the LOL could be very small or
even zero. For Tangjiashan Landslide Dam, the peak flow rate would be much larger,
and the potential loss of lives would be much more if the discharge channel was not
excavated.
There was no casualty in the real case due to the excavation of the discharge
channel to reduce the water level, sufficient warning time, and effective evacuation.
Yet it is meaningful to evaluate the risks in some possible cases involving different
warning times. The quantitative risk analysis for Tangjiashan Landslide Dam
provides a better understanding what would happen if another similar landslide dam
event occurs.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research was substantially supported by the State Key Laboratory of
Geohazard Prevention & Geoenvironment Protection (2008CB425801), the National
Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 50828901), and the Hong Kong University
of Science and Technology (PRC06/07.EG19). Special thanks are due to Mr. Fan Liu
and Mr. Dongsheng Chang for providing information about several landslide dams
caused by the Wenchuan Earthquake, and Mr. Yao Xu for useful discussions.
REFERENCES
Abt, S.R., Wittler, R.J., Taylor, A., and Love, D.J. (1989). Human stability in a high
flood hazard zone. Water Resources Bulletin, 25(4), 881-890.

GeoFlorida 2010

2200

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG on 04/26/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design

(GSP 199) 2010 ASCE

Ayyaswamy, P., Hauss, B., Hseih, T., Moscati, A., Hicks, T. E., and Okrent., D.
(1974). Estimates of the risks associated with dam failure. School of
Engineering and Applied Science, University of California, Los Angeles,
California. 375 p.
Brown, C.A., and Graham, W.J. (1988). Assessing the threat to life from dam
failure. Water Resources Bulletin, 24, 1303-1309.
Chow, V.T., (1959). Open Channel Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill Book Company, NY.
Costa, J. E., and Schuster, R. L. (1988). The formation and failure of natural dams.
Geological Society of America Bulletin, 100, 105468.
DeKay, M.L., and McClelland, G.H. (1993). Predicting loss of life in cases of dam
failure and flash flood. Risk Analysis, 13(2), 193-205.
Institute for Water Resources of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2008). Users
Manual of HEC-RAS River Analysis System Version 4.0.
Karvonen, T., Hepojoki, A., Huhta, H.K., and Louhio, A. (2000). The Use of Physical
Models in Dam-Break Analysis. RESCDAM Final Report, Helsinki University
of Technology, Helsinki, Finland.
Lind, N., Hartford, D., Assaf, H. (2004) Hydrodynamic models of human instability
in a flood. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 40(1), 89-96.
Liu, F. (2008) The simulation of one-dimensional dam breach and emergency
calculation of the Sichuan quake lake Bachelor thesis, Tsinghua University,
Beijing. (in Chinese)
Liu, N. (2008). Landslide dams in Wenchuan earthquake and risk mitigation
measures. Keynote lecture, Forum on Earthquake Relief vs. Science and
Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 25 July 2008, Chengdu, China.
McClelland, D.M. and Bowles, D.S. (2002) Estimating life loss for dam safety risk
assessment-a review and new approach. IWR Report 02-R-3, Institute for
Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Zhang, L.M. (2009). Challenges in multi-hazard risk assessment and management:
Geohazard chain in Beichuan Town caused by Great Wenchuan Earthquake.
Geotechnical Risk and Safety, Taylor and Francis Group, London, 237-244.

GeoFlorida 2010

2201