...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Australian Geomechanics >LANDSLIDE RISK MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS AND GUIDELINES AUSTRALIAN GEOMECHANICS VOLUME 35, No. 1 RESPONSE TO DISCUSSION BY G. POWELL
【24h】

LANDSLIDE RISK MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS AND GUIDELINES AUSTRALIAN GEOMECHANICS VOLUME 35, No. 1 RESPONSE TO DISCUSSION BY G. POWELL

机译：滑坡风险管理概念和指南澳大利亚地质力学第35卷第1期对G. Powell的讨论

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

(a) Our Guidelines are directed primarily at skilled practicing geotechnical professionals. We are expecting that the IE Aust/AGS Landslide Taskforce will prepare guidelines for Slope Management and which will be presented in a format more readily used by owners and regulators.(b) Example reports -Example 1. This is a useful example, which could have been readily quantified for loss of life and damage, and hence enabled evaluation relative to acceptance criteria rather than simply accepting "No risk". Example 2. The approach taken produced an apparently good outcome, to what appears to have been a fairly obvious case of relatively high risk. If the parties had not agreed to temporary support on the grounds the risk level had not been demonstrated, a quantitative approach would have assisted. Example 3. In the first table, the risk levels are arbitrary and not quantified, and there is no "acceptable" criteria i.e. Is remedial work needed on risk levels 1 to 6 inclusive, or only 1 to 4. Our experience is that such simple index schemes have greater limitations when loss of life is involved. In the second table, loss of life is ignored even though it is clearly an issue. It is specifically because of this sort of approach that we recommend life loss be considered in all assessments. The highway authority may be quite satisfied with the potential, for example, of a low likelihood of large damage, but the loss of life risks to society could be well beyond normally accepted limits. Since the likelihood had been quantified, it would be relatively straightforward to complete the quantitative analysis. Example 4. The argument that a risk based quantification would have been misleading assumes the person doing the assessment would have ignored what is apparently vital information. There is no reason why that should be the case. Again there is no mention of loss of life, which may have been the critical issue.
机译：（a）我们的准则主要针对熟练的岩土专业人员。我们期望IE Aust / AGS滑坡工作组将准备坡度管理指南，并将以业主和监管机构更易于使用的格式进行介绍。（b）示例报告-示例1。这是一个有用的示例，可以已经对生命损失和损失进行了量化，因此可以相对于接受标准进行评估，而不是简单地接受“无风险”。例2：所采取的方法产生了明显良好的结果，似乎是相对较高风险的相当明显的情况。如果当事双方没有以没有证明风险水平为由同意临时支持，则定量方法将有所帮助。例3.在第一张表中，风险水平是任意的并且不能量化，并且没有“可接受的”标准，即是否需要对1至6级（包括1至4级）风险进行补救工作，我们的经验是如此简单当涉及生命损失时，索引方案具有更大的局限性。在第二张表中，虽然显然是一个问题，但生命的损失被忽略了。正是由于这种方法，我们建议在所有评估中都考虑到生命损失。公路当局可能对例如发生大破坏的可能性很小的潜力感到非常满意，但是对社会造成的生命损失可能远远超出通常可接受的范围。由于可能性已经量化，因此完成定量分析将相对简单。例4.关于基于风险的量化会产生误导的论点是，假设进行评估的人会忽略明显重要的信息。没有理由应该如此。再次没有提到生命丧失，这可能是关键问题。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号