EDP Sciences logo
Subscriber Authentication Point
Search
Menu
Home Home (en) All issues No 163 (2020) Rev. Fr. Geotech., 163 (2020) 7 References
Free Access
Issue
Rev. Fr. Geotech.
Number 163, 2020
Chutes de bloc, Risques Rocheux et Ouvrages de Protection (C2ROP)
Article Number 7
Number of page(s) 9
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/geotech/2020016
Published online 02 October 2020
  • Agliardi F, Crosta GB, Frattini P. 2009. Integrating rockfall risk assessment and countermeasure design by 3D modelling techniques. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9(4): 1059–1073. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Arnalds P, Jónasson K, Sigurõsson S. 2004. Avalanche hazard zoning in Iceland based on individual risk. Ann Glaciol 38: 285–290. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Assali P. 2015. Modélisation géostructurale 3D de parois rocheuses par lasergrammétrie et photogrammétrie terrestres en milieu ferroviaire. Bull Eng Geol Environ 74(4): 1255–1265. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Aven T. The reconceptualization of risk. In: Routledge handbook of risk studies. Routledge, 2016, pp. 76–90. [Google Scholar]
  • Badoux A, Andres N, Techel F, Hegg C. 2016. Natural hazard fatalities in switzerland from 1946 to 2015. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 16(12): 2747–2768. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Beniston M, Farinotti D, Stoffel M, et al. 2018. The european mountain cryosphere: a review of its current state, trends, and future challenges. Cryosphere 12(2): 759–794. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bernier J. 2003. Décisions et comportement des décideurs face au risque hydrologique. Hydrol Sci J 48(3): 301–316. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Coles S. 2001. An introduction to statistical modeling of extreme values. In: Springer series in statistics. London: Springer. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Corominas J, Copons R, Moya J, Vilaplana JM, Altimir J, Amigó J. 2005. Quantitative assessment of the residual risk in a rockfall protected area. Landslides 2(4): 343–357. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Corominas J, Matas G, Ruiz-Carulla R. 2019. Quantitative analysis of risk from fragmental rockfalls. Landslides 16(1): 5–21. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Corominas J, van Westen C, Frattini P, et al. 2014. Recommendations for the quantitative analysis of landslide risk. Bull Eng Geol Environ 73: 209–263. [Google Scholar]
  • Cruden D, Varnes DJ. 1996. Landslide types and processes. Special Report − National Research Council, Transportation Research Board 247: 36–75. [Google Scholar]
  • De Biagi V, Napoli ML, Barbero M, Peila D. 2017. Estimation of the return period of rockfall blocks according to their size. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 17(1): 103–113. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Dorren L. 2012. Rockyfor3d (v5.1) revealed − Transparent description of the complete 3d rockfall model. EcorisQ paper: 32. [Google Scholar]
  • Eckert N, Keylock C, Bertrand D, et al. 2012. Quantitative risk and optimal design approaches in the snow avalanche field: review and extensions. Cold Reg Sci Technol 79–80: 1–19. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Eckert N, Naaim M, Giacona F, et al. 2018. Repenser les fondements du zonage règlementaire des risques en montagne « récurrents ». La Houille Blanche (2): 38–67. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Eckert N, Parent E, Faug T, Naaim M. 2008. Optimal design under uncertainty of a passive defense structure against snow avalanches: from a general Bayesian framework to a simple analytical model. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 8(5): 1067–1081. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Eckert N, Parent E, Faug T, Naaim M. 2009. Bayesian optimal design of an avalanche dam using a multivariate numerical avalanche model. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 23(8): 1123–1141. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Embrechts P, Klüppelberg C, Mikosch T. 1997. Modelling extremal events. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Emmer S, Kratz M, Tasche D. 2015. What is the best risk measure in practice? A comparison of standard measures. J Risk 18(2): 31–60. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Farvacque M. 2020. Évaluation quantitative du risque rocheux : de la formalisation à l’application sur les linéaires et les zones urbanisées. Ph.D. thesis. Université Grenoble Alpes (ComUE). [Google Scholar]
  • Farvacque M, Lopez-Saez J, Corona C, Toe D, Bourrier F, Eckert N. 2019a. How is rockfall risk impacted by land-use and land-cover changes? insights from the french alps. Glob Planet Change 174: 138–152. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Farvacque M, Lopez-Saez J, Corona C, Toe D, Bourrier F, Eckert N. 2019b. Quantitative risk assessment in a rockfall-prone area: the case study of the Crolles municipality (Massif de la Chartreuse, French Alps). Geomorphol Relief Process Environ 25(1): 7–19. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Favier P, Eckert N, Bertrand D, Naaim M. 2014. Sensitivity of avalanche risk to vulnerability relations. Cold Reg Sci Technol 108: 163–177. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Favier P, Eckert N, Faug T, Bertrand D, Naaim M. 2016. Avalanche risk evaluation and protective dam optimal design using extreme value statistics. J Glaciol 62(234): 725–749. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Ferrari F, Giacomini A, Thoeni K. 2016. Qualitative rockfall hazard assessment: a comprehensive review of current practices. Rock Mech Rock Eng 49(7): 2865–2922. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • García-Hernández C, Ruiz-Fernández J, Sánchez-Posada C, Pereira S, Oliva M, Vieira G. 2017. Reforestation and land use change as drivers for a decrease of avalanche damage in mid-latitude mountains (NW Spain). Glob Planet Change 153: 35–50. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Guerra M, Centeno M. 2012. Are quantile risk measures suitable for risk-transfer decisions? Insur Math Econ 50(3): 446–461. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Hantz D. 2010. Évaluation quantitative de l’aléa d’éboulement en pied de falaise. In: Journées nationales de géotechnique et de géologie de l’ingénieur, Grenoble. [Google Scholar]
  • Hantz D. 2011. Quantitative assessment of diffuse rock fall hazard along a cliff foot. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 11(5): 1303–1309. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Haque U, Blum P, da Silva PF, et al. 2016. Fatal landslides in europe. Landslides 13(6): 1545–1554. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Hungr O, Evans S, Hazzard J. 1999. Magnitude and frequency of rock falls and rock slides along the main transportation corridors of southwestern british columbia. Can Geotech J 36(2): 224–238. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Jonkman S, van Gelder P, Vrijling J. 2003. An overview of quantitative risk measures for loss of life and economic damage. J Hazard Mater 99(1): 1–30. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Lopez-Saez J, Corona C, Eckert N, Stoffel M, Bourrier F, Berger F. 2016. Impacts of land-use and land-cover changes on rockfall propagation: insights from the Grenoble conurbation. Sci Total Environ 547: 345–355. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Loye A, Jaboyedoff M, Pedrazzini A. 2009. Identification of potential rockfall source areas at a regional scale using a DEM-based geomorphometric analysis. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9(5): 1643–1653. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Mavrouli O, Corominas J. 2010. Rockfall vulnerability assessment for reinforced concrete buildings. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 10(10): 2055–2066. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • McNeil AJ, Frey R, Embrechts P. Quantitative risk management: concepts, techniques and tools. In: Princeton series in finance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2015, revised edition. OCLC: ocn894625411. [Google Scholar]
  • Michoud C, Derron MH, Horton P, et al. 2012. Rockfall hazard and risk assessments along roads at a regional scale: example in Swiss Alps. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 12(3): 615–629. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Moos C, Fehlmann M, Trappmann D, Stoffel M, Dorren L. 2017. Integrating the mitigating effect of forests into quantitative rockfall risk analysis − Two case studies in Switzerland. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 32: 55–74. [Google Scholar]
  • Renn O. 2008a. Concepts of risk: an interdisciplinary review − part 2: integrative approaches. GAIA Ecol Perspect Sci Soc 17(2): 196–204. [Google Scholar]
  • Renn O. 2008b. Concepts of risk: an interdisciplinary review part 1: disciplinary risk concepts. GAIA Ecol Perspect Sci Soc 17(1): 50–66. [Google Scholar]
  • United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. 2019. Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction 2019. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (GAR). Geneva: UN. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Varnes D. 1978. Slope movement types and processes. In: Schuster RL, Krizek RJ, eds. Special Report 176. − Landslides: analysis and control, Transp. Res. Board. Washington, DC: National Research Council, pp. 11–33. [Google Scholar]
  • Zheng K, Albert LA. 2019. A robust approach for mitigating risks in cyber supply chains: a robust approach for mitigating risks in cyber supply chains. Risk Anal 39(9). [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.