Preview

GEOGRAPHY, ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY

Advanced search

Specific Features Of Geological Risk Assessment In Moscow

https://doi.org/10.24057/2071-9388-2019-85

Full Text:

Abstract

The paper describes approaches to assessing geohazards and georisk of economic losses in Moscow. It is shown that for surface construction, the principle geohazards in Moscow are karst-suffosion sinkholes, land subsidence, landslides, and waterlogging. The subsurface construction is endangered by karstification and fracturing of limestone, decompaction, and swelling of clay, quicksand phenomena, and groundwater breakthrough to tunnels. The different procedures for the assessment of geological risk in Moscow have been suggested for already existing urban infrastructure and for future planned construction. For existing surface urban infrastructure, geological risk is considered to be an integral parameter of probable damage caused by geohazards and the anthropogenic load on the specific territories. The main aim of risk mapping in this case is outlining the territories, for which restrictions and prohibitions should be imposed for further urban engineering development. For future subsurface urban construction, the risk-analysis consists in assessing the impact of geohazards on the engineering structure by comparing the future expenditures for the construction and operation under different engineering geological conditions. The procedures of risk mapping elaborated for both approaches are described; the typification schemes are listed; and the relevant risk maps built for the Moscow territory are provided. The risk maps will help planners to compare and make alternative project decisions in order to minimize the cost in future economic expenditures. Both approaches are successfully approved in Moscow.

About the Authors

Irina V. Kozliakova
Sergeev Institute of Environmental Geoscience, Russian Academy of Sciences (IEG RAS)
Russian Federation

Ulansky per. 13, str.2, Moscow,101000



Olga N. Eremina
Sergeev Institute of Environmental Geoscience, Russian Academy of Sciences (IEG RAS)
Russian Federation

Ulansky per. 13, str.2, Moscow,101000



Nadezhda G. Anisimova
Sergeev Institute of Environmental Geoscience, Russian Academy of Sciences (IEG RAS)
Russian Federation

Ulansky per. 13, str.2, Moscow,101000



Irina A. Kozhevnikova
Sergeev Institute of Environmental Geoscience, Russian Academy of Sciences (IEG RAS)
Russian Federation

Ulansky per. 13, str.2, Moscow,101000



References

1. Admiraal H. and Cornaro A. (2016). Why underground space should be included in urban planning policy – And how this will enhance an urban underground future, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 55, pp. 214-220.

2. Bell F.G., Culshaw M.G., Forster A., and Nathanail C.P. (2009). The engineering geology of the Nottingham area, UK. In: Culshaw, M.G., Reeves H.J., Jefferson, I., and Spink, T.W. (eds.) 2009. Engineering geology for tomorrow’s cities. Geological Society, London, Engineering Geology Special Publications, 22, pp. 1-24.

3. Blong R. (2003). A new damage index. Natural Hazards, 30(1), pp.1–23

4. Bobylev N. (2009). Mainstreaming sustainable development into a City’s Master Plan: a Case of Urban Underground Space Use. Land Use Policy, 26 (4), pp. 1128-1137.

5. Bobylev N. and Sterling R. (2016). Urban underground space: a growing imperative. Perspectives and current research in planning and design for underground space Use. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, vol. 55, pp. 1 – 5.

6. Bolysov S.I., Nekhodtsev V.A., and Kharchenko S.V. (2017) Subsurface relief of Moscow. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Ser.5. Geografiya, no. 2, pp. 59-71 (in Russian)

7. Brennard T.A. (1998). Urban geology note: Oshawa Ontario. In: P.F. Karrow & O.L. White (eds.), Geological Association of Canada, special paper 42: Urban Geology of Canadian Cities, pp. 353-364.

8. Burns S. (2015). Urban landslides: challenges for forensic engineering geologists and engineers. In: Lollino G., et al (Eds.), Engineering geology for society and territory, Vol. 5, Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, pp. 3-11.

9. Campbell D. et al. (2017). Transforming the relationships between geoscientists and urban decision-makers: European cost sub-urban action (TU1206). Procedia Engineering, no. 209, pp. 4–11.

10. Cascini L. and Ferlisi S. (2014). Introduction to the thematic set of papers on the quantitative analysis of landslide risk. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environmn, vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 207-208.

11. Cavaleiro V.M., Rodrigues-Carvalho J.H.A. and Gomes L.F. (2009). Geotechnical mapping in the area of Covilha, Portugal. A method using GIS. In: Culshaw, M.G., Reeves, H.J. Jefferson, I. and Spink, T.W (eds.) Engineering Geology for Tomorrow’s Cities. Geological Society, London, Engineering Geology Special Publication, 22, on CD-rom insert, paper 211

12. Chatterjee B. (2006). Engineering geological aspect for urban development in three capital cities in North Eastern India. In: Engineering Geology for Tomorrow’s Cities. IAEG 2006, 6-10 Sept., CD-rom, paper no. 3-833.

13. Clayton С.R.I. (2001). Managing geotechnical risk. London: Thomas Telford.

14. Clayton С.R.I. (2009). Urban site investigation. In: Culshaw, M.G., Reeves, H.J. Jefferson, I. and Spink, T.W (eds.) Engineering Geology for Tomorrow’s Cities. London: Geological Society, Engineering Geology Special Publication, vol. 22, pp. 15-–141.

15. Cormonias J. et al. (2014). Recommendations for the quantitative analysis of landslide risk. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 209-263.

16. Culshaw M.G. and Price S.J. (2011). The 2010 Hans Cloos Lecture. The contribution of urban geology to the development, regeneration and conservation of cities. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 333-376

17. Golodkovskaya G.A. and Lebedeva N.I. (1984). Engineering geological zoning of Moscow. Inzhenernaya geologiya (Engineering geology), no. 3, pp. 87-–102. (in Russian)

18. Kalsnes B., Nadim F., and Lacasse, S. (2010). Managing geological risk. In: Geologically active, Williams, A.L., Pinches, G.M., Chin, C.Y., McMorran, T.J., and Massey, C.I. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 11th IAEG Congress, Auckland, New Zealand, 5-10 September 2010, London: Taylor & Francis group, pp.111-126.

19. Knill J. (2003). Core values: the first Hans-Cloos lecture. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, vol. 62 (1), pp. 1-–34.

20. Koff G.L., Likhacheva E.A., and Timofeev D.A. (2006). Geoecology of Moscow: methodology and methods of assessing the urban environment state. Moscow: Media-Press (in Russian).

21. Kozlyakova I., Eremina O., Anisimova N., and Kozhevnikova I. (2016). Study of geology and Carboniferous roof topography upon engineering geological mapping of Moscow territory. In.: Developments in Engineering Geology. Eggers, M.J., Griffiths, J.S., Parry, S., Culshaw, M.G. Eds., London: Geological Society, Engineering Geology Special Publication, v. 27, pp. 45-–53, http://doi.org/10.1144/EGSP27.4

22. Kozlyakova I.V., Mironov O.K., and Eremina O.N. (2015). Engineering geological zoning of Moscow by the conditions for subsurface construction. In: Proceedings 12th IAEG Congress, Turin, Italy: Springer, 2015, vol. 5, pp. 923-–926.

23. Kutepov V.M., Anisimova N.G., Eremina O.N., Kozhevnikova I.A. and Kozlyakova I.V. (2011). The map of pre-Quaternary deposits as a base for large-scale geological mapping of Moscow territory. Geoekologiya (Environmental Geoscience), no. 5, pp. 399–411. (in Russian)

24. Kutepov V.M., Anisimova N.G., Eremina O.N., Kozlyakova I.V., and Kozhevnikova I.A. (2009). Hazardous geological processes and geoecological conditions in Moscow. In: Proc. Second Sci.-Practical Conference on Ecological and Geological Problems in Urbanized Areas, November 26-27, 2009, Yekaterinburg. Yekaterinburg, pp. 194-196. (in Russian)

25. Kutepov, V.M., Kozlyakova, I.V., Anisimova, N.G., Eremina, O.N., and Kozhevnikova, I.A. (2011). Assessment of karst and karst-suffosion hazard in the project of large-scale geological mapping in Moscow. Geoekologiya, no. 3, pp. 215-226. (in Russian)

26. Li X, Hui Xu, Congcong Li, Liping Sun, Rui Wang (2016). Study on the demand and driving factors of urban underground space use, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, vol. 55, pp. 52-58,

27. Legget R.F. (1973). Cities and geology, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.

28. Legget R.F. (1987). The value of geology in planning. In: Culshaw, M.G., Bell, F.G. Cropps, J.C., & O’Hara, M. (eds.) Planning and Engineering geology. London: Geological Society, Engineering Geology Special Publications, issue 4, pp. 53-58.

29. Marchiori-Faria D.G. and Ferreira C.J. (2006). Hazard mapping as part of civil defense preventive and contingency actions: a case study from Diadema, Brazil. In: Engineering Geology for Tomorrow’s Cities. IAEG 2006, 6-10 Sept. 2006, CD-rom, paper no. 154.

30. Marker B.R. (2009). Geology of megacitites and urban areas. Engineering Geology for Tomorrow’s Cities. Culshaw, M.G., Reeves, H.J. Jefferson, I. and Spink, T.W., Eds., Geological Society, London, Engineering Geology Special Publication, no. 22, pp. 33-48

31. Marker B.R. (2016). Urban planning: the geoscience input. In: In: Eggers, M.J., Griffiths, J.S., Parry, S & Culshgaw, M. G. (Eds.), Developments in Engineering Geology. Geological Society, London. Engineering Geology Special Publication, 27, pp. 35-43,

32. Merkin V.E., Zertsalov, M.G., Konyukhov, D.S. (2013) The concept of complex development of the Moscow subsurface at the present stage. Available at: https://undergroundexpert.info/issledovaniya-i-tehnologii/nauchnye-stati/kontseptsiya-osvoeniya-podzemnogo-prostranstva-moskvy/print/ (in Russian)

33. Mora S. (2010). Disasters should not be protagonists of Disaster Risk. In: Geologically active, Williams, A.L., Pinches, G.M., Chin, C.Y., McMorran, T.J., and Massey, C.I. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 11th IAEG Congress, Auckland, New Zealand, 5-10 September 2010, London: Taylor & Francis group, pp.89-–110.

34. Osipov V.I. (2014). Large-scale thematic geological mapping of Moscow area. In: G. Lollino et. al. (Eds.) Engineering Geology for Society and Territory. Vol. 5, Springer International Publishing Switzerland, pp. 11–16.

35. Osipov V.I. (2008). Geological conditions of Moscow urban development. Moscow: ZAO Mir, 36 p. (in Russian)

36. Osipov V.I. and Medvedev O.P. (Eds.). (1997). Moscow. Geology and the City. Moscow: Moskovskie uchebniki i kartolitografiya Publ., 400 p. (in Russian)

37. Osipov V.I., Burova V.N., and Karfidova E.A. (2017). Methodological principles of geohazard vulnerability evaluation of capital construction assets in urbanized areas. Soil mechanics and foundation engineering, vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 420–425

38. Pereyra F.X. and Rimoldi H. (2003). Geological and environmental aspects of the development of megacities: the case of Buenos Aires metropolitan area (AMBA), Argentina. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 62(4), pp. 431-351

39. Price S.J., Ford J.R., Campbell S.D.G., and Jefferson I. (2016). Urban futures: the sustainable management of the ground beneath cities. In: Eggers, M.J., Griffiths, J.S., Parry, S & Culshaw, M. G. (Eds.). Developments in Engineering Geology. Geological Society, London. Engineering Geology Special Publication, 27, pp. 19-33,

40. Price S.J., Terrington R.L., Busby J., Bricker S., Berry T. (2018). 3D ground-use optimisation for sustainable urban development planning: A case-study from Earls Court, London, UK. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, no. 81, pp. 144–164

41. Ragozin A.L. (ed.). (2003). Natural hazards of Russia. Assessment and management of natural risks. Topical vol., Moscow: KRUK, 320 p.(in Russian)

42. Ragozin A.L. and Yolkin V.A. (2006). Geological risks, formation and assessment in urbanized areas in Russia. In.: Engineering Geology for Tomorrow’s Cities. IAEG 2006, 6-10 Sept., CD-rom, paper no. 282.

43. Rauh F. Neumann P., and Bauer, M. (2008). Practical experience with geological and geotechnical risks in urban areas – insights from case studies. In: Proceedings of II European Conference of IAEG, Madrid, Spain, 15-19 September 2008 “Cities and their Underground Environment”, paper no. 124.

44. Recommendations on geological risk assessment in Moscow territory. (2002). Ragozin A.L., Ed., Moskomarkhitektura, GU GO ChS g. Moskvy. Moscow: GUP NIATs Publ. (in Russian)

45. Sergeev E.M. (1982). Geological basement of Moscow. Gorod, priroda, chelovek [City, nature, man]. Moscow: Mysl, pp. 109-142 (in Russian)

46. Sterling R., Admiraal, H., Bobylev, N., Parker, H., Godard, J.P., Vähäaho, I., Rogers, C.D.F., Shi, X., Hanamura T. (2012) Sustainability Issues for Underground Space in Urban Areas. Proceedings of the ICE -Urban Design and Planning, vol. 165, issue 4, December 2012. pp. 241–254 (14).

47. Tan B.K. (2009). Urban Geology of Kuala Lumpur and Ipoh, Malaysia. In: Culshaw, M.G., Reeves, H.J. Jefferson, I. and Spink, T.W (eds.) Engineering Geology for Tomorrow’s Cities. Geological Society, London, Engineering Geology Special Publication, 2009, 22, on CD-rom insert, paper 24

48. Taselaar F.M. and Kamphuis A. (2008). Spatial planning and the use of the underground in The Netherlands In: Proceedings of II European Conference of IAEG, Madrid, Spain, 15-19 September 2008 “Cities and their Underground Environment” CD-rom, paper no.070.

49. Thierry P. and Vinet L. (2001). Mapping an urban area prone to slope instability: Greater Lyons. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment. 2001, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 135-143.

50. Torok Akos, Xeidakis G., Kleb B., and Marinos P.G. (2006). Karst-related engineering geological hazards, a comparative study of Hungary and Greece In: Engineering Geology for Tomorrow’s Cities. IAEG 2006, 6-10 Sept. 2006, CD-rom, paper no. 4-353.

51. Tsangaratos P., Rozos D., Ilia I., and Markantonis K. (2014). The use of a spatial multi—criteria technique for urban suitability assessment, due to extensive mass movements. The case study of Vitala village, Kimi, Euboea, Greece. In: Proceedings XII IAEG Congress, Torino, vol. 5, pp. 339-345.

52. Wende W., Huelsmann W., Marty M., Penn-Bressel G., Bobylev N. (2010). Climate protection and compact urban structures in spatial planning and local construction plans in Germany. Land Use Policy, vol. 27, issue 3, pp. 864-868.

53. Zhang F., Yang Q., Jia X., Liu J., and Wang B. (2006). Land-use optimization by geological hazard assessment in Nanjing City, China. In: Engineering Geology for Tomorrow’s Cities. IAEG 2006, 6-10 Sept. 2006, CD-rom, paper no. 324.


For citation:


Kozliakova I.V., Eremina O.N., Anisimova N.G., Kozhevnikova I.A. Specific Features Of Geological Risk Assessment In Moscow. GEOGRAPHY, ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY. 2019;12(4):159-174. https://doi.org/10.24057/2071-9388-2019-85

Views: 307


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2071-9388 (Print)
ISSN 2542-1565 (Online)