4.6 Article

River-Blocking Risk Analysis of the Bageduzhai Landslide Based on Static-Dynamic Simulation

Journal

WATER
Volume 15, Issue 21, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/w15213739

Keywords

landslide; numerical simulation; stability analysis; dynamics; SPH

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study analyzed the risk of landslides blocking rivers using static analysis and dynamic simulation. The research found that under high-intensity rainfall conditions, the instability volume and sliding surface depth of the landslide were significantly larger compared to ordinary rainfall conditions.
Landslides blocking rivers in alpine canyon areas can cause great harm. Taking the Bageduzhai landslide on the southeastern margin of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau as an example, the risk of landslides blocking rivers is analyzed by static analysis and dynamic simulation. Through onsite investigation, it is found that the Bageduzhai landslide is a traction-falling landslide, and there are two sliding surfaces: deep and shallow. Through static analysis of the stability of the Bageduzhai landslide under ordinary rainfall conditions and high-intensity rainfall conditions, the sliding surface position is obtained. On this basis, the smooth particle hydrodynamics method is used to analyze the movement process and accumulation form of the landslide under different working conditions. The analysis results show that the instability volume and sliding surface depth of the landslide under ordinary rainfall conditions are significantly smaller than those under high-intensity rainfall conditions. The instability volume and sliding surface depth under ordinary rainfall conditions can reach 31 m. The river-blocking depth under extreme rainfall conditions can exceed 65 m. The research results provide theoretical support for the risk analysis of the potential river-blocking disaster of the Bageduzhai landslide.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available