4.4 Article

Hydraulic model tests for propagation of flow and sediment in floods due to breaking of a natural landslide dam during a mountainous torrent

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SEDIMENT RESEARCH
Volume 33, Issue 2, Pages 107-116

Publisher

IRTCES
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsrc.2017.10.001

Keywords

Propagation of water and sediment; Debris flow; Flash flood; Hydraulic model tests; Flow width

Ask authors/readers for more resources

During mountain torrents, large-magnitude floods may result from heavy rainfall and cause the breakage of landslide dams naturally formed by heavy rainfall, earthquakes, and so on. The characteristics of longitudinal spreading of clear water discharge and changes in flow depth must be clarified because the changes in peak depth have not yet been examined in steep-slope torrents and because there are few data on spreading of flash floods and related sedimentation in mountainous torrents. In the present study, experimental data were collected through hydraulic model tests over a rigid bed, and the spreading of water, fine sediment, bed load, and large boulders due to flooding are discussed assuming that flash flooding/debris flows occur in the upstream reach. The effects of changes in flow width, such as expansions and contractions in the flow width, as well as changes in meandering channels, sediment transportation, and spreading flow depth resulting from bores are examined using flume data for a steep-slope torrent. The data obtained in the present study reveal that fine sediment components are transported to the downstream reach if large-magnitude floods occur and that the spreading rate and peak lags of the fine sediment and water level indicate the occurrence of a flood in the upstream reach. (C) 2017 International Research and Training Centre on Erosion and Sedimentation/the World Association for Sedimentation and Erosion Research. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available