4.7 Article

Numerical analysis on wave generated by the Qianjiangping landslide in Three Gorges Reservoir, China

期刊

LANDSLIDES
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 355-364

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10346-015-0564-7

关键词

Qianjiangping landslide; Impulse wave; Coupled numerical model; Solitary wave

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41372321]
  2. China Geological Survey [1212011014027]
  3. National Science and Technology Support [2012BAK10B01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Qianjiangping landslide occurred on July 13, 2003 when water level in the Three Gorges Reservoir in China reached 135 m a.s.l. for about 1 month. Thirteen people on the slope and 11 fishermen on boats in the nearby area were killed by this landslide and its wave. As a typical case, the Qianjiangping landslide is researched extensively, but the wave itself was studied much less. In this paper, a fluid-solid coupling model based on general moving objects (GMO) collision model and renormalisation group (RNG) turbulent model were employed, simplifying the sliding motion of the Qianjiangping landslide as a rigid body circular motion whose validity was verified by comparing with actual survey conditions related. Numerical simulation analysis shows that in the Qianjiangping landslide event, the solid-fluid energy-transferring rate was 5.97 %, while the motion of sliding mass could push and raise water body. The maximum-modelled wave run-up generated by the Qianjiangping landslide was 40.4 m (up to 175.4 m a.s.l.), while the maximal observed one was 39 m. It was the solitary wave, and the wave celerity was 32 similar to 36 m/s or so. The hazardous river length of impulse wave was estimated to be 12.6 km, where wave height was more than 1 m high. The fluid-solid coupling numerical model employed by this paper can provide important reference for wave generated by other landslides around the world. Research of the landslide-generated wave is very significant in landslide hazard reduction and prevention.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据