4.3 Article

Dependence of runout distance on the number of rock blocks in large-scale rock-mass failure experiments

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 329-339

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s10310-013-0425-y

关键词

Equivalent coefficient of friction; Inelastic collision; Number of rock blocks; Rock-mass runout distance

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To examine how the number of rock blocks affects the rock-mass runout distance, large-scale outdoor rockfall experiments were physically performed using cubiform granite rock blocks on a slope prepared with granite slabs under both dry and water-saturated conditions. To learn more about the runout mechanism, numerical simulations were also conducted using three-dimensional DEM to reproduce the physical experiments under dry conditions. Longitudinal rock-mass runout distance between the gravity centre in the initial rock block assembly before failure and the apparent gravity centre at final deposition was 10 % larger for experiments under water-saturated conditions than those under dry conditions, with identical numbers of rock blocks in the physical experiments. The physical and numerical experiments revealed that rock blocks at the front and top surfaces had a longer runout distance than those at the rear and bottom surfaces. A rock block scarcely surpassed the rock blocks in front longitudinally and the rock blocks next to it laterally. The equivalent coefficient of friction between gravity centres was positively correlated with the number of rock blocks, which contradicts the findings of a negative correlation between the volume of sturzstroms (rockfall avalanches) and the equivalent coefficient of friction in classic studies on the long runout mechanisms. Our results were likely attributable to the fact that more kinetic energy was dissipated due to repeated inelastic intercollisions with other surrounding rock blocks and granite slabs when the initial rock-mass volume (number of rock blocks) was larger.

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

4.3
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