4.7 Article

Investigation of motion characteristics of catastrophic landslide using material point method and gene expression programming

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2023.105507

关键词

Catastrophic landslide; Motion characteristics; Material point method; Landslide runout process; Runout distance prediction; Gene expression programming

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study presents two approaches (i.e., the material point method (MPM) and gene expression programming (GEP)) for prediction of landslide runout. The modified MPM was verified through collapse and physical model tests. Sensitivity analysis was performed to investigate the importance of the softening parameters. A prediction equation based on GEP achieved a coefficient of determination of 0.8825. The effects of various factors on the maximum horizontal distance were quantitatively analyzed. The simulation and prediction results of MPM and GEP were compared and found to be within reasonable ranges with errors of 14.1% and 10.6%, respectively.
This study presents two approaches (i.e., the material point method (MPM) and gene expression programming (GEP)) for prediction of landslide runout. The MPM was modified based on a strain-softening constitutive model. A collapse test and physical model test were conducted to verify the suitability of the modified MPM. The sensitivity analysis was performed to investigate the importance of the softening parameters on the motion characteristics and final accumulation state. In addition, a predictive equation for prediction of the maximum horizontal distance was proposed based on GEP, with the coefficient of determination of 0.8825. The effects of the maximum vertical distance, landslide volume and landslide posture on the maximum horizontal distance were quantitatively analyzed. Moreover, the GEP model was verified by comparison with other machine learning approaches. Finally, taking the Jiweishan landslide as an example, the simulation and prediction results obtained from the MPM and GEP approaches were compared. The results show that the two are both within a reasonable range, with the errors of 14.1% and 10.6%, respectively.

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