3.8 Proceedings Paper

Simulating the Formation Process of the Akatani Landslide Dam Induced by Rainfall in Kii Peninsula, Japan

出版社

SPRINGER INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING AG
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-53483-1_59

关键词

Landslide; Akatani; Rainfall; Mechanism; Ring shear apparatus; Computer simulation model

资金

  1. Leading Graduate School Program on Global Survivability Studies in Kyoto University (GSS Program)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Akatani landslide triggered by heavy rainfall during Typhoon Talas on 4 September 2011 is one of 72 deep-seated catastrophic rock avalanches in Kii Peninsula, Japan. The landslide is about 900 m in length, 350 m in average width and 66.5 m of maximum depth of the sliding surface. A rapid movement of the landslide was downward the opposite valley and formed a natural reservoir that has a height of about 80 m and a volume of 10.2 million m(3). This paper presents preliminary results of the simulation of the formation process of the Akatani landslide dam by using ring shear apparatus incorporated with a computer simulation model LS-Rapid. Ring shear tests on sandstone-rich materials and mudstone-rich materials taken near the sliding surface indicated that a rapid landslide was triggered due to excess pore water pressure generation under shear displacement control tests and pore water pressure control tests. The pore water pressure ratio (r(u)) due to rainfall was monitored from 0.33 to 0.37 in the ring shear tests on rainfall-induced landslides, approximately. Particularly, the formation process of the Akatani landslide dam and its rapid movement were well simulated by the computer model with physical soil parameters obtained from ring shear experiments. The actual ratio of pore water pressure triggering landslides was 0.35 in the computer simulation model. The results of the Akatani landslide simulation would be helpful to the understanding of failure process of deep-seated landslide induced by rainfall for future disaster mitigation and preparation in the area.

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

3.8
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