4.6 Article

Distributed simulations of landslides for different rainfall conditions

期刊

HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES
卷 18, 期 4, 页码 757-776

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hyp.1365

关键词

slope stability; groundwater; rainstorms; short-term rainfall intensity; modelling; safety factor; soil depth; hydraulic conductivity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A physically based distributed slope stability model is described that utilizes a combined surface-subsurface kinematic wave module to assess groundwater fluctuations related to slope stability. A total of 82 major rainstorms from 1972 to 1990 in Carnation Creek, British Columbia, were examined to determine the influence of different characteristics of rainstorms (such as mean and maximum hourly intensity, duration, and rainfall amount) on the slope stability. These rainstorms vary in mean intensity from 1.6 to 11.2 mm h(-1), storm duration from 11 to 93 h, and maximum hourly intensity from 3.4 to 35 mm h(-1). Four synthetic 'uniform intensity' rainstorms were also tested against real storms to assess the effect of short-term hourly rainfall intensity peaks on landslide occurrence. Altogether, 602 simulations were conducted. The combined influence of mean and maximum hourly intensity, duration, and total rainfall amount of rainstorms were important in generating landslides. The temporal distribution of short-term intensity also influenced the landslide occurrence. When saturated hydraulic conductivity of the soil was lowered or soil depth was raised, most rainstorms produced larger numbers of landslides. For the most part, actual rainstorms produced less stable conditions than their synthetic 'uniform intensity' counterparts. For all landslide-producing storms, slope failure usually occurred after some threshold of cumulative rainfall and maximum hourly rainfall intensity. These simulations provide insights into the distributed behaviour of landslide occurrence during large rainstorms with varying characteristics. Copyright (C) 2004 John Wiley Sons, Ltd.

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

4.6
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