4.7 Article

A WebGIS decision-support system for slope stability based on limit-equilibrium modelling

期刊

ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
卷 158, 期 -, 页码 109-118

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2013.03.004

关键词

Limit-equilibrium analysis; Combined Hydrology and Stability Model (CHASM); Physically-based modelling; Web processing service (WPS); Decision-support system; Swabian Alb

资金

  1. German Ministry of Education and Research
  2. 51st Chinese PostDoc Science Foundation [2012M511298]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Physically-based models are frequently applied for local landslide analyses and predictions in order to prevent the potentially disastrous consequences of slope failures. Limit-equilibrium modelling approaches are very common. However, the application of such models can be very time-consuming, and due to its two-dimensional nature, it generally has to be repeated for each profile that is investigated. In this study, the physically-based two-dimensional landslide model CHASM (Combined Hydrology and Stability Model) was implemented within a web-based GIS (Geographical Information System) environment for a study area in the Swabian Alb, Germany. The required input data for CHASM modelling were derived from a variety of data sources including geological maps, drillings, geophysical investigations, hydrological monitoring, laboratory analyses and literature sources. The implemented CHASM decision-support system is based on open-source software and utilises the WPS (web processing service) standard to execute the model algorithms on a server. The presented system allows the user to select from a variety of input data and model parameters to quickly perform limit-equilibrium analyses of slope stability. Simulation results are automatically stored to a database and can be visualised for interpretation. The implemented CHASM decision-support system represents an innovative prototype which demonstrates a promising approach to engage landslide modelling. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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