Comprehensive analysis using multiple-integrated techniques on the failure mechanism and dynamic process of a long run-out landslide: Jichang landslide case

Bao, Yiding; Wang, Hong; Su, Lijun; Geng, Dajiang; Yang, Liu; Shao, Peng; Li, Yuchao; Du, Ni

doi:10.1007/s11069-022-05261-7

Cited by 4 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The back-calculated value is then used to calculate the interpreted depth of location C. The TWTT value of location C is read as 7.6 ns. The interpreted depth of location C is thereby computed to be 0.75 m using Equation (1), which is the same as the measured depth. Likewise, if only the depth of location A is known via a borehole, the relative permittivity is back-calculated as 2.31.…”

Section: Interpretation Of Gpr Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If the measured depth of the i-th location is selected to back-calculate the relative permittivity of the layer above the target interface using Equation (2), the interpreted depths of the other n−1 locations can be computed based on Equation (1). Subsequently, the absolute and relative errors of the n−1 locations are computed by Equations ( 3) and ( 4).…”

Section: Accuracy Of Strata Identificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Identifying subsurface strata is one of the main tasks in slope surveys [1][2][3][4], and is crucial for the analysis of slope stability [5,6]. Due to financial and geomorphological restrictions, traditional identification relies on limited boreholes [7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Identification of Complex Slope Subsurface Strata Using Ground-Penetrating Radar

Wang,

Zhang,

et al. 2024

Remote Sensing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Identification of slope subsurface strata for natural soil slopes is essential to assess the stability of potential landslides. The highly variable strata in a slope are hard to characterize by traditional boreholes at limited locations. Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) is a non-destructive method that is capable of capturing continuous subsurface information. However, the accuracy of subsurface identification using GPRs is still an open issue. This work systematically investigates the capability of the GPR technique to identify different strata via both laboratory experiments and on-site examination. Six large-scale models were constructed with various stratigraphic interfaces (i.e., sand–rock, clay–rock, clay–sand, interbedded clay, water table, and V–shaped sand–rock). The continuous interfaces of the strata in these models were obtained using a GPR, and the depths at different points of the interfaces were interpreted. The interpreted depths along the interface were compared with the measured values to quantify the interpretation accuracy. Results show that the depths of interfaces should be interpreted with the relative permittivity, back-calculated using on-site borehole information instead of empirical values. The relative errors of the depth of horizontal interfaces of different strata range within ±5%. The relative and absolute errors of the V–shaped sand–rock interface depths are in the ranges of [−9.9%, 10.5%] and [−107, 119] mm, respectively. Finally, the GPR technique was used in the field to identify the strata of a slope from Tanglang Mountain in China. The continuous profile of the subsurface strata was successfully identified with a relative error within ±5%.

show abstract

Section: Interpretation Of Gpr Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Accuracy Of Strata Identificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Identification of Complex Slope Subsurface Strata Using Ground-Penetrating Radar

Wang,

Zhang,

et al. 2024

Remote Sensing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the deposit area of the rockslide was clearly shown via field investigation and remote sensing images, its dynamic process has not been observed directly. The previous literature studied its run-out behavior by numerical simulations, using continuum methods such as the DISWM [29,30] and SPH [28]. However, these models cannot reflect the transition from a solid source to fluid slides clearly.…”

Section: Jichang Rockslidementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The group's lower mechanical values of t n and t s were adopted as 1 MPa, and G C I and G C II were adopted as 10 N/m and 50 N/m, respectively. Friction between rock materials was adopted as a value of 0.33, which was calibrated by back-analysis [28] and a laboratory test [29]. These parameters were calibrated by comparing the rockslide deposit area in the field investigation; this kind of back-analysis is considered as the most important calibrated way to prove the credibility of the parameters [4,34].…”

Section: Numerical Model Construction and Settingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic Analysis of a Long Run-Out Rockslide Considering Dynamic Fragmentation Behavior in Jichang Town: Insights from the Three-Dimensional Coupled Finite-Discrete Element Method

Zhu,

Li,

Bao

et al. 2023

Remote Sensing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To clearly realize the dynamic process as well as the dynamic fragmentation behavior of a long run-out rockslide, a novel numerical method for landslide simulation of the coupled finite-discrete element method (FDEM) was applied and the Jichang rockslide was used as a case. The calibrated simulation result of the FDEM in a rockslide deposit corresponds well with the real rockslide deposit. The main run-out process of the rockslide lasts for 75 s and can be divided into acceleration and deceleration stages, which last for 33 s and 42 s, respectively. The maximum overall rockslide movement speed is 35 m/s while the partial sliding mass reaches 45 m/s. The fracturing, fragmentation, and disintegration processes of the sliding mass can be clearly observed from the dynamic scenarios. Fracture energy generated by rock fracturing constantly increases with time in a non-linear form. Of the total fracture energy, 54% is released in the initial 5 s because of fracturing, and 39% of the total fracture energy is released because of fragmentation and disintegration in the last 35 s. The accumulated friction energy increases in the whole run-out process, and its magnitude is much greater than the kinetic energy and fracture energy of the sliding mass.

show abstract

Model test study on sliding-toppling composite deformation evolution of anti-dip layered rock slope

Gong

Liu

et al. 2023

Bull Eng Geol Environ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comprehensive analysis using multiple-integrated techniques on the failure mechanism and dynamic process of a long run-out landslide: Jichang landslide case

Cited by 4 publications

References 41 publications

Identification of Complex Slope Subsurface Strata Using Ground-Penetrating Radar

Identification of Complex Slope Subsurface Strata Using Ground-Penetrating Radar

Dynamic Analysis of a Long Run-Out Rockslide Considering Dynamic Fragmentation Behavior in Jichang Town: Insights from the Three-Dimensional Coupled Finite-Discrete Element Method

Model test study on sliding-toppling composite deformation evolution of anti-dip layered rock slope

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About