Evaluation of approaches to calculate debris-flow parameters for hazard assessment

Hürlimann, Marcel; Rickenmann, Dieter; Medina, Vicente; Bateman, Allen

doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2008.03.012

Cited by 149 publications

(89 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A given rockfall Hürlimann et al (2006Hürlimann et al ( , 2008 volume will produce a changing velocity profile along its path, and the kinetic or impact energy will change as well . Rockfall intensity is not dependent solely on rockfall size (magnitude), as similar kinetic energy values can result from different combinations of volumes and velocities.…”

Section: Probability Of Landslide Occurrencementioning

confidence: 99%

Recommendations for the quantitative analysis of landslide risk

Corominas

Westen

Frattini

et al. 2013

Bull Eng Geol Environ

710

666

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents recommended methodologies for the quantitative analysis of landslide hazard, vulnerability and risk at different spatial scales (site-specific, local, regional and national), as well as for the verification and validation of the results. The methodologies described focus on the evaluation of the probabilities of occurrence of different landslide types with certain characteristics. Methods used to determine the spatial distribution of landslide intensity, the characterisation of the elements at risk, the assessment of the potential degree of damage and the quantification of the vulnerability of the elements at risk, and those used to perform the quantitative risk analysis are also described. The paper is intended for use by scientists and practising engineers, geologists and other landslide experts.

show abstract

Section: Probability Of Landslide Occurrencementioning

confidence: 99%

Recommendations for the quantitative analysis of landslide risk

Corominas

Westen

Frattini

et al. 2013

Bull Eng Geol Environ

710

666

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, as for conceptual depth-averaged flow resistance approaches (Voellmy model, Coulomb, etc. ), model parameterization based on the back-calculation of well-documented past events appears to be preferable for engineering application (e.g., Rickenmann et al, 2006;Hürlimann et al, 2008;Christen et al, 2010a).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling debris-flow runout patterns on two alpine fans with different dynamic simulation models

Schraml

Thomschitz

McArdell

et al. 2015

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Predicting potential deposition areas of future debris-flow events is important for engineering hazard assessment in alpine regions. To this end, numerical simulation models are commonly used tools. However, knowledge of appropriate model parameters is essential but often not available. In this study we use two numerical simulation models, RAMMS-DF (rapid mass movement system-debris-flow) and DAN3D (dynamic analysis of landslides in three dimensions), to back-calculate two well-documented debris-flow events in Austria and to compare the range and sensitivity of input parameters for the Voellmy flow model. All simulations are based on the same digital elevation models and similar boundary conditions. Our results show that observed deposition patterns are best matched with a parameter set of µ [-] and ξ [m s −2 ], ranging between 0.07 to 0.11 and 200 to 300 m s −2 , respectively, for RAMMS-DF, and between 0.07 to 0.08 and 300 to 400 m s −2 , respectively, for DAN3D. Sensitivity analysis shows a higher sensitivity of model parameters for the DAN3D model than for the RAMMS-DF model. This contributes to the evaluation of realistic model parameters for simulation of debris-flows in steep mountain catchments and highlights the sensitivity of the models.

show abstract

“…Besides this, if the data is taken from one single triggering event (e.g., heavy rainstorms, high magnitude earthquake) in a specific area, they are usually not representative for other areas (Tang et al 2011). Hürlimann et al in 2008, points out that there are several potential shortcomings when using empirical models for a risk assessment:…”

Section: Methods Using Empirical Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

ASCHFLOW - A dynamic landslide run-out model for medium scale hazard analysis

Luna

Blahůt

Asch

et al. 2016

Geoenviron Disasters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Landslides hazard analyses entail a scale-dependent approach in order to mitigate accordingly the damages and other negative consequences at the respective scales of occurrence. Medium or large scale landslide run-out modelling for many possible landslide initiation areas has been a very difficult task in the past. This arises from the inability of the run-out models to compute the displacement with a large amount of individual initiation areas as it turns out to be computationally strenuous. Most of the existing physically based run-out models have difficulties in handling such situations. For this reason, empirical methods have been used as a practical mean to predict landslides mobility at a medium scale (1: 10,000 to 1: 50,000). They are the most widely used techniques to estimate the maximum run-out distance and affected zones not only locally but also regionally. In this context, a medium scale numerical model for flow-like mass movements in urban and mountainous areas was developed.

show abstract

Evaluation of approaches to calculate debris-flow parameters for hazard assessment

Cited by 149 publications

References 49 publications

Recommendations for the quantitative analysis of landslide risk

Recommendations for the quantitative analysis of landslide risk

Modeling debris-flow runout patterns on two alpine fans with different dynamic simulation models

ASCHFLOW - A dynamic landslide run-out model for medium scale hazard analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About