2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.06.020
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The 2000 Yigong landslide (Tibetan Plateau), rockslide-dammed lake and outburst flood: Review, remote sensing analysis, and process modelling

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

5
125
2

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 216 publications
(132 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
5
125
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Much of this difference likely results from the use of an empirically estimated breach discharge (6.1 × 10 4 m 3 /s) in the Delaney and Evans () model, which is much lower than the discharge produced by both our simulations assuming instantaneous dam failure and predictive equations for dam breaching from O'Connor and Beebee (). However, it is difficult to compare the simulations directly because Delaney and Evans () simulated the flood using an older DEM (SRTM3) that differs from our DEM (SRTM1) in the first 20 km of flood pathway. It is also difficult to compare simulated flow depth and flood peak arrival time to the field‐based estimates of Shang et al () because of uncertainties in the reference point for measuring flood flow depth with respect to the destroyed bridge height as compared to the simulated flow depth with respect to the DEM surface and the potential incompatibility of the Shang et al () timing estimate with other observations of the flood (Zhu et al, ).…”
Section: Evaluation Of Flood Simulation Resultsmentioning
confidence: 76%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Much of this difference likely results from the use of an empirically estimated breach discharge (6.1 × 10 4 m 3 /s) in the Delaney and Evans () model, which is much lower than the discharge produced by both our simulations assuming instantaneous dam failure and predictive equations for dam breaching from O'Connor and Beebee (). However, it is difficult to compare the simulations directly because Delaney and Evans () simulated the flood using an older DEM (SRTM3) that differs from our DEM (SRTM1) in the first 20 km of flood pathway. It is also difficult to compare simulated flow depth and flood peak arrival time to the field‐based estimates of Shang et al () because of uncertainties in the reference point for measuring flood flow depth with respect to the destroyed bridge height as compared to the simulated flow depth with respect to the DEM surface and the potential incompatibility of the Shang et al () timing estimate with other observations of the flood (Zhu et al, ).…”
Section: Evaluation Of Flood Simulation Resultsmentioning
confidence: 76%
“…The most recent and best recorded is the June 2000 Yigong flood (Evans & Delaney, ; Shang et al, ; Zhu & Li, ; Zhu et al, ). Delaney and Evans () reconciled discrepancies among previous accounts of the dam, breach, and flood, summarized as follows: In April 2000, a rockslide dammed the Yigong River (Figures c and d) at the same location as the landslide‐dam impoundment that produced the 1900 outburst flood (Shang et al, ). The landslide dam was stable for 62 days and a spillway was excavated before the dam failed catastrophically at ca.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The reasons for this particular perturbation remain unclear but the river reach between the NBGPm and the MFT is prone to extreme hydrological and erosion events (Lang et al, 2011). A recent major perturbation of the sedimentary system was provided by the catastrophic breaching of a landslide-dammed lake on the Yigong River in 2000, which resulted in a devastating flood downstream of the confluence with the TsangpoBrahmaputra (Delaney and Evans, 2015). The high discharge that followed the dam breach mobilized about 1 × 10 8 m 3 or 270 Mt of landslide material in the area (Larsen and Montgomery, 2012).…”
Section: True Denudation Rates or Possible Biases In The Tcn Signal?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Landslide can cause secondary damage, rockslide-dammed lakes [3][4], tsunamis [5][6][7], and block roads [8]. There are so many factors leading to landslides, such as hydrology [9], earthquakes, top loads, pedology, different layers, geomorphy [10], and geology-changing climate [11].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%