Abstract
In this paper, a modified finite difference model is proposed to simulate the propagation of flowslides. Modifications of the new model are conducted by calculating the lateral pressure coefficient k in the sliding mass and the entrainment and centrifugal effect during the transport process. The strength parameters are modified based on the size of the entrainment to consider the change in the landslide strength due to material mixing. Two dam break problems are simulated to test the accuracy and stability of the numerical scheme, and the results show good agreement with the analytical solutions and the measured data. Then, the model is used to analyze a typical flowslide: the Dagou landslide in Gansu Province, China. The model can accurately predict the details of the motion of the landslide, especially behaviors such as turning along the meandering gully and thrusting on the gully slopes due to centrifugal force.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bossi G, Cavalli M, Crema S, Frigerio S, Luna BQ, Mantovani M, Marcato G, Schenato L, Pasuto A (2015) Multi-temporal LiDAR-DTMs as a tool for modelling a complex landslide: a case study in the Rotolon catchment (eastern Italian Alps). Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 15:715–722. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-15-715-2015
Crosta GB, Imposimato S, Roddeman DG (2003) Numerical modelling of large landslides stability and runout. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 3:523–538. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-3-523-2003
Crosta GB, Imposimato S, Roddeman DG (2006) Continuum numerical modelling of flow-like landslides. In: Evans et al (eds) Landslides from massive rock slope failure. Springer, Berlin, pp 211–232
Crosta GB, Blasio FVD, Caro MD, Volpi G, Imposimato S, Roddeman D (2017) Modes of propagation and deposition of granular flows onto an erodible substrate: experimental, analytical, and numerical study. Landslides 14:47–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-016-0697-3
Cuomo S (2014) New advances and challenges for numerical modeling of landslides of the flow type. Proced Earth Planet Sci 9:91–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeps.2014.06.004
Cuomo S, Pastor M, Cascini L, Castorino GC (2014) Interplay of rheology and entrainment in debris avalanches: a numerical study. Can Geotech J 51:1318–1330. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2013-0387
Cuomo S, Pastor M, Capobianco V, Cascini L (2016) Modelling the space–time evolution of bed entrainment for flow-like landslides. Eng Geol 212:10–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2016.07.011
Denlinger RP, Connell DRH (2008) Computing nonhydrostatic shallow-water flow over steep terrain. J Hydraul Eng 134:1590–1602. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2008)134:11(1590)
Di Gregorio S, Nicoletta FP, Rongo R, Sorriso-Valvo M, Spataro W (1997) SCIDDICA-3: a cellular automata model for landslide simulation. In: Morabito FC (ed) Advances in intelligent systems. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 324–330
Evans SG, Tutubalina OV, Drobyshev VN, Chernomorets SS, McDougall S, Petrakov DA, Hungr O (2009) Catastrophic detachment and high-velocity long-runout flow of Kolka Glacier, Caucasus Mountains, Russia in 2002. Geomorphology 105:314–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2008.10.008
Fraccarollo L, Capart H (2002) Riemann wave description of erosional dam-break flows. J Fluid Mech 461:183–228. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112002008455
Fraccarollo L, Toro EF (1995) Experimental and numerical assessment of the shallow water model for two-dimensional dam-break type problems. J Hydraul Res 33:843–864. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221689509498555
Hairer E, Nørsett SP, Wanner G (1993) Solving ordinary differential equations I: nonstiff problems, 2nd revised. Springer, Berlin, pp 357–360
Hungr O (1995) A model for the runout analysis of rapid flow slides, debris flows and avalanches. Can Geotech J 32:610–623. https://doi.org/10.1139/t95-063
Hungr O, Evans SG (2004) Entrainment of debris in rock avalanches: an analysis of a long run-out mechanism. GSA Bull 116:1240–1252. https://doi.org/10.1130/B25362.1
Hungr O, McDougall S (2009) Two numerical models for landslide dynamic analysis. Comput Geosci 35:978–992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2007.12.003
Hungr O, Leroueil S, Picarelli L (2014) The Varnes classification of landslides types, an update. Landslides 11:167–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-013-0436-y
Iverson RM (1997) The physics of debris flows. Rev Geophys 35:245–296. https://doi.org/10.1029/97RG00426
Iverson RM, Ouyang C (2015) Entrainment of bed material by earth-surface mass flows: review and reformulation of depth-integrated theory. Rev Geophys 53:27–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013RG000447
Iverson RM, Reid ME, Logan M, LaHusen RG, Godt JW, Griswold JG (2011) Positive feedback and momentum growth during debris-flow entrainment of wet bed sediment. Nat Geosci 4:116–121. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1040
Kuo Y, Tsai Y, Chen Y, Shieh C, Miyamoto K, Itoh T (2013) Movement of deep-seated rainfall-induced landslide at Hsiaolin Village during Typhoon Morakot. Landslides 10:191–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-012-0315-y
Liu KF, Li HC, Hsu YC (2009) Debris flow hazard assessment with numerical simulation. Nat Hazards 49:137–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-008-9285-8
Louaked M, Hanich L (1998) TVD scheme for the shallow water equations. J Hydraul Res 36:363–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221689809498624
Martinez RG, Lopez JL (2005) Debris flow of December 1999 in Venezuela. In: Jakob M, Hungr O (eds) Debris-flow hazards and related phenomena. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 520–538
McDougall S (2006) A new continuum dynamic model for the analysis of extremely rapid landslide motion across complex 3D terrain. PhD thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, 253 pages
McDougall S, Hungr O (2004) A model for the analysis of rapid landslide motion across three-dimensional terrain. Can Geotech J 41:1084–1097. https://doi.org/10.1139/t04-052
McDougall S, Hungr O (2005) Dynamic modelling of entrainment in rapid landslides. Can Geotech J 42:1437–1448. https://doi.org/10.1139/t05-064
Medina V, Hürlimann M, Bateman A (2008) Application of FLATMODEL, a 2D finite volume code, to debris flows in the northeastern part of the Iberian Peninsula. Landslides 5:127–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-007-0102-3
Ouyang C, He S, Xu Q, Luo Y, Zhang W (2013) A MacCormack-TVD finite difference method to simulate the mass flow in mountainous terrain with variable computational domain. Comput Geosci 52:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2012.08.024
Ouyang C, He S, Xu Q (2015) MacCormack-TVD finite difference solution for dam break hydraulics over erodible sediment beds. J Hydraul Eng 141:06014026. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000986
Ouyang C, Zhou K, Xu Q, Yin J, Peng D, Wang D, Li W (2017) Dynamic analysis and numerical modeling of the 2015 catastrophic landslide of the construction waste landfill at Guangming, Shenzhen, China. Landslides 14:705–718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-016-0764-9
Pastor M, Haddad B, Sorbino G, Cuomo S, Drempetic V (2009) A depth-integrated, coupled SPH model for flow-like landslides and related phenomena. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 33:143–172. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.705
Pastor M, Blanc T, Haddad B, Petrone S, Sanchez Morles M, Drempetic V, IssIer D, Crosta GB, Cascini L, Sorbino G, Cuomo S (2014) Application of a SPH depth-integrated model to landslide run-out analysis. Landslides 11:793–812. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-014-0484-y
Peng J, Fan Z, Wu D, Zhuang J, Dai F, Chen W, Zhao C (2015) Heavy rainfall triggered loess–mudstone landslide and subsequent debris flow in Tianshui, China. Eng Geol 186:79–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2014.08.015
Prakash P, Kalaiselvi V (2009) Numerical solution of hybrid fuzzy differential equations by predictor-corrector method. Int J Comput Math 86:121–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207160802247620
Sassa K, Nagai O, Solidum R, Yamazaki Y, Ohta H (2010) An integrated model simulating the initiation and motion of earthquake and rain induced rapid landslides and its application to the 2006 Leyte landslide. Landslides 7:219–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-010-0230-z
Sassa K, He B, Dang K, Nagai O, Takara K (2014) Plenary: progress in landslide dynamics. In: Sassa K, Canuti P, Yin Y (eds) Landslide science for a safer geoenvironment. Springer, Cham, pp 37–67
Savage SB, Hutter K (1989) The motion of a finite mass of granular material down a rough incline. J Fluid Mech 199:177–215. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112089000340
Segre E, Deangeli C (1995) Cellular automaton for realistic modelling of landslides. Nonlinear Process Geophys 2:1–15. https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-2-1-1995
Stoker JJ (1957) Water waves: mathematical theory with applications. Interscience Publ Inc, New York, pp 333–341
Streltsov AV, Woodroffe JR, Gekelman W, Pribyl P (2012) Modeling the propagation of whistler-mode waves in the presence of field-aligned density irregularities. Phys Plas 19:052104. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4719710
Takahashi T (1981) Debris flow. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 13:57–77. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.fl.13.010181.000421
Tsai MP, Hsu YC, Li HC, Shu HM, Liu KF (2011) Application of simulation technique on debris flow hazard zone delineation: a case study in the Daniao tribe, eastern Taiwan. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 11:3053–3062. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-11-3053-2011
Tseng MH, Chu CR (2000) Two-dimensional shallow water flows simulation using TVD-MacCormack scheme. J Hydraul Res 38:123–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221680009498347
Walters RA (2005) A semi-implicit finite element model for non-hydrostatic (dispersive) surface waves. Int J Numer Meth Fluids 49:721–737. https://doi.org/10.1002/fld.1019
Wang F, Sassa K (2010) Landslide simulation by a geotechnical model combined with a model for apparent friction change. Phys Chem Earth, Parts A/B/C 35:149–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2009.07.006
Funding
The authors of this paper appreciate the funding received from the National Key R&D Program of China (2017YFC1501302), the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology (Grant No. 2014CB744701), and the Chinese Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. 310826172001) which supported this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix A. Derivation of the supporting force
Appendix A. Derivation of the supporting force
The unit normal vector of the sliding surface is \( \mathbf{n}=\left(\mathrm{tan}\upalpha \mathbf{i}+\mathrm{tan}\upbeta \mathbf{j}+\mathbf{k}\right)/\sqrt{G} \), in which i, j, and k are the unit vectors in the x, y, and z directions, respectively. The static supporting force Ns is given by
Dividing each side of Eq. (A1) by mass m and rearranging the equation gives the following expression:
Substituting Eq. (3) into Eq. (A2) and rearranging Eq. (A2) gives the following expression:
Projecting Ns in the x direction gives the following expression:
The velocity vector is v = vxi + vyj + vzk and is assumed to be parallel to the sliding surface. Therefore, the velocity vector can be divided into two components, vxz and vyz, as shown in Fig. 19. The two components are the projections of v onto the XOZ and YOZ planes, respectively, and the scalars of these projections are given by
According to Eq. (9), the centrifugal supporting forces parallel to the XOZ and YOZ plane are given by
Projecting Nxz and Nyz in the direction normal to the sliding surface, the centrifugal supporting force Nc is given by
Substituting n and Eqs. (A7) and (A8) into Eq. (A9) and rearranging the equation gives the following expression:
Dividing each side of Eq. (A10) by m and projecting Nc in the x direction gives the following expression:
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shen, W., Li, T., Li, P. et al. A modified finite difference model for the modeling of flowslides. Landslides 15, 1577–1593 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-018-0980-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-018-0980-6