Summary of key note speech for 6th International Conference on Debris Flow Hazards Mitigation Landslide Dam Erosion due to Overtopping Yoshifumi Satofuka1 1College of Science and Engineering, Ritsumeikan, University, Kyoto, Japan INTRODUCTION The study of landslide dam deformation and the prediction of flooding because of landslide dam deformation are essential for reducing floods due to landslide dams. Previous studies have revealed the mechanism for the formation of landslide dams. In the past, the collapse of several dams has caused significant damage in Japan (Mizuyama, 2011). Recently, in Japan, the 2004 Chuetsu earthquake, the 2008 Iwate-Miyagi Nairiku earthquake, and the 2011 Typhoon Talas caused many landslide dams. Previous studies of landslide dam failures have identified three types of dam deformation: erosion due to overtopping, instantaneous slip failure, and progressive failure. Costa et al. (1988) revealed that most landslide dam failures were caused by erosion due to overtopping. Therefore, we focused on landslide dam deformation caused by overtopping. Previous studies have performed landslide dam failure experiments as flume experiments in the laboratory (Takahashi and Nakagawa, 1993 ; Oda et al., 2006). However, flume experiments are performed typically under ideal conditions because Fig. 1 Landslide dam created by Typhoon the laboratory flume is rectangular and the Talas at the Akadani area, Gojo City, Nara experiments are scale-limited. Therefore, we Prefecture performed landslide dam failure experiments in a mountainous area and obtained data under near-real conditions. In the field experiments, we aimed to understand the characteristics of outflow discharge and deformation. In addition, we developed a numerical model to simulate landslide dam erosion caused by overtopping flow. The model simulates overtopping erosion in two dimensions. To improve predictions of outflow discharge, we incorporated the inertial debris flow model proposed by Takahashi et al. (2002), the side bank erosion model, and the slope collapse model. The inertial debris flow model is able to handle stony debris flow, turbulent muddy debris flow, immature debris flow, and intermediate debris flow. FIELD EXPERIMENTS AND NUMERICAL ANALYSIS To observe landslide dam deformation and the characteristics of outflow discharge due to overtopping flow, we performed field experiments. For the field experiments, we constructed 5-m-wide landslide dams on a mountainous stream bed. In Cases 1, 2, and 3, the dam heights were 1.2m, 1.2m, and 1.4m, respectively. The dam in Case 2 had the shape of trapezoid, whereas in the other two cases, it was a triangle. During overtopping flow, materials are washed away because of various types of sediment transport. Therefore, the inertial debris flow model was used. To check the validity of our calculations, we compared the results of the calculations with the experimental results. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS For Case 1, the field experiment site and the calculated results at peak outflow are shown in Fig. 2 and Fig.3, respectively. In addition, the field experiments site and the calculation results at the end of 1 the deformation are shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, respectively. As shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 5, the calculated results largely reproduce the widening process of overtopping flow. Fig. 2 Photograph of the field experiment for Case 1 at peak outflow Fig. 3 Calculated results for Case 1 at peak outflow Fig. 4 Photograph of the field experiment for Case 1 at the end of the deformation Fig. 5 Calculated results for Case 1 at the end of the deformation !"# 3 Out flow discharge(m /s) Fig. 6 shows experimental and calculated Exp.(Case1) Cal.(Case1) !" outflow discharge after overtopping for the three Exp.(Case2) Cal.(Case2) cases. The experimental results showed that the !$# Exp.(Case3) Cal.(Case3) dam height affected the peak outflow discharge. As !$ seen from the Fig. 6, the calculated and observed results are approximately equivalent. However, for ! # Case 3, the observed peak outflow in the field ! experiment was higher than that produced by the # $ $# " "# % Time(s) simulation. The reason for the higher peak outflow Fig. 6 Observed and calculated results of observed in Case 3 is the longitudinal slope failure outflow discharge owing to dam deformation in the middle of the overtopping erosion process. (Cases 1, 2, and 3) Cross-sectional slope collapses, such as side-bank collapse, are considered in the numerical model; however, such longitudinal slope failures are not considered. Therefore, the outflow discharge was not accurately reproduced in Case 3. CONCLUSIONS In this study, we incorporated the inertial debris flow model, the side bank erosion model, and the slope collapse model in a numerical model to simulate overtopping erosion in landslide dams. To check the validity of the proposed model, we compared calculation and experimental results for three cases. The proposed model largely reproduced the observed time of change in the outflow discharge for Cases 1 and 2. However, for Case 3, the observed peak outflow in the field experiment was higher than that in the simulation. The high peak outflow in Case 3 is attributed to the longitudinal slope failure that occurred in the middle of the overtopping erosion and the increasing peak outflow discharge. Therefore, incorporating the longitudinal slope collapse model in the proposed model is necessary for improving the prediction of outflow discharge. 2
© Copyright 2024