Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Chan-Young Yune
(Gangneung-Wonju National University)
Kyung-Jea Jun
(Gangneung-Wonju National University)
1. Introduction
3. Test Results
- Basic properties of soil
- Topographic change
- Velocity
- Flow depth
- Impact force
4. Conclusions 2
Annual average precipitation has increased for the past 42 years (1971~2012)
3
1291mm 1429mm
70
26.7
(Annual average)
1998 2011
Year
Number of fatalities by slope hazard for 24 years in Korea
7
Debris flow ? (Among various kind of slope disasters)
- Extremely fast
- Causes majority of economic loss and casualties
Photograph from Daily Chosun
8
Debris flow ?
- Extremely fast
- Causes majority of economic loss and casualties
9
The total number of slope failure that initiated debris flow was about 140.
10
The number of debris flows was about 33.
Debris flow ?
11
Research Center for River Flow Impingement and Debris Flow
- First mega project on debris flow hazard in Korea(2008 ~ 2013)
- Real-scale test was a one part of the project
Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure Korea Agency for Infrastructure Korea Forest
and Transport technology Advancement Korea Forest Service Research Institute
Research Institute
12
Test Site
13
Overview of test site
: check dam
: gabion
: countermeasure
15
Test procedure
16
Test procedure
High strength geo-textile was used to cover and protect top soil in initiation area.
17
Test procedure
18
Test procedure
19
Test procedure
20
Test procedure
21
Test procedure
22
1st test (Sep. 18, 2012)
: After 100 mm of 3 day’s cumulative rainfall
Aerial video was recorded using a helicopter of KFS
Small drainage box was installed in the middle part of gully
23
Locations of video cameras
① ②
24
Locations of video cameras
② ③
④ ⑤ ①
⑦ ⑧
⑨ ⑩ ⑥
2nd test ⑪ ⑫ ⑬
25
Locations of video camera
2nd test
26
Application of developed countermeasures
- Applicable not only in deposition area but also in initiation and transportation area
- Easy to construct, maintain, and repair(or replace)
- Absorbing dynamic energy of debris flow and inducing deposition of sedimentation
27
Application of developed countermeasures
28
Density of debris flow
Captured at countermeasures
Case No. 1 2 3 4
Wet density
2.25 2.23 2.18 2.19
(g/cm3)
average 2.21
29
Density of debris flow
Table. Typical values of natural density (Carter and Bentley, 1991)
Natural density (g/cm3)
Material Bulk density* Dry density
Sands and gravels : very loose 1.7-1.8 1.3-1.4
Sands and gravels : loose 1.8-1.9 1.4-1.5
Sands and gravels : medium dense 1.9-2.1 1.5-1.8
Sands and gravels : dense 2.0-2.2 1.7-2.0
Sands and gravels : very dense 2.2-2.3 2.0-2.2
Poorly-graded sands 1.7-1.9 1.3-1.5
Well-graded sands 1.8-2.3 1.4-2.2
Well-graded sand/gravel mixtures 1.9-2.3 1.5-2.2
USCS : GP USCS : SW
31
Particle size distributions of debris flows
32
LiDAR measurement
Raw LiDAR point cloud Filtered LiDAR point cloud Constructed TIN Resampled 10㎝ DEM
33
Analysis of Topographic Change
Observation boundary
of 1st experiment
: initiating facility
~ 300m from initiating facility
Topographic change observation result - erosion and deposition Longitudinal and Cross-sectional Profile Analysis
34
Cylinder type
Box type
Countermeasures
Max.
deposition depth
(1.3m, 1.2m)
v(m/sec)
2nd test
36
Countermeasure
gabion No.① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ ⑧ ⑨ ⑩ ⑪ ⑫
39
Countermeasure
0.8 m
41
Estimation of impact force
(1) Based on a bending moment of I-beam
42
Before test After test
Estimation of impact force
(1) Based on the bending moment of I-beam
- Allowable bending moment of I-Beam : 10.71 kN·m
- Impact force on I-beam: higher than 26.78 kN
2) In 824m of natural gully, downstream from the debris flow initiation facility, 17
video cameras were installed. Through video analysis, the velocity of debris flow
in the stream channel before and after the installation of countermeasures was
estimated.
4) The countermeasure in the course of debris flow slowed down the velocity in a
short period and lowered the depth of debris flow. Consequently, the
countermeasures could reduce the impact force and dynamic energy of the
debris flow.
5) Impact force was estimated based on the bending moment of I-beam and
existing equations. Existing equations based on the theoretical or empirical
relationships severely underestimates the impact force of a debris flow. 44
Thank you
for your attention !!!