Japan Geoscience Union Meeting 2022

Presentation information

[J] Oral

M (Multidisciplinary and Interdisciplinary) » M-IS Intersection

[M-IS16] Geophysical particulate gravity current

Mon. May 23, 2022 3:30 PM - 5:00 PM 203 (International Conference Hall, Makuhari Messe)

convener:Hajime Naruse(Department of Geology and Mineralogy, Graduate School of Science, Kyoto University), convener:Yuichi Sakai(Graduate School of Science, Kyoto University), Hiroyuki A. Shimizu(National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience), convener:Takahiro Tanabe(National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience), Chairperson:Yuichi Sakai(Faculty of Agriculture, Utsunomiya University), Hiroyuki A. Shimizu(National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience), Takahiro Tanabe(National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience)

4:45 PM - 5:00 PM

[MIS16-05] Comparison of numerical simulation results for landslide-triggered debris flows considering the liquefaction state of fine sediment

*Norifumi Hotta1, Junichiro Tobe1, Yuichi Sakai2, Yuki Nishiguchi3, Taro Uchida4 (1.Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, the University of Tokyo, 2.Faculty of Agriculture, Utsunomiya University, 3.CTI Engineering Co., Ltd, 4.Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Tsukuba)

Keywords:debris flow, numerical simulation, fine sediment

Evaluation of finer sediment behavior within debris flows leads to a higher reproducibility in the numerical simulations of debris flow propagation (Nishiguchi et al. 2011). We carried out numerical simulations for six landslide-triggered debris flows considering the liquefaction state of finer sediment and compared the results with the in-situ debris flows. The numerical simulations were performed based on shallow water equations with the leap-flog scheme introducing the constitutive equations for a debris flow (Miyamoto and Itoh, 2002), and two entrainment rate equations (Takahashi and Kuang, 1986; Egashira et al, 1988) were tested. The liquefaction state was evaluated using the model proposed by Sakai et al. (2019). First, the final results of one-dimensional calculation were compared with detailed records such as deposition depth and bed width obtained immediately after the debris flow occurrences. Then, the inundation area was compared after two-dimensional calculations for four cases terrain model was available before the debris-flow event. The results showed better reproducibility when considering the liquefaction state in all the tested cases. The best performances were classified into two types: obtained with the fixed parameter for the liquefaction state or the variable parameter reflecting the kinematic condition of debris flow. The results of the two-dimensional calculation were consistent with the one-dimensional calculation. The two settings of liquefaction for optimization infer that landslide-triggered debris flows can descend as a debris flow with well-mixed materials with the characteristics affected by kinematic conditions or as a mass movement closing to landslide in which the excess pore pressure is maintained.