Debris-flow hazards in areas affected by the June 27, 1995, storm in Madison County, Virginia

Morgan, Benjamin A.; Wieczorek, Gerald F.; Campbell, Russell H.; Gori, P.L.

doi:10.3133/ofr97438

Cited by 18 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The framework developed in this paper can be used to analyze the stability of the hollows surveyed by Morgan et al [1997] in Madison County, Virginia. The parameters will be assumed to be the same as determined by Morrissey et al [2001].…”

Section: A Case Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This analysis is based on values reported in the rainfall frequency atlas of the eastern United States (National Weather Service, http://www.erh.noaa.gov/er/hq/Tp40s.htm). The debris flow source areas considered in this study were surveyed by Morgan et al [1997] and their characteristics are reported in Table 2. In the application of our model we locate the failure plane at a depth corresponding to the landslide scar depth measured in the field by Morgan et al [1997].…”

Section: A Case Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The debris flow source areas considered in this study were surveyed by Morgan et al [1997] and their characteristics are reported in Table 2. In the application of our model we locate the failure plane at a depth corresponding to the landslide scar depth measured in the field by Morgan et al [1997]. The contributing areas were calculated using 10 m × 10 m DEMs, and were used, along with the other topographic parameters (Table 2), to calculate the preexisting conditions expressed by the long‐term wetness ratio, W (equation (2)).…”

Section: A Case Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“… a The first five columns report ID numbers, elevations, slope angles, debris flow thickness, and width of debris flow source areas surveyed by Morgan et al [1997]. Contributing areas, A , were determined using 10 m × 10 m digital elevation models (U.S. Geological Survey).…”

Section: A Case Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Overall higher values of W are associated with lower return periods, hence with higher likelihood of landslide occurrence, as indicated by Figure 8. W was able to explain about 40–45% of the variability of T r in a set of 32 hollows (Table 2) sampled from the published inventory of debris flow source areas [ Morgan et al , 1997]. These values of the return period are reported in Table 2 for two different hyetograph shapes.…”

Section: A Case Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Potential for landsliding: Dependence on hyetograph characteristics

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[1] This paper examines the effect of hyetograph shape on the potential for landsliding in soil-mantled landscapes. An existing pore pressure response model (Iverson, 2000) is used to study the effects of unsteady rainfall infiltration in hillslopes, and the effect of slope and convergent topography is expressed using a steady state model of slope-parallel subsurface flow. Slope stability is assessed using an infinite slope analysis. This theoretical framework is coupled with simple hyetograph models and to intensity-duration-frequency functions to determine the return period of landslide-triggering rainfall. Results also show that hyetographs with a peak at the end of a rainfall event have a stronger destabilizing effect than hyetographs with a constant rainfall or with a peak at the beginning of a storm. Thus the variability of hyetograph shapes adds uncertainty to the assessment of landsliding triggered by rainfall.

show abstract

Section: A Case Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Case Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Case Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Case Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Case Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Potential for landsliding: Dependence on hyetograph characteristics

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A multidimensional stability model for predicting shallow landslide size and shape across landscapes

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The size of a shallow landslide is a fundamental control on both its hazard and geomorphic importance. Existing models are either unable to predict landslide size or are computationally intensive such that they cannot practically be applied across landscapes. We derive a model appropriate for natural slopes that is capable of predicting shallow landslide size but simple enough to be applied over entire watersheds. It accounts for lateral resistance by representing the forces acting on each margin of potential landslides using earth pressure theory and by representing root reinforcement as an exponential function of soil depth. We test our model's ability to predict failure of an observed landslide where the relevant parameters are well constrained by field data. The model predicts failure for the observed scar geometry and finds that larger or smaller conformal shapes are more stable. Numerical experiments demonstrate that friction on the boundaries of a potential landslide increases considerably the magnitude of lateral reinforcement, relative to that due to root cohesion alone. We find that there is a critical depth in both cohesive and cohesionless soils, resulting in a minimum size for failure, which is consistent with observed size-frequency distributions. Furthermore, the differential resistance on the boundaries of a potential landslide is responsible for a critical landslide shape which is longer than it is wide, consistent with observed aspect ratios. Finally, our results show that minimum size increases as approximately the square of failure surface depth, consistent with observed landslide depth-area data.

show abstract