Summary of preliminary 2D inundation modeling for three Hattian landslide dam breach scenarios
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
of 2D Inundation Modeling for Three Hattian Landslide Dam Breach ScenariosOn October 8, 2005, a M 7.6 earthquake near Muzafarrabad, Pakistan (Figure 1), triggered a landslide that dammed the Karli River and one of its tributaries about 4 km upstream of the confluence of the Karli and Jhelum rivers near the town of Hattian Bala.The smaller dam on the tributary of the Karli River has been artificially breached and is no longer a hazard.When the larger dammed lake on the Karli River has filled enough to flow over the landslide blockage, it will have impounded about 60 million cubic meters of water.This lake will drain through the landslide dam as it breaches during the spring runoff or during the monsoon season in early summer.The inundation associated with the Karli River landslide dam breach endangers a substantial downstream population, particularly the population located in the vicinity of Hattian Bala at the confluence of the Karli and Jhelum rivers.To help mitigate this hazard, we used an accurate two-dimensional flow model to simulate dambreak flows associated with three breach-rate downcutting scenarios, and estimated inundation depths and peak flow velocities.We superimposed inundation extents and other attributes on photographic images of the region to provide clear delineation of potential impacts on populated areas near the confluence of the Karli and Jhelum rivers.The numerical simulations are done on a two-dimensional mesh of the topography formed from square cells 5m on a side and derived from a high-resolution post-landslide digital elevation model (DEM).Using pre-and post landslide DEMs, we reconstructed the landslide mass blocking the Karli River, shown in Figure 2. We modified the breach to reflect the artificial cut made to breach the smaller tributary dam, and we cut a 7-m-deep spillway through the lowest elevation portion of the Karli River landslide dam to approximate remediation activities to reduce downstream impacts of the landslide dam breach.It appears that an 18-m-deep spillway may instead be implemented prior to the dam breach, so our simulations would likely overestimate impacts if the 18-m-deep spillway excavation is achieved prior to overtopping of the dam.To initiate flow over the dam, we flooded the region upstream of the Karli River landslide dam to a water surface elevation 0.2 m higher than needed to flow over the top of the landslide dam.We simulated inundations associated with three dam-breach downcutting rate scenarios as water flows over the top of the dam.The highest breach-rate scenario was used to simulate a potential liquefaction of the blockage and its rapid incorporation into a flow.The two lower breach rate scenarios are associated with stable downcutting of the slide.These three breach scenarios bracket the range of maximum inundation conditions associated with two classes of breach behavior.A breach rate of 1000 m/hr was used to represent maximum inundation associated with rapid liquefaction and integration of the slide mass into the flow over a period of 8 minutes.A breach downcutting rate of 100 m/hr was used to represent the maximum inundation associated with stable downcutting of the slide, consistent with the maximum estimated downcutting rates for landslide dams (Walder and O'Connor, 1997).A lower breach downcutting rate of 50 m/hr was used to illustrate the reduced inundation associated with stable downcutting of the slide, at a rate consistent with the median estimated downcutting rates observed for landslide dams (Walder and O'Connor, 1997).For all three breach rate scenarios, we used initial conditions of 100 m 3 /s baseflow in the Karli River and 2000 m 3 /s in the Jhelum River obtained by looking up baseflow conditions on the world wide web.These baseflow conditions, particularly in the Jhelum River, can significantly impact the inundation near the confluence of the Karli and Jhelum Rivers as well as along the Jhelum River both upstream and downstream of its confluence with the Karli River.We assumed these values, and actual flows may be quite variable, particularly during the monsoon season.The
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».