Contrast experiments on breaching characteristics of landslide dams and debris-flow dams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The difference in soil properties determines the different breaching characteristics exhibited by landslide dams (LDs) and debris-flow dams (DFDs). In this study, two types of soil were prepared by controlling the initial water content and the mixing time of the soil to construct the LD and DFD. Based on observations of breach in dams with six different grain size distributions, the following conclusions were drawn: (1) the erosion resistance within the soil leads to a slower failure speed for DFD under the same grain size distribution and particle density. However, both types of dams exhibit a nonuniform downcutting process in the longitudinal direction, induced by uneven velocities. (2) Laterally, DFDs are characterized by the creep slide of the breach bank, distinct from the intermittent slide observed in LD. (3) For the range of conditions tested, the peak discharge of LD significantly exceeds that of DFD. Additionally, the flood curve of LD exhibits a bimodal characteristic, attributed to the slide of the bank slope and the nonuniform distribution of particles within the dam. Finally, a prediction formula for the downcutting coefficient of the breach was established and validated by past studies. This study provides a basis for predicting outburst floods of LD and DFD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".