ExperimentalStudyontheImpactofLandslide-Generated … · 2020. 12. 11. · ResearchArticle...

Research ArticleExperimental Study on the Impact of Landslide-GeneratedWaves against Wharf Pile

Ping Mu 12 Pingyi Wang 12 Linfeng Han 3 Jie Zhang12 and Meili Wang4

1National Engineering Technology Research Center for Inland Waterway Regulation Chongqing Jiaotong UniversityChongqing 400074 China2Co-Established by Province and MinistryKey Laboratory of Water Conservancy and Transport Engineering of Education Ministry Chongqing Jiaotong UniversityChongqing 400074 China3School of Civil Engineering Chongqing Jiaotong University Chongqing 400074 China4School of Architecture and Urban Planning Chongqing Jiaotong University Chongqing 400074 China

Correspondence should be addressed to Pingyi Wang py-wang163com

Received 16 June 2020 Revised 24 September 2020 Accepted 24 October 2020 Published 11 December 2020

Academic Editor Rafael J Bergillos

Copyright copy 2020 PingMu et al-is is an open access article distributed under theCreative CommonsAttribution License whichpermits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properly cited

Landslide-generated waves have caused great catastrophic damage to the infrastructure eg dam and wharf because of theextreme loading in the reservoir area while the wharf pile is rarely designed to withstand the loading associated with landslide-generated waves -is experimental study was conducted in a generalized 3D basin to simulate the waves generating process andexplore the impact of the dynamic pressure process on the wharf pile As the phenomenon that landslide-generated impulse wavesimpacted on the wharf pile in the form of dynamic pressure the distribution pattern of the dynamic pressure along the watercolumnwas analyzed and revealed specifically-e results indicate that the dynamic pressure was constant below the water surfacealong the vertical direction and its magnitude was correlated with the wave amplitude as well as wave celerity On this basis amultivariate dimensionless analysis was implemented and the empirical formulas for the dynamic pressure were establishedFurthermore the total force acting on the wharf pile was given From a practical perspective these findings could offer guidance toprevent the damage of the impulse wave pressure on the wharf pile

1 Introduction

Impulse waves impacting into reservoirs is a typical sec-ondary natural disaster formed after the landslide enters intothe water and its damage often significantly exceeds thelandslide itself [1] As a worldwide hazard landslide-gen-erated impulse wave has resulted in catastrophic disaster andcaused great losses of life and property destruction of theinfrastructure in wharf and vast devastation even overturnto the ships In this vein taking the famous Vajont impulsewave event as a typical case almost 2000 persons were killedand the downstream city of Longarone was fully destroyed[2]

Hence to solve this predicament the topic of landslidesgenerated impulse waves in reservoirs has been attracting

worldwide attention over the past decades From the per-spective of research content as recently summarized by Muet al [3] this extant literature mainly focused on the impulsewave generation [4 5] near field propagating wave char-acteristics [6ndash8] and offshore wave runup [9ndash11] while littleattention was paid to the exposed wharves and otherbuildings To a large extent with the development of theports the wharf becomes more important for the safe op-eration of the reservoir compared with other buildings (egbank slope and breakwater) and is plagued with more se-rious hazardous consequences when encountering the im-pulse wave event [12 13] -eoretically the damage ofimpulse waves to the wharf is mainly attributed to the totalforce which is caused by hydrodynamic and hydrostaticpressure Since the hydrostatic pressure theory has been

HindawiAdvances in Civil EngineeringVolume 2020 Article ID 8891406 14 pageshttpsdoiorg10115520208891406

already developed maturely the force analysis of conven-tional design loads on infrastructure could be conductedwell Furthermore the wind load and the tide load as theextreme loading have been considered generally in the wharfdesign but the extreme loading associated with landslide-generated impulse wave on the wharf is basically ignored[14] Obviously this omission will bring a series of risks tothe management and operation of wharves -erefore as anidentified knowledge gap the hydrodynamic pressure oflandslide-generated impulse wave exerted on the wharf is animportant issue to address

In view of this case taking the -ree Gorges Reservoir(TGR) in China as a representative case exploring thehazardous impact of impulse wave pressure on the exposedwharves is not only important but also necessary As one ofthe largest artificial reservoirs worldwide the TGR has beingfaced with the serious natural hazard of impulse waveswhilst the number of wharves has increased significantlysince it impounded in 2003 [15] Simultaneously more than5300 landslides happened because of the impoundment andwater-level fluctuation between 145m and 175m [16] well-documented events include the impulse waves induced byQianjiangping landslide on 14 July 2003 [17] Gongjiafanglandslide on November 2008 [18] and the Hongyanzilandslide-generated impulse waves on June 24 2015 [19]Under this situation to effectively prevent the hazard it isvery urgent to explore the hazardous impact of landslide-generated impulse wave pressure on the exposed wharves inthe TGR Furthermore given that high-pile wharf is themost popular type in the TGR [12] this study is furtherlimited to the wharf pile to improve the effectiveness ofresearch

In view of these conditions this study aims to examinethe impact of landslide-generated impulse waves against thewharf pile in the TGR Meanwhile the impact on the wharfpile mainly contributes to the dynamic wave pressure whichis essentially caused by the fluctuation of water level (namelyimpulse wave) [14] Consequently the detailed objectives ofthis paper are (1) to simulate the waves generate process andexplore the characteristics of landslide-generated impulse atthe wharf (2) to conduct the dynamic pressure process anddistribution along the water depth (3) to reveal the rela-tionship between the dynamic pressure and wave amplitudeas well as wave velocity and further deduce the dynamicpressure formulas of the impulse waves and the total forceacting on wharf pile

2 Experimental Setup

21 Wave Generation Due to some features such as sud-denness and short duration the data of landslide-inducedimpulse waves are scarce on field measurements [3 20] Tomake up for the lack of data an experimental approach istherefore adopted to simulate and analyze the process oflandslide-generated impulse waves in this paper -e scaledphysical experiment has been widely used to study thelandslide-related impulse waves [21ndash23] because it canmake the phenomenon quite realistic Following previousstudies [24 25] the present experiments were conducted in a

3D wave basin with a scale of 1 70 generalized from theprototype of the Jiangnan tuokou wharf reach which was atypical curved reach existing in the upper Yangtze River (seeFigure 1) Specifically the total length of the basin was 48mthe upstream and downstream straight were 28m and 13mrespectively -e radius of curvature for the intermediateportion was 7m -e cross-section of the basin was trape-zoidal the bottom was 294m and the slopes in concavebank and convex bank were 33deg and 20deg respectively -edetails are illustrated in Figure 2

-e waves were generated by a gravity type wave makerat the concave bank of the basin -e system of wave makerincluding landslide chute wire mesh and chain hoist described specifically by Mu et al [26] allowed for pre-defining the slide geometry and the slide impact angle Inaddition the chute could restrict the granular concreteblocks from an instant collapse of the slide before enteringthe water basin Field survey indicates that there are pri-marily rocky block rockfall or slide and the disintegratingstructure rock mass failure that have failed or have thepotential to fail in the TGR which generates or may generateimpulse waves [27 28] In this paper we focus on the lattertype -e landslides were modeled by the granular concreteblocks containing five various geometric sizes (labelled as(a) (b) (c) (d) and (e)) as illustrated in Figure 3 allowingfor similarity and deformability as reported by Han andWang [29] Compared to these granular materials such asartificial material (PP-BaSO4) [21] spherical glass beads andnonspherical aquarium sand [30] the present slides modeledby quadrangular concrete blocks with a density of 2500 kgm3 were more similar to the happened or potential land-slides in the TGR

Tested landslide models with nine different sizes in-cluding a constant slide length 100m a slide width 050m100m and 150m and a slide thickness 020m 040m and060m were carried out by adjustment of the sliding chutegeometrical shape -e slide length with a constant l 1mwas deemed to be appropriate based on the result that theslide length has a slight influence on the primary wavereported by Wiegel [31] -is chute allowed for predefiningthe slide geometry including a slide width 050m 100mand 150m and a slide front edge allowing it to reach

8

28

Slide

Wharf

R7

+

13

Figure 1 Plane layout of the wave basin geometrical measure-ments were in m

2 Advances in Civil Engineering

different still water depths as well as a slide impact anglewith any value A flexible wire mesh was placed in front ofthe sliding chute to restrain the concrete blocks before thetrials When everything was ready for instance the waterwas still and the measuring equipment had been alreadydebugged the motion of landslide was triggered andaccelerated due to gravity into the water body after sud-denly manual release for the wire mesh Impulse wave wasgenerated from the moment that slide entered into thewater body until the cessation of its underwater motionMoreover the blocks would be brought up before eachexperiment to remain in the same initial experimentalconditions

22 Wharf Model Apart from the induced impulse wavesubsequently we will focus on the model of wharf Asemphasized in Section 1 the generalized wharf used in thepresent study was ldquohigh-pilerdquo and its structure was assumedas ldquorigidrdquo fixed in the opposite bank of the landslide with adistance 637m along the axis -e length and width of thewharf were 150m and 043m respectively -ese piles withthe diameter 228 cm line spacing 10 cm were made byplastic pipes as shown in Figure 4

23 A Comprehensive Experimental Design -e slidingchute allowed for any angle from 0 to 80 degrees but only 2040 and 60 degrees were considered in this study based on thefield investigation of the distribution of landslide angle inTGR where the landslide impact angles were from 20 to 60degrees and the average value was 36 degrees Landslide-generated impulse waves have great differences under dif-ferent water level conditions [32] Since the impoundment ofthe TGR in 2003 the water level fluctuated periodicallybetween 145m asl and 175m asl [15 20] so 145m asl 155masl and 175m asl were selected as the experimental waterlevels Based on the investigated cross-section and thebottom elevation of the prototype the water depths in thephysical model corresponded with these three water levelscan be calculated according to geometric similarity whichwere 074m 088m and 116m respectively Moreover thewater depths conform to the criterion of thumb hge 020m torule out considerable scale effects on the maximum waveamplitude of subaerial landslide-generated impulse wavessuggested by Heller et al [33]

Based on the above analysis the experiments containedfour factors slide thickness (s) slide width (w) slide impactangle (α) and still water depth (h) More impulse wave setswere needed to understand the relationship between impulse

Slide L1 L2 Piles

33deg WG1 WG2 WG3 20deg

294

Figure 2 -e detailed setup of three wave gauges

12

186

(a)

8

124

(b)

6

93

(c)

2

4

6

(d)

2

1

3

(e)

Figure 3 Sizes of concrete blocks geometrical measurements were in cm

Advances in Civil Engineering 3

waves and pressure so three levels were chosen for eachfactor as shown in Table 1 A comprehensive experimentaldesign with all of the factors and combinations was chosentherefore 34 81 trials have been conducted Moreover eachtest with identical controlled variables was repeated twice

In fact there was an independent parameter called theslide impact velocity at the water-entry place which wasinfluenced by the slide impact angle-is is because the frontof landslide models was adjusted just to touch the surface ofwater and the slide length was kept constant so the releaseheight above water increased with the increase of α in thebasin As a result the slide impact velocity (vs) was in-constant with different slide impact angles -e previousexperimental study by Evers et al [5] showed that vs wassignificant for impulse wave characteristics especially thefirst wave crest amplitude and wave trough amplitudeHence the slide movement process was recorded in videosby a high-definition camera and vs could be estimated It isimportant to note that the drop height of underwater in-creased with the increase of h -erefore the slide impactangle and the still water depth could exert a positive in-fluence on the kinetic slide energy which could be ultimatelyconversed to wave energy Finally the experimental pa-rameters were expressed as dimensionless ones including therelative slide length (L) relative slide width (W) relativeslide thickness (S) relative slide volume (V) the slide Froudenumber (F) and the slide impact angle -e details of thesedimensionless experimental parameters are summarized inTable 2

24 Experimental Measurements -e main measurementinstruments include the wave gauges to measure the watersurface elevations in the wave propagation direction andpressure sensors to determine the impulse wave pressure onthe wharf pile

In the wave basin 24 wave gauges with an identificationnumber from 1 to 24 were installed in the generation andpropagation zones -e wave gauges with an accuracy ofplusmn10mm and a sampling frequency of 50Hz are developedby Southwest Water Transport Engineering Research In-stitute However the data from all the wave gauges arebeyond the scope of this paper which focus on the gener-ation and attenuation of the impulse waves and will beinvestigated in future work by the authors Only the datafrom three wave gauges (labelled as WG1 WG2 and WG3

in Figure 2) along the slide axis direction were usedaccording to the objective needs of the present research

WG1 was placed near the point where the slide enteredwater to record the impulse wave profiles and was moved toadopt different water depths based on the preliminary testsand it was used to record the initial wave WG3 was fixednear the wharf to investigate the characteristics of landslide-generated impulse waves WG2 was between WG1 andWG3 -e spacing between adjacent wave gauges was avariable of water depth as presented in Table 3

-e impulse wave pressure was measured by pressuresensors (CYG1145T) with an accuracy of plusmn10 Pa and asampling frequency of 500Hz -e wave pressure sensors atequal intervals were placed on the middle wharf pile labelledas WPS1 to WPS3 from the bottom upward to static watersurface However the water depth was a governing pa-rameter and not a constant so the intervals were not thesame in different water depths WPS1 was fixed at the samelocation and WPS3 was used to record the wave pressure atthe surface of water When the water depths were 074m088m and 116m the intervals between two adjacent wavepressure sensors were 0345m 0415m and 0555m re-spectively (see Figure 5)

However the signals collected by wave pressure sensorswere voltage values In order to acquire the voltage-pressurecurves the experiments between wave pressure and voltagewere tested three times-emean values were adopted as thecalibration results

3 Results and Discussion

31WaveGenerationProcess -e slide began to impact intothe water body after sudden manual release for the wiremesh while waves including jetflow and impulse waves weregenerated A sequence of pictures was extracted from thevideo as shown in Figure 6

In Figure 6(a) only a few concrete blocks fell into waterat the moment of manual release for the wire mesh and thefirst jetflow was generated As a number of concrete blocksplunged into the basin the first jetflow was further inten-sified see Figure 6(b) -e first jetflow surged forward and

Figure 4 -e layout of wharf in the test

Table 1 -ree levels of parameters

Parameters Dimension -ree levelss m 020 040 060w m 050 100 150α Degree 20 40 60h m 074 088 116

Table 2 Overview of experimental quantities

Dimensionless experimental parameters Test range11139371 L lh 0862sim343611139372 W wh 0431sim300011139373 S sh 0121sim098311139374 F vs(gh)12 0178sim099311139375 V lwsh3 0064sim720011139376 α 20sim60 degrees


Table 3 -e distance parameter

Still water depth (m) L1 (m) L2 (m)074 200 150088 200 250116 200 250

WSP3

WSP2

WSP1

034

50

345

005

(a)

WSP3

WSP2

WSP1

041

50

415

005

(b)

WSP3

WSP2

WSP1

055

50

555

005

(c)

Figure 5 -e experimental setup of three wave pressure sensors at different water depths

WG2 WG1WG3

The first jetflow

(a)

WG3 WG2 WG1

The first jetflow

(b)

WG1WG2WG3

The first jetflow

(c)

WG3 WG2 WG1

The first jetflow

(d)

WG3 WG2 WG1

The first jetflow The second jetflow

(e)

WG3 WG2 WG1

The first jetflow

The first impulse waveThe second jetflow

(f )

Figure 6 Continued


fell down in the force of inertia and gravity and an aeratedwater tongue formed quickly as shown in Figures 6(c) and6(d) Immediately followed by the second jetflow and thefirst jetflow faded away and the second jetflow strengthenedgradually simultaneously the first impulse wave came intobeing as shown in Figures 6(e) and 6(f) After that thesecond jetflow disappeared and the second impulse wave wasgenerated as presented in Figures 6(g) and 6(h) -e firstand second impulse waves propagated upstream down-stream and the opposite bank in the basin in Figure 6(i) thefirst impulse wave had been out of the video recorded by thecamera In addition the heights of both the first and secondjetflow were much larger than the impulse wave crest thephenomena were also found by Tan et al [14] who carriedout the tests in generalized model From a disastrous per-spective the destructive intensity of jetflow was muchgreater than the impulse wave but the influence range wassmaller than the impulse wave

Furthermore it can be drawn that the jetflow reached itsmaximum at the location ofWG1 and almost disappeared atthe position of WG2 However the jetflow could not becaptured inWG3-at is to say the record ofWG3 was onlythe water level by the static water plus the impulse wave Forthe impulse wave similarly the wave amplitude of theprimary wave was highest near the point where the slideimpacted the water and became lower with the distance ofpropagation increasing When these impulse waves arrivedat the wharf the amplitude of the leading waves was rela-tively smaller than that in the water-entry place

Besides the above pictures from the video these threewave gauges also recorded the water-level processes at thelocations of WG1 WG2 and WG3 as shown in Figure 7

-e first impulse wave crest amplitude recorded byWG1was the largest and the one at the location of WG2 wassecondly larger However the wave crest amplitude of WG3

was the least It could be attributed to two reasons one wasthe influence of jetflow which had a great effect at the site ofWG1 but almost little impact at WG3 and the other was thatthe wave amplitude was generally attenuated because of thedispersion and damping when propagating [32]

32 Dynamic Pressure Process and Distribution -e hy-drodynamic pressure was essentially caused by the impulsewave and jetflow characterized by high splash and dynamicflow around the structure [34] However the wharf pile wasfar from the entry point of the slide and the jetflow could notreach here -erefore the hydrodynamic pressure on thewharf pile was only the dynamic pressure generated by theimpulse wave -rough the data analysis of wave pressuresensors an interesting phenomenon has been discoveredwhich was that the dynamic pressure processes recorded byWPS1 WPS2 and WPS3 were almost identical Test no 81was selected as an example and the dynamic pressureprocesses are shown in Figure 8

In Figure 8 it is not hard to find that the wave pressureprofiles recorded by WPS1 WPS2 and WPS3 were almostsynchronous For example the dynamic pressures of WPS1WPS2 and WPS3 simultaneously reached their maximumvalues at about 305 s Similarly the minimum negativedynamic pressures recorded by the three pressure sensorsappeared at the same time (approximate 315 s) In additionthe dynamic pressure of the impulse waves on the wharf pilecame to being when the first impulse wave arrived and thefirst dynamic pressure was also the highest one

Subsequently the distribution of wave pressure on thepile along water depth would be explored and revealedFrom the perspective of safety the maximum dynamicpressure would threaten the wharf pile Specifically themaximum positive dynamic pressure made the wharf pile

WG3 WG2 WG1

The first impulse wave The second jetflow

(g)

WG3 WG2 WG1

The first impulse wave The second impulse wave

(h)

WG3 WG2 WG1


(i)

Figure 6 -e process of waves generation from test no 15 with l 10m w 10m s 06m h 074m and α 40 degrees


endure the largest total pressure and the minimum negativedynamic pressure may cause negative pressure on the wharfpile As mentioned above the first dynamic pressure wasalways the most significant hence both the first maximumpositive dynamic pressure (Pc) and the first minimumnegative dynamic pressure (Pt) were adopted to explore theregularity of dynamic pressure distribution Except forlacking data in all tests Pc and Pt at different still waterdepths are plotted in Figure 9 In general the absolute value

of positive dynamic pressure was greater than the negativedynamic pressure under the same experimental conditionsand the former had a more regular distribution than thelatter

On the whole the dynamic pressure was almost constantalong the vertical direction under the still water level Itmeans that landslide-generated wave energy not onlyhappened on the surface but also throughout the wholewater and the dynamic pressure was almost the same from

WG1WG2WG3

ndash04ndash02

000204

Wat

er le

vel (

m)

ndash04ndash02

000204

Wat

er le

vel (

m)

ndash04ndash02

000204

Wat

er le

vel (

m)

25 50 75 1000Time (s)

Figure 7 -e water-level processes recorded by three wave gauges

ndash04

ndash02

00

02

04

Pres

sure

(kPa

)

ndash04ndash02

000204

Pres

sure

(kPa

)

ndash04

ndash02

00

02

04

Pres

sure

(kPa

)

25 50 75 100 125 150 175 2000Time (s)

WPS3WPS2WPS1

Figure 8 -e dynamic pressure processes from test no 81 with l 10m w 15m s 06m h 116m and α 60deg


h = 074m

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

z (m

)

01 02 03 04 0500Pc (kPa)

(a)

h = 074m

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

z (m

)

01 02 03 0400Pt (kPa)

(b)

h = 088m

ndash08

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

z (m

)

01 02 03 04 0500Pc (kPa)

(c)

h = 088m

ndash08

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

z (m

)

01 02 03 0400Pt (kPa)

(d)

h = 116m

ndash12

ndash10

ndash08

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

02

z (m

)

01 02 03 0400Pc (kPa)

(e)

h = 116m

ndash12

ndash10

ndash08

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

02

z (m

)

01 02 0300Pt (kPa)

(f )

Figure 9 -e distribution of wave pressure along water depth


top to bottom -e revealed distribution is consistent withHuang et al [35] It is not difficult to understand the mo-mentum of the landslide was converted into a huge impactpressure on the water as soon as the landslide entered into thewater based on the conservation of momentum and si-multaneously the pressure can be transmitted along the waterdepth With the propagation of waves the dynamic pressureof the impulse wave decreased however the dynamic pres-sure was still constant against the pile from bottom to top-is finding could be supported by Heller [36] who reportedthat for shallow-water waves eg landslide-generated im-pulse wave the whole water body is in motion

However it is not strictly consistent with the ldquoVrdquo shapedistribution proposed by Tan et al [14] For this distinctionit is largely attributed to the body in which the wave pressuresensor was put on In Tanrsquos test the wave pressure sensorswere put on the bank slope which greatly influences thewave propagation from spreading and resulted in wavereflection breaking and runups While in this study thewave pressure sensors were placed on the front of the wharfpile whereat waves can continue to propagate around thepile which is also named ldquowave diffractionrdquo Moreoverother piles without wave pressure sensors would affect thewave propagation and further affect wave pressure

Now that the distribution characteristics of dynamicpressure have been revealed the main affecting factors ofwave pressure will be explored-e wave pressure was causedby the velocity component and the inertia component [37] sothe relationship between dynamic pressure and wave am-plitude and wave propagation velocity would be explored

33 5e Dynamic Pressure and Force Acting on Wharf Pile

331 5e Relationship between Dynamic Pressure and WaveAmplitude Given that the data of wave amplitude anddynamic pressure recorded by wave gauges (WG1 WG2 andWG3) and wave pressure sensors (WPS1 WPS2 and WPS3)were time series which could be drawn as process curves Testno 69 was taken as an example to probe into the relationshipbetween impulse wave pressure and wave amplitude Fig-ure 10 presents that the wave pressure fluctuation was syn-chronous as that of the fluctuation of water level elevation Toa large extent the finding demonstrating the dynamicpressure was partly caused by the inertia component

From the perspective of magnitude based on the evo-lutionary consistency of wave pressure and amplitude de-scribed in Figure 10 it is further inferred that there may be alinear relationship between the impulse wave pressure and thewave amplitude To support this claim only the first wavecrest amplitude (ac) and wave trough amplitude (at) wereanalyzed Because the first wave tends to have the greatesteffect on the wharf piles whilst it can effectively avoid theimpact of wave reflection and superposition [38] Similarlythe first maximum positive wave pressure (Pc) and the firstminimum negative wave pressure (Pt) were selected Scatterplots are adopted to study correlation between the waveamplitude and wave pressure at the same time (see Figure 11)

-e experimental result of Figure 11 illustrates the re-lationship between the maximum wave amplitude and the

maximum wave pressure It was not difficult to find thatthere was a strong correlation between maximum positivewave pressure and maximum positive amplitude Never-theless the minimum negative wave pressure scattereddispersedly with the maximum wave trough especially therelative minimum negative wave pressure was more than acertain threshold value such as minus002

332 5e Relationship between Dynamic Pressure and WavePropagation Celerity -e wave propagation celerity is animportant parameter for the dynamic pressure as proposedby the standard of Code of Hydrology for Sea Harbour [37]However for each single crest and trough with an individualwave celerity [7] the relative propagation celerity of the firstwave crest and wave trough was estimated respectively asshown in Figure 12

In the present study the crest velocity and trough ve-locity were defined by two neighbouring wave gauge spacingdivided by the propagation time between the two successivewave crests or troughs and given as

Test No69ndash02

ndash01

00

01

02

Wat

er le

vel (

m)

ndash04

ndash02

00

02

04

Pres

sure

(kPa

)

50 100 150 2000Time (s)

WG3WPS3

Figure 10 -e curves of water surface elevation and impulse wavepressure from Test No 69 with l 10 m w 10 m s 06 m h

116 m and α 40deg

Wave crestWave trough

ndash02 00 02 04ndash04ah

ndash008

ndash006

ndash004

ndash002

000

002

004

006

008

Pρgh

Figure 11 Relative wave pressure with respect to the relative waveamplitude


cc ΔxΔtc

ct ΔxΔtt

(1)

where cc and ct are the first wave crest propagation celerityand the first wave trough propagation velocity respectivelyΔtc and Δtt are the propagation time required for the firstcrest and trough to pass the two successive wave gaugesrespectively Δx indicates the distance between the locationsof neighbouring wave gauges

In Figure 12 it is not hard to find that the nondimen-sional wave propagation celerity could be described as afunction of the dimensionless wave amplitude and similarfinding was also reported by Heller and Spinneken [39] andTang et al [32] For the solitary the celerity can be expressedas follows

csgh

1113968 1 +as

2h (2)

where cs is the solitary celerity and as is the solitary am-plitude -e left side of equation (2) represents the relativewave celerity of the solitary and the right side is a function ofthe relative amplitude

-e impulse wave propagation celerity was comparedwith a solitary propagation celerity Based on our experi-mental results the empirical formulas of cc and ct wereexpressed as follows

ccgh

1113968 08 1 +ac

2h1113874 1113875 (3)

ctgh

1113968 07 1 +at

2h1113874 1113875 (4)

It is noted that the amplitude used to calculate thelandslide-generated impulse wave celerity was the meanwave crest and trough which were evaluated based on thedata recorded by WG2 and WG3 For equations (3) and (4)it is not difficult to find that in forms cc and ct were 08 and07 times in terms of the form of the phase celerity of asolitary wave which was due to the finding that landslide-generated impulse waves consist of a wave packet propa-gating with a group celerity rather than a phase celerity andthe group celerity is commonly smaller than the phase ce-lerity [32 39] Furthermore except for few values the ex-perimental wave trough was closer to the 07 timestheoretical value more than the wave crest close to the 08times theoretical one It was attributed to the jetflowaforementioned in Section 31 whose effect on the experi-mental wave crest was greater than that on the wave trough

In order to reveal the relationship between dynamicpressure and wave propagation celerity the relative dynamicpressure and the relative wave propagation celerity of thewave crest and wave trough are shown in Figure 13

Figure 13 shows that the relative dynamic pressuregenerated by the impulse wave was highly correlated withthe relative wave propagation celerity including the wave

ExpThe08lowastThe

050

075

100

125

150c c

(gh)

05

01 02 03 0400ach

(a)

ExpThe07lowastThe

01 02 03 0400atgh

050

075

100

125

150

c t(gh)

05

(b)

Figure 12-e relative wave propagation celerity Exp represents the experimental value-e represents the theoretical value of the solitarypropagation celerity


crest celerity and the wave trough celerity and the dynamicpressure generated by the velocity component was clarifiedBased on the aforementioned work the dynamic pressureformula of impulse wave generated by landslide would berevealed in the subsequent work

333 Dynamic Pressure Formulas of Impulse Waves Aspreviously mentioned the dynamic pressure of impulsewaves was related to the wave amplitude as well as wavepropagation celerity and as the wave crest amplitude is notalways equal to the wave trough amplitude [7 26 40] and thewave crest propagation celerity is also not the same as thepropagation celerity of the wave trough therefore thepositive dynamic pressure and the negative dynamic pres-sure were analyzed respectively In order to minimize thedimensional effect in the experiments the multivariate di-mensionless parameters were used for instance the dy-namic pressure and wave amplitude were expressed asrelative dynamic pressure and relative wave amplitude re-spectively -e multiple-nonlinear regression method wasused to analyze the experimental data and the followingfunctions could be obtained for the estimation of the positiveand negative pressure acting on the wharf pile as shownbelow

Pc

ρgh 019

ccgh

11139681113888 1113889

060ac

h1113874 1113875

098 (5)

Pt

ρgh minus014

ctgh

11139681113888 1113889

minus108at

h1113874 1113875

098 (6)

-e coefficients of determination for these two equationsare R2 089 and R2 085 respectively As can be seen in

these formulas the dynamic pressures acting on the pile areestimated based on the relative wave amplitude and relativepropagation celerity In detail the relative wave crest celeritycc

gh

1113968or the relative wave trough celerity ct

gh

1113968expressed

the velocity component and the relative wave amplitudeach or the relative wave trough ath represented the inertiacomponent which together influence the dynamic pressure-e validation ranges of the empirical equations (2) and (3)are 0lePcρghle 008 and minus006lePtρghle 0 respectively Toverify the formulas the experimental values of the positivedynamic pressure and the negative one plotted versus thecalculated are shown in Figures 14 and 15 and both the mostexperimental values scatter within a range of plus or minus30

It is not hard to find that the influence of celerity is largerfor the troughs than for the crests in equations (5) and (6) Inthe tests the relative celerity of the troughs span from 075 to095 and the relative celerity of the wave crests are from 095to 115 Taking into account the influence and range of thewave celerity the positive and negative dynamic pressurescould be similar Nevertheless the relative amplitude islarger for the crests than for the troughs and the constantcoefficient in equation (5) is greater than that in equation (6)-erefore positive dynamic pressures have a more impor-tant influence than the negative dynamic pressures

334 Total Force Acting onWharf Pile It is well known thatthe total pressure is equal to hydrodynamic pressure plushydrostatic pressure For the hydrostatic pressure itvaries linearly along the vertical direction However thepile is cylindrical and symmetric and then the hydrostaticpressures are equal in all directions and the force gen-erated by the hydrostatic pressure is zero -e

100 105 110 115095cc(gh)05

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

008P cρgh

(a)

ndash006

ndash005

ndash004

ndash003

ndash002

ndash001

000

P tρgh

085 090 095080ct(gh)05

(b)

Figure 13 -e relative dynamic pressure and the relative wave propagation celerity


hydrodynamic pressure is caused by the impulse wavewhen the water body is only disturbed by landslides and itis equal to the dynamic pressure It is noted that theimpulse wave propagated in wave train and the dynamicpressures are present around the pile but their values areunequal because of the phase angle of the wave train -eprofile of the dynamic pressure distribution on the pile isshown in Figure 16

For the worst-case scenario that the pressure is assumedto have its maximum value the total force is equal to thedynamic pressure times the bearing area which could beexpressed as

A (h + a) times D (7)

where A and D are the bearing area and diameter of thewharf pile respectively a is the wave amplitude at the axis ofthe wharf pile ac could be approximately used instead of aand then formula (7) is expressed as

A h + ac( 1113857 times D (8)

-erefore the maximum positive force acting on wharfpile could be derived as follows

F+

max 019

ccgh

11139681113888 1113889

060ac

h1113874 1113875

098ρgh times h + ac( 1113857 times D (9)

Similarly the minimum negative force acting on wharfpile could be expressed as

Fminusmin minus014

ctgh

11139681113888 1113889

minus 108at

h1113874 1113875

098ρgh h minus at( 1113857 times D (10)

It should be noted that the proposed empirical formulasare applicable especially to the ldquohigh-pilerdquo and they canprovide reference for landslide-generated impulse wavedisaster prevention and mitigation Yet the aforesaid dy-namic pressure formulas were derived based on idealiza-tions simplifications and specific test conditions In ourtests the bottom of the basin was generalized as horizontaland all the cross-sections were trapezoidal In fact thebottom of the natural river course is undulating and roughand the cross-sections including not only trapezoid but alsoU-shaped V-shaped and other forms are always variableincluding even within a short river reach -ese complexboundary conditions can affect the generation and char-acteristics of landslide-generated waves which determinethe dynamic pressure acting on the wharf pile In addition tosimplify the physical model the velocity related to the riverflow is absent However the dynamic pressure acting on thewharf pile was more complicated under the action of waterflow -erefore these results in this paper only provide arough reference and are not applied to design the pile nowFor further application to design wharf pile a large numberof extensive trials should be executed to address the uni-versality of these formulas

4 Conclusions

To effectively prevent the natural hazard of landslide-gen-erated impulse waves in reservoirs in this paper we ex-amined the impact of landslide-generated impulse wavesagainst the wharf pile in the TGR A series of physical ex-periments were conducted to generate impulse waves andstudy the impact of dynamic pressure on the wharf pile On

+30

e positive pulsating pressure

R2 = 089

ndash30

00

01

02

03

04

05

06

Calc

ulat

ed v

alue

(kPa

)

01 02 03 04 05 0600Experimental value (kPa)

Figure 14 Experimental positive dynamic pressure versus cal-culated results

ndash30

e negative pulsating pressure

+30

ndash020 ndash015 ndash010 ndash005 000ndash025Experimental value (kPa)

ndash025

ndash020

ndash015

ndash010

ndash005

000

Calc

ulat

ed v

alue

(kPa

)

R2 = 085

Figure 15 Experimental negative dynamic pressure versus cal-culated results

ac a

Pc

D

h

Figure 16 Sketch to define the force acting on the wharf pile


this basis some conclusions are summarized and presentedas follows

(1) In terms of impulse wave characteristics experi-mental results show that waves generated by land-slide include jetflow and impulse wave -e jetflowappeared earlier than the impulse wave in time andits amplitude was larger than the impulse waveamplitude However the propagation distance of thejetflow was shorter than the impulse wave so thewater affected by the jetflow was smaller From adisastrous perspective the jetflow had larger inten-sity but smaller range of influence

(2) In terms of wave pressure exerted on the wharf pileas the jetflow could not arrive at the wharf thepressure was only induced by the impulse wave andtest results illustrate that the dynamic pressure wasconstant along the vertical direction

(3) In terms of the dynamic pressure and force actingon the wharf pile this study reports that the dy-namic wave pressure was determined by the waveamplitude and wave celerity A multiple regressionwas adopted to reveal the relationship between thedynamic pressure and the wave amplitude as wellas wave celerity furthermore the correspondingforce on the wharf pile caused by impulse wave wasgiven

Data Availability

-e data used to support the findings of this study are in-cluded within the article

Conflicts of Interest

-e authors declare no conflicts of interest

Authorsrsquo Contributions

Ping Mu and Pingyi Wang conceived the experiments andwrote the manuscript Ping Mu and Linfeng Han designedand performed the experiments Jie Zhang analyzed the dataand drew pictures Meili Wang recorded experimental dataAll the authors modified and approved the submission ofthis manuscript

Acknowledgments

-is study was supported by the Chongqing ResearchProgram of Basic Research and Frontier Technology (Grantno cstc2017jcyjBX0070) the Science and Technology Re-search Program of Chongqing Municipal Education Com-mission (Grant no KJQN201900718) and the NationalNatural Science Foundation of China (Grant nos 51479015and 52009014)

References

[1] J-W Zhou F-G Xu X-G Yang Y-C Yang and P-Y LuldquoComprehensive analyses of the initiation and landslide-

generated wave processes of the 24 June 2015 Hongyanzilandslide at the three Gorges reservoir Chinardquo Landslidesvol 13 no 3 pp 589ndash601 2016

[2] S NWard and S Day ldquo-e 1963 landslide and flood at vaiontreservoir Italy A tsunami ball simulationrdquo Italian Journal ofGeosciences vol 130 no 1 pp 16ndash26 2011

[3] P Mu P Wang L Han and C Meng ldquoReview on researchabout disaster of landslide-generated impulse waves based onphysical model experiment approachrdquo Journal of Safety Sci-ence and Technology vol 16 no 1 pp 43ndash49 2020

[4] R-S Shih W-K Weng and C-Y Li ldquoExperimental study onthe generation and attenuation of landslide tsunamisrdquo Journalof Coastal Research vol 344 no 4 pp 864ndash876 2018

[5] F M Evers W H Hager and R M Boes ldquoSpatial impulsewave generation and propagationrdquo Journal of Waterway PortCoastal and Ocean Engineering vol 145 no 3 2019

[6] L Han Study on the Wave Field Characteristics of ImpulseWaves Generated by 5ree-Dimensional Landslides in CurvedGorge-type Reservoirs Chongqing Jiaotong UniversityChongqing China 2019

[7] H M Fritz W H Hager and H-E Minor ldquoNear fieldcharacteristics of landslide generated impulse wavesrdquo Journalof Waterway Port Coastal and Ocean Engineering vol 130no 6 pp 287ndash302 2004

[8] C Shi Y An and Q Liu ldquoLandslide-generated impulse wavesin deep V channel runup and near field characteristicsrdquoProcedia Engineering vol 126 pp 232ndash236 2015

[9] P L-F Liu T-R Wu F Raichlen C E Synolakis andJ C Borrero ldquoRunup and rundown generated by three-di-mensional sliding massesrdquo Journal of Fluid Mechanicsvol 536 pp 107ndash144 2005

[10] B C McFall and H M Fritz ldquoRunup of granular landslide-generated tsunamis on planar coasts and conical islandsrdquoJournal of Geophysical Research Oceans vol 122 no 8pp 6901ndash6922 2017

[11] F M Evers and R M Boes ldquoImpulse wave runup on steep tovertical slopesrdquo Journal of Marine Science and Engineeringvol 7 no 1 2019

[12] P Wang L Han T Yu and C Meng ldquoEffects of landslidegenerated impulse waves on ship impact force for pile wharfrdquoHarbin Gongcheng Daxue XuebaoJournal of Harbin Engi-neering University vol 37 no 6 pp 878ndash884 2016

[13] G Dong G Wang X Ma and Y Ma ldquoHarbor resonanceinduced by subaerial landslide-generated impact wavesrdquoOcean Engineering vol 37 no 10 pp 927ndash934 2010

[14] J-m Tan B-l Huang and Y-b Zhao ldquoPressure charac-teristics of landslide-generated impulse wavesrdquo Journal ofMountain Science vol 16 no 8 pp 1774ndash1787 2019

[15] B Yang K Yin T Xiao L Chen and J Du ldquoAnnual variationof landslide stability under the effect of water level fluctuationand rainfall in the three Gorges reservoir Chinardquo Environ-mental Earth Sciences vol 76 no 16 p 564 2017

[16] Y Zhang D Li L Chen et al ldquoNumerical analysis oflandslide-generated impulse waves affected by the reservoirgeometryrdquo Engineering Geology vol 266 2020

[17] Y-p Yin B Huang X Chen G Liu and S Wang ldquoNu-merical analysis on wave generated by the qianjiangpinglandslide in three Gorges reservoir Chinardquo Landslides vol 12no 2 pp 355ndash364 2015

[18] B Huang Y Yin G Liu S Wang X Chen and Z HuoldquoAnalysis of waves generated by Gongjiafang landslide in WuGorge three Gorges reservoir on November 23 2008rdquoLandslides vol 9 no 3 pp 395ndash405 2012


[19] J-w Zhou F-g Xu X-g Yang Y-c Yang and P-y LuldquoComprehensive analyses of the initiation and landslide-generated wave processes of the 24 June 2015 Hongyanzilandslide at the three Gorges reservoir Chinardquo Landslidesvol 13 no 3 pp 589ndash601 2016

[20] B Huang Y Yin S Wang et al ldquoA physical similarity modelof an impulsive wave generated by Gongjiafang landslide inthree Gorges reservoir Chinardquo Landslides vol 11 no 3pp 513ndash525 2014

[21] H M Fritz W H Hager and H-E Minor ldquoLandslidegenerated impulse wavesrdquo Experiments in Fluids vol 35no 6 pp 505ndash519 2003

[22] G Saeliglevik A Jensen and G Pedersen ldquoExperimental in-vestigation of impact generated tsunami related to a potentialrock slide western Norwayrdquo Coastal Engineering vol 56no 9 pp 897ndash906 2009

[23] F Enet and S T Grilli ldquoExperimental study of tsunamigeneration by three-dimensional rigid underwater land-slidesrdquo Journal of Waterway Port Coastal and Ocean En-gineering vol 133 no 6 pp 442ndash454 2007

[24] P Yuan P Wang and Y Zhao ldquoModel test research on thepropagation of tsunamis and their interaction with Navigatingshipsrdquo Applied Sciences vol 9 no 3 p 475 2019

[25] P Yuan P Wang Y Zhao and M Wang ldquoExperimentalstudy on the nonlinear behavior of a sailing container shipunder landslide-induced surgesrdquo Advances in Civil Engi-neering vol 2019 Article ID 9081586 11 pages 2019

[26] P Mu P Wang L Han et al ldquo-e propagation of landslide-generated impulse waves and their impacts on the mooredships an experimental investigationrdquo Advances in Civil En-gineering vol 2020 Article ID 6396379 13 pages 2020

[27] B Huang Y Yin X Chen G Liu S Wang and Z JiangldquoExperimental modeling of tsunamis generated by subaeriallandslides two case studies of the three Gorges reservoirChinardquo Environmental Earth Sciences vol 71 no 9pp 3813ndash3825 2014

[28] B Huang L Chen X Peng et al ldquoAssessment of the risk ofrockfalls in Wu Gorge three Gorges Chinardquo Landslidesvol 7 no 1 pp 1ndash11 2010

[29] L Han and P Wang ldquoPrediction of the maximum near-fieldwave amplitude of impulse waves generated by three-di-mensional landslides based on momentum balancerdquo ChineseJournal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering vol 37 no 11pp 2584ndash2592 2018

[30] S Viroulet A Sauret and O Kimmoun ldquoTsunami generatedby a granular collapse down a rough inclined planerdquo EPL-Europhys LETT vol 105 no 3 2014

[31] R L Wiegel ldquoLaboratory studies of gravity waves generatedby the movement of a submerged bodyrdquo TransactionsAmerican Geophysical Union vol 36 no 5 pp 759ndash7741955

[32] G Tang L Lu Y Teng Z Zhang and Z Xie ldquoImpulse wavesgenerated by subaerial landslides of combined block mass andgranular materialrdquo Coastal Engineering vol 141 pp 68ndash852018

[33] V Heller W H Hager and H-E Minor ldquoScale effects insubaerial landslide generated impulse wavesrdquo Experiments inFluids vol 44 no 5 pp 691ndash703 2008

[34] D Wuthrich M Pfister I Nistor and A J Schleiss ldquoEx-perimental study on the hydrodynamic impact of tsunami-like waves against impervious free-standing buildingsrdquoCoastal Engineering Journal vol 60 no 2 pp 180ndash199 2018

[35] J Huang J Lian and T Zhang ldquoSafety assessment onlechangxia dam under surge effect caused by landsliderdquo

Chinese Journal of Water Resources and Hydropower Engi-neering Analysis with Boundary Elements vol 44 no 11pp 93ndash97 2013

[36] V Heller Landslide Generated Impulse Waves Prediction ofNear Field Characteristics Eth Zurich Zurich Switzerland2007

[37] JTS 145-2-2013 Code of Hydrology for Sea Harbour ChinaCommunications Press Beijing China 2013

[38] Y Wang J Liu K Yin L Yu H Zhou and Z HuoldquoComparison between the first and second wave crest am-plitude generated by landslidesrdquo Ocean Engineering vol 171pp 71ndash77 2019

[39] V Heller and J Spinneken ldquoImproved landslide-tsunamiprediction effects of block model parameters and slidemodelrdquo Journal of Geophysical Research Oceans vol 118no 3 pp 1489ndash1507 2013

[40] H Xue Q Ma M Diao and L Jiang ldquoPropagation char-acteristics of subaerial landslide-generated impulse wavesrdquoEnvironmental Fluid Mechanics vol 19 no 1 pp 203ndash2302018


already developed maturely the force analysis of conven-tional design loads on infrastructure could be conductedwell Furthermore the wind load and the tide load as theextreme loading have been considered generally in the wharfdesign but the extreme loading associated with landslide-generated impulse wave on the wharf is basically ignored[14] Obviously this omission will bring a series of risks tothe management and operation of wharves -erefore as anidentified knowledge gap the hydrodynamic pressure oflandslide-generated impulse wave exerted on the wharf is animportant issue to address

In view of this case taking the -ree Gorges Reservoir(TGR) in China as a representative case exploring thehazardous impact of impulse wave pressure on the exposedwharves is not only important but also necessary As one ofthe largest artificial reservoirs worldwide the TGR has beingfaced with the serious natural hazard of impulse waveswhilst the number of wharves has increased significantlysince it impounded in 2003 [15] Simultaneously more than5300 landslides happened because of the impoundment andwater-level fluctuation between 145m and 175m [16] well-documented events include the impulse waves induced byQianjiangping landslide on 14 July 2003 [17] Gongjiafanglandslide on November 2008 [18] and the Hongyanzilandslide-generated impulse waves on June 24 2015 [19]Under this situation to effectively prevent the hazard it isvery urgent to explore the hazardous impact of landslide-generated impulse wave pressure on the exposed wharves inthe TGR Furthermore given that high-pile wharf is themost popular type in the TGR [12] this study is furtherlimited to the wharf pile to improve the effectiveness ofresearch

In view of these conditions this study aims to examinethe impact of landslide-generated impulse waves against thewharf pile in the TGR Meanwhile the impact on the wharfpile mainly contributes to the dynamic wave pressure whichis essentially caused by the fluctuation of water level (namelyimpulse wave) [14] Consequently the detailed objectives ofthis paper are (1) to simulate the waves generate process andexplore the characteristics of landslide-generated impulse atthe wharf (2) to conduct the dynamic pressure process anddistribution along the water depth (3) to reveal the rela-tionship between the dynamic pressure and wave amplitudeas well as wave velocity and further deduce the dynamicpressure formulas of the impulse waves and the total forceacting on wharf pile

2 Experimental Setup

21 Wave Generation Due to some features such as sud-denness and short duration the data of landslide-inducedimpulse waves are scarce on field measurements [3 20] Tomake up for the lack of data an experimental approach istherefore adopted to simulate and analyze the process oflandslide-generated impulse waves in this paper -e scaledphysical experiment has been widely used to study thelandslide-related impulse waves [21ndash23] because it canmake the phenomenon quite realistic Following previousstudies [24 25] the present experiments were conducted in a

3D wave basin with a scale of 1 70 generalized from theprototype of the Jiangnan tuokou wharf reach which was atypical curved reach existing in the upper Yangtze River (seeFigure 1) Specifically the total length of the basin was 48mthe upstream and downstream straight were 28m and 13mrespectively -e radius of curvature for the intermediateportion was 7m -e cross-section of the basin was trape-zoidal the bottom was 294m and the slopes in concavebank and convex bank were 33deg and 20deg respectively -edetails are illustrated in Figure 2

-e waves were generated by a gravity type wave makerat the concave bank of the basin -e system of wave makerincluding landslide chute wire mesh and chain hoist described specifically by Mu et al [26] allowed for pre-defining the slide geometry and the slide impact angle Inaddition the chute could restrict the granular concreteblocks from an instant collapse of the slide before enteringthe water basin Field survey indicates that there are pri-marily rocky block rockfall or slide and the disintegratingstructure rock mass failure that have failed or have thepotential to fail in the TGR which generates or may generateimpulse waves [27 28] In this paper we focus on the lattertype -e landslides were modeled by the granular concreteblocks containing five various geometric sizes (labelled as(a) (b) (c) (d) and (e)) as illustrated in Figure 3 allowingfor similarity and deformability as reported by Han andWang [29] Compared to these granular materials such asartificial material (PP-BaSO4) [21] spherical glass beads andnonspherical aquarium sand [30] the present slides modeledby quadrangular concrete blocks with a density of 2500 kgm3 were more similar to the happened or potential land-slides in the TGR

Tested landslide models with nine different sizes in-cluding a constant slide length 100m a slide width 050m100m and 150m and a slide thickness 020m 040m and060m were carried out by adjustment of the sliding chutegeometrical shape -e slide length with a constant l 1mwas deemed to be appropriate based on the result that theslide length has a slight influence on the primary wavereported by Wiegel [31] -is chute allowed for predefiningthe slide geometry including a slide width 050m 100mand 150m and a slide front edge allowing it to reach

8

28

Slide

Wharf

R7

+

13

Figure 1 Plane layout of the wave basin geometrical measure-ments were in m






Slide L1 L2 Piles


294


12

186

(a)

8

124

(b)

6

93

(c)

2

4

6

(d)

2

1

3

(e)






















WSP3

WSP2

WSP1

034

50

345

005

(a)

WSP3

WSP2

WSP1

041

50

415

005

(b)

WSP3

WSP2

WSP1

055

50

555

005

(c)


WG2 WG1WG3

The first jetflow

(a)

WG3 WG2 WG1

The first jetflow

(b)

WG1WG2WG3

The first jetflow

(c)

WG3 WG2 WG1

The first jetflow

(d)

WG3 WG2 WG1


(e)

WG3 WG2 WG1

The first jetflow


(f )

Figure 6 Continued










WG3 WG2 WG1


(g)

WG3 WG2 WG1


(h)

WG3 WG2 WG1


(i)






WG1WG2WG3

ndash04ndash02

000204

Wat

er le

vel (

m)

ndash04ndash02

000204

Wat

er le

vel (

m)

ndash04ndash02

000204

Wat

er le

vel (

m)

25 50 75 1000Time (s)


ndash04

ndash02

00

02

04

Pres

sure

(kPa

)

ndash04ndash02

000204

Pres

sure

(kPa

)

ndash04

ndash02

00

02

04

Pres

sure

(kPa

)

25 50 75 100 125 150 175 2000Time (s)

WPS3WPS2WPS1



h = 074m

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

z (m

)

01 02 03 04 0500Pc (kPa)

(a)

h = 074m

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

z (m

)

01 02 03 0400Pt (kPa)

(b)

h = 088m

ndash08

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

z (m

)

01 02 03 04 0500Pc (kPa)

(c)

h = 088m

ndash08

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

z (m

)

01 02 03 0400Pt (kPa)

(d)

h = 116m

ndash12

ndash10

ndash08

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

02

z (m

)

01 02 03 0400Pc (kPa)

(e)

h = 116m

ndash12

ndash10

ndash08

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

02

z (m

)

01 02 0300Pt (kPa)

(f )













Test No69ndash02

ndash01

00

01

02

Wat

er le

vel (

m)

ndash04

ndash02

00

02

04

Pres

sure

(kPa

)

50 100 150 2000Time (s)

WG3WPS3


116 m and α 40deg



ndash008

ndash006

ndash004

ndash002

000

002

004

006

008

Pρgh



cc ΔxΔtc

ct ΔxΔtt

(1)



csgh

1113968 1 +as

2h (2)



ccgh

1113968 08 1 +ac

2h1113874 1113875 (3)

ctgh

1113968 07 1 +at

2h1113874 1113875 (4)




ExpThe08lowastThe

050

075

100

125

150c c

(gh)

05

01 02 03 0400ach

(a)

ExpThe07lowastThe

01 02 03 0400atgh

050

075

100

125

150

c t(gh)

05

(b)





Pc

ρgh 019

ccgh

11139681113888 1113889

060ac

h1113874 1113875

098 (5)

Pt

ρgh minus014

ctgh

11139681113888 1113889

minus108at

h1113874 1113875

098 (6)



gh


gh

1113968expressed




100 105 110 115095cc(gh)05

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

008P cρgh

(a)

ndash006

ndash005

ndash004

ndash003

ndash002

ndash001

000

P tρgh

085 090 095080ct(gh)05

(b)







A h + ac( 1113857 times D (8)


F+

max 019

ccgh

11139681113888 1113889

060ac

h1113874 1113875



Fminusmin minus014

ctgh

11139681113888 1113889

minus 108at

h1113874 1113875



4 Conclusions


+30


R2 = 089

ndash30

00

01

02

03

04

05

06

Calc

ulat

ed v

alue

(kPa

)



ndash30


+30


ndash025

ndash020

ndash015

ndash010

ndash005

000

Calc

ulat

ed v

alue

(kPa

)

R2 = 085


ac a

Pc

D

h







Data Availability






Acknowledgments


References

















































Slide L1 L2 Piles


294


12

186

(a)

8

124

(b)

6

93

(c)

2

4

6

(d)

2

1

3

(e)






















WSP3

WSP2

WSP1

034

50

345

005

(a)

WSP3

WSP2

WSP1

041

50

415

005

(b)

WSP3

WSP2

WSP1

055

50

555

005

(c)


WG2 WG1WG3

The first jetflow

(a)

WG3 WG2 WG1

The first jetflow

(b)

WG1WG2WG3

The first jetflow

(c)

WG3 WG2 WG1

The first jetflow

(d)

WG3 WG2 WG1


(e)

WG3 WG2 WG1

The first jetflow


(f )

Figure 6 Continued










WG3 WG2 WG1


(g)

WG3 WG2 WG1


(h)

WG3 WG2 WG1


(i)






WG1WG2WG3

ndash04ndash02

000204

Wat

er le

vel (

m)

ndash04ndash02

000204

Wat

er le

vel (

m)

ndash04ndash02

000204

Wat

er le

vel (

m)

25 50 75 1000Time (s)


ndash04

ndash02

00

02

04

Pres

sure

(kPa

)

ndash04ndash02

000204

Pres

sure

(kPa

)

ndash04

ndash02

00

02

04

Pres

sure

(kPa

)

25 50 75 100 125 150 175 2000Time (s)

WPS3WPS2WPS1



h = 074m

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

z (m

)

01 02 03 04 0500Pc (kPa)

(a)

h = 074m

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

z (m

)

01 02 03 0400Pt (kPa)

(b)

h = 088m

ndash08

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

z (m

)

01 02 03 04 0500Pc (kPa)

(c)

h = 088m

ndash08

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

z (m

)

01 02 03 0400Pt (kPa)

(d)

h = 116m

ndash12

ndash10

ndash08

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

02

z (m

)

01 02 03 0400Pc (kPa)

(e)

h = 116m

ndash12

ndash10

ndash08

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

02

z (m

)

01 02 0300Pt (kPa)

(f )













Test No69ndash02

ndash01

00

01

02

Wat

er le

vel (

m)

ndash04

ndash02

00

02

04

Pres

sure

(kPa

)

50 100 150 2000Time (s)

WG3WPS3


116 m and α 40deg



ndash008

ndash006

ndash004

ndash002

000

002

004

006

008

Pρgh



cc ΔxΔtc

ct ΔxΔtt

(1)



csgh

1113968 1 +as

2h (2)



ccgh

1113968 08 1 +ac

2h1113874 1113875 (3)

ctgh

1113968 07 1 +at

2h1113874 1113875 (4)




ExpThe08lowastThe

050

075

100

125

150c c

(gh)

05

01 02 03 0400ach

(a)

ExpThe07lowastThe

01 02 03 0400atgh

050

075

100

125

150

c t(gh)

05

(b)





Pc

ρgh 019

ccgh

11139681113888 1113889

060ac

h1113874 1113875

098 (5)

Pt

ρgh minus014

ctgh

11139681113888 1113889

minus108at

h1113874 1113875

098 (6)



gh


gh

1113968expressed




100 105 110 115095cc(gh)05

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

008P cρgh

(a)

ndash006

ndash005

ndash004

ndash003

ndash002

ndash001

000

P tρgh

085 090 095080ct(gh)05

(b)







A h + ac( 1113857 times D (8)


F+

max 019

ccgh

11139681113888 1113889

060ac

h1113874 1113875



Fminusmin minus014

ctgh

11139681113888 1113889

minus 108at

h1113874 1113875



4 Conclusions


+30


R2 = 089

ndash30

00

01

02

03

04

05

06

Calc

ulat

ed v

alue

(kPa

)



ndash30


+30


ndash025

ndash020

ndash015

ndash010

ndash005

000

Calc

ulat

ed v

alue

(kPa

)

R2 = 085


ac a

Pc

D

h







Data Availability






Acknowledgments


References
































































WSP3

WSP2

WSP1

034

50

345

005

(a)

WSP3

WSP2

WSP1

041

50

415

005

(b)

WSP3

WSP2

WSP1

055

50

555

005

(c)


WG2 WG1WG3

The first jetflow

(a)

WG3 WG2 WG1

The first jetflow

(b)

WG1WG2WG3

The first jetflow

(c)

WG3 WG2 WG1

The first jetflow

(d)

WG3 WG2 WG1


(e)

WG3 WG2 WG1

The first jetflow


(f )

Figure 6 Continued










WG3 WG2 WG1


(g)

WG3 WG2 WG1


(h)

WG3 WG2 WG1


(i)






WG1WG2WG3

ndash04ndash02

000204

Wat

er le

vel (

m)

ndash04ndash02

000204

Wat

er le

vel (

m)

ndash04ndash02

000204

Wat

er le

vel (

m)

25 50 75 1000Time (s)


ndash04

ndash02

00

02

04

Pres

sure

(kPa

)

ndash04ndash02

000204

Pres

sure

(kPa

)

ndash04

ndash02

00

02

04

Pres

sure

(kPa

)

25 50 75 100 125 150 175 2000Time (s)

WPS3WPS2WPS1



h = 074m

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

z (m

)

01 02 03 04 0500Pc (kPa)

(a)

h = 074m

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

z (m

)

01 02 03 0400Pt (kPa)

(b)

h = 088m

ndash08

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

z (m

)

01 02 03 04 0500Pc (kPa)

(c)

h = 088m

ndash08

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

z (m

)

01 02 03 0400Pt (kPa)

(d)

h = 116m

ndash12

ndash10

ndash08

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

02

z (m

)

01 02 03 0400Pc (kPa)

(e)

h = 116m

ndash12

ndash10

ndash08

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

02

z (m

)

01 02 0300Pt (kPa)

(f )













Test No69ndash02

ndash01

00

01

02

Wat

er le

vel (

m)

ndash04

ndash02

00

02

04

Pres

sure

(kPa

)

50 100 150 2000Time (s)

WG3WPS3


116 m and α 40deg



ndash008

ndash006

ndash004

ndash002

000

002

004

006

008

Pρgh



cc ΔxΔtc

ct ΔxΔtt

(1)



csgh

1113968 1 +as

2h (2)



ccgh

1113968 08 1 +ac

2h1113874 1113875 (3)

ctgh

1113968 07 1 +at

2h1113874 1113875 (4)




ExpThe08lowastThe

050

075

100

125

150c c

(gh)

05

01 02 03 0400ach

(a)

ExpThe07lowastThe

01 02 03 0400atgh

050

075

100

125

150

c t(gh)

05

(b)





Pc

ρgh 019

ccgh

11139681113888 1113889

060ac

h1113874 1113875

098 (5)

Pt

ρgh minus014

ctgh

11139681113888 1113889

minus108at

h1113874 1113875

098 (6)



gh


gh

1113968expressed




100 105 110 115095cc(gh)05

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

008P cρgh

(a)

ndash006

ndash005

ndash004

ndash003

ndash002

ndash001

000

P tρgh

085 090 095080ct(gh)05

(b)







A h + ac( 1113857 times D (8)


F+

max 019

ccgh

11139681113888 1113889

060ac

h1113874 1113875



Fminusmin minus014

ctgh

11139681113888 1113889

minus 108at

h1113874 1113875



4 Conclusions


+30


R2 = 089

ndash30

00

01

02

03

04

05

06

Calc

ulat

ed v

alue

(kPa

)



ndash30


+30


ndash025

ndash020

ndash015

ndash010

ndash005

000

Calc

ulat

ed v

alue

(kPa

)

R2 = 085


ac a

Pc

D

h







Data Availability






Acknowledgments


References





















































WG3 WG2 WG1


(g)

WG3 WG2 WG1


(h)

WG3 WG2 WG1


(i)






WG1WG2WG3

ndash04ndash02

000204

Wat

er le

vel (

m)

ndash04ndash02

000204

Wat

er le

vel (

m)

ndash04ndash02

000204

Wat

er le

vel (

m)

25 50 75 1000Time (s)


ndash04

ndash02

00

02

04

Pres

sure

(kPa

)

ndash04ndash02

000204

Pres

sure

(kPa

)

ndash04

ndash02

00

02

04

Pres

sure

(kPa

)

25 50 75 100 125 150 175 2000Time (s)

WPS3WPS2WPS1



h = 074m

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

z (m

)

01 02 03 04 0500Pc (kPa)

(a)

h = 074m

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

z (m

)

01 02 03 0400Pt (kPa)

(b)

h = 088m

ndash08

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

z (m

)

01 02 03 04 0500Pc (kPa)

(c)

h = 088m

ndash08

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

z (m

)

01 02 03 0400Pt (kPa)

(d)

h = 116m

ndash12

ndash10

ndash08

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

02

z (m

)

01 02 03 0400Pc (kPa)

(e)

h = 116m

ndash12

ndash10

ndash08

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

02

z (m

)

01 02 0300Pt (kPa)

(f )













Test No69ndash02

ndash01

00

01

02

Wat

er le

vel (

m)

ndash04

ndash02

00

02

04

Pres

sure

(kPa

)

50 100 150 2000Time (s)

WG3WPS3


116 m and α 40deg



ndash008

ndash006

ndash004

ndash002

000

002

004

006

008

Pρgh



cc ΔxΔtc

ct ΔxΔtt

(1)



csgh

1113968 1 +as

2h (2)



ccgh

1113968 08 1 +ac

2h1113874 1113875 (3)

ctgh

1113968 07 1 +at

2h1113874 1113875 (4)




ExpThe08lowastThe

050

075

100

125

150c c

(gh)

05

01 02 03 0400ach

(a)

ExpThe07lowastThe

01 02 03 0400atgh

050

075

100

125

150

c t(gh)

05

(b)





Pc

ρgh 019

ccgh

11139681113888 1113889

060ac

h1113874 1113875

098 (5)

Pt

ρgh minus014

ctgh

11139681113888 1113889

minus108at

h1113874 1113875

098 (6)



gh


gh

1113968expressed




100 105 110 115095cc(gh)05

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

008P cρgh

(a)

ndash006

ndash005

ndash004

ndash003

ndash002

ndash001

000

P tρgh

085 090 095080ct(gh)05

(b)







A h + ac( 1113857 times D (8)


F+

max 019

ccgh

11139681113888 1113889

060ac

h1113874 1113875



Fminusmin minus014

ctgh

11139681113888 1113889

minus 108at

h1113874 1113875



4 Conclusions


+30


R2 = 089

ndash30

00

01

02

03

04

05

06

Calc

ulat

ed v

alue

(kPa

)



ndash30


+30


ndash025

ndash020

ndash015

ndash010

ndash005

000

Calc

ulat

ed v

alue

(kPa

)

R2 = 085


ac a

Pc

D

h







Data Availability






Acknowledgments


References
















































WG1WG2WG3

ndash04ndash02

000204

Wat

er le

vel (

m)

ndash04ndash02

000204

Wat

er le

vel (

m)

ndash04ndash02

000204

Wat

er le

vel (

m)

25 50 75 1000Time (s)


ndash04

ndash02

00

02

04

Pres

sure

(kPa

)

ndash04ndash02

000204

Pres

sure

(kPa

)

ndash04

ndash02

00

02

04

Pres

sure

(kPa

)

25 50 75 100 125 150 175 2000Time (s)

WPS3WPS2WPS1



h = 074m

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

z (m

)

01 02 03 04 0500Pc (kPa)

(a)

h = 074m

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

z (m

)

01 02 03 0400Pt (kPa)

(b)

h = 088m

ndash08

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

z (m

)

01 02 03 04 0500Pc (kPa)

(c)

h = 088m

ndash08

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

z (m

)

01 02 03 0400Pt (kPa)

(d)

h = 116m

ndash12

ndash10

ndash08

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

02

z (m

)

01 02 03 0400Pc (kPa)

(e)

h = 116m

ndash12

ndash10

ndash08

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

02

z (m

)

01 02 0300Pt (kPa)

(f )













Test No69ndash02

ndash01

00

01

02

Wat

er le

vel (

m)

ndash04

ndash02

00

02

04

Pres

sure

(kPa

)

50 100 150 2000Time (s)

WG3WPS3


116 m and α 40deg



ndash008

ndash006

ndash004

ndash002

000

002

004

006

008

Pρgh



cc ΔxΔtc

ct ΔxΔtt

(1)



csgh

1113968 1 +as

2h (2)



ccgh

1113968 08 1 +ac

2h1113874 1113875 (3)

ctgh

1113968 07 1 +at

2h1113874 1113875 (4)




ExpThe08lowastThe

050

075

100

125

150c c

(gh)

05

01 02 03 0400ach

(a)

ExpThe07lowastThe

01 02 03 0400atgh

050

075

100

125

150

c t(gh)

05

(b)





Pc

ρgh 019

ccgh

11139681113888 1113889

060ac

h1113874 1113875

098 (5)

Pt

ρgh minus014

ctgh

11139681113888 1113889

minus108at

h1113874 1113875

098 (6)



gh


gh

1113968expressed




100 105 110 115095cc(gh)05

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

008P cρgh

(a)

ndash006

ndash005

ndash004

ndash003

ndash002

ndash001

000

P tρgh

085 090 095080ct(gh)05

(b)







A h + ac( 1113857 times D (8)


F+

max 019

ccgh

11139681113888 1113889

060ac

h1113874 1113875



Fminusmin minus014

ctgh

11139681113888 1113889

minus 108at

h1113874 1113875



4 Conclusions


+30


R2 = 089

ndash30

00

01

02

03

04

05

06

Calc

ulat

ed v

alue

(kPa

)



ndash30


+30


ndash025

ndash020

ndash015

ndash010

ndash005

000

Calc

ulat

ed v

alue

(kPa

)

R2 = 085


ac a

Pc

D

h







Data Availability






Acknowledgments


References













































h = 074m

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

z (m

)

01 02 03 04 0500Pc (kPa)

(a)

h = 074m

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

z (m

)

01 02 03 0400Pt (kPa)

(b)

h = 088m

ndash08

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

z (m

)

01 02 03 04 0500Pc (kPa)

(c)

h = 088m

ndash08

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

z (m

)

01 02 03 0400Pt (kPa)

(d)

h = 116m

ndash12

ndash10

ndash08

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

02

z (m

)

01 02 03 0400Pc (kPa)

(e)

h = 116m

ndash12

ndash10

ndash08

ndash06

ndash04

ndash02

00

02

z (m

)

01 02 0300Pt (kPa)

(f )













Test No69ndash02

ndash01

00

01

02

Wat

er le

vel (

m)

ndash04

ndash02

00

02

04

Pres

sure

(kPa

)

50 100 150 2000Time (s)

WG3WPS3


116 m and α 40deg



ndash008

ndash006

ndash004

ndash002

000

002

004

006

008

Pρgh



cc ΔxΔtc

ct ΔxΔtt

(1)



csgh

1113968 1 +as

2h (2)



ccgh

1113968 08 1 +ac

2h1113874 1113875 (3)

ctgh

1113968 07 1 +at

2h1113874 1113875 (4)




ExpThe08lowastThe

050

075

100

125

150c c

(gh)

05

01 02 03 0400ach

(a)

ExpThe07lowastThe

01 02 03 0400atgh

050

075

100

125

150

c t(gh)

05

(b)





Pc

ρgh 019

ccgh

11139681113888 1113889

060ac

h1113874 1113875

098 (5)

Pt

ρgh minus014

ctgh

11139681113888 1113889

minus108at

h1113874 1113875

098 (6)



gh


gh

1113968expressed




100 105 110 115095cc(gh)05

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

008P cρgh

(a)

ndash006

ndash005

ndash004

ndash003

ndash002

ndash001

000

P tρgh

085 090 095080ct(gh)05

(b)







A h + ac( 1113857 times D (8)


F+

max 019

ccgh

11139681113888 1113889

060ac

h1113874 1113875



Fminusmin minus014

ctgh

11139681113888 1113889

minus 108at

h1113874 1113875



4 Conclusions


+30


R2 = 089

ndash30

00

01

02

03

04

05

06

Calc

ulat

ed v

alue

(kPa

)



ndash30


+30


ndash025

ndash020

ndash015

ndash010

ndash005

000

Calc

ulat

ed v

alue

(kPa

)

R2 = 085


ac a

Pc

D

h







Data Availability






Acknowledgments


References























































Test No69ndash02

ndash01

00

01

02

Wat

er le

vel (

m)

ndash04

ndash02

00

02

04

Pres

sure

(kPa

)

50 100 150 2000Time (s)

WG3WPS3


116 m and α 40deg



ndash008

ndash006

ndash004

ndash002

000

002

004

006

008

Pρgh



cc ΔxΔtc

ct ΔxΔtt

(1)



csgh

1113968 1 +as

2h (2)



ccgh

1113968 08 1 +ac

2h1113874 1113875 (3)

ctgh

1113968 07 1 +at

2h1113874 1113875 (4)




ExpThe08lowastThe

050

075

100

125

150c c

(gh)

05

01 02 03 0400ach

(a)

ExpThe07lowastThe

01 02 03 0400atgh

050

075

100

125

150

c t(gh)

05

(b)





Pc

ρgh 019

ccgh

11139681113888 1113889

060ac

h1113874 1113875

098 (5)

Pt

ρgh minus014

ctgh

11139681113888 1113889

minus108at

h1113874 1113875

098 (6)



gh


gh

1113968expressed




100 105 110 115095cc(gh)05

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

008P cρgh

(a)

ndash006

ndash005

ndash004

ndash003

ndash002

ndash001

000

P tρgh

085 090 095080ct(gh)05

(b)







A h + ac( 1113857 times D (8)


F+

max 019

ccgh

11139681113888 1113889

060ac

h1113874 1113875



Fminusmin minus014

ctgh

11139681113888 1113889

minus 108at

h1113874 1113875



4 Conclusions


+30


R2 = 089

ndash30

00

01

02

03

04

05

06

Calc

ulat

ed v

alue

(kPa

)



ndash30


+30


ndash025

ndash020

ndash015

ndash010

ndash005

000

Calc

ulat

ed v

alue

(kPa

)

R2 = 085


ac a

Pc

D

h







Data Availability






Acknowledgments


References













































cc ΔxΔtc

ct ΔxΔtt

(1)



csgh

1113968 1 +as

2h (2)



ccgh

1113968 08 1 +ac

2h1113874 1113875 (3)

ctgh

1113968 07 1 +at

2h1113874 1113875 (4)




ExpThe08lowastThe

050

075

100

125

150c c

(gh)

05

01 02 03 0400ach

(a)

ExpThe07lowastThe

01 02 03 0400atgh

050

075

100

125

150

c t(gh)

05

(b)





Pc

ρgh 019

ccgh

11139681113888 1113889

060ac

h1113874 1113875

098 (5)

Pt

ρgh minus014

ctgh

11139681113888 1113889

minus108at

h1113874 1113875

098 (6)



gh


gh

1113968expressed




100 105 110 115095cc(gh)05

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

008P cρgh

(a)

ndash006

ndash005

ndash004

ndash003

ndash002

ndash001

000

P tρgh

085 090 095080ct(gh)05

(b)







A h + ac( 1113857 times D (8)


F+

max 019

ccgh

11139681113888 1113889

060ac

h1113874 1113875



Fminusmin minus014

ctgh

11139681113888 1113889

minus 108at

h1113874 1113875



4 Conclusions


+30


R2 = 089

ndash30

00

01

02

03

04

05

06

Calc

ulat

ed v

alue

(kPa

)



ndash30


+30


ndash025

ndash020

ndash015

ndash010

ndash005

000

Calc

ulat

ed v

alue

(kPa

)

R2 = 085


ac a

Pc

D

h







Data Availability






Acknowledgments


References















































Pc

ρgh 019

ccgh

11139681113888 1113889

060ac

h1113874 1113875

098 (5)

Pt

ρgh minus014

ctgh

11139681113888 1113889

minus108at

h1113874 1113875

098 (6)



gh


gh

1113968expressed




100 105 110 115095cc(gh)05

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

008P cρgh

(a)

ndash006

ndash005

ndash004

ndash003

ndash002

ndash001

000

P tρgh

085 090 095080ct(gh)05

(b)







A h + ac( 1113857 times D (8)


F+

max 019

ccgh

11139681113888 1113889

060ac

h1113874 1113875



Fminusmin minus014

ctgh

11139681113888 1113889

minus 108at

h1113874 1113875



4 Conclusions


+30


R2 = 089

ndash30

00

01

02

03

04

05

06

Calc

ulat

ed v

alue

(kPa

)



ndash30


+30


ndash025

ndash020

ndash015

ndash010

ndash005

000

Calc

ulat

ed v

alue

(kPa

)

R2 = 085


ac a

Pc

D

h







Data Availability






Acknowledgments


References

















































A h + ac( 1113857 times D (8)


F+

max 019

ccgh

11139681113888 1113889

060ac

h1113874 1113875



Fminusmin minus014

ctgh

11139681113888 1113889

minus 108at

h1113874 1113875



4 Conclusions


+30


R2 = 089

ndash30

00

01

02

03

04

05

06

Calc

ulat

ed v

alue

(kPa

)



ndash30


+30


ndash025

ndash020

ndash015

ndash010

ndash005

000

Calc

ulat

ed v

alue

(kPa

)

R2 = 085


ac a

Pc

D

h







Data Availability






Acknowledgments


References

















































Data Availability






Acknowledgments


References













































ExperimentalStudyontheImpactofLandslide-Generated … · 2020. 12. 11. · ResearchArticle...

Documents

Transcript of ExperimentalStudyontheImpactofLandslide-Generated … · 2020. 12. 11. · ResearchArticle...