Comparing Root Cohesion Estimates from Three Models at a Shallow Landslide in the Oregon Coast Range

IF 6.5 3区 工程技术 Q1 ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL Georisk-Assessment and Management of Risk for Engineered Systems and Geohazards Pub Date : 2022-09-01 DOI:10.3390/geohazards3030022
C. Cronkite-Ratcliff, K. Schmidt, Charlotte Wirion
{"title":"Comparing Root Cohesion Estimates from Three Models at a Shallow Landslide in the Oregon Coast Range","authors":"C. Cronkite-Ratcliff, K. Schmidt, Charlotte Wirion","doi":"10.3390/geohazards3030022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although accurate root cohesion model estimates are essential to quantify the effect of vegetation roots on shallow slope stability, few means exist to independently validate such model outputs. One validation approach for cohesion estimates is back-calculation of apparent root cohesion at a landslide site with well-documented failure conditions. The catchment named CB1, near Coos Bay, Oregon, USA, which experienced a shallow landslide in 1996, is a prime locality for cohesion model validation, as an abundance of data and observations from the site generated broad insights related to hillslope hydrology and slope stability. However, previously published root cohesion values at CB1 used the Wu and Waldron model (WWM), which assumes simultaneous root failure and therefore likely overestimates root cohesion. Reassessing published cohesion estimates from this site is warranted, as more recently developed models include the fiber bundle model (FBM), which simulates progressive failure with load redistribution, and the root bundle model-Weibull (RBMw), which accounts for differential strain loading. We applied the WWM, FBM, and RBMw at CB1 using post-failure root data from five vegetation species. At CB1, the FBM and RBMw predict values that are less than 30% of the WWM-estimated values. All three models show that root cohesion has substantial spatial heterogeneity. Most parts of the landslide scarp have little root cohesion, with areas of high cohesion concentrated near plant roots. These findings underscore the importance of using physically realistic models and considering lateral and vertical spatial heterogeneity of root cohesion in shallow landslide initiation and provide a necessary step towards independently assessing root cohesion model validity.","PeriodicalId":48524,"journal":{"name":"Georisk-Assessment and Management of Risk for Engineered Systems and Geohazards","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Georisk-Assessment and Management of Risk for Engineered Systems and Geohazards","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/geohazards3030022","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although accurate root cohesion model estimates are essential to quantify the effect of vegetation roots on shallow slope stability, few means exist to independently validate such model outputs. One validation approach for cohesion estimates is back-calculation of apparent root cohesion at a landslide site with well-documented failure conditions. The catchment named CB1, near Coos Bay, Oregon, USA, which experienced a shallow landslide in 1996, is a prime locality for cohesion model validation, as an abundance of data and observations from the site generated broad insights related to hillslope hydrology and slope stability. However, previously published root cohesion values at CB1 used the Wu and Waldron model (WWM), which assumes simultaneous root failure and therefore likely overestimates root cohesion. Reassessing published cohesion estimates from this site is warranted, as more recently developed models include the fiber bundle model (FBM), which simulates progressive failure with load redistribution, and the root bundle model-Weibull (RBMw), which accounts for differential strain loading. We applied the WWM, FBM, and RBMw at CB1 using post-failure root data from five vegetation species. At CB1, the FBM and RBMw predict values that are less than 30% of the WWM-estimated values. All three models show that root cohesion has substantial spatial heterogeneity. Most parts of the landslide scarp have little root cohesion, with areas of high cohesion concentrated near plant roots. These findings underscore the importance of using physically realistic models and considering lateral and vertical spatial heterogeneity of root cohesion in shallow landslide initiation and provide a necessary step towards independently assessing root cohesion model validity.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较俄勒冈海岸浅层滑坡三种模型的根黏聚力估算
虽然准确的根系黏聚力模型估算对于量化植被根系对浅层边坡稳定性的影响至关重要,但很少有手段可以独立验证这种模型的输出。黏聚力估计的一种验证方法是对具有充分记录的破坏条件的滑坡场地的表观根黏聚力进行反计算。美国俄勒冈州库斯湾附近名为CB1的集水区在1996年经历了一次浅层滑坡,是验证黏聚力模型的主要地点,因为来自该地点的大量数据和观测产生了与山坡水文和边坡稳定性相关的广泛见解。然而,先前发表的CB1的根内聚值使用Wu和Waldron模型(WWM),该模型假设根同时失效,因此可能高估了根内聚。重新评估该网站发布的黏聚力估计是有必要的,因为最近开发的模型包括纤维束模型(FBM),它模拟了加载重新分配的渐进破坏,以及根束模型-威布尔(RBMw),它考虑了差分应变加载。我们在CB1利用5种植被的失效后根系数据应用了WWM、FBM和RBMw。在CB1, FBM和RBMw预测的值小于wwm估计值的30%。三种模型均表明根系内聚具有明显的空间异质性。大部分滑坡陡坡根部黏聚力较弱,高黏聚力区域集中在植物根系附近。这些发现强调了使用物理上真实的模型以及考虑浅层滑坡发生过程中根黏聚力的横向和纵向空间异质性的重要性,并为独立评估根黏聚力模型的有效性提供了必要的步骤。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.70
自引率
10.40%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: Georisk covers many diversified but interlinked areas of active research and practice, such as geohazards (earthquakes, landslides, avalanches, rockfalls, tsunamis, etc.), safety of engineered systems (dams, buildings, offshore structures, lifelines, etc.), environmental risk, seismic risk, reliability-based design and code calibration, geostatistics, decision analyses, structural reliability, maintenance and life cycle performance, risk and vulnerability, hazard mapping, loss assessment (economic, social, environmental, etc.), GIS databases, remote sensing, and many other related disciplines. The underlying theme is that uncertainties associated with geomaterials (soils, rocks), geologic processes, and possible subsequent treatments, are usually large and complex and these uncertainties play an indispensable role in the risk assessment and management of engineered and natural systems. Significant theoretical and practical challenges remain on quantifying these uncertainties and developing defensible risk management methodologies that are acceptable to decision makers and stakeholders. Many opportunities to leverage on the rapid advancement in Bayesian analysis, machine learning, artificial intelligence, and other data-driven methods also exist, which can greatly enhance our decision-making abilities. The basic goal of this international peer-reviewed journal is to provide a multi-disciplinary scientific forum for cross fertilization of ideas between interested parties working on various aspects of georisk to advance the state-of-the-art and the state-of-the-practice.
期刊最新文献
Evaluating the Impact of Engineering Works in Megatidal Areas Using Satellite Images—Case of the Mont-Saint-Michel Bay, France Assessment of a Machine Learning Algorithm Using Web Images for Flood Detection and Water Level Estimates Digital geotechnics: from data-driven site characterisation towards digital transformation and intelligence in geotechnical engineering Induced Seismicity Hazard Assessment for a Potential CO2 Storage Site in the Southern San Joaquin Basin, CA Novel evaluation methodology for mechanical behaviour and instability risk of roof structure using limited investigation data
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1