Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Mirco-Geomorphology Differences Between Channelized Debris Flow with Hillslope Debris Flow
View through CrossRef
The micro geomorphology characteristics of 47 hillslope debris flow (HDF) and 16 channelized debris flow (CDF) events were studied to explore the difference between HDF and CDF. In Taiwan, debris flow torrents are classified into CDF and HDF two types. CDF watershed consists of tributaries and gullies, in which one or multi tributaries might occur the debris flow then inducing the CDF. HDF is located upstream of the watershed and caused by a landslide on the slope and transforming into HDF. The result shows that the factors of CDF are larger than those of HDF including the watershed area, initiation region, length of the transport segment, and elevation differences of the transport segment. The gradient of the riverbank slope is similar between CDF and HDF. However, the channel gradient of the transport segment of HDF is higher than that of CDF. The gradient ratio between the channel gradient and the average gradient of the riverbank slope on the transport segment of CDF is smaller than the gradient ratio of HDF, revealing that CDF valley erosion is higher than HDF valley. This study attempts to establish the criteria for the interpretation of CDF and HDF and explores the differences between the two in the topographic characteristics.
Title: Mirco-Geomorphology Differences Between Channelized Debris Flow with Hillslope Debris Flow
Description:
The micro geomorphology characteristics of 47 hillslope debris flow (HDF) and 16 channelized debris flow (CDF) events were studied to explore the difference between HDF and CDF.
In Taiwan, debris flow torrents are classified into CDF and HDF two types.
CDF watershed consists of tributaries and gullies, in which one or multi tributaries might occur the debris flow then inducing the CDF.
HDF is located upstream of the watershed and caused by a landslide on the slope and transforming into HDF.
The result shows that the factors of CDF are larger than those of HDF including the watershed area, initiation region, length of the transport segment, and elevation differences of the transport segment.
The gradient of the riverbank slope is similar between CDF and HDF.
However, the channel gradient of the transport segment of HDF is higher than that of CDF.
The gradient ratio between the channel gradient and the average gradient of the riverbank slope on the transport segment of CDF is smaller than the gradient ratio of HDF, revealing that CDF valley erosion is higher than HDF valley.
This study attempts to establish the criteria for the interpretation of CDF and HDF and explores the differences between the two in the topographic characteristics.
Related Results
Anthropogenic materials in the nests of Passerine birds: does the environment matter?
Anthropogenic materials in the nests of Passerine birds: does the environment matter?
Background. For several past decades, a notable pollution of the environment by different kinds of solid waste has been noted. The number of studies addressing the issue of utilisi...
Debris cover effect on the evolution of glaciation in the Northern Caucasus
Debris cover effect on the evolution of glaciation in the Northern Caucasus
<p>A common disadvantage of almost all global glacier models is that they ignore the explicit description of the debris cover on the heat exchange of the glacier surf...
A hillslope‐scale experiment to measure lateral saturated hydraulic conductivity
A hillslope‐scale experiment to measure lateral saturated hydraulic conductivity
One of the most challenging parameters in hillslope‐ and watershed‐scale, distributed, hydrologic models is the lateral saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks). In this paper, we pre...
Mapping debris thickness on alpine glaciers using UAV thermography and photogrammetry
Mapping debris thickness on alpine glaciers using UAV thermography and photogrammetry
<p>Supraglacial debris covers the tongue of many mountain glaciers. In the course of ongoing climate change and the rapid melting of glaciers, debris extent and thick...
Debris cover and the thinning of Kennicott Glacier, Alaska, Part A:in situ mass balance measurements
Debris cover and the thinning of Kennicott Glacier, Alaska, Part A:in situ mass balance measurements
Abstract. The mass balance of many Alaskan glaciers is perturbed by debris cover. Yet the effect of debris on glacier response to climate change in Alaska has largely been overlook...
Debris Flow Run-Out Prediction Based on the Shallow-Water Flow Numerical Model—A Case Study of Xulong Gully
Debris Flow Run-Out Prediction Based on the Shallow-Water Flow Numerical Model—A Case Study of Xulong Gully
Here we present a method for predicting debris flow run-out based on a numerical model for shallow water flows, using a case study conducted on Xulong Gully, a proposed dam site fo...
Chemical Classification of Space Debris
Chemical Classification of Space Debris
Abstract Space debris, here referring to all non‐operating orbital objects, has steadily increased in number so that it has become a potential barrier to the exploration of space....
The Causes of Debris-Covered Glacier Thinning: Evidence for the Importance of Ice Dynamics From Kennicott Glacier, Alaska
The Causes of Debris-Covered Glacier Thinning: Evidence for the Importance of Ice Dynamics From Kennicott Glacier, Alaska
The cause of debris-covered glacier thinning remains controversial. One hypothesis asserts that melt hotspots (ice cliffs, ponds, or thin debris) increase thinning, while the other...