Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 108

2008 2

A Study on Characteristics of Landslide

of Debris Flow in Kangwon-do

2008 2

1
1.1

1.2

4
2.1

4
2.1.1

4
2.1.2

5
2.1.3

7
2.1.4

15
2.1.5

16
2.1.6

19
2.2

24
2.2.1

24
2.2.2

25
2.2.3

26
2.3

27
2.3.1

27
2.3.2

29
2.3.3

30

- i -

2.3.4

31
2.4

34
2.4.1

34
2.4.2

37
2.4.3

39
2.4.4

40

42
3.1

42
3.1.1

42
3.1.2

43
3.2

44
3.2.1

44
3.2.2

46
3.3

47
3.3.1

47
3.3.2

49
3.3.3

50
3.3.4

52
3.3.5

53
3.4

54
3.4.1

55
3.4.2

56
3.4.3

57
3.4.4

58
3.4.5

59
3.4.6

60

- ii -

62
4.1

62
4.1.1

63
4.1.2

73
4.2

75
4.2.1

75
4.2.2

78
4.3

80
4.3.1 (Aobandani)

81
4.3.2 (Seewalchen)

81
4.3.3

82

84

86

- iii -


[ 2.1] (Costa, 1984)

9
[ 2.2]

28
[ 2.3]

40
[ 3.1]

44
[ 3.2]

46
[ 3.3]

47
[ 3.4]

59
[ 4.1]

62
[ 4.2]

63

- iv -


[ 2.1]

5
[ 2.2] (Flow)

8
[ 2.3] ,

10
[ 2.4]

11
[ 2.5]

12
[ 2.6]

14
[ 2.7]

15
[ 2.8]

16
[ 2.9]

20
[ 2.10]

23
[ 2.11]

24
[ 2.12]

24
[ 2.13] 30 (1974~2003)

30
[ 2.14]

32
[ 2.15]

35
[ 2.16] (Sassa, 1988)

36
[ 3.1]

42
[ 3.2]

45
[ 3.3]

48
[ 3.4]

50
[ 3.5]

51
[ 3.6]

52
[ 3.7]

53
[ 3.8]

55
[ 3.9]

56

- v -

[ 3.10]

57
[ 3.11]

58
[ 3.12]

58
[ 3.13] 3

60
[ 4.1]

65
[ 4.2] ()

66
[ 4.3]

67
[ 4.4]

68
[ 4.5]

69
[ 4.6]

70
[ 4.7] (Rack)

71
[ 4.8]

72
[ 4.9] (Check Dam)

77
[ 4.10] (Erosion Control Dam)

77
[ 4.11] ()

78
[ 4.12] ()

79
[ 4.13] VX-, UX-,

79
[ 4.14] ()

81
[ 4.15] ()

82
[ 4.16] 131.5K.

83
[ 4.17] .

83

- vi -


.
, .
, .
(Debris Flow) 55%
. , Flow
80% Flow
. , 20%
.
,
200m, 10~40m , 400m
. , 9~20m
2m . ,

- vii -

,
.

, 0.5~2.0m
. ,
.
, , ,
,
.
(Translation Slide)
.
,
.
.

,
.

- viii -

1
1.1

.
, .
, ,
, ,
.
, , ,
2 ,
6~9 . 75%
,
,
.

. 2002 , 2003
.

. 1997 2006
1,189 ,
321 27% (
, 2007). 32

- 1 -

.
.


.
2003 2006
.
.

1.2

. 2000

.

.

.
,
.
.
2
, .

- 2 -

3
.
4 ,
.
5 .

- 3 -

2
2.1
2.1.1
,

. ,
.

.
.
Varnes(1987)
Debris Flow .
50% , ,
Debris . 50%

, 50%

(Ikeya, 1989).

.

.
.

- 4 -

(Dia, 2001)
.

2.1.2
(Debris Flow) ,
.

,
.

.

(a)

(b)

[ 2.1]

[ 2.1]
Track ,
.

- 5 -


.


(, 2001).
Van Dine(1985)
.
(1) ,
.
(2) .
a) , .
b)
.
c)
.
(3) , ,
()
.

, ,

.
.

- 6 -

2.1.3
(Flow)
.
(Viscous Liquid)
, .
(Slide) (Flow)
, , .
( , )

.
(Rock Flow), (Debris Flow), (Soil Flow)
.
, ,
(Pierson and Costa, 1987).
[ 2.2] . [ 2.2]
A, B, C
.

.
.
(Yield Strength) [
2.2] A .
B (Liquefaction)
.

- 7 -

[ 2.2] (Flow)

Costa(1984) [ 2.2]
, [ 2.1] .

- 8 -

[ 2.1] (Costa, 1984)


(%)

(Stream Flow)

(Mud Flow)

(Debris Flow)

1 ~ 4

40 ~ 70

70 ~ 90

. (Creep)

(American
Geological Institude, 1974).
, .
Hansen(1984) Creep 3 .

Creep
.
.
(Progressive)
.

Creep , . ,
( 2.3).

- 9 -

[ 2.3] ,

. (Debris Flow)
, , ,
, .
, 5
.






(Intensity)

- 10 -

[ 2.4]

.
( 2.4).

. (Debris Avalanche)
Varnes(1978)
. .
, ,
,
,
. ,
V- .

. (Earth Flow)

- 11 -

(Earth Flow) .
.
, (Toe) .

, .
.

[ 2.5]

. (, Mud Flow)
, 50%
, ,
.

- 12 -

(1)

3~4%
0.2% .

.

(2) (Rill Erosion)



.



.
3.5cm/sec
.
.

(3) (Gully Erosion)



- 13 -

.
Head Cut

.

, ,
.

Head Wall
.
Head Wall Head Wall 2

.

[ 2.6]

- 14 -

2.1.4
. (Open Slope Debris Flow)


( 2.7).

[ 2.7]

. (Channelized Debris Flow)



km .

(Debris

Torrents)

(Swantson, 1974) ,
,
(Van Dine, 1985) ( 2.8).

- 15 -

[ 2.8]

2.1.5

.
,

,


.

.
,
.
3 ,

- 16 -

(Campbell, 1975).

(1)

.
,

(Piersom, 1983)

(2)

.

. ,
(Beven, 1978; Zaslavsky and Siniai, 1981).

(3)
,
.

.
.

- 17 -

.
.
.
Steele
4cm (Broscoe and
Thompson, 1969), Port Alice ,
, ,
(Nasmith and Mercer, 1979).
, ,
Columbia Camp 1m
30% . 15% ,
35% , 20% (Nasmith,
1972). ,

. ,
.


(Lister et al., 1984). Charles
3m
5% .
Alberta 1.5m
Charles ,
. Alberta 2m ,
, 20%

- 18 -

. ,
.

.
0.5~20m/sec
.
(Laminar) (Pierson et al.,
1980).
(Johnson, 1970)
.

2.1.6
.

(Initiation), (Transportation and Erosion),
(Deposition) .
25(47%) 15
(27%) , 15(27%),
10(18%) [
2.9] .

- 19 -

[ 2.9]

, ,
, . ,
.
.
, ,
3 . 3
, .

(1)
Takahashi(1983)

.

- 20 -

tan
tan

tan
tan

(2.1)

Ikeya 10
( ) 2
4 (Ikeya, 1981).
Johson and Rodine(1984)
,
.

cos tan tan

(2.2)

(2)
Mizuyama and Uehara(1983)
.

- 21 -

(2.3)

Ikeya(1976) 10 2~3
5~6
. Hungr (1995) 18

.

(3)

. , ,
. ,
.

.
, ,
.
3 , .

(1)

- 22 -


(Snout) .

[ 2.10]

10,000~50,000m3
1.0~1.5m (Hungr et al., 1987),
1.1~1.7m (Innis, 1983).

(2)

,
, (Snout)
.
.

- 23 -

[ 2.11]

(3)

[ 2.12]

m
.

2.2
2.2.1


.

- 24 -


.
,

,

.

, , , ()
.

2.2.2
,
.
.
, .
,
.
. , (2003) ,

- 25 -


,

.


(Hutchinson, 1988).
,
. ,

.

Giannechini and Pochini (2003) ,


.

2.2.3

.

.
.
(Translational Slide)
(Gully) .

- 26 -

2.3
2.3.1

, .

.
Lumb(1975), (1966)
(1983), (1988), (1991), (1989) .
(1991) 24 200mm 10mm
24
, (1989)
200mm .

.
(1970) (1975), Brand(1984)
.
.

- 27 -

(1990) ,
,
,
.

.
Olivier(1994) 2
(Event Coefficient) 0.2
, 1,200mm
240mm 0.2 .
Olivier
.

[ 2.2] ()

(1993)

( )

(:mm)

100200

200

80150

150

2030

30

90

105

75

90

55

77

, 200mm 10mm
24
200mm

- 28 -

.


.
[ 2.2] .

2.3.2

.
1159.2mm .


.
.

.

- 29 -

[ 2.13] 30 (1974~2003)

[ 2.13] 30 .
[ 2.13]
.

2.3.3
66% 6 9
.
.
.

.

- 30 -

,
.

,
.
. ,

.
2006 7 9 29 21
4
.
, 7 15 3 200mm
.
3 4,000 .

, .
2006
, .
,
,
(, 2007).

2.3.4

- 31 -


.
(, 2005).

[ 2.14]

- RA() : 14
- RI() :
- RE() : A B
- RC() :
- RW() :

- TE() :
- : 1
- :

- 32 -

, ,

,
.
, ,

(Fredlund,
1981).
, Lumb(1975)
,

, Brand(1985)

,
. , Yagi and Yatabe(1987)
7
.
( 20 )
35mm 2 140mm
( , 1990), 24 200mm
,
10mm .
Oliver(1994) 24 20%
, ,
Brand(1984) Prechitt(1986)

- 33 -

2.4
2.4.1

.
.


(Lumped Mass Model) .

.

.

.

(Rheology) . [
2.15]
(Newtonian Fluid) ,

(Non-Newtonian Fluid) .

- 34 -

(Sharpe and Nobles, 1953; Curry, 1966)


, Chen(1983)
(Bingham Plastic) .

.

(Pseudo-Plastic) (Power Law) .


Yano and Daido(1965)
. O'Brien and Julien(1985) ,

. Johnson(1970) ,
-
.

[ 2.15]

- 35 -

. (Lumped Mass Model)


(Koerner, 1976; Perla et al., 1980; Hutchinson, 1986)
,
.


(Evans et al., 1994).
Heim(1932)

. [ 2.16]
,

.

[ 2.16] (Sassa, 1988)

- 36 -

Sassa(1988)
3 . Hutchinson(1986)
.

.
.
Moriwaki(1987)

. 0.7~0.8 .
Li(1983) Okuda(1984)

.
, , ,
.

2.4.2
(Rheological
Model) . (Resisting Force) T,
(H) (Mean Flow Velocity)
.

. (Frictional Model)
T (Effective Normal Stress)

- 37 -

. (A), (H), ( ),
( ) (Hungr and Rawlings, 1995).

cos tan

(2.4)

, , (Centrifugal Acceleration, )

(Vertical Curvature Radius),

(Pore Pressure Coefficient), (Friction Angle).

. (Newtonian Laminar Model)


(T)
.

(2.5)

. (Bingham Model)
(H), ( ), ( ),
( ) .

- 38 -

(2.6)

. (Coulomb Viscous Model)



(Morgenstern, 1967) (Flow Slide)
1 .

cos tan

(2.7)

. (Voellmy Model)
, (Turbulence Coefficient),
(Friction Coefficient).

. (Interstitial Flow) ,
(Grain Collision), (Velocity Fluctuation)
(Inertia Effect) .

cos

(2.8)

2.4.3

.

- 39 -

.
.
.

[ 2.3]


(FVM) , ,

FLUENT

CFD code ,


Polyflow Polyflow S.A. ,

POLYFLOW Software code .




(FEM)
FIDAP

, , , ,
,

2

FLAC

, , ,
2

2.4.4

.
,
.

- 40 -


,
. ,
. ,
, . ,
.
(Boundary Layer)
.
(Statics),
(Dynamics) .
, .

(Hwang , 1996).

- 41 -

3
3.1
3.1.1

10~50

.
. m ~ km
.
, .

[ 3.1]

- 42 -

3.1.2
, ,

.
.
,
.
, ,
.
,

.
.


(, )

, ,

- 43 -

3.2
3.2.1

7~9 ,
30
( , 2007).

[ 3.1]

()

1997

38

13.2

1998

384

111

28.9

1999

89

32

36.0

2000

49

12

24.5

2001

82

11.0

2002

270

79

19.3

2003

151

37

24.5

2004

17

17.6

2005

47

11

23.4

2006

62

22

35.5

1,189

321

27.0

118.9

32.1

27.0

()

(%)

,



.

- 44 -

[ 3.2]

,
. 2002 , 2003 ,
2006
.

. 2006 , 3
3 (7.11~13, 7.14~20, 7.25~29) 60
,
22
36% . ,
7.14~20
. [ 3.1] 10

. [ 3.2] 10
.

- 45 -

3.2.2
.
, , , , , , ,
.

[ 3.2]

105

12

19

12

22

10

55

11

30

30


, .
55
.
.

- 46 -

[ 3.3]

06. 7.15

06. 7.15

06. 7.15

06. 7.15

06. 7.15

06. 7.15

06. 7.15

06. 7.16

06. 7.16

06. 7.17

06. 7.17

06. 7.19

7.14~
7.20

2002 2006
[ 3.3] 7
.

3.3
3.3.1
,
44
. 100m, 85m

.
2006 7 17 8 ,
- 47 -

500m2 ,
.
,
.
,
.
,
, 44
, . ,
.

[ 3.3]

, .
,
.
,
,

- 48 -


.
,
.
3m, 50m .

3.3.2
- 56
, .
, .
60m,
, L ,
5m
.
2006 7 15 ,
.
500m2 ,
.
, L , .
L
.
, , 10m,
5m, 7m , 20m,
10m, 100m .
- 49 -

,
.
,

.


, .

[ 3.4]

3.3.3
,
.


.

- 50 -

,
500m .

, .
10~25
.
.

[ 3.5]


, .
4,365m2 ,
84,990m2
.

1.5~2 ( , 2006).

- 51 -

3.3.4
[ 3.6]
.
178.7m 74.4m N80E.
30, 34
. ,
5cm, 5m
, 15cm, 18m
, 20m .

[ 3.6]

434m
, 3m
.
.
.
2002 8 31
- 52 -

3.3.5
, 62m
, 15~18m .
0~0.7m , 0.52~1.75m
.
[ 3.7]
.
0.6~0.7m ,
.
,
.

[ 3.7]

- 53 -

38 40~42
, 35~38 3
.
60m
0.6~1.7m , 60m

15.1~16.5m .

.
.

.

3.4

(Slope Geometry)
,
(Johnes, 1983, Griffiths et al, 1990).
, , ,
.
. ,
(Translational Slide)
.

- 54 -

2002 2006
. 2002 3 11,
2006 , , 7 188
. 196
( , 2003, , 2006, , 2006,
, 2006).

3.4.1
( )
90%
80~90%, 70~80
,
70% .
500m 450m (90% )
350m (70% )
.

[ 3.8]

- 55 -

20m 1,000 m
. [ 3.8]
400m . , 200~300m
60 .

3.4.2
, (Debris Flow)
. Ikeya(1989)
10~20 70% .
5~10 20% , 40
. (1998)
1996 - ,
10~20 50%
, 40 916 19 2%
.

[ 3.9]

- 56 -

[ 3.9] 196
. 20 14, 40
4 . , 25~35
.

3.4.3
20~200m
, 20~120m 76% .
200m [
3.10]. 10~40m , 10~20m
68% [ 3.11].

[ 3.10]

- 57 -

[ 3.11]

3.4.4
[ 3.12]
. Debris Flow 55%
. , Flow 80%
,
20% [ 3.4].

[ 3.12]

- 58 -

[ 3.4]
Translational

Block

Landslide

Slide

20

(%)

10

Debris

Earth

Avalanche

flow

108

39

15

55

20

Rockfall Debris Flow

.
95% .
67% , 70%
. ,


.

3.4.5
[ 3.13] .
3 ,
.
800mm
, 3 200mm
.
.

- 59 -

[ 3.13] 3

3.4.6
196
. 20m 1,000m
400m
. , 200~300m 60 .
20 14, 40
4 . , 25~35
.
20~200m ,
20~120m 76% .
200m .
10~40m , 10~20m 68%
.
, Debris Flow 55%

- 60 -

Flow 80%
. ,
20% .
800mm
, 3 200mm
.

.

1.5~2 .
,
.


.

- 61 -

4
4.1
,

.

(, 2004).
,
. ,

,
.
, . [ 4.1]
.

[ 4.1]

- 62 -

4.1.1
(Hardware)
.
[ 4.2]
.

[ 4.2]

,
,

.

(1)

, , , , , ,
. .

- 63 -

.
.
. ,
.

.
(Unconfined Deposit
Area), (Impediments to Flow; Baffles),
(Check Dams), (Lateral Walls; Berms), (Deflection
Walls;

Berms),

(Terminal

Walls,

Berms

or

Barriers) .

a)

.

. [ 4.1]
.
, , , ,
.

.

.

- 64 -

.
,

.

[ 4.1]

b) ()

.
,
.
. ,
.
,
.

- 65 -

[ 4.2] ()

c)

.
,
, , , .

. ,
5m , 15m
. ,
.

- 66 -

[ 4.3]

d)


. , ,
(Forest Belts)" , .

.

.
. [ 4.4]
,

.

- 67 -

[ 4.4]

e)

,
.
.

.
, , .

. [ 4.5]
.

- 68 -

[ 4.5]

f)


,

. ,
.
, , , ,
.
, (Impact Walls)"
,
, ,
(Baldwin et al., 1987).

- 69 -

[ 4.6]

.


, .

(Rack),

a) (Rack)

,

- 70 -

[ 4.7] (Rack)

, ,
,
. ,
. ,
.
1.5~2.0 (Ikeya, 1981, 1985). ,

(Zollinger, 1985).

b)

- 71 -

.

.

.
.

[ 4.8]

.


.
2 .
.

- 72 -

, .
, ,
.

4.1.2



.
,

.
.

-
-
-

.

.

- 73 -

. ,


.


.

2,500,
2,950 2,000 110 ,
.

,


.
.
,

,
(Direct Mail)
350 41,000

- 74 -

.
, IT

(Mailing Service) .

.


,
. ,
.
.

4.2
4.2.1



.
( )
,
,
, .

- 75 -

2
.

.
() , (
)
.

,
. ()
() () , , ,

.
,
(Gradient)
. ()
.
,
, .

- 76 -

[ 4.9] (Check Dam)


,
.

[ 4.10] (Erosion Control Dam)

1
.

, .

- 77 -

4.2.2

(), ()
() ,
.

[ 4.11] ()



. ()
() ,
2m () . ,
()
.

- 78 -

[ 4.12] ()

,
.
(VDF= 1,000m3)
2,3 .
() , ()
.

[ 4.13] VX-, UX-,

- 79 -

, ()
.

Section
.
.

.


.

4.3



.
1:1 ,
,
, .

, .
,
, .

- 80 -

4.3.1 (Aobandani)
1998 8, (Tateyama Sabo)
.

, 1,500KJ
(RX-150, H=5.0m).
, .
750m3,
50~80% -
.
.
2.0~3.0m, 3.5m( 4.14).

[ 4.14] ()

4.3.2 (Seewalchen)
2000 3 750KJ
3m

- 81 -

200m3 .
RX-075(Emax=750KJ) 100m3 2
,
.
60~80%
10% .
2.0m, 3.0m 2.7m
( 4.15).

[ 4.15] ()

4.3.3
131.5K
.
.

,
.

- 82 -

(Filtering)
VX-
.
UX- ,
2004 7,8 30m3
.

[ 4.16] 131.5K,

[ 4.17] ,

- 83 -

5

,
.
.

,
(Debris Flow) .
,
. ~km
.

, 5
55% . Flow
80% ,
. , 20%
.

, 20m~1,000m
400m . 200m
10~40m , 25~35
.

- 84 -

,
,
.
, ,
.
,

.

, ,


,
.

,
, .

. ,
.

- 85 -


(2002), GIS
, , .
(1988), , ,
.
(2001), (Debris Flow) ,
, 3, 4 12, pp. 4-14.
, , , , , , , (2003),
, .
(2004),
, , , , (2007),
, 11, 4
.
, , , (2006),
, , pp.
109-114.
(1993), .
, (2003), 2002
, 19, 4, pp. 107-119.
, , , , , (2006),
,
, pp. 419-423.

- 86 -

(1991),
, , 7, 2, pp. 51-66.
, , , (2006), 2006
, , pp. 115-127.
(1989), , , No,
27, pp. 1-3.
(2007), ,
, 8, 3, pp. 11-17.
, , , , (1990),
, , 6, 2, pp. 55-63.
(2004), ,

American Geological Institute(1974), Dictionary of Geological


Terms AGI, New York.
Baldwin, J. E., Donley, H. F., and Howard, T. R.(1987), On Debris
Flow/Avalanche California, In Debris Flows/Avalanches: Process,
Recognition and Mitigation, Reviews in Engineering Geology, Geol.
Soc. AM., Vol. , pp.223-236.
Beven, K.(1978), The Hydrological Response of Headwater and
Sideslope Areas, Hydrological Sciences Bulletin, Vol. 23, pp.
419-437.
Brand, E. W.(1985), Predicting the Performance of Residual Soil
Slopes Proc, 11th ICSMFE, Sanfrancisco, pp. 2541-2573.

- 87 -

Brand, E. W. and Prenchitt, H. B. and Phillpson, H. B.(1984),


Relationship Between Rainfall and Landslides in Hong Kong, Proc.
of 4th ISL, Toronto, pp. 377-384.
Broscoe, A. J., and Thomson, S.(1969), Observations on an
Alpine Mudflow, Steele Creek, Yukon, Canadian Journal of Earth
Sciences, Vol. 6, pp. 219-229.
Campbell, R. H.(1975), Soil Slips, Debris Flows, and Rainstorms
in the Santa Monica Mountains and Vicinity, Southern California,
United States Geological Survey Professional, p. 851.
Chen, C. L.(1983), On Frontier Between Rheology and Mudflow
Mechanics, Proceeding of the 1983 Hydraulic Division Specialty
Conference on Frontier in Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, MIT,
Cambridge, MA, pp. 113-118.
Costa, J. E.(1984), Physical Geomorphology of Debris Flow,
Developments

and

Applications

of

Geomorphology,

Springer-Verlag, pp. 268-317.


Curry, R. R.(1966), Observations of Alpine Mudflows in the
Tenmile Range, Central Colorado, Bulletin of Geological Society of
America, Vol. 77, pp. 771-776.
Dia, F. C.(2001), Environmental Geology, Vol. 40, No. 3,
pp.381-391.
Evans, S. G., Hunger, O. and Enegren, E. G.(1994), The
Avalanche Lake Rock Avalanche, Mackenzie Mountains, Northwest
Territories, Canada: Description, Dating and Dynamics, Canadian

- 88 -

Geotechnical Journal, 31, pp. 749-768.


Fredlund, D. G.(1981), The Shear Strength of Unsaturated Soil
and Its Relationship to Slope Stability Problems in Hong Kong,
Hong Kong Engineering, pp. 37-45.
Giannechini, R. and Pochini.(2003), Geotechnical Influence on Soil
Slips in the Apuan Alps(Tuscany): First Results in the Cardoso
Area, Proc, International Conference on Fast Movements Prediction
and Prevention for Risk Mitigation (IC-FSM), pp. 241-245.
Hanse, M. J.(1984), Strategies for Classification of Landslides, in
Brunsden, D., and Prior, D. B., eds., Slope Instability : John Wiley
and Sons inc., New York, pp. 1-25.
Heim, A.(1932), Bergsturz and Menschenleben, Zurich: Fretz and
Wasmuch.
Hungr, O. and Rawlings, G.(1995), Assessment of Terrain
Hazards for Planning Purposes: Cheekye Fan, British Columbia:
48th Can. Geotech. Conf., Vancouver, B. C., Preprint Volume 1, pp.
509-517.
Hungr, O., G. C. Morgan, D. F. VanDine, and D. R. Lister.(1987),
Debris

Flow

Defences

in

British

Columbia,

In

Debris

Flow/Avalanches: Process, Recognition and Mitigation, Reviews in


Engineering Geology, Vol. , pp. 201-222.
Hutchinson, J. N.(1986), A Sliding Consolidation Model For Flow
Slides, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 23, pp. 115-126.
Hutchinson,

J.

N.(1988),

Morphological
- 89 -

and

Geotechnical

Parameters of Landslides in Relation to Geology and Hydrology, In


Landslides Proc. 5th Int. Symp. on Landslides, 1, 3-35.
Ikeya, H.(1981), A Method of Designation for Area in Danger of
Debris Flow, In Erosion and Sediment Transport in Pacific Rim
Steeplands, Proc. of the Christchurch Symp., Int. Assoc. Hydrol.
Sci., Publ., N. 132, pp. 576-588.
Ikeya, H.(1985), Study on Sediment Control Effect or Open
Dams, In Int. Symp. Erosion, Debris flow and Disaster Prevention,
Proc. Erosion Control Eng. Soc., Japan, pp. 401-406.
Innis, J. L.(1983), Debris flow, Proc. Phys. Geog., Vol. 7, pp.
469-501.
Johnson, A. M.(1970), Physical Processes in Geology, Freeman
Copper, San Francisco, CA, pp. 577.
Johnson, A. M., and J. R. Rodine.(1984), Debris Flow, in Slope
Instability, John Wiley & Sons, Chap. 8, pp. 257-361.
Koerner, H. J.(1976), Reichweite and Geschwindigkeit von
Bergsturzen and Fleisschneelawinen,

Rock Mechanics, 8, pp.

225-256.
Li, T.(1983), A Mathematical Model for Predicting the Extent of a
Major Rockfall, Geomorp, 27, pp. 473-482.
Lumb, P.(1975), Slope Failures in Hong Kong, Qtrly Jour. Geol.,
8, pp. 73-83.
Mizuyama, T., and S. Uehara.(1983), Experimental Study of the

- 90 -

Depositional Process of Debris Flows, Trans. Jap. Geomorphol.


Union, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 49-63.
Moriwaki, H.(1987), Geomorhpological Prediction of the Travel
Distance of a Debris, Proceedings of China-Japan Field Workshop
on Landslides, Xian-Lanzhou, Published by the JapanLandslide
Society, pp. 97-102.
Nasmith, H. W.(1972), Engineering Geology of the Southern
Cordillera

of

British

Columbia,

Guidebook,

24th

International

Geological Congress, Montreal, Quebec, Excursion A08-C08.


Nasmith, H. W., and Mercer, A. G.(1979), Design of Dykes to
Protect against Debris Flows at Port Alice, British Columbia,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 16, pp. 748-757.
O'Brien, J. S. and Julien, P. Y.(1985), Physical Properties and
Mechanics oh Hyperconcentrated Sediment Flows, Proceedings of
the Specialty Conference on Delineation of Landslide, Flash Flood
and Flow Hazard in Utah, Utah State University, Utah, pp.
260-279.
Okuda, S.(1984), Features of Debris Deposits of Large Slope
Failures Investigated from Historical Records, Annuals of DPRI,
Kyoto University, No. 27, B-1, pp. 352-368.
Perla, R., Cheng, T. T. and McClung, D. M.(1980), A Two
Parameter Model of Snow Avalanche Motion, Journal of Glaciology,
26, pp. 197-207.
Pierson, T. C.(1980), Erosion and Deposition by Debris Flows at

- 91 -

Mt. Thomas, North Canterbury, New Zealand, Earth Surface


Processes, Vol. 5, pp. 227-247.
Pierson,

T.

C.,

and

Costa,

J.

E.(1987),

Rheological

Classification of Subaerial Sediment Water Flows, Reviews in


Engineering Geology, Vol. 7, pp. 1-12.
Sassa,

K.(1988),

Landslides,

Special

Geotechnical
Lecture,

Model

for

5th International

the

Motion

of

Symposium on

Landslides, Vol. 1, pp. 37-55.


Sharpe, R. P. and Nobles, L. H.(1953), Mudflow of 1941 at
Wrightwood, Southern California, Bulletin of Geological Society of
America, Vol. 64, pp. 547-560.
Van Dine, D. F.(1985), Debris Flows and Torrents in the
Southern Canadian Cordillera, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol.
22, No. 1, pp. 44-68.
Yagi, N. and Yatabe, R.(1987), Prediction Model of Slope Failure
in Sandy Soil due to Rainfall, Proc, 8th Asian Regional Conf, Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. pp. 217-220.
Yano, K. and Daido, A.(1965), Fundamental Study on Mudflow,
Kyoto, Japan, Kyoto University, Bulletin of the Disaster Orevention
Research Institute, Vol. 14, pp. 69-83.
Zaslavsky,

D.

and

Siniai,

G.(1981),

Surface

Hydrology:

1-Explanation of Phenomena, ASCE Journal of the Hydraulics


Division, Vol. 107, HY1, pp. 1-16.
Zollinger, F.(1985), Debris Detention Basins in the European
- 92 -

Alps,

Proc.

Int.

Symp.

Erosion,

Debris

Prevention, Tsukuba, Japan, pp. 433-438.

Flow

and

Disaster

A Study on Characteristics of Landslide

of Debris Flow in Kangwon-do


Park, Nam Sun

Department of Civil Engineering


Graduate School, Kangwon Nation University

ABSTRACT

A Study on Characteristics of Landslides of Debris Flow in


Gangwon Province.

This thesis is to investigate the characteristics of debris flow


landslides in Gangwon.
Province through extensive literature review, data collection
and analyses and site investigation. Appropriate measures for
reducing the impact and loss caused by landslide of debris flow
were suggested through review of currently available methods
and topographical and geological ground conditions in Gangwon
province.

As results of data analyses about landslides occurred currently


in this province, the landslide in the form of debris flow is
found to be 55 %, and landslide including all kinds of flow form

- 94 -

is

80%.

Therefore

major

loss

and

costs

are

caused

by

discharge of soil and rock fragments from landslide. From


results of analyzing the geometrical characteristics of landslide,
length of most of landslide is less than 200 m, their width is in
the range of 10 - 40 m, most of them are know to be
occurred in lower elevation than 400 m. Slope angle is in the
range of 25 - 35 degrees. Comparing the period of rainfall
intensity with the time of landslide being occurred, occurrence
of landslide is quite related to a heavy rainfall during yesterday
and one day.

From site investigation of visiting the place the landslide being


occurred, landslide mechanism of debris flow was figured out.
continuing

ground

saturation

during

heavy

rainfall

causes

build-up of pore pressure and increase of unit weight of soil


and eventually decrease of shear strength, especially increase
of seepage force at the interface between the soil layer and
mother rock. Therefore, sliding in the upper area of the slope
initiate the debris flow in the lower area of slope and heavy
rainfall

continues

to

erode

the

surface

of

slope

and

accelerates to the driving energy of debris flow.

For measures of controlling water flow discharge and debris


flow,

considering

conditions,

geological

and

topographical

ground

appropriate selection and building check dam,

erosion control dam and ring net is very beneficial for reducing
the loss and costs caused by the landslide of debris flow.

- 95 -


2008 2 .
. 2

.
,
, , , , ,
, , .
,
, ,
.

.

.

, ,

. , ,
.
, , ,
, , .
,

. ,
.

- 96 -