the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Implementing the Equations of Motion in the Energy Line Principle to Simulate the Runout Zones of Gravitational Natural Hazards
Abstract. The mitigation of the risk from gravitational natural hazards involves a variety of measures in engineering and management. The basis for any measures is the identification of hazard prone areas by considering past events and model simulations. Various models are available for the simulation of gravitational natural hazards but their application is often a trade off between simplicity and accuracy. A physical interpretation of the well established energy line principle allows to formulate the corresponding equations of motion and to introduce a model that is still simple but more accurate. The equations of motion are derived by the application of the Lagrange formalism for a friction block that slides on an inclined plane. Furthermore, a numerical algorithm based on the Euler method is set up to solve the equations of motion on a digital terrain model. This model is applied and compared to the energy line principle based on the equation of energy and to past events in two case studies for rockfall and landslide. The outcomes show that the formulation of the energy line principle with the equations of motion corresponds well to the formulation based on the equation of energy but allows a more differentiated simulation of the runout zone that reproduces better the past events. However, there are artifacts from the numerical solution of the equations of motion that require a deeper theoretical investigation and also uncertainties in the past events that must be worked through in a more elaborated empirical study. Nevertheless, the concept of this approach to enhance the performance of the energy line principle simply by another perspective to the same physical concept is thus proved.
- Preprint
(36486 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2024-226', Stefan Hergarten, 15 Aug 2025
reply
The manuscript presents the formulation and the implementation of a lumped-mass model for rapid mass movements. The model assumes Coulomb friction with a given coefficient of friction. The main physical approximation is that the normal force is only the normal component of gravity (so the static component), while the dynamic component arising from the curvature of the surface is neglected (centrifugal force). As an advance over the basic energy-line principle, the approach presented here predicts not only which points of the topography can be reached energetically, but also dynamically.
Maybe I am a bit biased because I have used basically the same approach (with and without dynamic effects on friction) as a homework assignment in a (admittedly quite advanced) M.Sc. class on mass movements. To my knowledge, the 2-D approach presented here has not been published in a paper so far. However, I would never thought of publishing it because I always considered it a students' exercise. In turn, it might make sense to publish it if it was available as an easy-to-use tool, either as a lightweight standalone software or as a GIS plugin. However, rather not in the old-fashioned mode "Data will be made available on request."
Before going into detail, I am not convinced about the application of the Lagrange formalism (Eqs. 8 and 9) here. I think that dL/dx should also contain the x- and y- derivatives of dh/dx and dh/dy. Then we get the Hessian matrix of h (d^2h/dx^2, d^2h/dxdy, d^2h/dy^2) into th equations and everything becomes a bit messy. To illustrate that it cannot be as simple as in Eqs. 10 and 11, let us assume g = 0, so a particle moving along the surface without driving forces and friction. Eqs. 10 and 11 would predict d^2x/dt^2 = d^2y/dt^2 = 0 then, which means that the horizontal velocity components remain constant. This would, however, violate energy conservation on a curved surface. The problem might be not crucial for velocity-dependent friction (e.g. Hergarten and Robl, 2015, doi 10.5194/nhess-15-671-2015), but I think it is critical for Coulomb friction. Fixing it with the help of the Hessian matrix would cost much of the simplicity achieved by considering only x(t) and y(t) explicitly.
In contrast to this central point, the following points are mainly related to the presentation of the theory and the results.
(1) The introduction focuses a bit too much on the situation in Italy and tends to overrate the achievements of this study.
(2) If we use models such as RAMMS (or one to the numerous similar models), we could also use only Coulomb friction. Then the coefficient of friction would be the only parameter, similar to the approach proposed here. Why is it challenging to parameterize and costly to execute?
(3) Line 62: The reference Salm (1993) does not fit well here. This paper mainly explains the "turbulent" friction term. There are numerous considerations of lumped-mass models in the literature (mainly 1-D) with different frcition laws.
(4) Neglecting the mixed terms in (dz/dt)^2 (Eq. 5): As far as I can see, this approximation could cause a factor of up to 2 in (dz/dt)^2, which is not very small.(5) How are the difference quotients treated when the particle position is not a point of the terrain model?
(6) Eq. 20 is not clear to me. Why does it make sense to use a relation from ROCKYFOR3D, which uses a different physical basis?
(7) Eq. 21 does not make sense to me. Should there be mean values instead of the sums?
(8) Lines 230-31: Where do volume and density occur?
(9) Lines 294-97: This needs much more discussion. The results should theoretically agree perfectly if the movement follows the steepest descent (talweg line). According to this argument, it is not surprising that the numerically obtained angles are bigger than atan(mu). However, the missing term in the Lagrange formalism may also play a part here.
(10) Table 4: BLOCKSLIDE without ELINE (which should physically not occur) seems to be quite large for the Como example.
(11) Table 5: Takes some time to understand how the data are normalized.
(12) Lines 431-438: I have no doubt that the approach is somewhat better than the original energy-line principle, but this paragraph overrates its potential in my opinion.
Overall, I feel that this study might be publishable if the problem with the curvature is fixed and the software becomes publicly available, either as a simple standalone tool or as a GIS component. In any case, however, it would need a quite extensive revision.
Best regards,
Stefan HergartenÂ
Â
Â
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-226-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
237 | 46 | 11 | 294 | 14 | 20 |
- HTML: 237
- PDF: 46
- XML: 11
- Total: 294
- BibTeX: 14
- EndNote: 20
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1